home

SD Shuler To Follow Voters In His District (to Clinton)

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Rep. Heath Shuler (D- NC) is expected to follow his district in choosing the Dem Presidential candidate he will support:

Shuler, a freshman congressman, is expected to announce Monday that he will pledge his support to whichever Democratic candidate wins his district in Tuesday’s primary. . . . Given the demographics of Shuler’s district, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is predicted to win there on Tuesday.

It is a neat trick more superdelegates should use if they fear political repercussions for their decisions. Clearly, Shuler wants to be for Clinton but does not want to say it directly. Other ways could be used by uncommitted superdelegates. For example, if Shuler wanted to be for Obama, he could have said he would vote the way the state voted overall. Ultimately, I believe the overall popular vote leader should be selected by the super delegates. But there are many ways to finesse this for the SDs.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Obama Camp's Past Predictions on Pledged Delegates, IN and NC | On Electability and How the Presidential Race Has Changed >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SD Shuler To Follow Voters In His District (to Clinton) | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I Remember (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by flashman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    watching Heath Shuler play on the gridiron!  I was happy when he won his election in Western NC.  I think he's a pretty sharp Democrat, and I'm glad to see him support my girl!

    As a huge Vol fan, I love him too but he is a (none / 0) (#3)
    by Teresa on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    conservative Democrat. At least he beats what they had before.

    I'm also glad he'll choose Hillary (assuming she wins his district).

    Parent

    She'll win his district 70--30 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:52:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe more (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    It's the appalachian wedge of NC.

    Parent
    Exactly -- it isn't even the bible belt (none / 0) (#94)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    it is more like the "snake handler belt."

    Parent
    I grew up with the Vols-- (none / 0) (#12)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    family fans go way back to Neyland's first years.  I sat in the old student section for 10 'hard' years, thru sun, rain, blizzards--Tennessee # 1 !

    Parent
    War Eagle! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Ok, any Chinese Bandits (none / 0) (#67)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    on hand?

    Parent
    the popular vote is impossible to figure (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by oldnorthstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST
    with the caucuses, states not counting, etc.  
    if it is as close as it really is, i'm of the opinion that the supers should pick the candidate they believe has the best chance to beat mccain.

    this is just false (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    We can figure it out exactly.

    Parent
    how? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oldnorthstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    if your candidate doesn't get enough support in certain caucus arenas, they don't exist, right?  is a 35% victory in a caucus state a true representation of the popular vote?  i don't think so...

    and how do you figure in florida and michigan?  do you ignore florida in the count?  

    Parent

    You're right, we can (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    figure it out exactly. The only problem with that is that there are several different ways to figure it out exactly.  Unless there is agreement on one of those ways, using this metric as a determinant is a horrible idea.

    Parent
    It's a relative thing (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    It's still an infinitely better measure than pledged delegates.

    Parent
    No it's not (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:18:36 PM EST
    1. Pledged delegates mattered under the rules at the outset. Popular vote didn't.

    2. If states knew at the outset that popular vote was going to matter, then no state would rationally caucus.

    3. Popular vote does not measure electability any better than pledged delegates measure electability.

    Popular vote is simply a way to get the Florida and Michigan results in through the back door, when they can't come in through the front door.  The net result is that these two states will be rewarded for breaking the rules, while the caucus states will be penalized for following them. That is not an infinitely better measure. It is unfair by any reasonable standard of due process.

    Parent
    Ach (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    the mantra of "don't count the votes; punsih the voters!" is not one I can participate in.

    I hope you're happy with your cocktail of vote dilution and disenfranchisement. Katherine Harris  and Jim Eastland would be proud.

    Parent

    It's not a mantra (none / 0) (#73)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    And the argument is: the vote didn't count then. Why should it count now?

    It's doubly unfair to count a vote when the candidates were not allowed to campaign. In PA, for example, Hillary started out with a lead of 18-20 points and Obama cut it to 9 by the election. If he'd been allowed to campaign in Florida, who's to say the same wouldn't have happened? Or, perhaps he would have won Michigan outright, as recent polls show  him over Clinton in that state.

