home

Ohio GE Poll: Clinton Wins, Obama Does Not

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:46:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I post this one to annoy. From Ras:

Obama 44
McCain 45

Clinton 50
McCain 43

Let the insults from Obama supporters begin. Oh, let's make this an Open Thread. I am out for a while. I think J and Chris will be around though.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments now closed

< Justice Dept. Blunders With Drew Prosecution | Primary Eve Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ohio GE Poll: Clinton Wins, Obama Does Not | 248 comments (248 topical)
    This is me practicing self parody (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:53:01 PM EST
    and spreading GOP talking points.

    Or so I am told by some Obama supporters.

    Good job! (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by oldpro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:44 PM EST
    Pot.

    Stir.

    Stir some more.

    You're a caution, Big Tent.


    Parent

    I read this about OR in (none / 0) (#231)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:19:26 PM EST
    the comments on Political Punch
    Voters in OREGON need to be concerned because Obama supporters have been stealing ballots for Hilllary and disposing of them. They have also been stealing people identity and casting votes for Obama. When people go to the court house they are told they can not vote because their vote has already been cast.

    The commenter made some other comments that were a little off the wall, but this one caught my eye. I was wondering if anyone else had heard this?

    Parent

    Seems (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:09:33 PM EST
    that lots of people didn't learn from 2004. I was as bad as some of the Obama supporters are now back then. I decided after the 2004 election that living in a hermetically sealed echo chamber is the worst thing in the world. It's better to face the truth and deal with it. It makes the letdown a lot easier.

    Parent
    You are so right (none / 0) (#220)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:13:53 PM EST
    In 2004, I got all my news from progressive blogs, which had me totally convinced that Kerry was going to win - despite my own instincts which told me that he had "elite, effete Dem loser" written all over him.  

    Even though I was not enthusiastic about Kerry as a candidate, I voted for him and was so devastated when he lost that I called in sick the next day.  My co-workers still tease me about that.  

    Of course, this time around, with Obama as the presumptive nominee, I'll be watching the results with schadenfreude.

    Parent

    I first broke out in 04 (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by dissenter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:24:39 PM EST
    I voted for Kerry but I was so sure he was going to lose that I signed on to go to Iraq 4 hours before the polls closed. I am leaving for Afghanistan on Thursday lol.

    I don't understand why people in this party just don't get it. I think however it is because they live in the blogosphere instead of real life.

    Parent

    Echo chamber is... (none / 0) (#250)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:30:26 PM EST
     the fatal flaw of Obamaites. They've convinced themselves that he's the second coming, when in the realty they can't see he's no different than any pol - just a little slicker in tongue.

    Parent
    You're the Straw that Stirs the Drink (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:10:38 PM EST
    Beyond parody.

    Really, let people get a snark in edgewise! [/you rascal you]

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:43:12 PM EST
    Trolling your own blog!

    Parent
    yeah funny (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jgarza on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:59:19 PM EST
    your comments section is full of insults about obama and his supporters.  

    Parent
    If it isn't already, shouldn't there be (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:53:32 PM EST
    a "site rule" against encouraging annoying people to post here?

    I posting this (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:55:23 PM EST
    to annoy people, not to allow annoying people to post here.

    I am the only one who gets to be annoying.

    But not tonight, I am signing off for a while.  

    Parent

    Did you even read the stuff here Sunday a.m.? (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha. Thought so. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:07:27 PM EST


    Parent
    I actually had a chance to watch the (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    whole GMA tape from this morning when Michele said nice things about Hillary.  She actually said a lot of nice things and it did seem sincere to me.  What I thought was more interesting was the way Barack kept talking over her or cutting her off throughout the interview.  I don't know if he is afraid of what she is going to say or what, but it seemed rude to me.

    Obama rude? (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:25 PM EST
    Naw, never.

    Parent
    Maybe Ferraro is right? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:57:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Haven't you heard? (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:08:41 PM EST
    Ferraro is an out of touch old school feminist/racist who isn't really loyal to the Democratic Party. It must be true, because I heard an Obama supporter say it.

    Parent
    By the way... (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:11:57 PM EST
    ...Ferraro is reason #2 I can't vote for Obama. How dare he write off this woman as a racist. If he had a lick of political sense he would have found a way to dismiss her comments without labelling her, or even better, he could have agreed with her.  Imagine if he had said "I agree with Geraldine Ferraro. I am fortunate to be who I am, and I am fortunate to have the opportunity to be your President".  They didn't have to spin that as racist - he was already winning.

    Parent
    Brilliant. (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:34:03 PM EST
    That's exactly what he should have done.  I'd like him a lot better if he had.

    Parent
    I would still respect him... (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:03:52 PM EST
    If he had stood up and said "I don't think that either Bill or Hillary Clinton are racists, and I would appreciate my supporter's not making claims otherwise. They are good people, and I respect them. I happen to believe, however, that I would be better for the nation as President at this time." But they were losing, and they needed the boost they got from race-baiting.

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:13:54 PM EST
    If he had said that everything might be different!
    I think the fact that he did not say that is really telling...he needed 90% of the Black vote to win.

    Parent
    yes, Ferraro is a hero of mine too (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:53:40 PM EST
    I'm there right with you, Gerry.

    Parent
    Which talking point number (none / 0) (#206)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    is that question?

    Parent
    Hail! Hail! The gang has come. (none / 0) (#228)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    Big Tent's Post is quite effective.  Reaction is of course predictable.

    Parent
    Fish in a barrel (none / 0) (#247)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:28:24 PM EST
    The GOP is gonna destroy them if they can't get a bit more disciplined.

    Parent
    It sounds like he just doesn't respect (none / 0) (#240)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:24:19 PM EST
    her, or her right to say her piece. Given the sexist tone of his campaign, it doesn't surprise me. Respect, like so many other things, begins at home.

    Parent
    Great. Let's nominate her. (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM EST
    BO peaked in WI.  Hill has outperformed him by 435k votes since the beginning of March.  She's won the big electoral states, the swing voters, and the swing states.  Let's do something totally new and different in '08...let's win.

    Crazy Talk (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    This is the democratic party.  McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry.  I like a lot of those folks (not a big Kerry fan), but none of them really scream "broad appeal to mainstream America."  

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:01:25 PM EST
    Why mess with the proud Democratic tradition of losing eh?

    The more things "change", the more they stay the same.

    Parent

    I like some of them. Not a big fan of Obama, (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:01:27 PM EST
    though.

    Parent
    McGovern was robbed, I tell you. (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:08:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Be nice. (none / 0) (#265)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:30:55 PM EST


    Parent
    That's too hard (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by pantsuit chic on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:24:28 PM EST
    for the DNC. Better to pick a sure loser. They know how to handle defeat.

    Parent
    Been teased a few times (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Lil on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:24 PM EST
    like in Wisconsin and NC when it looked like HRC might close a little. Not buying it this time; I think she will get creamed in Oregon and we can only hope she surpassaes him by even more in Kentucky.
    It seems we all get a little crazy the "night before", so I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. OK I'm ducking and wincing now.

    She'll lose Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:41:51 PM EST
    but not by nearly as much as he loses Kentucky.  I'd bet a lot on that.  I'll predict a 15 pt loss compared to a 40 pt loss.

    Parent
    I have been reading some stuff around (none / 0) (#253)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:32:07 PM EST
    the web and it looks like there maybe a turnaround in OR. Maybe not enough to win, but some are saying single digit loss. Wouldn't that be great!!

    Parent
    Yes, having learned Kucinich (none / 0) (#24)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:59:45 PM EST
    recieved 16% of the vote in their last primary, I think she won't fair too well.

    Parent
    I Don't Think Kucinich Will Fare That Well (none / 0) (#134)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:44:07 PM EST
    this time around.

    Parent
    Well, no, my point is a Dem primary that garnered (none / 0) (#149)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:34 PM EST
    Kucinich 16 points last time around ain't exactly fertile for Hill.

    Parent
    I understood your point, but I just think Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:02:54 PM EST
    is going to do better than we think.  And I am hoping that there were tens of thousands who watched her televised Town Hall Meeting.

    Parent
    Suddenly (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:56:30 PM EST
    the truth is a GOP talking point.

    BTW, SurveyUSA (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:57:38 PM EST
    polls running mates in NM, but stupidly decides not to poll Hillary as a running mate.

    Note: the situation does not look good for Obama in NM.

    One of his map-expanding states? (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:58:54 PM EST


    Parent
    OMG! (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:59:04 PM EST
    1. why the hell not include Hillary

    2. so much for winning in the west!


