home

SUSA MO Poll: McCain By 5

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I love Survey USA's poll reporting. They provide you the demographic breakdown to REALLY analyze their poll. In today's Missouri poll, SUSA has MCCain up 5. But getting into the numbers is always the fun part of a SUSA poll.

Here are the basics, McCain wins men 53-41 (49% of the electorate), Obama wins women 48-45 (51%). McCain wins whites 53-39, with 7% undecided (86% of the electorate), Obama wins A-As 88-10 (11% of the electorate.

More . . .

Let's compare the turnout model with 2004. In 2004, women were 53% of the electorate in Missouri (Bush won women by 9 and men by 5, different than you would expect) and whites were 89% of the electorate (Bush won them 57-42), African Americans 8% (Kerry won them 90-10.)

What's that tell us? With a 3% gain in A-A as a percentage of the electorate, Obama still does not win in Missouri, even if we give McCain 0 A-A votes. Obama needs to do better with older white women, which Kerry dominated in 2004 and McCain dominates in 2008. Now who could help him with that segment you think?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The FBI Should Release Its File on Bruce Ivins | Mail Service to Island Trash Can Ends >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA MO Poll: McCain By 5 | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Let me guess (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Coral on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    McCaskill? Sebelius?

    token (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    How does this not tokenism?

    Parent
    DA Burgher: I think (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    Coral comment was on the cynical side (?)

    Parent
    That someone... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:50:48 PM EST
    Someone would have to tell me why either McCaskill or Sebelius would be a better pick than Hillary Clinton.

    can ONLY be Barack Obama.

    Not David Axelrod. Not David Plouffe. Not Robert Gibbs.
    No mouthpieces. No surrogates.
    Only. Obama. Without teleprompters.

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by jedimom on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:01:19 PM EST
    is that snark I detect :0) surely

    hey dont call me shirley!

    I will pull the lever if Hill is on the ticket, I trust her and her positions which reflect mine as a 20 yr dem, I dont think he has ANY core positions

    he just flipped on drilling the same day Pelosi closed the house and shut the lights out on the GOP trying to get a drill vote.

    Hillary or he loses.

    Parent

    If you split the undecideds, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    McCain wins with pretty much the same percentage as Bush did in MO.

    Hmmmmmmmmmm (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton. He'll have spiff up those tire marks on her though and clean up the oil stains she got while under the bus.

    I'm not convinced that the Obama team can humble themselves enough to give Hillary a major role in this campaign season. They'll probably pick Sebelius and hope for the best.

    Here's where it gets annoying for me... (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    Obama has changed his vote on FISA, he's changing (?) his position on offshore drilling. So why can't he change his mind about Clinton? Why is that the "deal breaker" about change? It seems that no other choice would help him as much with the voters he needs. But apparently no other choice would inflame his supporters (and I mean especially his cheerleaders in the MSM) so much. It's a tricky situation for him because with the polls so close he really can't afford to lose media darling status and the media couldn't be more clear in their message to him that they DO NOT want Hillary Clinton on the ticket. So, what to do?

    Parent
    Three words: (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    Patty Solis Doyle.

    That was the deal breaker or sealer, depending on your perspective.

    She was the kryptonite put into place to ensure Clinton will NOT be a pick for VP.

    I am going to go on circumstantial evidence that Obama's ego is way too fragile to have Clinton on the ticket.  She's better than him and he knows it.  And a little under 18 million voters do, too.

    Parent

    Patty Solis Doyle can always be fired...... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:25:15 PM EST
    .....again. I don't see her as an obstacle to Hillary as VP, an excuse maybe.

    Parent
    He can't do that in Chicago politics (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
    because her brother is a leading Hispanic pol there, an alderman.  Patti's got a sinecure now.

    Parent
    Then they could "promote" her. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    Either way, she is a faux obstacle.

    Parent
    His nickname among many of (1.00 / 0) (#213)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    his constituents is Sleaze Soliz.  A good - nay a great - friend to developers in that neighborhood.  One of the last neighborhoods to lose its flavor and fall to the developers purview.  Still - with the housing situation the way it is - it may get a reprieve for a short time.

    Parent
    Illogical (3.00 / 2) (#102)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    Obama's ego is way too fragile to have Clinton on the ticket.

    If Obama's ego is too fragile, as you put it, losing the GE would be a bigger dash to his ego than not having Hillary as VP.

    Whatever his reasons for picking a VP, it is not going to be protecting his delicate ego. BTW-Is this a GOP meme, like Kerry windsurfing or Edward's haircut vanity, or Gore lactating?

    Parent

    Not necessarily (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by BrianJ on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:25:43 PM EST
    He could join the long line of liberal losers who wear their martyrdom as a badge of honor, claiming (inaccurately IMO) that there were some things that were more important than victory to him.  Then he could spend the rest of his life in cocooned self-congratulation while the world went to hell.

    Parent
    you said it brian (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by sancho on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    that's precisely the line many of my obama-suporting colleagues took during the primaries when the clintons were said to be so 'racist'. and that's where i fear they will be come nov--their obama pins stored with their kerry and dukakis and mondale pins.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by jedimom on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    I think that is a congential defect in Democratic leadership. You have said it so well.Sometimes I just want them to climb down off their cross and get something done to address things, compromise, get it done.

    Parent
    His campaign is ensuring that (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by Roz on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    racism is the only explanation for a GE loss. Framed that way, it's not too hard on the ego to lose the GE.

    On the other hand, winning and governing with Clinton may just be too much for his ego to take. He does not shine nearly so bright by comparison. Obama needs to outshine everyone.

    Parent

    Obama's ego (4.57 / 7) (#203)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:11:02 PM EST
    "If Obama's ego is too fragile, as you put it, losing the GE would be a bigger dash to his ego than not having Hillary as VP."

    The One is like a movie star who believes his own publicity. He thinks he is going to win states like Georgia, Oklahoma, Mississippi.

    He is drunk on power.

    He reminds me of Bush. They are both in over their heads. No accomplishment. Massive ego. Messianic delusions of grandeur.  

    Parent

    Reminds Me More Of Bill (2.00 / 2) (#211)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:30:12 PM EST
    But, I agree with your point. Obama has a presidential sized ego, not very fragile though, imo, because if it was he would have not made it this far.

    The fragile business, is GOP 101.

    Parent

    Agree with your remark about Clinton (none / 0) (#24)
    by imhotep on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    She would be way too strong as veep and would take much of the spotlight from BO.  Plus Bill would always be in the background.

    Parent
    red herring (5.00 / 6) (#199)
    by jedimom on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    I think the use of Bill as a point against HRC as VP is really a red herring, He is in Africa again right now working with his foundation on Malaria and AIDS. He is a very very busy man and a wonderful ambassador to the world for America. He is very loved, and here as well despite the tear down job the Obama campaign did in the primary.

    Parent
    Yeah, Pres. Clinton's Got Priorities (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:14:55 PM EST
    I am also looking forward to watching his address at the World Aids Conference (beginning tomorrow) in Mexico next week.

    Parent
    Well, as Mike Barnacle once (4.20 / 5) (#34)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    said, "putting Hillary on the ticket as vp would make Obama look so....ordinary" I think Hillary is better off without Obama. She would have to be not only vp but disciplinarian as well.