    The votes in FL and MI were mere beauty contests -- name recognition polls. Giving them any effect, leet alone dispositive effect, is ridiculous.

    Parent

    Only ridiculous (none / 0) (#74)
    by themomcat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:04:46 PM EST
    to Obama supporters because Obama lost. If the shoe were on the other foot FL & MI would have there delegates seated without penalties. If this issue is not resolved in a way that is acceptable to the voters, and I'm not saying just the voters in FL & MI, then Obama, if he is the nominee, will lose to McCain, IMO. This is an old refrain that has be discussed to the point of nausea find another talking point.

    Parent
    You are incorrect if you believe (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    that the only factor involved here is whether you support Obama or Clinton. I would be happy with either of them as nominee. I would just like to see some intellectual honesty in this discussion, and that has been sadly lacking especially on TalkLeft. So here's my invitation to you: try to reationally refute my argument, instead of simply retorting that the only reason I'm making it is because I'm an Obama supporter. Perhaps you're familiar with the logical fallacy of ad hominem?

    Parent
    Intellectual honesty would require admittng (none / 0) (#78)
    by MarkL on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST
    that the FL primary was a valid measure of the voters' will in FL.


    Parent
    Intellectual honesty would require admitting (none / 0) (#82)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:52:48 PM EST
    that the vote in Florida, after campaigning, would have been vastly different than it was with no campaigning.

    Parent
    fyi....no one was allowed to campaign in FLA (none / 0) (#77)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:34:44 PM EST
    but it didn't preclude your boy from running national tv ads in FLA, which was against the rules.

    Parent
    And your point? (none / 0) (#84)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:55:19 PM EST
    How does this fact relate to the issue of whether Florida's vote should count?

    Parent
    You keep saying (none / 0) (#90)
    by themomcat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:48:58 PM EST
    that there was no campaigning but Obama bent the rules to get cable ads. And if there had been campaigning the possibility that the outcome might have been worse for Obama does exist. I have family in FL and they knew what the issue were without the rhetoric from either side because they read the papers and watched the national news and cable mews reports. It isn't like they were living in a vacuum. After all Fl and MI votes came out in record numbers. You have made this argument in several other threads and have convinced no one here. Try Obamakos.

    Parent
    True or false (none / 0) (#91)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:57:10 PM EST
    In every single state where Obama was behind in initial polling before serious campaigning, Obama reduced the margin of difference by at least 50%.

    It's true.

    Why do you believe that Florida or Michigan would have been any different from any other state?

    Parent

    FALSE (none / 0) (#107)
    by flashman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    In nearly every case, the polling moved towards Obama BEFORE serious campaigning began in those states.  The numbers mostly held constant after state campaigning began.  Conclusion:  most of the voters who moved after initial polling did so because of the national campaign, not the state campaigns.  Thus, Florida probably moved all it would have from the national campaigns.  Besides, if Obama thought he would have done so much better, he could have proved it by agreeing to the re-do.  He certainly won't poll well in Fl now no matter what he does.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#110)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:26:52 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/4xtx78

    Parent
    Careful Examination (none / 0) (#111)
    by flashman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:48:27 PM EST
    of several states (ie Penn, OH) proves me right.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#114)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:20:47 PM EST
    On March 20 Clinton leads Obama by 20 in PA. On election day the margin is 9.

    In Ohio on February 14 the margin is almost 20. On election day it's 7.

    In Florida, without campaigning, the margin never narrowed.

    http://tinyurl.com/6os3or

    In Michigan, the margin widened.

    http://tinyurl.com/5mn99c

    Campaigning matters. A lot. Counting the votes in Florida and Michigan, when those two states had no campaigning is ridiculously unfair.

    Parent

    Excuse Me? (none / 0) (#116)
    by flashman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:38:08 PM EST
    Polls aren't elections.  Clinton won PA by 10 points.  Her 10 point lead held constant through the 3 weeks of intense campaigning in PA just before the election.  In Ohio, clinton won by 10.  Her lead didn't significantly change for two weeks before the primary.  The polls showed her initially falling, then rallying in the last 5 days.  In Fl, Obama cut into her lead from late 2007 48%/19% to Jan 2008 48%/31% without state campaigning.  When you make a statement, you're data should support it, not contradict it, as it does here.