    Parent
    Um, Richardson? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:00:53 PM EST
    Actually that has to be one of the stupidest exercises SUSA has ever done.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:02:37 PM EST
    at the behest of their stupid media partners no doubt.

    Parent
    They don't poll Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:03:20 PM EST
    but they do poll Chuck Hagel as a runningmate. LOL.  

    Parent
    I have an idea (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:16:55 PM EST
    Let's have two "unity tickets".  One Dem and one Repub on each ticket. Hagel can run as Obama's VP, and Hillary can run with McCain.

    Parent
    Oh, I like it. Any takers??? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:17:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I love it. Count me in! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:28:19 PM EST


    Parent
    New Democratic Party = Unity08 n/t (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:26:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:27:34 PM EST
    my God that's stupid.  Including a Republican but not the obvious Democrat.  Marvelous.

    Parent
    How in the world... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:23:36 PM EST
    ... could the difference between Ed Rendell as VP or John Edwards create a 21 point fluctuation in the polls? Don't people vote on the guy on top of the ticket?

    (Of course, I think they do, but this sort of survey makes them pay more attention to the running mate than they actually will).

    Parent

    No, no one votes for the VP. (none / 0) (#82)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:25:44 PM EST


    Parent
    weird isn't it (none / 0) (#83)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    maybe they are promoting edwards as vp??

    Parent
    I really don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    ... but the idea that Edwards and only Edwards can deliver a state that he lives thousands of miles away from and has no obvious connection to strikes me as more than a little odd.

    Parent
    They also didn't include (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sander60tx on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:40:02 PM EST
    a lot of other potential running mates.  One thing I found interesting is that Sebelius does not help Obama with female voters.  Edwards is the only one who improves the outcome for Obama.  I would really like to see such polls with Clinton as VP on the ticket.

    Parent
    It's simple really (5.00 / 7) (#148)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:30 PM EST
    Women are not interchangeable.  We are voting for "Hillary" - not the candidate who's a woman.  But that seems to a point that most Obama supporters miss. Add to that Sebelius's "snooze factor" and she doesn't attract the men either. Obama needs a "guy" to compensate for his own "wimp" factor.

    Parent
    If he "needs" someone, he's in trouble. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:48:54 PM EST
    No one votes VP.  VP is to round out the apparatus.  Nothing more.

    Parent
    Where Is His Buddy Richardson? (none / 0) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:41:09 PM EST


    Parent
    got this robopoll in Virginia (none / 0) (#178)
    by aquarian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    Stupid me -- I actually stayed on the line waiting for Hillary's name to come up.  Nope.  Obama and McCain were the only presidential candidates.  None of the 6 different options for vice presidential running mates for Obama included Hillary.  Chuck Hagel?  

    And my only option was to pick either the republican option or the democrat option, or....Undecided.  I felt very cheated.

    Note to self: do not respond to robopolls.


    Parent

    SUSA lets you say undecided or other (none / 0) (#204)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    but there's a long pause, so they make it more likely that you actually choose. It's one of the reasons I prefer SUSA polls.

    Parent
    Can we talk $$$? (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by suisser on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    Hearing so much about Obama's money machine (even to the point of suggestions that endorsements of late are really about getting one's hands on the lists and the DNC is primarily behind Obama for his ability to bring money to its coffers) that I'd like to know more about where his money comes from.

    And what about Hilary havng 80 mil to spend on the GE while Obama has less than 10?

    Thoughts? Corrections? Theories?

    I've read or heard (can't remember where) (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:59:58 PM EST
    a large chunk of donation $$ to Clinton are restricted for use in the GE, not the primary.  

    Parent
    That was the poster's point I think (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:04:52 PM EST
    He/She is saying that they heard that Clinton has collectd more for the GE un than Obama methinks. Some of us are multitasking. We think we shoud be thinkig about the GE while still in primary mode.

    Parent
    $2300 for primary $2300 for ge (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:07:28 PM EST
    If somebody maxes out on one, they can still donate for the other.

    Parent
    Please tell me that all those 19-year olds have (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Angel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:30:00 PM EST
    $2300 for the GE to give to Obama!  They've already broken their piggy banks to give their $25 online donations. He will not be raking in the money for the GE because most of his donors are probably maxed out already -- not by the amount they CAN give but by the amount they HAVE to give.  

    Parent
    They've got credit cards (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:39:30 PM EST
    mom and dad got them for college.  I have a feeling there have been some surprises when the bills came in.

    Parent
    You can probably find (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:28:37 PM EST
    The information in Open Secrets.

    Parent
    Yes, interesting (none / 0) (#162)
    by suisser on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    info there. You can go back and forth comparing Obama and Clinton on where their donors are located to how they've spent their $, etc.
     

    Parent
    by the time the kids start making real bucks (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:08:20 PM EST
    they'll have awakened from the hope and change buzz

    banking on kids who don't even know who they are yet (did any of us at that age?) is not too smart

    but then again, who ever accused anyone in the DNC of being smart...

    Parent

    Well, I must confess that I voted for Carter. I (none / 0) (#230)
    by Angel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:17:54 PM EST
    was 20 years old and it was my first election.  What the hell did I know then?  So it goes with the 20 year olds this time.  

    Parent
    Not Annoyed (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by daring grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:59:17 PM EST
    Don't feel like being insulting either, unless you're insulted by the fact that I find GE polling this far out unconvincing.

    If I did believe this poll meant something, I might be thrilled that Obama shows up as so close to McCain (certainly within the MoE?) in Ohio where he seemed so far behind Clinton in the primary.

    But, like I said, GE polls in May (or June, July, or August) aren't all that believable. Even the ones where Obama is acing a purple or formerly red state.

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by henry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:23:57 PM EST
    But that is not good news for Obama. If my memory works Dukakis was leading by 20 points by this time. If the numbers are close, it does not look good for Obama.  

    Parent
    The Democrat generally polls (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:36:08 PM EST
    significantly ahead months out, see Dukakis and Kerry for the latest incarnations.  Then the old RW Wurlitzer spins and it gets closer, crossing into negative just about election time.  This time it may stay in the negative which would surprise the GOP no end.

    Parent
    This Cycle Seems Unique (none / 0) (#201)
    by daring grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:05:54 PM EST
    Compared with recent past elections:

    Uncommonly high discontent with the incumbent president and his party combined with an energized support base on the opposing side--whether Clinton or Obama.

    Not to mention a Republican nominee who the base of the party are pretty apathetic about.

    I don't know (and neither does anyone else who lacks a crystal ball and knows how to interpret it) if the Dem nominee will manage to unify his or her side. But even with that variable, there is the strong likelihood of crossover moderates and independents. So far, McCain has not impressed me as a candidate.

    But then, he might get his act more together by the time the full media spotlight swings his way, and the electorate is more fully engaged after the conventions.

    This far out, these polls look like tea leaf readings to me.

    Parent

    IMO McCain is the only (5.00 / 5) (#207)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:07:49 PM EST
    Republican that could win this year.  
    Obama is the only Democrat that could lose.

    We sure know how to pick em.

    Parent

    EXACTLY!!! (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST
    You managed to capture the whole election in two sentences.

    Right on.

    Parent

    Minor annoyance, indeed. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:59:18 PM EST
    It does seem annoying that Sen. Obama does not poll well against Sen. McCain.

    The Obama campaign gets more ink & airtime in a day than the Straight Talk Express gets in a week (granted, for good & obvious reasons with the photo finish stakes race still on).

    I don't know if Sen. McCain has the name recognition or if any research org. has polled for that, separate from the election themes.  The Republican Nat'l Comm. may have looked at those name recognition factors.

    It would seem that Sen. Obama should be as well known as toothpaste or beer after a primary battle.

    Obviously, to me, Sen. Clinton benefits greatly from the name recognition.

    It seems to me that the less than 50 percent mark would bother the DNC grandees when they look at Sen. Obama's over-all strength.  Do you wonder if they're annoyed?  He certainly seems not to be.

    My personal opinion: Obama (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:01:50 PM EST
    is annoyed more than he isn't.  

    Parent
    Yes, he seems (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by suisser on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:14:19 PM EST
     a cranky fellow beneath all that "coolness".

    Maybe me needs some Midol?

    Parent

    Although, he did allegedly (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:15:49 PM EST
    quit smoking cold turkey.