    Parent
    Good one (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    zfran !!

    Parent
    He is in a box. At the convention if (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    the states he is counting on to make up for Florida and Ohio don't come through he will have to do some fancy footwork.  And I agree, he will probably not be able to backtrack because of the tire tracks on Hillary's back.  More important however, is the CDS that Axelrod and his group are engaging in.  How how funny if it weren't so sad.

    Parent
    What states? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:06:55 PM EST
    I heard GA. ROTFLMAO! There's no way he's going to carry GA. He has a loser strategy for the GE if he's depending on GA to carry the day for him. Even if Barr pulls 10 pts. (very unlikely) he still won't carry GA. The working class white vote here decides who wins and while they aren't wild about McCain they will still show up and vote for him. They are NOT going to vote for Obama.

    Parent
    An interesting question (none / 0) (#94)
    by BrianJ on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:13:56 PM EST
    Is just how much of the black vote he'll get in Georgia.  I could see McKinney (DeKalb County native) sniping several percent from Obama as it become obvious that he's getting crushed in the Peach State.  Atlanta is also the home of MegaFest, celebrating T.D. Jakes, whose propserity theology is very strongly opposed to Rev. Wright's liberation theology.  Jakes supporter may stay home or even vote for McCain.

    I could see Obama getting less than 80% of the black vote in Georgia.

    Parent

    Oh, I doubt (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    that he'll get less than Kerry got (90%) perhaps but you're right the fact that he's losing GA has to be somewhat of a factor. I imagine some will vote for McKinney while others may just sit home.

    Parent
    Not only does the media (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by TruthSayer on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    not want Clinton on the ticket...

    Obama does not want Clinton on the ticket simply for the fact that if she were and the ticket won - with exit polls showing demographically and by the affirmative answer to the question of 'did Clinton influence your vote?', that Clinton put the ticket over the top...

    Then everyone would be saying Obama ONLY WON because of Clinton.

    I think we all know Obama would probably rather lose than to live with the fact that Hillary Clinton - A WOMAN - was the reason he won.

    And don't forget the for sure exit poll question regarding Bill Clinton either :)

    Parent

    ahh the sad results of false pride! (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:11:09 PM EST


    Parent
    The polls don't bear out the (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:40:33 PM EST
    'inflame his supporters' riff.

    Well, I mean, I have no doubt it would inflame a couple of thousand netroots and a couple of hundred journalists.  Netroots inflammation is irrelevant now, they just haven't gotten the message yet.  Maybe it's coming by snail mail or something.

    But the fight now is for votes, not Most Popular of the Senior Class 2008.

    18 million people ignored the media's 8-month adulatory drumbeat for Obama and voted for Clinton.    For the most part, as his anemic daily polling shows, more than half the country is ignoring it now.

    Hillary on the ticket gives him an up with Dems, a smaller but significant up with Indies, and no diff with Republicans.

    The idea that Clinton's 'inflammatoriness' will hurt the ticket in equal measure to helping the ticket is a myth.

    Mind, I don't want her anywhere near Obama.  But that doesn't change the fact that she's the only VP possibility with an upside.

    Parent

    i am not so sure that having hillary on the (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    ticket could turn this around at this point. and the campaign thinking is rigid. too many advisors with too many agendas to even count. the only thing they probably have in common is opposition to hillary.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    The media has been saying that Hillary will increase GOP turnout. They will run to the polls to vote against her. She has high negatives.

    It is complete bs.

    The GOP always runs to the polls to vote against the Dem nominee. Gore, Kerry.....it doesn't matter.

    As to the negatives, Gore and Kerry had very high negatives by election day. You will see Obama's negatives go up as election day approaches.

    Obama does not want Clinton on the ticket because he has Messianic delusions of grandeur. He thinks he can purge the Clintons and their supporters from the party and "change the map", winning republican states like Georgia. His cultists at Daily Kos and Huffington Post have totally bought into it.

    Parent

    Really not right (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    An Obama/Clinton ticket is what the MSM is slobbering for.  They LOVE the idea, keep coming back to it wistfully over and over again-- "dream ticket," "unity ticket."  What they couldn't stand was the idea of Clinton at the top of the ticket.

    They swoon over it the other way around because it would further demonstrate what a manly man Barack is for being able to "forgive" Hillary and Bill for the good of the party.

    Trust me, if Barack picks Hillary, it will be an absolute sensation in the media and McCain would have to pick Chelsea to get any airtime at all.

    Parent

    interesting... (none / 0) (#149)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    I could see it going that way, but I wonder about some of the folks, for example, at MSNBC and whether they could ever see their way to praising an Obama-Clinton ticket.

    Parent
    Matthews openly advocated for it (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    just last week.  He's bored, I presume.

    Parent
    No way. Get outta town! (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    Did he really?

    But she's the b*tch from hell.  How could he possibly rationalize that?

    Do you think he's just embarrassed by the McCain vid showing his slobbering over Obama?  Or maybe licking his chops for the ratings he thinks he'll get that a renewed CDS campaign would get him if an Obama/Clinton ticket actually won the WH?  (because you know, everything Obama did wrong would actually be her fault).

    Parent

    i was just about to (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    type the same thing when i read your post.

    did he really? he must think he has some "good" one-liners that will go to waste if HRC's not on the ticket.

    Parent

    It's so annoying (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by IzikLA on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    I really think if the roles were reversed and Hillary squeaked out the win there would be a much more vocal clamor from all segments of the party to put Obama on the ticket.

    Still, I know I'm in the minority and although all signs say otherwise I think an Obama-Clinton ticket is still a distinct possibility.  All these names in the rumor mill could truly be smokescreens.  After all, he absolutely needs to be seen as though he is making the decision independently after vetting everyone, that way he can make the smart decision in the end.  There just is no other better choice and if there is one thing the Obama campaign has done well it is to create media events.  The fact that Hillary has been a bit MIA while the VP talk continues would create a tremendous media opportunity for them if she was announced.  The excitement would be palpable.  I fear his numbers will drop quickly if he announces anyone else and I think it's a given that they'd rise if he picked her.

    Now, can he do it?  That is what remains to be seen.

    Parent

    She hasn't been MIA (5.00 / 5) (#207)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:17:25 PM EST
    She's been working and speaking out. Campaigning and fund raising for him and her debt. The media is prob not supposed to show her in action too much, lol!~ Thanks to YouTube, we can get our HRC fixes  ;)

    Parent
    A token white woman (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    could help him. Any white woman will do. (Yes I am bitter.)

    Token? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    you sound RACIST!   grrrr!

    Parent
    That's my point. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:17:37 PM EST
    And it's why I am bitter.

    Parent
    No catfish (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:23:03 PM EST
    you're not bitter or racist...you're CYNICAL.

    Keep up with the press releases coming outta the Obama camp.

    10-4 good buddy.

    Parent

    McCaskill, Hillary, Sebelius (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    they're all the same. Just pick one to appease those whiney women.

    Parent
    Hold it down please, I'm knitting and (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:29:14 PM EST
    losing count!