    PS, I say again, polls aren't elections.  If that were the case, we wouln't need to spend all the time, energy and money holding elections.  Just take a poll and make the winner the president.

    Parent

    Sorry, you're wrong (none / 0) (#117)
    by digdugboy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:16:44 AM EST
    Clinton was ahead in the polls by 20 in PA before campaigning started. She won by 9, not 10. She was ahead by over 20 in Ohio before campaigning started. She won by 10. Obama cut her original lead in half by campaigning. There is no reason to believe that the same thing that happened in every single state that the candidates campaigned in wouldn't also have happened in MI and FL. Thus, seating the delegates based upon how the vote fell without any campaighing is unfair in the extreme and unrepresentative of political contest.

    Parent
    No Matter How Many Times You Repeat (none / 0) (#118)
    by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:40:57 AM EST
    you're still wrong.  Clinton won by 10 in PA- 55%-45%.  As your own data clearly shows, that lead held for weeks before the primary.  Same for Ohio.  In Fl, similar to other states, Obama cut into her lead by about 13 points with no campaigning.  

    There is pleanty reason to believe her lead holds in FL.  The most important reason is becuse polls aren't the same as elections.  Those who voted were strong supporters, as they made the efforts to actually vote.  There is no equivalancy between polls and actual elections.  You also have to consider the demographics of Fl, and the high density of older voters.  It's prime Clinton country.  Nope.  I'm not buying it.  The numbers stand in Fl.  Too bad for your guy.

    Parent

    I've shown the data (none / 0) (#119)
    by digdugboy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:48:32 AM EST
    that proves my argument. You've shown nothing.

    Parent
    Didn't Neet To (none / 0) (#120)
    by flashman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:17:39 AM EST
    Your data didn't prove your argument.  It takes more than just showing data.  You have to show data that supports your conclusions.  The problem with your data is the assumption that we won't look at it, can't interpret the graphs, can't do the math.  Hell, anyone can show data, the trick is to draw accurate conclusions that is supported by it.

    Parent
    FL & MI Rewarded? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:45:37 PM EST
    At this point in the game that statement is, quite simply, ludicrous. I am quite sure that, even if the delegates are fully reinstated, enough has been inflicted on these states during this process to ensure that this won't be happening again any time soon.

    Parent
    The statement is perfectly sound (none / 0) (#71)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:33:50 PM EST
    in the context of Armando's argument that the popular vote should be the determinant for PLEOs and that the popular vote can be determined exactly.

    Parent
    Where I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    is actually within the Democratic party guidelines.

    Since Obama isn't able to reach the number of delegates needed, that kicks in the Democratic party "safeguard."  That's the super-delegates.  They are independent.

    They are, by definition, suppose to vote their conscience.

    Therefore, ALL arguments that they must vote for the one who has the most delegates is incorrect.

    If that were the case, then the rule would be that the must not pledge until all the delegates are counted........after the convention.

    Obviously, that's not the case.

    Therefore, the entire Obama supporter argument about delegates mattering only is false.

    Therefore, electability, popular vote, momentum, or sheer "We no longer like the guy," are as legitimate as delegate count.

    Until Obama supporters stop pushing false standards, there will be no unity.

    Parent

    Now That's An Intellectually Honest Opinion! (none / 0) (#86)
    by flashman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:14:48 PM EST
    It seems practically absurd we have to go over this again and again.  The dishonest members are the ones who require it.

    Parent
    False standards like (none / 0) (#92)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:00:08 PM EST
    the person who wins the popular vote should be the nominee?

    It's not Obama supporters pushing that standard.

    Parent

    False Standard To Elect A Democrat Democratically (none / 0) (#104)
    by flashman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    Either way, it's not Hillary supporters "pushing" this "standard."  Most of us are much more pragmatic.