    Parent
    Not according to Jake Tapper. (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:16:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Actually I think (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by suisser on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:53:45 PM EST
    he's hyped up on Nicorette

    Parent
    And cigarettes. (none / 0) (#173)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:55:19 PM EST


    Parent
    McCain - Str8 Talk Express/obama - Free Pass (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:14:13 PM EST
    Express and with all the hoopla, obama can't seal the deal.  He will do his best to fool us saying he has the delegates he needs tomorrow in IA, but we know better.  Everything is subject to change at any given time, especially where any kind of delegates, super or otherwise, are concerned.

    Parent
    you are relentless (5.00 / 0) (#232)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:19:48 PM EST
    in a very good way...not hard to see why you respect Clinton so much...

    Parent
    Dude... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:59:57 PM EST
    I so can't believe you'd be so obtuse as to post these obviously false numbers put out by pollsters who're so patently in the bag for HRC...or McCain...or both.

    Have you no shame?!?!?!

    [/s]

    Was that good enough? (none / 0) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:00:15 PM EST


    Parent
    You forgot the #@$%&* (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:02:29 PM EST


    Parent
    ::kicks the dirt:: (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:03:59 PM EST
    Knew I was forgetting something...ah well...

    Maybe next time.

    Parent

    These Polls Are Interesting (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:15:08 PM EST
    The MSM, too many Dems and Obama have flooded the country with the meme that Clinton is dead in the water,she has no chance to win and Obama is the nominee. You would think that the public would lose faith in Clinton's ability to not only win the nomination but her ability to beat McCain in the GE. Yet poll after poll, people keep choosing her. The good news is that a lot of folks must be just  tuning all that media noise out and are making their own decisions. You also have to wonder what Clinton's poll numbers would be if the so called media had just reported the primary races without stating infallibly that Obama was the nominee.    

    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:35 PM EST
    it's incredible they're doing this isn't it.  Any other candidate would have collapsed under the crush of the media rejection.  She hasn't.  People know it.  And they know they want her stamina in the oval office.

    I think they actually have it right as far as strength of candidate qualifications go:  Hillary, McCain, Obama.

    Parent

    Exact same phenomenon (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    we all witnessed in 1998.  The media and the Republicans and many Democrats kept telling us that the impeachment circus would finish Bill Clinton for good.

    And he kept saying that he was certain the American people usually get it right, given a chance to hear the facts.

    You'd think they would learn, but they don't.  They think they can decide on who is good and who is evil and who has the support of the country and who is too ambitious and that we will all just pile on the haywagon and ride it right off the cliff with them.

    And we keep not doing it.  Yawn, says America.  Hillary Clinton is smart and tough and we kind of like her.  

    Parent

    nah nah nah (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:21:32 PM EST
    On November 5th, I will be crowing: I TOLD YOU SO.....

    To paraphrase BTD (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
    "speaking just for myself"  I have gone from definitely voting for whoever is the Democratic nominee to I probably will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, in less than 6 months of listening to him, his campaign and his supporters.  What's next I may vote for him if he is the nominee or maybe I will not vote for him.  The only thing that the DNC can expect for sure from me right now is that come Nov I will be voting for Corrine Brown to the House.

    You're doing better than I am (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:44:02 PM EST
    I went from arguing that voting for a Dem was the most important thing in the world to refusing to vote for Obama and leaving the party. Well, I haven't actually left the party, but I filled out the form to become an independent and as soon as I remember where I put it I'm mailing it in. I'm seriously concerned that by the time the election rolls around I'll be tempted to support McCain.

    Parent
    I'm pretty much right where you are (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:07:52 PM EST
    except I hesitate to change my registration since NY has closed primaries.  I'm 99% certain I won't be voting for Obama in November.  Six months ago, it would have been unthinkable not to vote for the Dem nominee, but here I am - and I'm not alone.

    Parent
    Frankly (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    I don't know if I can stand to listen to him much longer. He goes from sing songy evangelical speeches to stumbling and stuttering.

    Parent
    I can't stand to listen to him either (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:03:49 PM EST
    if he's our next President, I'll spend four more years cursing at the TV set.  

    Parent
    Well, at least she doesn't sound like John Kerry. (none / 0) (#175)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:56:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Olbermann (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:43:22 PM EST
    I found a funny on TV Newser today:

    Link

    An excerpt:

    IS Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's top-rated anchor, on the verge of yet another professional meltdown? His feuding with "Hardball" host Chris Matthews is nothing new. But now we're told notoriously odd Olbermann is lashing out at the rest of his network's talking heads.

    Read the rest at the link.

    If he's the top (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:06:59 PM EST
    MSNBC is in serious trouble.

    Well, they are, anyway.

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:20:40 PM EST
    and it confirms the feeling I've had about Olbermann for quite some time.  I turned off Countdown months before this primary season because he was just mean-spirited.  I don't like his Edward R. Murrow shtick and I find his show boring b/c he never has anybody on who disagrees with him.

    I know some folks are spinning this as Fox/NY Post propaganda, but it feels true to me.

    Parent

    Wow! (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:56:53 PM EST
    Is Clinton going to be running against Obama in the General Election too?

    Gee, that poll shows he'll be a shoe in against her.

    (Banging my head against the desk at the inaneness of a Clinton/Obama head to head when they won't be competing against each other soon enough.)

    Don't worry (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:09:32 PM EST
    I've gotten used to this. It isn't like I haven't had to do the same thing over FISA or funding Iraq or any other number of things that the Democratic Congress has failed on.

    I'm glad to say I'm no longer a part of the Default Party. I'm sure it will be a great comfort to folks like you that Obama outpolled Clinton come November 2008. It's too bad SHE won't be on the ticket against him, McCain will(and as of now he doesn't win against McCain in electoral matchups).

    Parent

    New English (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    The highly educated that are voting Obama...  That's a new way of saying college kid...

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:13:45 PM EST
    Yeah, we're all a bunch of bigots who barely managed to complete sixth grade. That's the ticket.

    Leemee guess, you haven't gotten to the part of college that requires persuasive speaking or writing.

    Parent

    State by state (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    is a better indicator, isn't it?

    Darn electoral college.

    Leaked Memo From Rove's Firm Gives Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Exeter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:05:59 PM EST
    Strong, strong advantage over Obama versus McCain.

    It's this simple (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:23:41 PM EST
    Polls show Obama winning and Hillary losing in the following states:

    Colorado
    Iowa

    Polls show Hillary winning and Obama losing in the following states:

    Florida
    Ohio
    West Virginia
    Arkansas

    Obama's list = 16 electoral votes
    Hillary's list = 58 electoral votes.

    Obama's states + the Kerry map results in an electoral college loss.
    Hillary's states + the Kerry map results in an electoral college victory.

    It's that simple.  It's the difference between winning (Hillary) and losing (Obama).

    Yo can delete (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by dissenter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:26:27 PM EST
    Colorado. He isn't going to win here. No way, no how.

    Parent
    Oop's we did it again (none / 0) (#251)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:30:52 PM EST
    We have followed the DNC, the Media, the highly educated and the AA's to another lost election....  

    Parent
    who can win? (5.00 / 2) (#261)
    by Carl2680 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:40:07 PM EST
    I am an independent voter, but I have to agree with most people here Clinton iis more electable than big ears Obama. I mean she has baggage, but Still she can win a general election.The problem is that the radical far left didn't vote for her they have problem with moderate candidates and that is why they lose every 4 years. Yeah keep giving the primaries to Jimmy carter candidates, like Obama, Kerry, Mcgovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and the list go and go.I will give Gore the benefit of doubt because Florida, but if that loser has won his state of Tennessee, he wouldn't need Florida.Trying to please the left wing with gun control did cost him WA and Tennessee.

    I can't believe what i'm reading (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by neglected blackman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:16:45 PM EST
    The difference between Clinton and Obama are slim at best. The dem party is a sham. "Inclusive"? Some of these posts made me cringe. White women over 45 are the most loyal? Who needs "AAs"? This blogs sounds more like a republican blog. This isn't a contest between who gets to the promised land first (white woman or blacks). If Clinton was winning by the RULES, I would vote for her and work for her. After hearing McCain on the economy, healthcare, women's rights and the war, it was enough for me to stop the silly "my toy is better than yours" game. The media has treated Clinton very bad. Don't blame us black folks. We don't own any real media. This is how the republicans win. They kiss and make up while we fight for "the greater good". STOP the dem bashing. Blacks voted about 90% for EVERY DEM PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE! Find a group more loyal than us. The only thing I see here is a bunch of angry people acting like college football fans. Wait. 2 year olds.