    Parent
    it might not please michelle. (none / 0) (#146)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:15:26 PM EST
    she isn't seen much but i trust she still carries a lot of weight with her husband.

    Parent
    same thing isn't it don't trust (none / 0) (#169)
    by Salt on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:30:45 PM EST


    Parent
    His grandmother comes to mind (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    she's white, female and a senior citizen.  Wow what a vote getter!  Like Clinton, she will have to be cleaned up a bit after being thrown under the Unity Express bus.

    Oh Brother where art thou!! (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:11:04 PM EST
    We are in pickle.  

    Br*ther talk (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by blogtopus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    Just a point to make to folks here; I doubt that BTD honestly finds 'Brother' offensive... he's thinking about TL and how it could be slimed by those wack-jobs who DO find it offensive. Remember, it takes the SMALLEST, TINIEST, most INSIGNIFICANT 'slight' to bring all the masses out to stomp a person / group into the ground. Witness Bill Clinton and the Fairy Tale remark, how that was completely innocuous and yet Brazille et al. turned it into a racial slur.

    BTD and Jeralyn have a fine blog here. I'm sure the more outrageously facist Obama supporters would HATE for something to happen to it, if you know what I mean.

    That said, perhaps we should start creating alternative words for those that are 'charged'. I suggest Dyrgl for the Br*ther. </snrk>

    Parent

    Sorry BTD (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by blogtopus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    I was writing this while you closed it, couldn't see. Please don't ban me.

    Parent
    Any honest observer (1.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    understood my point.

    Some decided to try and draw me into a dispute.

    Those attempts are the reason one user was permantnently banned from my threads and another has been warned.

    Let me say it ONE MORE TIME, there will be NO, ABSOLUTELY NONE, comments about my moderation decisions in my thread by anyone. You can e-mail me if you like.

    It is a banning from my threads offense for anyone.

    This is my last word on the subject. And those of you who do not like that rule know the drill - skip my posts and move on the Jeralyn's and TChris'.

    Parent

    I know you mean nothing by it (2.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    But be careful with the brother talk.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    C'mon BTD (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    Did you see the movie?  Geepers creepers.  Oyeeee!!.  It's that voter I am referring to.  I love you BTD and truly you are the only one I read when it comes to Polls etc and analysis.  But, the word brother is now off limits?   I grew up in totalitarianism,  this is getting close here.  

    Parent
    I THOUGHT (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:21:35 PM EST
    you were referring to the movie. It's cool Stellaa.

    Parent
    It is one of my favorite movies (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:24:54 PM EST
    MY point is that I do not want to have it misconstrued. I hope it is not too difficult for you to be careful using the word.

    No hard feelings I hope

    Parent

    That song gives me chills (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:27:45 PM EST
    Great movie.

    Parent
    You might be interested (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    in this diary where I used the film to make a point about the Politics of Contrast:

    For those who don't know Pappy O'Daniel, I highly recommend the Coen Brothers film "O Brother Where Art Thou" - Politics 101 for mass communicatin' to the electorate.

    In a sidestory of the film, Pappy O'Daniel is the Governor of Depression Era Mississippi facing one Homer Stokes, a servant of the "little man" (he travels with a midget on his campaign stops to emphasize his point). In a great stump speech, Stokes says:

    And I say to you that the great state a Mississippi cannot afford four more years a Pappy O'Daniel - four more years a cronyism, nepotism, rascalism and service to the Innarests!  The choice, she's a clear 'un: Pappy O'Daniel, slave a the Innarests; Homer Stokes, servant a the little man! . . . When the litle man says jump, Homer Stokes says how high? And, ladies'n jettymens, the little man has admonished me to grasp the broom a - ree-form and sweep this state clean!

    What a speech! What can Pappy do? Well Homer Stokes, as a classic populist, has a dirty underbelly, as the Grand Wizard of the KKK [. . .]

    This has a certain appeal. And Homer Stokes is confident of this. At a campaign rally, he protests the playing of an integrated group, The Soggy Bottom Boys:

    Wait a minute...you's miscegenated! All you boys! Miscegenated! These boys is not white! These boys is not white! Hell, they ain't even ol'-timey! I happen to know, ladies'n gentlemen, this band a miscreants here, this very evening, they interfered with a lynch mob inna performance of its duties! It's true! I b'long to a certain society, I don't believe I gotta mention its name, heh-heh...Ahem. And these boys here trampled all over our venerated observances an' rich'ls! Now this-here music is over! I aim to - Listen to me! These boys desecrated a fiery cross!

    But Stokes has misjudged his crowd. They boo him:

    Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Is you is or is you ain't my constichency?

    Pappy, has read the situation correctly:

    PAPPY:Holy-moly. These boys're a hit!

    JUNIOR: But Pappy, they's inter-grated.

    PAPPY: Well I guess folks don't mind they's
    integrated.

    Pappy sees it:

    Opportunity knocks.

    That's fine, that's fine!...Ladies'n gentlemens here and listenin' at home, the great state of Mississippi (Pappy O'Daniel, Gov'nor) thanks the Soggy Bottom Boys for that won-a-ful performance! Now it looks like the only man in our great state who ain't a music luvva, is my esteemed opponent in the upcomin', Homer Stokes - Yeah, well, they ain't no accountin' f'taste. It sounded t'me like he harbored some kind a hateful grudge against the Soggy Bottom Boys on account a their rough'n rowdy past. Sounds like Homer Stokes is the kinda fella gonna cast the first stone! Well I'm with you folks. I'm a f'give and f'get Christian. And I say, well, if their rambunctiousness and misdemeanorin' is behind 'em - It is, ain't it, boys? Why then I say, by the par vested in me, these boys is hereby pardoned!

    Obviously, this is only half serious. I love "Oh Brother Where Art Thou." But, there is a strong element of the ugly Homer Stokes in the Dobsonites. When the American People get a close look at the hate they spew, the are turned off by it. They reject it.

    Like Pappy O'Daniel, Democrats need to contrast their reason, rationality and "f'give and f'get" faith with the Dobsonite hatefulness.



    Parent
    Thanks - wonderful! (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    Now if we just had that contrast...

    Parent
    I'm really curious. Did you buy the (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    entire script of this movie?

    Parent
    it's online for all to enjoy (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    here. Oh and while on the topic, the Coen brothers are simply the greatest in the universe. I love every one of their movies.

    Parent
    Interesting. Thanks. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    Now, about Stranger Than Paradise.

    Parent
    Great lines, BTD (none / 0) (#88)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:07:28 PM EST
    "When the American People get a close look at the hate they spew, the are turned off by it. They reject it.

    "Like Pappy O'Daniel, Democrats need to contrast their reason, rationality and "f'give and f'get" faith with the Dobsonite hatefulness."

    Parent

    And to be factual ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    the Coen Bros. cribbed that title from Preston Sturges' SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS.

    In fact, its use in Sturges' film seems more appropriate to this (or any) TalkLeft thread.

    Parent

    Is this a joke? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    now the word brother is pejorative???  it's not like she said "brutha".

    Parent
    You are our brothers' and sisters' keeper (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    here, but please tell me your comment was snark, BTD.  That line, from the movie, is after all a paraphrase of the Bible and from The Real One, i.e., "O Father, where art thou?"