    Parent
    Hillary and Bill are. (none / 0) (#109)
    by digdugboy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:23:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#112)
    by flashman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:50:38 PM EST
    I thought they were making arguments including "electability" and pop. vote.  There is nothing wrong with the arguments they are making.  BTW, the complete, totally false criteria is "number of states won", which I've heard Obama make over and over.  Nobody cares about the raw number of states.  That's a total sham.

    Parent
    But the logic is all wrong (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    Given what we've seen in WA and TX, causcusses in caucus states gave Obama the biggest win he was ever going to get in those states.

    The logic only works if you can say that Obama's victory in those states would have been even more than it was if they were primaries.

    Adding in caucusses as they sit right not to the popular vote gives Obama every advantage he could possible expect given the current framework.

    In short, if you're saying that caucusses are anti-democratic and therefore we can't rely on their results as far as a popular vote is concerned you might get a lot of agreement there, just not in the way you intended.


    Parent

    Yes, but in Washington (none / 0) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    There was a primary a couple of weeks later, and Obama did not win by anywhere near the same margin as the caucuses.  It was the first time this state did both, so the hope is we are working toward stopping the caucus method. Many, many, many voters here vote by absentee, so there was no avoiding the polls because the caucus had already happened.

    Parent
    No doubt (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    I just think it's funny.  The very reason why we, according to Obama supporters, can't count a caucus result to the popular vote is, in my mind, the very reason why I think SDs should, while not ignoring them, regard them as particularly suspect.

    Parent
    Exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM EST
    Tom Daschle said last week on This Week that they don't take a vote count in his state during caucuses, and that other states also don't.

    I vote in every single election, no matter how small, but I have never felt comfortable attending a caucus, so I don't know how they work. Have read a lot of complaining about Hillary supporters being locked out of them in several states, though.

    Parent

    He's wrong or lying (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I wonder about (none / 0) (#37)
    by mikeyleigh on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    Texas.  What's the criteria there?  Do you go with the popular vote which Hillary won, or do you use the number of people who showed up at caucus time (Obama's victory) to determine Texas's contribution to the national popular vote.  And, if the split can be seen in Texas, isn't it logical to assume that it might exist in other caucus states.

    Parent
    You couldn't caucus (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:49:13 PM EST
    if you didn't participate in the primary, I believe.  Texas should be measured solely by the primary...that they had a caucus at all is absurd.  In the Super D's minds, any delegates gained from the caucus in Texas should be nixed, IMO.

    Parent
    Caucus states (none / 0) (#30)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    do have a count, I believe.  They simply aren't yet releasing the numbers.

    Or did I misunderstand?

    Parent

    Ask Him, Why Wait? It Is Sad Really That (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:00:25 PM EST
    politicians are so afraid to take a stand.  I know he is new to the game, but he could help be a game changer.  Bottomline...glad he will be going for Clinton.

    Frankly, (4.00 / 0) (#33)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    the SD's are just afraid of the women Dems.  :)

    They can't win in this deal, unless they live in an obvious area where one is clearly favored.

    Parent

    The Will of the People, and Superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:39:27 PM EST
    I gave my superdelegates the right to use their better judgment when I gave them my vote for the offices they hold.  None of them have used their vote to grandstand on national TV, and that helps me be comfortable with how they have chosen to cast their vote.

    If the DNC doesn't fix this process (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nellre on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    If the dems don't fix this process I may declare myself independent.

    All for a national Democratic primary say aye.

    Hey......Do it (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:51:49 PM EST
    I did!  It's fun!  (Mostly, it's an imaginary deal, but still!!!)

    My son laughs when I tell him that I'm Independent.  It may be symbolic only, but it really is empowering.

    GO INDEPENDENTS!

    Parent

    I'm doing it too (none / 0) (#95)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:14:30 PM EST
    I'm changing to Independent -- and I'm done donating to the DNC -- from now on, my money goes only to candidates that I want to support. Heck, I'm going to even stop checking the $2 contribution box on my income tax form for public campaign financing.