    Dude, Republicans wouldn't write some of the stuff (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:53:04 PM EST
    you read here. There's a reason why a lot of curious black intellectuals are themselves Republicans.

    Polls don't matter unless O is leading (4.00 / 4) (#1)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:51:27 PM EST
    that is true for GE polls, swing state polls, polls against McCain or against Hillary.

    Obama is the Ointed winner... every one just live with that.. until he loses the GE and then everyone blame Hillary for his fall.

    No, they will blame us. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:52:55 PM EST
    Because if we hadn't been such poor losers and bitter whiners, we could have Saved the Nation by voting for a candidate we knew was going to have trouble carrying out the duties of the presidency.

    All our fault.

    Parent

    It's already (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    in the cards. An obama campaign manager called operation turndown today and already said that if Obama doesn't win it's the fault of the Dems who won't vote for Obama.

    Why should I vote for Obama? I frankly see no reason to at this point. And having another president with a cult who thinks he is the messiah is not something I look forward to. I would rather have McCain who is hated by the cultists.

    Parent

    That's part of the "blame the voter" (5.00 / 15) (#44)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:10:28 PM EST
    strategy they have been using since NH.  It's new politics.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:12:33 PM EST
    it's pretty reminiscent of the Boy King we have now, wh alo seems unable to take responsibility for his shortcomings. The politics ain't new. just the candidate.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:36:34 PM EST
    Same frat boy sounding voice I can't bear to listen to...  

    Well, I'll be darned if I'm going to spend another 4 years diving for the remote.

    I don't think it's going to be too hard, because I think his campaign is going to implode in short order if he gets the nom, but I'll do all I can to prevent remote diving redux.

    I may not agree with him on everything, but I can listen to McCain's voice.

    Parent

    Operation Turndown? (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    So if the candidate doesn't earn your vote, it's obviously your fault for not trying hard enough?

    Parent
    Operation turndown (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:23:53 PM EST
    is a grassroots effort to defeat Obama if he's the nominee. People feel that he's being foisted upon us by the elite of the party and by disenfranchising 2 swing states.

    Parent
    Got it... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:26:04 PM EST
    was confused by the sentence...

    Parent
    Here is more (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by facta non verba on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:30:13 PM EST
    on Operation Turndown

    Operation Turndown

    Also Cynthia Ruccia will be on Nightline tonight. Cynthia Ruccia is the founder of Clinton Supporters Count Too and she caused a stir last week when she went on the Bill O'Reilly show to say that she wouldn't be voting for Obama.

    Here is that video:

    Clinton Supporters Lay it on the Line

    Parent

    Also People Are Tired Of Being Called Racists n/t (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:50:37 PM EST


    Parent
    For the last 3 years (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:25:00 PM EST
    I've been listening to Republicans beating their chests, asking forgiveness for voting for Bush . . . they kind of knew he was a putz, but they just went along.  They kind of didn't really trust him, but it felt good for a while to be part of his big happy base.

    They wish they didn't feel so guilty; they know it was a mistake.

    I ain't voting for McCain, but I don't want Obama on my conscience. He has yet to ask for my vote (though he's spent quite a bit of money courting my teenaged daughters for theirs) and he's got a long ways to go before he convinces me I can take a chance on him.

    Parent

    The core (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:17:51 PM EST
    of dem won't vote for Obama ... not because they are sore at Obama ... its because he JUST does not represent the core philosophy of Dems.. and yes it is also because they are bitter and they consider Obama an Elitist and sexist !!

    When Ferraro says she won't vote for Obama.. I think the wave has already begun... the D party leaders like Pelosi, Dean will be left scratching their heads after the GE loss... and Keith Oberman/Chris Mathews/dkos would be chuckling all the way to the bank. Donna Brazille will still have no shame and will be ON CNN giving her valuable analysis as an unbiased political commentator.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:23 PM EST
    and people just dont' get it.

    Obama or McCain will drive the country into a ditch. The difference is that whether you want to take A1A or Route 66 to get there.

    Parent

    they MUST keep Brazile on (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:40:06 PM EST
    she's going to be fabulous for turning off voters

    oh please oh please oh please keep her front and center, DNC

    Parent

    also I agree (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:50:25 PM EST
    just more media bias letting her go on shows as "neutral" when she's clearly pro-Obama

    Parent
    Well, if the Dems who won't vote Obama (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EST
    have left/do leave the party . . . who da heck are they gonna blame it on.

    Oh, wait . . . IACF

    Parent

    Good question (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:25:24 PM EST
    Apparently they don't hold Obama responsible for his behavior.

    And frankly the SCOTUS argument no longer moves me.

    Parent

    Team/BO, Creat Class, Lattini, AA: YOU OWN IT (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:42:31 PM EST
    Obama Nation bought this enormous stinking pile of grade A No. 1 horsesh!t The One was selling.

    You own it Suckahs.

    Should this ridiculous pre-blaming move into Phase Two of excuse making, a nano-second after the rigged game has been declared over and won by cheating Sen Clinton out of her gains and wins,

    Obama Nation OWNS whatever atrocity is unleashed because of the most expensive and greatest landslide Dem loss in history.

    (I want HRC in the White House, but don't care whether McCain or Obama gets in because either will let the house of Bush fall completely and clean the House and Stables of Dems fully of accumulated manure.)

    Parent

    How can WE be at fault?? (none / 0) (#218)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:13:33 PM EST
    When we told them BEFORE the primaries were over, they can't win.

    Parent
    Pretty much (none / 0) (#65)
    by pantsuit chic on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:21:00 PM EST
    I can't $%^@% it.

    Parent
    yes polling one (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jgarza on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:39:38 PM EST
    point behind mccain, in a state we lost last time means you will loose the general.  Yeah you are brilliant.  

    Parent
    yeah let's go look at Virginia polls! n/t (none / 0) (#174)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM EST


    Parent
    How much did we lose by last time around? (none / 0) (#229)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:17:50 PM EST
    Hmmmmmmmmmm, wasn't it by something like one freakin' point?

    Parent
    that doesn't... (none / 0) (#2)
    by nic danger on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    annoy me in the least.and it's going to get worse (or better,depending on your point of view).

    Does anybody understand Poblano's numbers (none / 0) (#27)
    by rilkefan on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    here?  E.g. the OH #s under Swing State Analysis.  The polls summaries below make more sense - Obama wins OH 43% of the time against McCain, HRC wins 79% of the time.

    Great (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:14:02 PM EST
    So obama is very likely to lose OH while Hillary is a sure bet.

    Parent
    Ohio and Florida, Ohio and Florida (none / 0) (#49)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:13:00 PM EST
    The general election campaign hasn't started, and a one point deficit in the polls is absolutely in play. There's plenty of time for Obama and the Democratic party to persuade Ohioans to vote for him rather than McCain. Clinton clearly has the edge, but it's not unreasonable that Obama could win. Either candidate would have to work hard to win the state.

    That said ... any general election strategy that depends on Ohio and Florida is a failed strategy. Even if both dems were polling ahead of McCain in both Ohio and Florida, depending on either of those two states is a mistake that we shouldn't repeat.

    Now, I hope we campaign triumphantly and win those two states. They shouldn't be dismissed. But what I'm hearing from the Clinton campaign and her supporters amounts to "polling better in Ohio or Florida means we win the election". This kind of thinking is dangerous. The strategy of betting the farm on winning at least one of those states has already been proven unreliable for the general election.

    Which leads to why Clinton isn't as good of a choice. (I've always believed that both are good choices and both would be good presidents, but Obama is better. So I'm not so much anti-Hillary as I am pro-Obama.)

    Hillary has shown in the primary that she places all her bets on a single strategy, and fights her heart out for that strategy with no backup plan. If the strategy falls through, she scrambles to piece something together after it's too late. Even the most ardent Hillary supporter would have to admit that she expected to wrap this up by Super Tuesday, and had no reliable strategy if her big win didn't pan out.

    So what this says to me is that she won't hedge her bets. She'll overemphasis states like Ohio and Florida, with no backup plan. Yes, she may be polling ahead in some of these swing states (and Obama is ahead in others), but I am not convinced at all that she has more than one plan. It's not enough to have a poll slightly in your favor; you also need an effective electoral strategy. And this is where Obama excels. Hillary does not.

    The problem (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:16:01 PM EST
    is that Obama has already spent tons of money and time in OH and they are continuing to reject him. I doubt this will change.