    And the Bible is known as much more sexist than racist.  

    Parent

    I am not kidding (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    And I EXPRESSLY said that any comments on how I moderate my threads is STRICTLY forbidden.

    Send me an e-mail if you must.

    Next time and even you, who I truly enjoy as a commenter, will be permanently banned from my threads.

    This subthread is closed for EVERYONE.

    Parent

    Whoa Brother (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TruthSayer on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    Weren't you around in the '60's and 70's when us real Hippies called everyone Brother and Sister?

    How about those multitude of churches that say for instance 'Brother Dave would like to address the congregation'.

    Or how about the military's 'Brothers in Arms'.

    Man Brother the sensitivities are going cosmic, ya know? Slow down and smell the napalm.

    Parent

    "You are permanently banned from my threads (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    Don not comment in them anymore.

    All of your comments in my threads will be deleted.

    You are of course welcome to participate in Jeralyn and TChris's threads.

    You are prohibited from participating in mine.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#117)
    by TruthSayer on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:37:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm starting to get a little scared (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:26:21 PM EST
    with the recent poll tightenings and various happenings. I'm starting to get a really sick feeling in the pit of my stomach - the thought of 4 years of McCain is just completely unacceptable.

    Theoretically (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by TruthSayer on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    with McCain in the WH the Democratic congress would have an easier time stopping all of his initiatives than they would stopping Obama from bending over every time the GOP wanted something - i.e Drilling for example.

    They would be more prone to going along with Obama's post-partisanship than McCain's wingnutness.

    In theory.

    Parent

    That's the theory behind my vote (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    I wonder if it's the theory a lot of Repubs are using to vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Well... then... I'd suggest (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    you rally your fellow Obama supporters to launch a campaign to get him to choose Hillary as his VP.

    That's the only way you -- and many others, I'm sure -- can guarantee that "really sick feeling" is banished. Forever.

    Anyone else, and you can be sure the next 3 months are going to be a trip.

    Thank goodness I don't have a dog in this show :)

    Parent

    My dog's on the couch with me ;) (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:19:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Dems have won 3 of the last 11 contests (none / 0) (#37)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    so prepare yourself. I was one of the few who thought Peter Beinart's essay "Fighting Faith" was a perfect framework for Dems to cross that C-i-C threshold.

    Parent
    At this point, even Hillary would have trouble (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    pulling him over the victory line. When you flip on things like FISA and oil drilling, voters wonder what how easily you will cave when talking with foreign leaders. And the veep can only accomplish so much, if the president doesn't listen to his veep, what is the point?

    Does McCaskill as a surrogate for the last 6 mos (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:28:12 PM EST
    not help him with that older white woman demo?  Would it have been worse without her?  Or maybe she hurts.  

    It is interesting that in a state where we actually have an older white woman Senator who is a fervent Obama supporter, older white women are a problem demographic.

    MOBlue? Are you out there to explain this one?

    I am going to speak for me (5.00 / 16) (#83)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    about mature white women.

    There are three things that will royally p*** us off. (1) sexist comments (we've been fighting against our entire lifetimes (2) Tone of being dismissed (most of us have accomplished more in our lives in business, personal, education and self actuating than anyone but us know (3) Dismissed as older white women who are obsolete in todays Democratic Party (we are not, have never been obsolete nor have we all been yearning for a woman president to fulfill lost chances.  Our thought processes are substantive; we are intuitive and aware).

    This is not all about Hillary Clinton. It is about the core of mature female perspective and knowledge. We earned it, learned it, know it and we are formidable.

    Parent

    McCaskill (5.00 / 12) (#92)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    would be fine but for one small unnoticed problem:
    she became very good at dismissing another woman who was a leader of women. That is a mortal sin is female politics. Trust me.

    Parent
    Yup. (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:16:08 PM EST


    Parent
    You said it. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Mari on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM EST


    Parent
    So many ripple effects of this primary season (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:16:07 PM EST
    I'm not sure if Dems had a chance to take MO anyway, but if the demos in this poll hold up it may be a state Obama loses specifically because of the treatment of Hillary, specifically McCaskill's treatment of her.   Interesting story to follow.

    Parent
    She bothers me (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:09:35 PM EST
    That she said her kids talked her into voting Obama, that she's a newcomer. She strikes me as being too eager.

    Sorry, I think more men are blind when it comes to Obama, and more women have a B.S. detector. Not all men, mind you, but more on average.

    Parent

    Says alot about her (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    especially when her daughter said she wouldn't talk to her if she didn't support Obama. If McCaskill had said, well, from my daughters comments I really got to know Sen. Obama, or I know him from the Senate, and I, too, am convinced etc....... Instead she followed, instead of lead.

    Parent
    That Has Always Bothered Me About Her! (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    And I actually was watching CNN when she explained her endorsement.

    I have a couple of friends in Missouri (Obama supporters, by the way) who told me that McCaskill is not a very well-liked Senator.

    I've also read comments by other state residents who said McCaskill's Hillary-Snub left a really sour taste in their mouths, because Hillary made several efforts to get her elected, like hosting fundraisers.

    And she apparently even hosted a victory celebration party.

    Parent

    hear, hear, catfish! wild clapping in background. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:21:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Rose Colored Glasses? (2.00 / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:19:37 PM EST
    Is that how you correct your blindness for McSame?

    Parent
    No rose-colored glasses here (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    sorry if I touched a nerve somehwere ...

    Parent
    No But (2.00 / 2) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    The fact that your bs detector is not functioning regarding  McSame suggests that your premise is faulty, or self serving.

    Parent
    Both are flawed, but McCain has a core (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    McCain appears more inner-directed. Obama has a very thin core (outer-directed.) That's how I see it. I probably agree with Obama on more issues.

    Parent
    I wish I could agree with Obama (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    but I don't know where he really stands on most issues, he's been so willing to cave in on things like FISA, oil drilling, etc.  

    How can you or anyone else trust him to do what he says he will?  

    I'd like to see ONE issue that he has been consistent on for years and years and years.  Just one issue.  

    Everything seems subject to refinement and change with him.  

    Outside of not having enough leadership experience, this is another huge issue with me:  The lack of a consistent record.  

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    I believe a McCain presidency will be less damaging to the country and the Democratic party than Obama.

    It will force Democrats to learn the lessons of the McGovern defeat one more time. They cannot win presidential elections without blue collar, working class whites, the kind of people who cling to their guns and bibles.


    Parent

    inner directed? (3.00 / 1) (#178)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:40:32 PM EST
    Well maybe. But when I read your comment, I couldn't help but think of some vintage Dr. Suess (slightly modified):

    You're a foul one, Mr. McCain.
    You're a nasty, wasty skunk.
    Your heart is full of unwashed socks
    Your soul is full of gunk.
    Mr. McCain....
    [snip]

    Your soul is an apalling dump heap overflowing
    with the most disgraceful assortment of deplorable
    rubbish imaginable,
    Mangled up in tangled up knots.

    Is that the kind of inner directed you mean? Cuz maybe it's just me.

    Parent

    Huh? You aren't advocating (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:29:12 PM EST
    for McCaskill are you?

    Parent
    McCaskill? (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:53:21 PM EST
    Sorry, I do not understand your comment.