    Parent
    It works if announced before yr State votes (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ben Masel on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:57:38 PM EST
    2 of Wisconsin's House reps played the same way. Ron Kind's district was clearly going Obama. Steve Kagan  was likely surprised when his District did too. I'd initially called the 8th for Clinton, flipped it just 2 nights before voting.

    It also seems to have worked for (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:02:14 PM EST
    Feingold, although he didn't speak up until after WI voted.  Correct?

    Parent
    Not really. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ben Masel on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:47:11 PM EST
    He said it was a factor, but never said it was the deciding one. As I read between Russ' lines, Obama showing to vote on FISA cloture, and Clinton not, was the clincher.

    Parent
    RE : (none / 0) (#11)
    by az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    I would make a prediction here and I hope those who said they would congratulate me after predicting a 10 point win for Clinton in PA would actually do it this time.

    Hillary Clinton will win NC and Indiana.

    However Obama will still be the nominee.

    possible... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    but if Hillary wins both IN and NC, you will have to deal with Carville  ;-)

    I think that if Hillary wins NC, the SD's will freak and be hard pressed to make Obama the nominee.

    Parent

    Here's a quote from Carville (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:01:04 PM EST
    in Newsweek:

     

    Hillary is the tougher of the two, the candidate you want on your side in a knife fight, a gender reversal that prompts Carville to indulge in some ribald humor: "If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."



    Parent
    knifer fighter? (none / 0) (#113)
    by diogenes on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:17:21 PM EST
    Since the best knife fighter was thought to be GHW Bush (over Dukakis), GW Bush (over Gore and Reagan), maybe this isn't what we want in a president.  Unless you want the president to be a nasty SOB who can't get along with congress or anyone and who will run the country on a 50 plus one basis.
    Men who prance around bragging about having three testicles are accepted as being arrogant SOB's.  

    Parent
    Clinton would win if it weren't for the RTP area (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by oldnorthstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill is a very large metropolitan area, highly educated, wealthy, and big for Obama.  I'm here surrounded by white folks that are nuts for Obama in these university dominated areas.  If Hillary needs to win 2/3 of the white vote to win, she can't do it with all of these white folks around here going so overwhelmingly for Obama.

    Parent
    Oldnorht, RTP (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:11:35 PM EST
    I feel, will not go lockstep.  Certainly, Obama will take it, but I don't think by the wide margins predicted.  I feel that, as with parts of PA, he is losing his sway with the latte dems.

    Certainly, though, your view could just as easily work out to be the case.  I freely admit to being so in the tank for Clinton that I am the tank at this point.

    Parent

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    to wonder if the wine drinkers aren't now concerned about his electability. Gallup showed that almost 1/2 of dems think he's unelectable now.

    Parent
    More dopesmokers than winedrinkers. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ben Masel on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:50:30 PM EST


    Parent
    here are your NC demographics (none / 0) (#27)
    by oldnorthstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/demog/mesa06tb.html

    no party affiliation, but rather everybody in the the state is included.  keep in mind that NC has many more registered dems than republicans, despite its "red" status.  

    this is one way in which clinton may benefit the same way obama benefited earlier in the process.  earlier obama was getting those indys and registered dem votes despite the fact that many of these people likely wouldn't select his name in november.  today in NC, i think we're seeing many of these registered dems that might go mccain in the fall choosing hillary in this primary, in large part to the wright debacle.  it probably won't be enough, but it will get her close.  7 or 8 points is my guess.  anything closer would really be amazing.

    in the chart, you can see that if you combine the raleigh and durham metro areas (they're basically the same), you're dealing with about 1.5 million people.  there are lots of black voters in this list, but there are so many more white voters in these university areas (duke, unc, nc state) and are very vocal in obama's favor.  only time will tell how the swing voters in these districts will go, but i'm doubtful it will be enough for hillary.

    Parent

    one thing to note (none / 0) (#36)
    by oldnorthstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    the biggest population blocks in wake county are among people 25-44, not hillary's base as we've known it.  the same holds true in mecklenberg (charlotte).  

    winston salem and greensboro are a little bit older which might lead us to believe she's do better there.  