    The problem with Obama is his map is dependent on a few western states where he is tied with McCain. He has more ways to lose and Hillary has more ways to win.

    Parent

    Which one? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    She won the WV primary by 41 points last week and will rack up a big win in KY tomorrow night.

    You mean the nomination? She's been outspent, out-organized, and out-media-ed, and she still trails by 1%.

    If Obama's so good and she's so awful, why isn't his lead more substantial, especially considering he has the superior organization, more money, media support, and surrogates who've been calling for her to quit since February, which normally would depress a candidate's turnout but seems to have the opposite effect on her supporters.

    Parent

    the obvious answer to that (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:56 PM EST
    is caucuses in red states...yep, just that simple.

    Parent
    Who is their second choice (none / 0) (#64)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:19:57 PM EST
    When you say that they continue to reject Obama, this is in the context of a primary. I have yet to see any analysis that shows that support for Clinton in a primary translates to a general election loss for Obama. In fact, I've seen some polling that show that both Hillary and Obama lose by the same amount against McCain among working class whites. So I think this question deserves a deeper look. Who is their second choice?

    Parent
    head2polls aren't in the context of a primary (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:31:18 PM EST
    Obama is not polling well against McCain in key, electoral-rich battleground states like OH and FL--which is why the Clinton campaign is emphasizing them. They aren't being retro; they're just looking at the reality we ALL will be looking at on election night: the electoral map.

    These polls have nothing to do with the primaries but how each Democrat polls against McCain currently. And currently, if the election were held tomorrow, we'd want to be voting on a Hillary-McCain matchup instead of an Obama-McCain matchup according to the state polls.

    An aside: I know that Obama is polling well enough against McCain to beat him by a small margin in PA, but I really, really think something is off with those polls. I've lived in Western PA for many years now, and I think the McCain is going to take PA. Kerry only barely beat Bush here in 04.

    Parent

    His electoral map (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:39:24 PM EST
    includes Virgina too. I'm not certain he'll pull that off. Webb won by about 2000 votes. I credit some of it with his military cred. in a state with a high military population. I'm not so certain Obama has the same success.

    Parent
    I agree--Webb barely won VA in 06 (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST


    Parent
    McCain, no matter his opponent, will (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:43:31 PM EST
    win VA.  I think it nearly delusional to think otherwise.  We can bank that.

    Parent
    That's not what THIS poll says (none / 0) (#72)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:23:02 PM EST
    Clinton wins against McCain. Obama does not. It appears in a head to head against McCain they reject Obama as well.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:27:25 PM EST
    this is in the context of the general election. If Hillary is not the nominee, apparently they will vote for McCain. These voters are swing voters after all.

    Parent
    I should add (none / 0) (#81)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:25:41 PM EST
    Hillary has exactly one way to win: Ohio or Florida. (Okay that's two ways.) And that's because it's the strategy she'll stick to. I'm sure there are other ways she could win, but I don't believe she'll try them. I think it will be all about winning Ohio or Florida, and not trying hard enough anywhere else.

    She'll look at this as the smart approach, concentrating resources in two states rather than more states than needed to win, and I'll look at this as betting the farm on a strategy we keep losing with.

    Anyway, my "pulling it out of you-know-where" prediction is that we'll win Ohio either way, and lose Florida either way. I still think we should campaign hard in both states.

    Parent

    not trying hard enough anywhere else? (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    Are you kidding me?  Have you been watching her work her a** off?

    Parent
    She works her a** off (none / 0) (#96)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:32:09 PM EST
    on a single strategy. This is my point: she picks one strategy and works hard at it. She doesn't hedge her bets, and it worries me. Of course, you will disagree. It's almost too bad that we can't have two parallel universes where we compare the general election performance of both.

    Parent
    that would be kind of cool to (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM EST
    have two elections and see which way it turns out...I think you would have a point if you argued that Clinton had no Plan B after Super Tuesday, but if you think she hasn't learned from that, well that is just crazy!

    Parent
    Listen, my friends, and you shall hear: (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:06:48 PM EST
    hedging bets = wishy-washy, flip-floppy, indecisive, speaking with forked tongue.  (Wonder what Nathan Hale's speech would have sounded like if he had hedged his bets: "I regret I have but one life to give for my country--unless it is Tuesday and raining in Maine, of course, when I might have more important plans.")

    Parent
    you can, if you go to electoral map sites (none / 0) (#114)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:39:35 PM EST
    On those sites, with polling data, you will find that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Barack Obama against John McCain.

    Parent
    I've played with them (none / 0) (#135)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:44:33 PM EST
    What they show me is that the race is very close, and both candidates have their advantages and disadvantages. The polls will most certainly change once the general election gets going. So what I'm consider are the fundamentals, and both candidates approach to strategy. My argument has always been that the fundamentals continue to favor Obama. You may disagree or believe that polling trumps my argument, and that's fine.

    Parent
    The fundamentals? LOL (none / 0) (#141)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:15 PM EST


    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:29:38 PM EST
    Hillary has more ways to win. She doesn't have to worry about defending blue states like Obama does so she can focus on getting more states. Obama will have to spend time and money keeping MA blue along with probably PA.

    Hillary will carry WV and AR which Obama will not.

    Parent

    sigh. (none / 0) (#102)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:34:41 PM EST
    Okay, this is where the conversation breaks down. Obama will not have to dump resources on defending MA. If that's the argument for Hillary, then thanks for the discussion! I have nothing else to add.

    Parent
    According (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:36:07 PM EST
    to the polls Obama will have to spend money in MA believe it or not. The reason: Deval Patrick.

    Parent
    67% is what Hillary won her last NY (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:54:31 PM EST
    election with. Obama is going to have to work to get her voters here. He's going to have to work CA also.

    Parent
    Sen. Clinton can win FL, Sen. Obama (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:34:57 PM EST
    cannot.  I have posted this before, but here goes again, FL has huge economic problems, good paying jobs are hard to come by, our property taxes are through the roof, the cost of hurricane insurance is extremely expensive, even the cost of groceries in FL has risen above the national average, and we have tons of properties in foreclosure (we are considered a distressed market) Sen. Clinton has the advantage in our depressed economy.  She is extremely knowledgable and has expressed her plans well, and when you add she WANTS OUR VOTES TO COUNT, she wins.  You see FL is still touchy about the 2000 election.

    Parent
    Not touchy enough... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:40:51 PM EST
    ...to boot the Republicans out.  

     She's probably a better candidate there than Senator Obama, but I don't see either of them winning FL.  

    Parent

    Wrong Alec82 . I don't think you understand (none / 0) (#180)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:58:10 PM EST
    FL at all.  FL is a diverse mix of people.  They understand the game that the Republicans played, especially the Democratic South where the overwhelming amount of the population is.  You also underestimate our need to have our votes count.  Every election we see a mini-replay to ensure all the votes are counted. Eventhough we have a Republican Gov., he is still a vast improvement over JEB! BTW in the last gubernatorial election the more conservative candidate lost in the Repub primary, and so did the well funded big sugar backed Dem.  Problem with Sen. Obama is that Sen. McCain has a good reputation and is considered more along the lines of Gov. Crist.  What puts Sen. Clinton over is counting our votes and her strong economic plans. Sen. Obama lacks both on economic plans and vote counting.  Learn alittle bit more about FL beforing counting FL Red.  It will be blue so long as the right candidate comes along.  Remember FL had a Dem Gov. before JEB, he was extremely popular, his name was Lawton Chiles.

    Parent
    Governor Crist... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:03:31 PM EST
    ...is precisely the reason I doubt the ability of either Democratic candidate to win Florida.  He pulled off an improbable win, given the anti-GOP attitude at the time.

     My post had nothing to do with having the primary delegation seated.  

    Parent

    Gov Crist won because the Democratic nominee (none / 0) (#224)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:14:59 PM EST
    was a weak Big Agro-business candidate.  Hell I even voted for Crist in that contest.

    Parent
    Gov Crist's win was not improbable. In fact (none / 0) (#225)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:15:06 PM EST
    it was predictable. Davis was short on funding and was not that well known in the South.  Davis did not support big sugar here so lost a big source of funding for his campaign. He should have come to the South more often.  He took the South for granted as far as the votes.  Crist however, came off as a good guy, willing to fight for the people, and not a continuation of JEB. He focused on the right things, property taxes, insurance etc...  He was viewed as much more moderate than JEB.  Counting FL has everything to do with who will win FL. Sen. Obama has a snowball's chance in He** against Sen.  McCain.  Here they are both perceived as being equally lost as to the economy, so all thing being even, Sen. McCain wins easily.  With Sen. Clinton, strong economic plans, and wants to count our vote (She fights for FL).  

    Parent
    FLVoter what those who do not live here (none / 0) (#216)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:12:53 PM EST
    do not realize is the demographic breakdown of Fl.  South Fl is most populated section heavily Democratic (when they vote so be careful and don't insult them into staying home)  North Fl not as populated heavily Republican (funny the districts Obama won in the primary where in North Fl)  and the there is the I-4 corridor heavily populated and a battleground.  Problem for O is that it is also heavily populated with Latinos like South Fl;  a demographic that Clinton would take a lot of votes in but if it's McBush against Obama well I just don't think so.

    Parent
    I do agree with you. Any Dem that does not (none / 0) (#238)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:24:06 PM EST
    take heavily in the South cannot win the State.  Hispanic breakdown is different.  Miami Dade most hispanics are still Cubans, but that is changing too.  My family is from Cuba and all I can say,is if my family is the norm, Sen. Clinton will win.  Seems that the Cubans may not be that heavily enamored by the Repubs this time around.  Sen. Clinton may be gaining an advantage. Cubans may not be a shoe in for the Repubs this year. However, this advantage does not translate to Sen. Obama.  If Sen. Obama is the nominee, I do not see Dems taking FL.

    Parent
    Same with the Puertorican and Cuban vote (none / 0) (#246)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:28:10 PM EST
    in the I-4 corridor.

    Parent
    I am in Fort Lauderdale, what part are you in? (none / 0) (#249)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:29:42 PM EST


    Parent
    North Central between Gainesville and Lake City. (none / 0) (#255)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:33:16 PM EST
    Small city named Alachua.  Actually I live in the countryside NW of the city.

    Parent
    I also think you underestimate the Fl voters (none / 0) (#234)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:21:43 PM EST
    Crist won here even with all the stuff that was said about his sexual preferences.  And he even won the real conservative districts.

    Parent
    I'm counting... (none / 0) (#260)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:39:16 PM EST
    ...on the sexual orientation rumors to prevent Senator McCain from selecting him as a running mate.

    Parent
    I Imagine There Would Be Much Touchiness (none / 0) (#155)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:48:47 PM EST
    regarding the way obama has approached the FLA voters.

    Parent
    I should add (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:42:47 PM EST
    Obama has exactly one plan to win: wealthy educated people, people who are fond of technology, and African Americans--and these are not mutually exclusive groups.

    His plan to win does not include a strategy to bring the most solid, the largest, the most reliable block in the Democratic party.  Yes, that's correct--white women over the age of 45 get nothing from him but a flicking of apparently invisible dandruff off his well-tailored masculine shoulders.

    His plan to win is based on his belief that those voters have nowhere else to go, and therefore they will come around.

    :)

    I'm looking forward to being courted by the young conqueror, myself.  I'm looking forward to hearing how much he needs me. I'm not promising anything, however.

    Parent

    See... (3.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    ...when you write things like this:

    white women over the age of 45 get nothing from him but a flicking of apparently invisible dandruff off his well-tailored masculine shoulders.

     You should be careful.  Senator Obama has white female supporters over the age of 45.  You're insulting all of them.  You're also insulting the other groups.  

     That's precisely why a lot of hearts have hardened in this election.  From a policy perspective there is very little difference between the two, but this has become a personality war between their supporters.    

    Parent

    If the "white women over 45" (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:04:42 PM EST
    who support Senator Obama were not insulted by the way he has treated Senator Clinton, then they deserve the second rate status that they currently have in this country. However, those of us who continue to work hard for women's rights, which as Senator Clinton says are really human rights, will not leave them behind. Unfortunately, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

    Parent
    oBots: Practice what you preach BEFORE you lecture (5.00 / 0) (#227)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:17:02 PM EST
    TeamObama has months unfairly and egregiously characterizing white women who support Clinton as racists without presenting a shred of tangible evidence.

    You lost that Outrage Card months ago and everytime you sweep into a blog that considers both candidates to deliver an imperious Obamann-style finger-wagging, you only succeed in exposing what horses' @sses Obama worshippers are.

    You only make it clearer to wobbly voters why it's really really okay NOT to vote for this fraud.

    Should your boondoggle and Ponzi-wank succeed, enjoy your humiliating loss. As an Independent Woman, I for one am looking forward to the Fall Season whatever the outcome.

    There isn't enough jack and juice in the world to sell Obama to people with eyes, ears and working brains.

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#243)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:26:16 PM EST
    this isn't even argument.  You just want to attack people who voted for Obama.  

     I'm hardly "Team Obama." You do yourselve a disservice with these types of posts.

    Parent

    Obama in his over confidence (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:28:32 PM EST
    started the personality war by calling Hillary divisive, dishonest, say-anything-do-anything kind, and by boasting his supporters will NOT vote for Hillary but Hillary's supporters will FLOCK to Obamaland.

    Now who is a Just words candidates.. we all know too well, and who is a divisive candidate.. I have not seen party elders behaving in such a divisive, sexist and race baiting talk ..

    Parent

    Agreed.... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:37:17 PM EST
    We might wind up with an even grimmer map than we had in 2004.  

     They're both non-traditional candidates w/respect to demographics.  Senator McCain is about as traditional as you can get.  

    Parent

    The huge historic loss will be all Obama's fault (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:23:07 PM EST
    The contemptuous nature of his campaign, his supporters and the candidate himself will go down in history as a clinic in what not to do.

    No wonder McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry and Edwards all support him so enthusiastically.

    They're clearly dying to pass along the dubious achievement and cringe-inducing Mantles of heading the Worst Dem Election Disasters ever.

    gohhhHHHHHH-BAMA!

    Parent

    Of course Clinton will be blamed (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:33:35 PM EST
    because the stupid b*tch just wouldn't quit.  

    I find many Obama supporters to be delusional about how much support he'll get in the GE.  The majority of Americans are conservative people and Obama's baggage is not just normal, run-of-the-mill political baggage.  

    I know it's early days yet, but it's rather ominous that he's doing so poorly against McCain.  You would think that he'd get an enormous bump just by virtue of being a Democrat.

    My mother thinks that Obama is "inspirational", and he obviously is to many people but IMO he's maxed out his appeal.  From here on out, he won't attract enough new supporters to beat McCain.  I said to my mom the other night that he lacks the common touch.  He's great (so they say) on a podium delivering a prepared speech, but considerably less convincing talking about real people and real issues.  He's got that rock star/messiah thing going, but that creeps out a lot of people (me included).  

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    Ohio is full of the dirty, working class masses that the "new" coalition has claimed they can win without. I can't wait to watch them try to backpedal and become baffled because they aren't "believable".

    Parent
    The campaign vs the blogs (none / 0) (#119)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:40:16 PM EST
    I believe Obama's campaign message, once in the general election, will resonate strongly with working class voters. McCain's will not. This isn't because Obama will necessarily offer something that Clinton can't (or vice versa); it's that they're both Democrats offering a similar economic platform. At best, the Republicans will run a Democrat-lite campaign that will come off as insincere and out of touch with people's concerns.

    Whether or not the blogs think Obama doesn't need working class voters is moot. Obama will campaign hard to these voters, and as a Democrat, he has a strong message to deliver. The blogs will continue talking to themselves, and will be basically irrelevant in the general election (beyond raising money and support for congressional candidates).


    Parent

    Obama will campaign hard to these voters (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:45:02 PM EST
    I'm sure he will.

    Like in Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia.  He campaigned hard, and the more he campaigned, the more they didn't like what they saw.

    I don't know why you think the general will be different.

    Parent

    Ohio and Pennsylvania are in play (none / 0) (#172)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
    He's polling ahead by 5 in PA, and behind by 1 in OH. I agree that WV is probably lost. These states are very winnable for him, and very winnable for any Democrat for that matter.

    But that's not really my point. What I'm saying is that Clinton will bet the farm on a single strategy, while Obama will hedge his bets. The primary has made it very clear how the two candidates approach strategy, and I've seen no indication that Clinton has learned from the experience. Especially as she continues to beat the drum about winning Florida or Ohio as the key to victory. After losing to this strategy twice in a row, I'm extremely skeptical of being sold on it for a third time.

    Parent

    which strategy would that be? (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:13:04 PM EST
    Trying to substitute CO, NM, and NV for OH, against a candidate from their neighborhood?  Even if he wins all the states he claims now, he still loses without MI.  If this is his new strategy, it's stupid.


    Parent
    Clinton's strategy would be the same as BO's (none / 0) (#195)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    ...to win as many states as she can. It just turns out that she's more competitive against McCain in key battleground states.

    Honestly, I don't think Obama has a chance against McCain in the Ohio Valley. That knocks out OH and PA --two critical swing states--to go along with the loss of Florida.

    But it doesn't matter. Obama is going to be the nominee, so I guess we'll see how he puts together a win without OH and PA and FL and possibly MI.

    Parent

    Obama's not the nominee. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:15:51 PM EST
    Talk to me in August.

    Parent
    Oh ye of more faith than I.... (none / 0) (#245)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:28:08 PM EST
    :)

    I hope you're right. And if I'm wrong, I shall celebrate.

    Parent

    His campaign (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:17 PM EST
    has said they don't need working class voters. He doesn't relate to them so I don't think that there's anything he can do to change things.

    If he was interested in getting those voters he should have tried to get them in the primary and not call them racists and Archie Bunkers. The GOP will remind them constantly about what Obama has said about them. He doesn't respect them or their views.

    Parent

    What message? (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:48 PM EST
    All I've seen is a campaign full of catch phrases and cult of personality. People who don't like Obama have been grouped into "low information" and "racist". Obama didn't even have the balls to TRY and compete in KY or WV but come GE time ou are telling me he's magically going to be able to seal the deal and THOSE voters are going o forget. I'm not buying what you are selling. We're gonna lose if he's the nominee. Heck, if we discount FL and MI(who he doesn't want to count) we're down to 48. Discount states like WV or KY where he refuses to even try we're down to 46. o much for that 50 state strategy.

    Parent
    He Hasn't Really Campaigned In Person in KY (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:52:29 PM EST
    but he is spending lots of money for nothing.  That is a fact they rarely bring up, like in WVa.
    And he outspent Hillary 3 - 1 in PA for naught.

    Parent
    You see what you're looking for (none / 0) (#187)
    by s5 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:00:57 PM EST
    I've watched and listened to both candidates. I've even been a Hillary supporter, hoping for her to run since early 2007. I've read details on both of their plans, listened to their speeches, researched their closest advisors, and listened to almost every debate. They are both strong Democrats with good ideas, sound policy making skills, and an excellent vision for the growth and success of the country. Both clearly care about the people they hope to represent. I would proudly vote for either in the general election.

    To say that there's no message other than "catch phrases" means you're not listening very closely. These candidates are both amazing, with similar ideas but different approaches to getting the work done. Be open minded! If there's one thing I've learned after numerous primary disappointments is that you don't always get the candidate you want, so you should learn to like them all. No matter what, they're both vastly preferable to John McCain.

    Parent

    I've listened quite closely (none / 0) (#258)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:37:04 PM EST
    I even had my intelligence insulted when I was told "never you mind, Presidents don't get to 'really' make policy" after I had the audacity to ask how Obama's health care plan gets us to universal health care. Care to have a go at it?

    Parent
    So you don't think she's very bright or what? (none / 0) (#242)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:26:13 PM EST
    Why would she repeat her mistakes? How exactly does Obama have such an effective electoral strategy? He hasn't run one yet.

    Parent
    Re: SGBTRv.W (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    otherwise known by some as The Fear Factor.

    I am having qualms about my position of voting for Obama if he is the nominee; my vow to do so was primarily based on the type of judicial nominees he would send to the Senate.  But, if David Savage is correct, my faith may have been misplaced:

    SAVAGE

    I have no qualms about not voting for (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:14:44 PM EST
    BO in the GE.  Maybe Congress will decide to grow a pair and do their job.

    Parent
    Not much of a track record in Congress. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:19:13 PM EST


    Parent
    You're Right (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    I've been a yellow dog democrat for years.  I've watched them throw away a lot of elections at various levels.  But I've never been as tempted to walk away in my life as I am this year.  There are some good individual democrats, but the party as a whole seems happy with just being better than republicans, a low bar and one they still aren't always able to meet.  

    In some ways this election could prove very good for the party.  Bringing these fault lines out means we have an opportunity to either reform the party and move its power centers or the party will splinter and from it will be something new and hopefully better.  

    For what I mean about realigning the party power center, there's an interesting post by Anglachel on how Hillary could be the Ronald Reagan of 1976.  I don't know whether I agree entirely with the analogy, but as I've said I do believe Obama is a last grasp of power by the old establishment - white and black - and that Clinton's coalition built on women, hispanics, and the working class (which except for Obama would include AAs) is, contrary to what Brazile has said, the real future base of the democratic party.  

    Parent

    That is the only reason (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    I will be okay if Obama is the nominee.  I have no doubt he will lose the GE and the DNC and "elite" who pushed for him will have to answer for their actions.  I think McCain will be in for 1 term..we have a couple of years to work on the party and can come back strong with Hillary if she wants it.  If she doesn't we can hopefully find someone half as qualified.  Would still be better than anything we've had in a long, long time.

    Parent
    Hillary has motivated a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by DJ on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:03:16 PM EST
    to actually work to make the party better.


    Parent
    Well, they can develop one then. (none / 0) (#68)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:34 PM EST


    Parent
    You're forgetting the new Dem motto (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:24:45 PM EST
    The Democratic Party: Creating the New Independant Party one disenfranchised voter at a time.

    Parent
    no one was disenfranchised (none / 0) (#263)
    by seesdifferent on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    there will be a general election and they can vote. I haven't seen any great sense of outrage from the voters in Fl and MI about this, and it is not, after all, Obama's fault.
    If you are worried about disenfranchising voters, you should be working hard against the Republicans, since that is one of their primary strategies: denying the vote to as many people as possible.

    Parent
    And these (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    are the people who want Obama to be the nominee. Why would anyone have any faith in these jokers? I think it'll make no difference whether McCain or Obama is president in someways.

    Parent
    Please don't hold your breath, as I am sure (none / 0) (#168)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    you are too young to die... :)

    Parent
    I'm having fewer qualms every day (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:46:14 PM EST
    I should start a qualm meter.  

    Parent
    I'll buy one! (none / 0) (#154)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:48:45 PM EST


    Parent
    What Exactly Bothered You In That Article? n/t (none / 0) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:19:51 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm waiting for Obama to strongly (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:22:42 PM EST
    state he will nominate judges in the mold of those we respect.  Too wishy-washy.  

    Parent
    Wishy washy? (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:32:42 PM EST
    Are you surprised? He can't really make a stand on anything because he might offend someone. Except has has no problem offending large swaths of voters by calling them racists. Whatever.

    Parent
    Don't Think That Will Happen (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:45:23 PM EST
    Clarity is not one of his strong suits and wishy-washy is his SOP.

    One of Obama's supporters seemed very definite that Cass Sunstein would be Obama's first choice for SCOTUS. Sunstein is a strong Obama supporter, graduate of Harvard Law and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.  Might be some basis there (?). Did a little research on him and didn't feel based on his ideology, statements etc. that he would be good on things like Roe v Wade. Pure speculation but this is the only name I have heard in connection with an Obama appointment.

    Parent

    The "creative class" (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:49:44 PM EST
    seems to think wishy washy is good. The emptier the vessel, the better.

    Parent
    Not only is your speculation off... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:59:22 PM EST
    ...but this was a guy who was actively opposing the impeachment of Clinton in 1998, has called for reconsidering the Second Bill of Rights proposed by FDR, etc.  He's a liberal.  And tarring him as an anti-Roe stealth nominee will not win over those of us who have read Sunstein.  

    Parent
    A Little Bit About Sunstein (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    Sunstein:

    Roe vs. Wade, decided in 1973, was founded on the right of privacy in the medical domain, but the court's argument was exceedingly weak. The Constitution does not use the word "privacy" anywhere, and, in any case, the idea of privacy seems to describe a right of seclusion, not a right of patients and doctors to decide as they see fit.

    Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism, arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects. He is generally thought to be liberal, although he has publicly supported various of George W. Bush judicial nominees, including Michael W. McConnell and John G. Roberts. Much of his work also brings behavioral economics to bear on law, suggesting that the "rational actor" model will sometimes produce an inadequate understanding of how people will respond to legal intervention.
    Wikepedia

    Judicial Minimalism
    Their anti-conservative, yet also anti-liberal stance is well-expressed in the concurrent belief of many minimalists that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided by its overly liberal court, but also that modern conservatives who either sit on or influence the Supreme Court of the United States are wrong to try and overrule that case at one fell stroke, its effect on the law having become a stable precedent. Depending on the minimalist's particular preferences, a minimalist on the court would be likely to either very slowly bolster or chip away at abortion precedents rather than proclaim a lasting ban or legalization on abortion via Constitutional rulings.
    Wikepedia


    Parent
    Did Ras poll the same percent women/men (none / 0) (#74)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:23:41 PM EST
    for BO and Hill because those numbers would prolly vary by candidate.

    I thought Ras had decided against polling Clinton (none / 0) (#101)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    for the GE earlier? At least I thought I had read that. I wonder why they changed their mind.

    You claim objectivity, but not one headline (none / 0) (#104)
    by halstoon on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:35:21 PM EST
    highlights just how well Obama is doing. The man is going to win the nomination, for gawdsakes. As a supposed supporter, I would expect you might want to do more than simply trash him and highlight his flaws. I don't expect you to be a fanboy, but I do expect you to be fair, and you have not been fair; you've been on Jeralyn's distorted view bandwagon. It's not that rallies are the end-all, be-all, but when you're gonna run a headline like 'is a funny thing happening,' maybe you should have a headline that says, 'what is this man doing?'

     When/if Obama wins every demographic in Oregon, will you write about how working-class Westerners see Obama differently? Will you talk about how his weakness isn't so much with poor-to-middle class whites as it is with white Southerners or mountain folk? Or will you divert to whatever excuse the Clintons put forward?

     Where are you pointing out the ridiculous nature of Hillary's 'if we were Republicans' argument? What kind of trash is that? Is it Obama's fault he ran as a Democrat while her camp thought Cali was winner-take-all? Is it Obama's fault her camp ignored red states? Is it his fault her husband pi$$ed of black folks? A fair and "objective" writer would admit all these things, actually balancing Jeralyn's cheerleading; instead you simply play along. You refuse to point out the silliness of the 'I have more electoral votes' argument? Seriously?? Do we now choose the nominee on metrics that have absolutely nothing to do with the nominating process? Her popular vote argument is valid; your criticisms on MI/FL are generally supportable; the fact that poor whites in the South and the Rust Belt don't like Obama is a concern. I don't have a problem with any of that being pointed out, but I don't think you can honestly call yourself fair. You simply are not. You have chosen to be a counterbalance to those who you see as being over-the-top in love. Moving to the other pole doesn't make you fair or objective; it makes you just as polar.

    You must not read all of BTDs (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:38:36 PM EST
    posts.  He almost always says Obama will win...he always provides facts from an objective POV...You should stop whining and tell Obama to read BTDs posts.  He might have a better chance of winning the GE if he would!

    Parent
    I don't recall his claiming objectivity (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:07 PM EST
    Do you have a citation for that? I haven't been here long, though. Perhaps I missed it.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:47:15 PM EST
    Like there aren't 34782979 other blogs that fill that niche.

    Are you predicting Obama will win white voters without college degrees in Oregon, by the way?  It would be only the second state where he has done so.

    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:10:09 PM EST
    I believe there was a recent post about just THIS gripe of yours:

    "When/if Obama wins every demographic in Oregon, will you write about how working-class Westerners see Obama differently?"

    I'm sure you can find it.  Actually, there have been a bunch of posts about it.  Re: how Obama's problem is not an Appalachian one, but it's not a Western one.  How about the Horace Greeley posts (ref. this one Obama Go West)?

    I guess you're upset this blog doesn't take down Clinton more often.  Well, you're only a few clicks away from that.

    I find critiques of this vaunted 'new' style of politics more interesting than mass sighs about the use of the word obliterate regarding a nuclear attack on Israel.  And as for why Westerners seem to like Obama more, I don't know what would explain it.  I would like to know.  Nonetheless, Clinton won California, New Mexico, more or less tied Nevada.  I'm not from the West; I won't make any ugly assumptions.  If you find a blog that offers insight into this issue, please let us know.

    Parent

    Oh, and btw (none / 0) (#213)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:11:46 PM EST
    Obama has been picking up superdelegates, but the past contests have been often Clinton's to brag about.  February it's not.  Recently, Obama hasn't been doing all that well.

    Parent
    Right Now.... I am listening to old Ozzy Osbourne: (none / 0) (#111)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:38:43 PM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brbGPIyBJ2Q


    I Don't know:

    People look to me and say
    Is the end near, when is the final day
    What's the future of mankind
    How do I know, I got left behind

    *Everyone goes through changes
    Looking to find the truth
    Don't look to me for answers
    Don't ask me--I don't know

    How am I supposed to know
    Hidden meanings that will never show
    Fools and prophets from the past
    Life's a stageand we're all in the cast

    Ya gotta believe in someone asking me who is right
    Asking me who to follow, don't ask me, I don't know
    I don't know--I don't know--I don't know

    Nobody ever told me I found out for myself
    Ya gotta believe in foolish miracles
    It's not how you play the game
    It's if you win or lose you can choose
    Don't confuse win or lose, it's up to you
    It's up to you--It's up to you--It's up to you

    Solo
    Repeat

    How appropriate.......

    Yes the new rule (none / 0) (#124)
    by Jgarza on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:41:31 PM EST
    The primary isn't about delegates, its about polling better in certain states 6 months before the election.  Silly people

    "It's the Election, Stupid" (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:45:47 PM EST
    (No, I'm not calling you stupid - it's based on Clinton's "It's the economy, Stupid").

    The primary is not important. It never was. The general election was always the big game, and Obama and his supporter's lost sight of that.

    Parent

    That's basically what an election is (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by dianem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:53:31 PM EST
    No caucuses or voter apportionment, and you have to let everybody participate, not just Democrats.  But it's really just a big poll in which the best performing person gets to be President. Obama has been playing a game: Beat the Democrat. He's doing quite well at winning the game. But he forgot that this game is just a prelim round, and the final round has different rules. Obama talks about having a significant lead, but in reality about half of the voter's picked Clinton, in spite of overwhelmingly bad press against her, in spite of his attacks. She ran a campaign that set herself up against McCain. Obama ran against Clinton. He is just starting to run against McCain, but his reputation is established in the public mind, and he isn't doing so well.

    Parent
    I dont know (1.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Jgarza on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:57:12 PM EST
    what you are talking about, my guess is you don't either.

    Parent
    That would be a good argument if we only (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:54:36 PM EST
    had primaries but we don't we also have caucuses, not to mention that many of the Primaries are open (like the Democrat for a day campaigns by the Obama support groups)

    Parent
    you have the google (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:48:04 PM EST
    look it up.

    Psst (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:49:25 PM EST
    ignore the troll!

    Parent
    what steve said... (none / 0) (#198)
    by nic danger on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:04:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I wonder if Axelrod has adjusted his incentives? (none / 0) (#185)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:00:53 PM EST
    Like from piece-work to salary? It's hard to be "nice" on piece-work -- snark is so much easer, so you're more productive. Sweeties.

    These polls don't really mean anything at this (none / 0) (#215)
    by Seth90212 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:12:35 PM EST
    stage. I mean, Obama is 16 points over Clinton in the latest Gallup. I wouldn't want SD's to make their decision on that. It's ridiculous. In a couple of weeks they could be tied.

    I'm fine with that (none / 0) (#235)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:21:58 PM EST
    As long as the person wearing the pantsuit happens to be Barack Obama. ;)

    ROTFLOL (none / 0) (#239)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:24:16 PM EST


    Parent
    The Rasmussen (none / 0) (#254)
    by henry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:32:23 PM EST
     survey also considered a match-up with Senator Hillary Clinton running as an Independent candidate. In that match-up, it's McCain 32%, Obama 31%, Clinton 22%, Barr 3%, and Nader 3%. In that match-up, Obama wins 50% of the vote from Democrats while Clinton gets 35% and McCain 7%.

    I'm done with GE polls (none / 0) (#262)
    by Dadler on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:51:04 PM EST
    A some measure of how either candidate will do in November, they are worthless.  Less than worthless.  McCain makes Bush sound like an orator.  His plan for bankrupting the entire nation completely is the same as Bush's.  He could quite possibly be the least inspiring person since Lurch on the Addams Family.  With a much more malevolent streak.  If either Dem loses to him, it'll either be inexcusable fraud or equally inexcusable failure, or a combination of both.  

    Ohio GE Poll: Clinton Wins, Obama Does Not | 248 comments (248 topical)