    Parent
    He better pick a VP in a hurry (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:32:04 PM EST
    if he does not want Hillary.  As poll after poll rolls out showing that she would save him in state after state, he looks like an idiot ignoring a pile of evidence.  Just pull the trigger now and make the best of it.

    speaking of polls (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:47:16 PM EST
    I have to wonder what will happen when Obama picks someone other than Clinton (which I now thin is a virtual certainty), Sebelius, for example, and they start polling on it.  Give people a three-way choice: McCain/actual or unnamed VP vs. Obama/Sebelius vs. Obama Clinton.  That could get ugly.

    Parent
    I think it will be bad too (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:01:56 PM EST
    That's why he should do it now while he has time to recover.

    Parent
    "Older White Women" (5.00 / 9) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    do not need a woman in the VP spot to support the democratic ticket. They need to see the top of the ticket show enough good judgment to put someone in that slot who is truly qualified to step into the presidency should that be necessary.

    Then, the problem with the DNC still gets in the way for many.

    Seriously. Foreign Policy, he needs a veep with (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    foreign policy cred. Just some white woman reeks of tokenism.

    Parent
    very true! (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST


    Parent
    You got it (none / 0) (#188)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    JavaCityPal.

    Parent
    MO is a bellweather state, too... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    ...or has been. Maybe demographics have changed. But for the past umpteen elections, how MO goes, so goes the election.

    I wonder if Obama's European tour backfired more than it helped. It seems he's sprung a leak in the polls since....

    One problem I'm seeing with his (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    with his Euro Tour, it eclipsed his ME tour and most folks seem to be dropping off the ME when referring to it  ;) He prob lost any gain he might have gotten and perhaps even made the positive talking points from it (ME) mute.

    Parent
    as much as bush is disliked i just wonder (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:23:32 PM EST
    if some voters saw obama as doing a self coronation. i mean with the seal and all.

    Parent
    right (5.00 / 4) (#198)
    by ccpup on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    I think you're right.  The self-coronation, premature Victory Lap through Europe rankled the very voters he needs in his column:  blue collar and rural.

    I also sincerely believe the Change Election against Bush was in 2006 when the American People gave control of the House and Senate to the Dems.  And the Dems responded by squandering every opportunity to use the mandate the Voters gave them.  I mean, strongly worded letters?  C'mon!

    By now, I think the Dem Brand is tarnished and they're less likely to vote for the Dem Approved Inexperienced Candidate even if he is a Dem and is promising Change.

    Parent

    race was brought into the campaign (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    and his polling went down.

    MO, OH and MI have always been McCain's to lose IMO

    Parent

    His slip in the polls was too early (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    for the race discussions to be reflected.  That is, he hit the tie/1-2 points level in daily tracking when the most recent race discussions started.

    And the daily tracking polls tend to have a few day lag in reflecting the impact of significant events.  So I think we can't really discern the effect of the  campaigns' trading race remarks plus spin until Monday at least.

    Fwiw, I don't think the European tour hurt him in any significant way -- the tracking numbers are at about the same place they were before the Tour hype started.  It just didn't give him anything, though.

    Parent

    follow the tracking poll (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    After they accused McCain of using a racist advertisement his polling began to fall. Even his CNN talking heads acknowledged that it was a mistake to throw the racism accusation out there.

    If this election is centered on racism accusations, and whether words and phrases we use are racist, then democrats will lose in November.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    The post-Foreign-Policy-Credential-Boosting-World-Tour Bump was extremely short-lived.

    But, if analysis and polls are any indication, it was non-existent.

    This election is no more Obama's to lose than it is McCain's.

    The honeymoon of the Democratic Primary is ovah!

    Obama can either choose to stick to his Primary Hopey/Changey script of the "Our Time Is Now" gimmick, or roll up his sleeves and tell us FINALLY what exactly he's going to do improve all our lives and keep food on our tables and shelter over our heads.

    Or..., he could just do the right thing, suck it up, and nudge Hillary to the top of the ticket ... watch and learn over the next 8 years ... so he'll be ready to take over the lead in 2016 [/daydream]

    Parent

    that won't happen. his supporters won't (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    let it happen.

    Parent
    But it will (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:56:59 PM EST
    surely be the right thing to do, for the country and the american people.

    Jennifer Rubin in one of her commentaries had a great paragraph (emphasis is mine):
    From:  Not Happy 8.02.08

    So two questions remain: Will the base rise up or have they put their collective intellectual integrity in a blind trust? And what's the next flip-flop? As to the latter, I'm thinking it will be on his bevy of tax increases. ("In this weakened George Bush-John McCain economy I can see that tax cuts might further drag down the economy which is already the worst since the Great Depression so . . .") Coupled with a conditions based withdrawal in Iraq, support for offshore drilling and FISA support, skepticism about late term abortions, and a newly enhanced respect for the Second Amendment we really could have a Bush third term. ( But only if you believe all the recent positions are going to stick and all the former ones and his voting record as the most liberal senator weren't the "real" Obama.)


    Parent
    I should have said (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:11:56 PM EST
    "But it would be ..."

    Parent
    If they want to maximize.... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    ... any boost that they'll get out of out of whatever VP candidate (including Hillary) that's selected, they'd better start doing a good PR job of leading up to that choice.  That way it will come across as being made from a position of strength, and not as a decision that's possibly born from hapless desperation.

    Sisterhood (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by bison on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:15:33 PM EST
    You ain't heavy, your are my sister in the struggle.

    This election is not about Obama nor Hillary, it is about the future of this nation.  I'm am going to do all that I can for you and me sister.

    MO (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    is out of reach for Obama and has been since Rev. Wright appeared on the scene. This poll should surprise no one.

    BTD, I am surprised you have (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    not commented on this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSidRxqzbzg&eurl=http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/

    Hillary seems to agree with your criteria of the VP pick, and like you, she seems to suggest the Unity ticket, and by that I mean HER not some other woman, and for those who say oh that's so sexist, well, just imagine the headlines..."Unity ticket without Hillary".  How's that one going to go over?

    Duh, I mean "Dream ticket sans Hillary" (none / 0) (#110)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    NOT Unity.

    Parent
    I had not seen that (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
    But her discussion of the Gore pick is, as you probably noted, similar to my rebuttal to Markos' post.

    Parent
    Yes. I thought so. (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:29:02 PM EST


    Parent
    It has become very interesting (none / 0) (#131)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    Every time I think the possibility is nil, something happens that leaves the door open.

    Maybe Gergen's comments will just dissipate in the wind....

    The clock is ticking.....Clearly McCain was playing the press for attention by saying he would pick his VP soon.

    I have heard the phrase that Obama hides in plain site--Chuck Todd, I think.  If true, then it will be Kaine.

    Parent

    If he picks anyone other than (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    Hillary, McCain would be wise to pick Palin.

    Parent
    So some say--but she is mired in scandal (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    and won't be able to fix that in the next 3 weeks....

    Inertia describes much of what is happening--it is just too hard to stop the direction of the VP pick....

    The efforts to boost Hillary as VP seem intermittant at best....But who knows what goes on behind the scenes....