    Parent

    no doubt... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oldnorthstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    she'll have huge trouble in all of the cities because of the AAs.  that said, i've lived in greensboro and if you get beyond uncg and the AAs, i could see lots of folks that would be hillary types.  i'd also guess that high point would be a good hillary town.  

    wins in the cities are relative because the AA vote will really skew the numbers.

    also, it seems that the obama people are louder than the hillary people.  it feels like the bush/kerry stuff last time around.  the kerry people were in your face, but bush's quieter voters came out for him when it mattered.  i'm guessing there are lots of hillary supporters that aren't as inclined to put a sticker on their car on in their yard, but they'll vote.  on the other hand, the obama folks around here have obama crap on everything they own.  three yards signs per house, a bumper sticker for each prius, etc.

    Parent

    Bingo! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    But the SDs know this.  And her strong supporters have repeated polled as even really a bit more stubborn than Obama supporters.

    The exit polls say that she's the one who will have to convince US to vote for him, not the reverse.

    I don't know why the press is all flustered over Clyburn's statements.  He's just a blow-hard, frankly.

    But women?  We tend to dig in our heels.  :)

    Parent

    Earlier this week I took a photo (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    of a BMW parked in a nice, leafy residential neighborhood in Rome.  Obama 08.  

    Parent
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#41)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    Her appearance with Maya Angelou?

    Parent
    I watched that conversation (none / 0) (#49)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:49:48 PM EST
    I thought it was beautifully done.

    Parent
    Maya handled it (none / 0) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    quite well, I thought. The question was given the zero level of credibility it deserved, and the woman had started out with "I love you, and have always loved you...". If the crowd and the viewers were unable to see the unintended consequences, I'd be surprised.

    Parent
    Hard to reply to that... (none / 0) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:01:05 PM EST
    I've never forgotten a beautiful hour watching two impressive women because of a stupid question being tossed out at the end.  Seems to me, the reflection was on the person who asked, not Hillary.

    Are you speaking for everyone in the church?

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    I don't think it'll be enough to push the area for Clinton, but I do think that what you said about Wright cuts to the heart of the problem--not so much because of what he said (which a lot of the educated Obamaclass can discount fairly easily) but because of the way Obama handled the fall-out.  It took the shine off of him.

    Was it the NY Times that ran a piece talking about how the more Obama looks like a politician, the worse things get for him?  That's what I think we'll see in Raleigh-Durham.  The so-called Obama creative class (ha!  OCC!) love to dream, but when it comes down to brass tacks, they're pretty pragmatic.  THat's why I think it'll be tighter in R-D, and that's why I think the narrative will change after NC if Clinton closes the gap: she will show that she can cut into his voters, but he won't be able to show that he can cut into hers.

    Only Tuesday will tell!

    Parent

    Edwards' country (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    I have highly educated, wealthy family in Chapel Hill who are solidly Clinton. That's Edwards' country, though my understanding is he isn't a favorite in his own town. Elizabeth might have some influence there, right?

    I can't imagine the highly educated not recognizing the absence of substance in the Obama message, and the abundance of negative campaigning he has been doing there. How can that not go against him in that demographic?

    Parent

    university professor types (none / 0) (#50)
    by oldnorthstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    that i've seen are like 10-1 for obama in this area.  obviously i haven't polled them all, but between the profs and students, obama has a nice built in cushion among these mostly white voters.  

    then again, there might be a few hillary types that aren't as loud.

    chapel hill is a little different now.  it is very wealthy and white.  there may be a little more sentiment among the rich women in this town that i say is filled with right wing liberals to go for hillary.


    Parent

    Here in the original Edwards country, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    Obama seems to be wearing the Emporer's new clothes.  Even the repubs are commenting about halting, empty speeches.

    Parent
    ewwwwwwww (none / 0) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    then you don't know academics.

    :)

    Parent

    you aspire to be an academic? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:54:39 PM EST
    then what're you doing rolling with the Tide?!  Get yourself off to a real school, son.  Might be one in Auburn that might have you...

    Parent
    Please keep aspiring (none / 0) (#87)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:19:02 PM EST
    I just have a grandfather, a father, and an ex-husband......all very much academic and I so treasure their encouragement in education.