    Parent

    That "scandal" is bs. (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    She has the best approval rating of any sitting Governor and most people think this is just the work of her political enemies.  Look, if Obama can escape unscathed when his home buying pal is convicted of 16 counts of corruption, I think first female VP on Repub ticket, former beauty queen, mother of five, Alaskan Governor, reformer type will be just fine.

    Parent
    It is a direct accusation (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:28:45 PM EST
    that she wanted a state trooper fired as part of a family vendetta, she had to fire the head of the state agency who refused to fire the trooper, and then she eventually had the trooper fired.  It is about her alleged personal wrongdoing, not guilt by association.

    She has taken herself out of the sweepstakes to replace the corrupt Stevens for the Senate.

    A right wing radio talk host has been leading the charge against her....Her popularity in Alaska is irrelevent.....She is unknown outside Alaska--any introduction on the national stage would be consumed with days of explanations.....

    I am not opposed to Hillary as VP--but throwing out Palin to scare others into accepting Hillary is not going to be that persuasive.....Hillary has plenty of other good points to talk about--the primary one that may be new is that she appears willing to be a very good team player.

    Parent

    Scaring who? LOL I simply said if he (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    doesn't pick Hill, McCain ought to pick Palin.  Very few people think there is anything to that "scandal".  

    Parent
    I really doubt (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    that this scandal would have any currency whatsoever in the lower 49.

    Among other things, Democrats really aren't all that great at scandalmongering.  But really, it would seem very small-time to most people.

    Parent

    Most political handicappers (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:42:45 PM EST
    do see it as a problem....

    Maybe they are all wrong....Time will tell...

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:56:54 PM EST
    Oh, the "experts."  They're always so right about everything.

    Parent
    And, by the way, selecting Hill has (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:34:34 PM EST
    zilch to do with Obama supporters.  It's only about Hillary supporters.  I don't feel the need to persuade you of anything.  And, if he selected Hill, tust me it has zero to do with those already in his corner.

    Parent
    Focusing on the wrong (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    people....It is Obama's decision.....Hillary has signaled she would accept it.....Seems to me the greater need is to reduce the resistance on the Obama side....Not perhaps a popular view here, but I do think that is where movement is needed if she were to be the pick.  You can blast Obama till the cows come home, but that doesn't seem to me a way of making any progress.

    But it is all highly unlikely anyway.

    Parent

    Well, here's my persuasive (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    call out to Obama...I'll vote for you if I can do so by voting for Hillary.  That's about all I got.  

    Parent
    Who's throwing out Palin to scare Hillary voters? (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    No one here.

    Palin's name has often been discussed on TL as a McCain pick, and SUSA polls on her in its vp polls.

    And sorry, but one right wingnut radio host does not a scandal make.  I certainly hope you don't decide your votes based on anything Rush Limbaugh says, for example.

    Parent

    You keep saying Palin is mired in scandal (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:23:42 PM EST
    But I can't find anything to support it.  Yes, it's all over the netroots blogs and you keep referring to some (unnamed) rightwing nut radio personality, but that hardly constitutes 'mired'.

    Parent
    The thing is.. (none / 0) (#179)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:40:53 PM EST
    If she's picked, it will be reported on a lot more. It's not how it looks now, it's how it will look if she's the running mate.


    Parent
    It's really small potatoes compared (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:45:13 PM EST
    to what she offers; first female on a national Repub ticket, former beauty queen, popular Governor, etc..  

    Parent
    Many women would support her (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by samanthasmom on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    trying to help her sister in a nasty divorce even if we believed that she crossed the line in doing it. I'm sure that Obama's campaign would use it to question her "judgment", but that might come back to haunt him. His "judgment" hasn't always been impeccable either.

    Parent
    small potatoes (none / 0) (#200)
    by Little Fish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    I agree. And she seems more than willing to talk about it as well.

    Her personal story would be too good for the media to pass up. Oldest son in the military and and infant son with down's syndrome.  She hunts, she's pro-driling and alaska loves her.  I think if she had a few more years in she'd be a no-brainer. I fully expect her to be a player in 2012.

    I could do without the "naughty librarian" meme that keeps popping up though.


    Parent

    what did Gergen say? (none / 0) (#145)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:14:42 PM EST
    was it recent? I'm sorry, I googled and couldn't find a link.

    Parent
    He said he needs Hill. She (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST
    knows how to fight back, has a brand on the economy, etc..

    Parent
    Dumb pundits. (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    Too late smart aren't they? I knew this months ago.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#181)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    I missed that.

    Parent
    He said in essence that Hillary would (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:19:00 PM EST
    be a good VP pick for Obama because McCain was engaged in rough/dirty politics and the Clintons know how to win that kind of fight.

    He said it on Thursday (Wednesday?) on AC 360 on CNN.

    Parent

    If he said it the way MKS summarized, then (none / 0) (#196)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    yes, clearly d*mned with.

    If his reasons were experience, the economy etc., (as summarized above), then not.

    Parent

    Ditto on that! (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by JimWash08 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:09:18 PM EST
    I really enjoy Cream City's educated and information-filled posts, so I hope she'll stick around.

    White women (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:33:41 PM EST
    McCain will win the white women vote.

    Bush women among white women in 2004. McCain will win by an even larger percentage.

    Older women (5.00 / 15) (#193)
    by samanthasmom on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    have been under the bus so long that we've hung curtains and come up with a kaper chart to share the chores. It's too comfortable under here for us to come out unless we're offered something big. Hillary as VP won't be enough for most of us. It might have been in June, but by now we've made lots of new friends, and it doesn't feel as strange to us to be "party-free". We can ride this one out.

    Parent
    I never thought of myself as a demographic (5.00 / 5) (#212)
    by fctchekr on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    But I am older, white and a woman. And to my recollection our demographic has never been a swing group, a nifty named and sought after constituency that boasts an esteemed stature.

    We will undoubtedly not warrant the socccer Mom or Indie Dad monikers and all the hoopla that accompanied them..

    But we older women will not vote for someone who left his opponent in the dust to bite targeted sexist attacks, but is outraged when his own wife is attacked for more substanitive issues..

    End of Story (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by pluege on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 05:04:26 PM EST
    Obama and his advisers are too full of themselves to pick HRC as VP. End of Story - it ain't happening even it means the difference between winning and losing in Novemeber.

    Maybe McCain's a shoe-in (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    Since shady voter purging is already apparently occurring in three fairly important states.

    Let's keep our heads in the sand, though.  Heaven knows no one would take advantage of the easily hackable technology and pathetic lack of citizen oversight of elections.

    Fiddle fiddle, burn burn.

    AA Vote (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by NaNaBear on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:01:33 PM EST
    Come November the AA's will be out in full force voting for the Democratic Party. If Hillary was the nominee we would have embraced her, and put the past behide us.  We are loyal to the party. Of coursem  some would have talked junk. If she was the nominee we would not diss her and give glowing reports of McCain.

    T.D. Jakes and Wright aren't as different as some think. I have read books by both.  Jakes is more laid back, Wright is loud and eratic.
     A co-worker of minds attends a church in which the pastor dislikes Obama. She said some are furious and ignoring him. THey aren't going to leave the church,(some have) because its not about the pastor, but about church family ties. Plus, the pastor isn't why they go to church. Its about Jesus. I don't agree with every thing my pastor says, but am not going to leave my church family.
    The machines and other hanky panky might be in place , which want surprize any of us.

    Say what??? (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by alexaii on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    Miri, Unlike the VPs you mentioned , Hillary is extremely popular. Both candidates are mediocre, so it's going to matter alot who their running mates are.

    After (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by tek on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 09:08:43 PM EST
    two days of convesations with our Obama family, I was seriously thinking about writing a piece on the Obama campaign.  We don't argue with these people anymore or respond to their inflammatory stuff, but I was thinking that Obama's camp has shown their inexperience in their campaign strategy.

    He has now backed himself into a corner with nowhere to go.  I think the people upstairs who said it wouldn't matter now if he does choose Hillary are absolutely right.  He got the brilliant idea to demonize the traditional Dems and pit them against the youth and AA.  He's not going to get these people back now.  He has no choice but to try to appeal to Republicans and that IMO is going nowhere.  So, I think he'll go down from now on.  

    I noticed two things over the weekend.  Our Obama contacts no longer speak enthusiastically about him.  They are even critical and show frustration with him.  Our Republican friends and family all continue to say they don't like McCain, they won't vote for Obama and they are sorry Hillary lost because they would have voted for her.  

    Grace (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by tek on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 09:13:09 PM EST
    Obama keeps saying that just because he promises something during the campaign, it doesn't mean he will do that once he's in office.  

    You have to hand it to him, he comes right out and says he can't be trusted and people still follow him. LOL!

    But I'm a little suspicious of this sample (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    The pro-life/pro-choice figures have flipped between surveys in a way that they shouldn't.

    You're taken aback by flipping? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    I suggest you not look at Obama's stances then.  You'll get whiplash.

    Parent
    I never trust (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    a polls that even uses the label pro-life or pro-choice.

    White/Black/Latino, man/woman. That part I trust.

    Parent

    Check this (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:18:02 PM EST
    Under the same methodology, the percentage of people who identify as pro-choice dropped by 5% from the last survey. Do you believe there was actually such a change? I don't.

    Parent
    But isn't the reason (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    many think some SUSA polls were far more accurate during the primaries HRC won the nature of many SUSA polls -- where you are not called by a live person you may feel inclined to impress, but rather a tape recorded survey where you push a button indicating the category that applies to you?  And, if this is the type of poll SUSA just ran in MO., perhaps the "easier to be honest when not talking to a real person conducting survey" is at play.  

    Parent
    We're talking about two SUSA polls (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM EST
    so either people have changed their minds on choice, are lying in one of the polls, or the methodology is flawed in one of the polls. Or, One of the two could just have a bad sample. It happens--even to SUSA.

    Parent
    isn't this the sort of thing you watch for (none / 0) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:50:47 PM EST
    when doing polling samples? For example, imagine a random sample where 60% of the sample (of a 50/50 state) are republican. Well, when you get that sort of skew, you either toss the sample or modify it in some way. Seems like they'd notice that 5% change from one sample to the next and either adjust the sampling or just get a new one. Or maybe on some issues like this, that kind of variation is not uncommon.

    Parent
    Well now you're getting into the question (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:55:02 PM EST
    of weighting. Poll purists like SUSA insist that you should never weight a poll by anything but demographic categories. You should never weight by political party or pro-choice/pro-life because those are actually opinions, and they can change. I agree with that policy, but it can produce funny results when opinions that really aren't supposed to change that much, change.

    Parent
    Of course, due to MOE, the poll isn't indicating (none / 0) (#81)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:00:16 PM EST
    that a full 5% change actually occurred in the voting population.

    A 5% shift in a poll with an MOE of 3.8% isn't that meaningful.  

    Also note that the MOE for that aspect of the poll is larger than the MOE for the poll's main numbers.

    All this means is MO is close.  McCain may have a slight edge.  We didn't needed a poll to tell us that.

    Parent

    Correct (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM EST
    Missouri is a state beyond the resolution of most polls in most elections. It's funny that way.

    Parent
    they look right to me (none / 0) (#9)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    the poll has McCain gets 67% of the pro-life vote and 30% of the pro-choice vote. And Obama gets 28% of the pro-life vote and 64% of the pro-choice vote. That sounds right to me.

    Parent
    Not what I mean (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    Look at the percentage of people who were pro-choice in the last survey and compare it to this one. Click the "track" button.

    Parent
    ah yes, interesting difference (none / 0) (#19)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    It would indeed appear that this sample is getting about 5% more pro-life people that the last poll. Given that apparent sample difference, that could easily be more than enough to show the two point difference in the overall presidential pick outcome of the poll. Good catch. So maybe this poll tells us less than we thought.

    Parent
    Or maybe this poll is closer (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    in capturing the anti-abortion (pro-life? ugh) share of the population in Missouri, home of the Assembly of God and all.

    Parent
    the thing is the republicans have been (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    standing around thinking about things so to speak. however, they all come home in the end. and i think we are beginning to see that. i never thought the obama campaign's "outreach" to the religeous" right would work.

    Parent
    SUSA just can't seem to measure (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    that attitude in MO. See here.

    Now, it's either that or lots of people are really changing their minds. I don't really buy that.

    Parent

    Thank you. (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:55:42 PM EST
    Just wanted to say that before I'm outahere.  I have to watch my words enough at work, where I am having to redo a class lecture that uses the term "black hole."  To refer to the cosmic phenomenon, of course -- but it's just too nuts everywhere now.

    And especially when comments are time-stamped.  But I'm a historian, so I think chronology matters.

    Bye now.  

    Parent

    OF course (1.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:59:17 PM EST
    Now you choose to misstate why I have warned you.

    The warning, as YOU know, is for commenting on my moderating in my threads.

    I have stated EXPRESSLY many times now that my threads do not allow for commenting on my moderation of my threads.

    You have something to tell me about my moderation, you do it in an e-mail.

    But if childish and with falsehoods is the way you want go out in a blaze of glory, then off you go.

    I think I have made myself perfectly clear. And it seems you have decided you do not like the way I run my threads and will leave. Your choice.

    But do not lie about me on your way out.

    Parent

    well, Obama is... snark (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    OK, couldn't resist that one. :-)

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    Now who could help him with that segment you think?

    George W. Bush?  He did win women 2004 by 9, after all.  Now of course, if anything happens to Obama, Bush is ineligible to the throne, but they can skip over him to Nancy.

    Underrepresented Dem Voters (none / 0) (#52)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:41:24 PM EST
    I think one way this poll may have underrepresented Obama supporters is that it appears to have include no Latinos. My review of the Pew Research on the Latino vote indicated that Latinos should represented 4% of the voters in November, up from 1% in 2004. Yes, this is still overall a close percentage, but in close elections it could be important, especially this year, as recent polls are consistently showing 2/3 of Latinos supporting Obama.

    4% in Missouri? (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Could be, considering the sizeable increase in other Midwestern states, but just want to clarify.  Does the figure account for migrant workers, though?  I know that some in my Midwestern state still head back to Texas every fall -- right about election time, actually, as early winter sets in here.  

    Wish I could go with them to warmer climes.  But not for the life too many still have to lead here -- where I've taught migrant kids who keep having to make such major switches in school systems.  I hope that a lot of their parents vote and make a major difference.  They are such good people, who so want their kids to get a better education and better life.

    Parent

    Pew (none / 0) (#70)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:54:08 PM EST
    seems to me to be a reliable source, & its research report was focusing on percentage Latinos represent of the electorate in many states.  Pew's reports are at



    Parent

    Link is (none / 0) (#72)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    www.pewhispanic.org

    I can't get link to work today

    Parent

    Is that 4% in MO? (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:49:13 PM EST
    I did a diary on Latino vote about a week before the Puerto Rico primary; mostly based on several Pew research reports and one other similar source.  Latinos are growing as percentage of electorate in most places (down a little in just a couple of states).  I, too was surprised about the Missouri figure.  

    Parent
    Sorry - SUSA (none / 0) (#54)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:42:50 PM EST
    poll showed 1% of those polled Latino.

    Registered and/or registerable? (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:21:17 PM EST


    Parent
    The big problem with picking Hillary now (none / 0) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 01:45:40 PM EST
    would be.... she would now have to pretend she liked the FISA vote and that her vote against it was a mistake. Otherwise she and Obama would have a very big difference between them. Oh, and she'd have to now say she would be OK with weakening Roe v. Wade like Obama says he wants to do. Either she has to look less than believable in pretending she's OK with Obama's republican light stances, or she would have to explain how she can be on the ticket with him with such different views. OK, a bit of a snark, but those are some of the things that would get in the way of such a campaign. Hillary would only remind people of how much better a president she would make imo.

    she looks too presidential (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:26:20 PM EST


    Parent
    nonsense (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    Here is an opportunity for Obama to say that HE will not be like this President and surround himself with yes men. Adults can disagree on issues and having people that don't necessarily agree with you doesn't have to be a horrible thing. If I'm not mistaken Lincoln surrounded himself with advisers that did not agree with him. Obama has an opportunity to be the anti Bush administration. Alas, I believe his ego(and a coalition of deranged supporters who can't see past their own prejudices) will get in the way of his choosing her.

    I will say this I trust Clinton to do the smart and politically expedient thing moreso than I trust Obama.

    Parent

    I think the bigger problem is that (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:13:30 PM EST
    he's waited too long.  He's already lost some people likely to vote for him had he picked her earlier.  He missed an opportunity to consolidate their support and captialize on her supporters enthusiasm for her.  And it just gets worse the longer he waits.

    But he seems to be playing the waiting game hoping the polls will put him up enough, or any other pick will show some help for him, so that he can pick anyone but her.  But the longer he waits, the clearer it becomes that he'd only pick her for the votes, not because he truly wants to incorporate the concerns of her supporters into a presidency.


    Parent

    Does VP matter (none / 0) (#89)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM EST
    I would certainly like to believe that, were the extraordinarily unlikely selection of HRC as the veep to occur, the polls would shift.

    But is there actual data to support that view? Do VP choices actually make a difference in overall poll numbers? I have seen people argue forcefully that they do (citing LBJ as JFK's veep), yet others argue that they don't. I know there have been some polls comparing hypothetical tickets, but some (presumably anti-HRC) bloggers dismiss the effect as "name recognition" only.

    I'm sure this is a googl-able or knowable fact, but I'm hoping that one of the more polling-knowledgeable commenters here, or BTD, could shed some light.

    I've seen anecdotal evidence that it does matter (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by cawaltz on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:39:48 PM EST
    in this particular election.

    Parent
    I don't know the data (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    but just have to say that the name-recognition dismissal is an annoying argument.

    Of course name recognition is a factor in the vp polls, but it's also a factor in the election.  And the conventions are so late this year that there's a 3-month max period for an unknown to increase exposure.

    It seems to me to be largely one of those excuse arguments, as opposed to a reason argument.  Seriously, if Al Gore suddenly indicated an interest in the VP spot, would the bloggers you're referring to still be harping on the name-recognition thing?

    Parent

    interesting point (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:12:20 PM EST
    especially about Gore - I suspect you're right on that score!  thanks!

    Parent
    gore isn't going to happen! (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:30:29 PM EST
    i can't see him stepping up for that trip.

    Parent
    No, of course not (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    It's just that IF he did, hypothetically only, the blogger kids would be wetting their pants over it.  Not only would they not be making the name-recognition argument, they'd savage any one who did try to make it.

    Parent
    Who one picks as vp matters from (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM EST
    here on in. Look at Cheney, the most powerful vp in our history. Most candidates look weak when compared to him. Not that the next vp will be that powerful, but we don't want a weak-kneed vp either. A little or a lot of gravitis helps.

    Parent
    perception.... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:39:46 PM EST
    its all really a matter of perception, and how its reported.

    The best time for Obama to have picked Clinton would have been when his poll numbers were high because it would be perceived/reported as a move toward party unity.

    But if Obama picks Clinton when his poll number are looking like they do now, it will be perceived/reported as a sign of weakness.

    Parent

    Yes it matters. If George W. Bush picked Quayle (none / 0) (#123)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:41:45 PM EST
    or Tom Delay, or Colin Powell. Each changes the ticket.

    Parent
    of course... (none / 0) (#124)
    by dws3665 on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    the ticket changes, but do the election results? that's the question. I'm not asking a question about  anecdotal evidence, but whether there any actual data about this. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

    Parent
    Who I vote for this year depends on the veep (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by catfish on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:03:06 PM EST
    it will be really hard to vote against Hillary if she's on the ticket. It will still be a struggle to vote for the ticket, I see Obama as way too green for this type of job. If he picks somebody other than Hillary, he will make my decision a lot easier.

    I am confident there are others like me.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:21:21 PM EST
    at this point, putting Hillary on the ticket would be the only way I would consider voting for Obama. It would still be hard to x his name on the screen even if he did pick her.

    As it stands right now, I'm either going to sit out the election or not vote for Pres. Showing up will also depend on who wins the run off for Senate here in GA. If Jim Martin wins, I will show up so I can vote for him. There might be some down ticket races worth voting on. I'll just have to wait and see at this point. All options are on the table right now.

    Parent

    Me too, absolutely the only way. (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    As it is, I can't even listen to BO anymore.  I have the same reaction to him as I do Bush.  When he's on TV or the media is talking about him, I hit mute.  This would purely be a vote for Hillary.  That is it.

    Parent
    Leave it blank or third party (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    I haven't decided.

    I won't reward the democratic party nominee with my vote after what the DNC and his campaign did to Hillary.

    Parent

    I hope she is not either (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    But please keep your comments on topic to the POST.

    Forget it (none / 0) (#218)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 07:16:06 PM EST
    It will make very little difference who the VP picks are. And that applies to both parties.

    Hillary or anybody else can't help him.

    People don't vote for the VP pick. They vote for the top of the ticket.

    Bentsen was supposed to help Dukakis win the south. Didn't happen.

    Kemp was supposed to help Dole win the Catholic vote. Didn't happen.

    I can go on and on. It makes no difference who he picks for VP candidate.

    SUSA MO Poll: McCain By 5 | 205 comments (205 topical)