    I'm sorry if I was being flip.

    I just also am the one in the family who chose corporate competition and value a more pragmatic viewpoint.

    I came to be annoyed by the academics I love, precisely for what Obama fell into.

    They tend to observe life rather than live it.  They love to "define" people.  They had horrible personal skills.

    They "leaned" on their credentials, rather than show that their credentials actually offer something of value.

    But my biggest complaint?

    They bully people.

    With their supposed education.

    Doesn't work with me.  My credentials are stellar.

    But you can sure pursue academics without falling into these common sandtraps.

    And I sure hope you do.

    Parent

    RE; (none / 0) (#20)
    by az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    I don't believe Obama will beat her by more than 5 points in the Raleigh area , she would do better than expected in that area.

    She is going to beat him handily in the mountains and Charlotte area would probably go either way 1 or 2 points.

    It is her strength in the west that would propel her to a squeaker in NC .

    She is also going to win unaffiliated in the state

    Parent

    the red wine women (none / 0) (#28)
    by oldnorthstate on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:25:51 PM EST
    will be key.  i will say that there's a much larger hillary "presence" now around here among those folks than there was three weeks ago.  

    Parent
    That constiuency is what I'm hoping will (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    change and trend toward her.  

    That could really put Oregon into play.

    Parent

    Red wine and Chivas? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ben Masel on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:57:50 PM EST
    eeyuw.

    Parent
    my former RTP (none / 0) (#58)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:55:36 PM EST
    family members are not giving Obama their votes.  (They left, preferring CA and MA--so does that make them smarter than those who stayed?)

    Parent
    I Live In A Very Similar Place, Demographically (none / 0) (#88)
    by flashman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:22:07 PM EST
    And we were one of the few ( only? ) districts to vote for Hillary in the Alabama primary.  I still don't understand why education makes one more likely to vote Obama.  That might be a phenomenon who's time has passed.

    Parent
    You saw two things (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    that, it seems to me, are mutually incompatible. If Hillary wins NC, then Obama will not be the nominee.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    If Obama loses both states it'll be so obvious that he's too damaged to be the nominee. So unless the entire party is on a suicide mission then they won't nominate him.

    Parent
    I Think That Those In Charge Will Know (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:27:38 PM EST
    people will notice they are trying to damage the party by picking the wrong nominee, which should be whomever is most electable.  And, I would venture to say, it is not obama.

    Parent
    Uh, *say* (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM EST


    Parent
    RE; (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    His nomination is not going to fall on a loss in NC and/or IND.

    It is not that difficult to notice the SD believe Clinton would be bad for building the party.

    Obama is still better for downstream ticket than Clinton , even with his problems.

    I think Clinton is a better candidate but I think  it would be extremely difficult for supers to go with her.

    Parent

    I don't see the down ticket argument... (4.00 / 0) (#35)
    by white n az on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    I think that events of the past week have demonstrated that there is a liability for down ticket either way and it may be more of a problem with youth who tended to skip the local races in many states.

    Parent
    I don't see a huge downticket liability (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    with Clinton, but then that's because I don't listen to the media about "Clinton Hate" and "Clinton Fatigue."  I also don't credit Obama with single-handedly bringing out millions of new voters.  If all of those newly registered voters were voting for him, then he'd have this locked up.  That's simply not the case.

    The Clinton brand still holds serious sway.  It's the fact that the core Clinton dems stayed home that lost it for Gore and Kerry.  She is bringing them back into the fold.

    Parent

    If they were "core' Democrats (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ben Masel on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:01:16 PM EST
    why did they vote Republican?

    Maybe you mean War Democrats?

    Parent

    they voted republican (none / 0) (#102)
    by Kathy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    because the echelon dems ticked them off by shunning Bill Clinton and trying to run a Northeastern elitist who was so out of touch he went windsurfing in the middle of the campaign.  They believed the swiftboater lies about Kerry because Kerry made it so easy for them.

    Parent
    Windsurfing? Thats worse than being black. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ben Masel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:51:26 AM EST


    Parent
    NC looking good for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    Not ready to predict but the trend she needs is there. There has been a dramatic voting increase among very low income and moderate income whites in eastern NC, "Jessiecrats". Right now 478k people have voted which is on pace to pass 50 percent so it will resemble a general election.

     

    Parent

    What do (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    you hear about the AA's. I'm hearing some stuff that says they aren't that enamored of Obama since he threw Wright under the bus. I don't think it'll change his vote percentage so much as the turnout numbers.

    Parent
    AA turnout will be high (none / 0) (#93)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:41:44 PM EST
    But turnout across the board is high, which makes the electorate more white, and that's good for Hillary.

    She's going to win North Raleigh and North Charlotte and she's coming back to High Point tomorrow so suburban Greensboro is in play. If she wins those three suburbs she's winning the state

    Parent

    African American turnout is already over 40% (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimotto on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:07:49 PM EST
    Out of 390K early votes cast on Dem ballots, AA comprised over 40% of the vote.  It will be high 30's at the LOWEST, I won't be suprised if it is over 40% in the end.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    but is it maxed out already? If the majority have voted early then it will skew the early results. Kerry was only behind by 4 pts. in early voting here in GA but ended up losing the state in the GE by about 19 pts.

    Parent
    It's 466 Thousand (none / 0) (#105)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:57:08 PM EST
    And there is no way to know what percentage is AA unless you have the voter registration rolls. All the counties will release are numbers. I don't think it will be 40 percent

    Parent
    487K total, of that roughly 400K Dems (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimotto on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:22:34 PM EST
    You can download the data from the NC Board of Elections, listing everyone in the state who has voted with their county, race and which ballot (ie Rep or Dem) they voted.

    Of the 400K who voted Dem, 40% were listed as AA.  

    http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/analysis-of-early-voters-in-north.html

    Parent

    I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by stillife on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:55:31 PM EST
    I base this on nothing but my own intuition, which along with $2 will get you on the subway here in NYC.

    I think the internal polls show she's doing much better than publicized in NC and IN and the Obama campaign is running scared.  He's off his game and they seem defensive.

    However, I also agree that the die is cast and the Dem Party leaders are determined to nominate Obama.  Squeaky wheel gets the oil, and Obama supporters squeak a lot more than Hillary supporters do.

    Parent

    congratulate you? (none / 0) (#96)
    by angie on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:16:55 PM EST
    If Hillary wins NC & IN I'll kiss you!
    From your lips to God's ears az -- but not that part about Obama still being the nominee.

    Parent
    Let's have a new metric - fewest scuzzy SD.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    endorsements, based on whether they're similar to Heath Shuler.

    There's that unity pony again (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    Cra**ing all over everything.

    Parent
    It's a pox on both houses then (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    because both candidates have the endorsements of every kind of Democrat.

    Parent
    Maybe if I have time (none / 0) (#69)
    by magster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:28:51 PM EST
    I'll compare the "Bush-dog" list at OpenLeft with the Superdelegate endorsement list, and report back only if it makes Hillary look worse than Obama.

    Parent
    Nice of Shuler (none / 0) (#75)
    by themomcat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    but a little spineless.imo. If wants to support HRC, he should say so and give his reasons why. The purpose of the SD's was to prevent the disaster we had in the 80's of 2 unelectable candidates.

    even if Obama wins? (none / 0) (#80)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:40:24 PM EST
    I believe the overall popular vote leader should be selected by the super delegates.

    and do we account for caucuses?

    Pretty much no (none / 0) (#89)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:22:44 PM EST
    Caucuses have nothing to do with popular vote, rather who shows up, stays shouts and really do not reflect the people at large.

    Parent
    Imperial presidency (none / 0) (#115)
    by diogenes on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:22:16 PM EST
    Ironic that the folks who complained so much about the Bush imperial presidency are pushing for the Clinton imperial presidency, run by the "three balled knife-fighter" herself.  No wonder that the Congressional leaders, who have some interest in sharing of powers, are leery of her.

    SD Shuler To Follow Voters In His District (to Clinton) | 115 comments (115 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment