home

Obama Leads McCain in Wisconsin

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:16:05 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For once, a primary result is a good indicator for the general election as Barack Obama wins white voters in Wisconsin and defeats McCain by 6 points, according to SUSA. Obama won white Wisconsin voters against Hillary Clinton by 9 and he wins them by 5 over McCain.

Wisconsin will not be a problem for Barack Obama in my view. Now Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida? Well, that could be another story.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Two Miami Cops Charged With Aiding Cocaine Traffickers in FBI Sting | 1,000 Attend Hillary Event in Puerto Rico >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Leads McCain in Wisconsin | 215 comments (215 topical)
    Here's something interesting (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:17:50 PM EST
    The only time SUSA included Hillary in the VP matchups was when they paid for the poll themselves in Michigan.

    How can you tell that? (none / 0) (#3)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:22:07 PM EST
    I can't figure it out.

    Parent
    Look (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    on the left hand column.

    SUSA almost never polls Michigan.

    Parent

    wow, even with (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:48:03 PM EST
    Clinton on the ticket, Obama loses by 5 points.  This can't be good since he would be trounced with the other VP choices. Of course, that is today, but still shouldn't he be ahead if not for the whole MI FL thing?

    Parent
    Be optimistic (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:50:09 PM EST
    Look at the crosstabs. First problem: Obama will clearly get more black support than SUSA says. Second, Hillary helps him tremendously with women.

    Parent
    that makes me feel better (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:51:59 PM EST
    I am ready for this primary to be over so we can get on with winning the damn thing

    Parent
    I think the AA vote is about right (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    as Wisconsin has very high voter turnout, traditionally, and it will be more reflective of the population in general than in the primary.  The 5% AA's per SUSA is just below the 6% AA proportion of the population.  Plus, sadly, Wisconsin leads the country in AAs incarcerated, and that means that even many who have served their time cannot vote.

    Parent
    No, the percentage he's getting (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:28:18 PM EST
    It will be at least 90% at the end of the day.

    Parent
    Voters vote for President (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by themomcat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:52:33 PM EST
    not the VP, no matter who that may be. With Obama at the top, I firmly believe we will be inaugurating McCain. HRC will not be able to counter the attack from the 527's. And we still do not know what other surprises are in store from the Obama's closet.

    Parent
    I hear the rattling of skeletons... (none / 0) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:48:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Even I can't connect Rezko's gambling (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:17:11 PM EST
    debts Obama!

    Parent
    That Is True (none / 0) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    What the additional charges against Rezko does do is give the media another opportunity to talk about Rezko's relationship with Obama. They may choose to give Obama another pass and not go there. If not, they could use Obama/Rezko back story to flesh out new story.

    Parent
    maybe not, but it puts rekzo under (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:55:56 PM EST
    even more pressure to cut a deal and sing.

    Parent
    You don't "sing" in Chicago. (none / 0) (#192)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:02:44 AM EST
    Unless you enjoy swimming with this fish.

    Parent
    your humor brought a big smile! (none / 0) (#203)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:11:12 AM EST
    sorta reminded me of the godfather.

    Parent
    LOL. Hate to break it to (none / 0) (#204)
    by masslib on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:13:58 AM EST
    you, I'm not kidding.

    Parent
    yeah, chicago! what a town! (none / 0) (#213)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:07:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Donald...I think it is more like $800,000 now... (none / 0) (#135)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    Rezko made two payments of $7500 before the arrest warrants were issued....who here has the guts to write a $195,000.00 bad check?  I wonder if this may be the catalyst that might get Rezko to naming names...

    Parent
    I think McCain will win Wisconsin. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:18:56 PM EST


    Not that I think hillary could. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:32:17 PM EST
    I say this because I'm from Wisconsin and McCain reminds me so much of my family there.  I know we typically win WI, but I just think he would win if he campaigned there.

    Parent
    I agree, and I'm in Wisconsin (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:40:53 PM EST
    where this shows a huge drop for Obama since the primary, and since Rev. Wright surfaced even for the first time -- and, of course, this poll was done before Fr. Pfleger brought it all up again now.  This very Catholic state -- and very churchgoing state in general -- is not going to like that or the many McCain 527 ads ahead, reminding Badgers about all this over and over.

    And I would change the verb tense.  We typically won Wisconsin for a while.  But we barely won Wisconsin in the last two elections, and it was the closest state last time, by less than half of one percent.  

    And whether Obama's biggest backer, the governor, remains in favor amid the massive midterm budget cuts beginning this week, with more to come, remains to be seen.  The economy never really recovered and is in trouble, thus the budget cuts for lack of income reaching projections.  Those projections were unwise.  The gov will pay.

    Of course, Obama has the big plus over Clinton in that's he's male in Wisconsin, a notoriously bad state for women in politics, the last one with a woman in Congress, less than a decade ago.  

    But McCain has that same advantage.  So we'll see.

    Parent

    The Last Two SUSA Polls Had (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:57:03 PM EST
    Obama +6% and +5%. The last two Rasmussen polls had McCain +4% and +2%.

    Parent
    Huh? I said since the primary. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:13:07 PM EST
    What am I missing in your comment?

    Parent
    Not sure (none / 0) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:30:20 PM EST
    My comment had to do with head to head match ups between Obama and McCain. I was just pointing out that SUSA had Obama beating McCain and Rasmussen had McCain beating Obama. Not much variance in spread in April or May per poll but a different outcome based on which pollster was doing the survey. IOW not unanimous agreement that Obama wins Wisconsin.

    Parent
    Ah, got it -- yes, they're talking to (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:52:17 PM EST
    different Wisconsinites . . . or Wisconsinites having fun with them.  We have been called by pollsters at least five times in the last two weeks alone.  And sometimes, if they're just obnoxious, I gotta game 'em, too. :-)


    Parent
    Do you think that Pflueger guy will hurt (none / 0) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:49:27 PM EST
    obama...Rev. Wright did some damage...who knows.

    Parent
    Obama needs to disown his own (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:51:51 PM EST
    church now, as far as I'm concerned.
    People who cheer for what Pfleger and Wright say? Ugh.

    Parent
    May be too late. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    LONG relationships and both state and fed funding for the one guy. And they were both on the campaign with Fr. Pfleger going to Iowa at Obama's request. I'm sure we'll see more videos on this guy . . .

    He should have done more earlier. Darn that judgment thang . . .

    Parent

    Plus, after Obama's speech on race, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:04:46 PM EST
    Father Pfleger invited Wright to give the benediction at Maya Angelou's birthday event at St. Sabin's.  I think Pfleger, like Wright, may not stay out of the spotlight.

    Parent
    Pfleger was the go-between for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:05:44 PM EST
    and Wright a few weeks ago. He probably help orchestrate the old okey-doke those two pulled on the public.

    Parent
    Trinity UCC is an outlier of the UCC. (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:54:50 PM EST
    Dare he risk alienating the entire denomination?

    Parent
    well, i'm just being facetious, because (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:56:34 PM EST
    I don't expect Obama to be held accountable for what his inner circle say.

    Parent
    Obama's very lame attempts (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:06:04 PM EST
    to distance himself from Wright, Pfleger, and the church have been so superficial that I am never going to believe he doesn't subscribe to the whoops and hollars of the congregation.

    Quite honestly, I don't see him getting into the rhythm of any real beat, but I sure can see Michelle swaying to the tune of that anger. Keeping in mind, just because he can't dance to the music doesn't mean he isn't singing along.

    When McCain makes a more sincere and empathetic statement on behalf of Senator Clinton than Obama does, it speaks very loudly about who Obama is.

    Parent

    Michael Goodwin of the NY Daily News (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:32:02 PM EST
    was on a roundtable panel today on Lou Dobbs.  Basically, he is saying what you are saying Java...people are tired of obama's boilerplate responses to these situations, i.e. Wright, Pflueger.  They do not seem sincere.

    Parent
    "They do not seem sincere." (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Nadai on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:42:59 PM EST
    I just can't imagine why.  ;)

    Parent
    Uh, er, um, because they are not??? :) (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:02:33 AM EST


    Parent
    what matters (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    what matters isn't that Obama is closely associated with Wright and Pleger.

    What matters is that Obama's response when first asked why he doesn't leave the Church was that Wright was retiring, and there was going to be a new pastor in the Church who we were lead to believe was going to be nothing like Wright, and the Obama campaign sent around a video with he new Pastor being as "white friendly" as he could possibly be.

    And its that same nice young new pastor who introduces Pleger, and then thanks god for Pleger's message, in the tape where Pleger goes after Clinton and her supposed sense of "white entitlement."

    And what also matters is that Obama sends his kids to this church.  Actions speak louder than words, and Obama can say he doesn't agree with this stuff all he wants, the fact remains that by his actions, by sending his kids to learn about what god is about at this church, well, it matters.

    Parent

    The church is more of a problem than the (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Grace on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:49 AM EST
    pastors are.  I read somewhere today that there is yet another pastor with more racist speech.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans have video of a bunch of them.  

    And the crowd at the church seems to clearly love these guys.  

    That means the problem is the church, not each individual pastor.  It does no good for Obama to disown each pastor when the church is the real problem.  

    Parent

    Talk about (1.00 / 0) (#166)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:42:05 PM EST
    ugly, divisive, and disgusting.  Are you for real?  And you complain about personal attacks against HRC?
    Why not change your handle to MichelleMalkin or SeanHannity.  Gross.

    Parent
    No problem with what Obama's closest (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    advisers do and say? Can you imagine if one of Hillary's advisers made a speech like Pfleger's?

    Parent
    I would guess (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Nadai on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:51:30 PM EST
    that the amount of hot air released by the Left blogs alone would advance global warming by fifty years.

    Parent
    Barack Obama wants us to believe.... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:27:33 AM EST
    that the reason that he didn't quit TUCC was because Wright was an abberation -- and that he didn't know that Wright was an abberation -- and that Wright doesn't matter because Wright was retiring, and someone who wasn't "an abberation" was taking over.

    Now, I never bought this.  This is Wright's church.  He's not going to hand over the congregation that he has built based on his beliefs to someone who doesn't share those beliefs.  

    And in most things, I agree with Wright.  I share his general perspective on race in America.  For instance, I believe in reparations.  I have absolutely no problem with the idea of taxing the wealth to provide economic and social justice to African Americans.  

    So when I say that something matters, its not about being divisive.  Its about being real.

    Obama has been trying to hide his association with radicals from the moment he announced his campaign.  It doesn't matter to me that he might have some pretty radical ideas -- it does matter to me that he consistently lies about it.

    And I'm not bothered by the fact that Obama belongs to TUCC.  I actually understand that a lot of what we see in these videos are all about frustration and catharthis,  

    But Barack Obama is bringing up his children in this church.  His kids aren't children of oppression, they are children of privilege.  His kids don't need to learn the rituals of the inner city black church that make it possible for inner city residents to not engage in self-destructive behavior that would result from the the Perpetual Traumatic Stress Syndrome that inner-city blacks live with.  

    But he sends his kids to this church, to listen to, and absort, this stuff.

    And I'm supposed to trust his judgement?  Sorry.  This matters.

    Parent

    So what's your take on Hagee's endorsement (1.00 / 0) (#175)
    by tree on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:52:58 PM EST
    of McCain? Is criticizing Hagee "ugly, divisive, and disgusting"? Or is it only "divisive' to criticize Obama's hateful spiritual advisors?

    Parent
    The Hagee endorsement is (2.00 / 0) (#180)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:57:38 PM EST
    ugly and divisive.
    I was referencing JCP's comment about Michelle Obama.  Have we no memory of what HRC was treated like in the 90's?

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Nadai on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:02:42 AM EST
    Have we no memory of what HRC was treated like in the 90's?

    Actually, you don't have to go back quite that far to see disgusting treatment of Hillary Clinton.  I believe Father Pfleger's little diatribe was delivered just last Sunday.

    Parent

    Hell...obama isn't even held accountable for (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    what he says himself.

    Parent
    You seem to be quick on the (none / 0) (#200)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:08:50 AM EST
    trigger finger with your 1 ratings tonight. Would you mind telling me what you found objectionable about my posts tonight?

    Parent
    obama won't disown the church. (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:57:56 PM EST
    he won't do anything to cut into his aa core support. now the problem we all know is the religeous vote and the blue collar. they won't like this and won't vote for obama.

    Parent
    Some, yes (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:59:06 PM EST
    I think there will be a loss of support from some of the independents and more conservative democrats. Especially the ones who were only going to vote for the democrat should Senator Clinton not get the nomination.

    Moreso, the earmark of $100,000 Obama managed to give to Father Pfleger will be given more press by the Republicans (should they have to campaign against him). The contradiction that earmark represents is threefold: the strength of their relationship, the hold special interests/favors have on Obama, and the earmarks. All of these things he is pretending he can't tolerate.


    Parent

    Obama's (and Clinton's) problem here is guns, (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ben Masel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:52:54 PM EST
    not preachers.

    Parent
    That's so -- I forgot that, too. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:53:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I think the Republicans will use these polls (none / 0) (#226)
    by stefystef on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:54:49 AM EST
    to determine which states they will put alot of effort in.  While today's polls show Obama winning some of the states he won in the primaries, I think it will be much closer by October.

    The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight.  And neither will McCain.  I think McCain  trying fool Dem into a false sense of victory over him.

    The Republican machine hasn't even started yet.

    Parent

    They only polled registered voters. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ben Masel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:51:31 PM EST
    Late registrants skew young, helping Obama.

    Parent
    actually tied. (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbradshaw4hillary on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:50:29 PM EST
    the poll has a 4 point margin of error so that means that they are actually statistically tied, because obama's support could be up to 4 points lower and mccain's could be 4 points higher or vise versa, but untill the lead is outside of the margin of error they are only tied.  

    Parent
    Sebelius clearly is a loser as a pick. (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:22:46 PM EST
    I have never seen her help him in any of these polls.

    I don't think (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Lil on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:44:10 PM EST
    women want a consellation prize. We may be behind HRC, but not just because she's a woman (that's just the bonus part). I wouldn't vote for someone just because he/she was a woman or POC. For instance, I would never vote for Condi, even if she ran against the whitest, straightest, most devout Christian and any other privileged group you could think of. I believe that any other woman put on the ticket is an overt attempt to hoodwink women that will be rejected. That's why Sebellus will not help him.

    Parent
    At this rate, they will suggest Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Anne on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:54:40 PM EST
    strap on some breasts so they can pass him off as a woman...

    Parent
    Not to suggest Richardson has breasts (none / 0) (#36)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:59:27 PM EST
    but how come he's never mentioned in these polls?  He seems at least as desireable as some of these other names.  

    I don't even know who "Pawlenty" is.  

    Parent

    My take... (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:48:53 PM EST
    My take is that picking Richardson would be considered a shiv to the heart of Clinton supporters who feel betrayed by his endorsement of Obama.  It wouldn't anger me more than I already am, but it could be considered a deal breaker.  Just MHO.

    Jackson

    Parent

    roger that (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:53:05 PM EST
    for me anyway, anybody but him

    Parent
    Richardson was out greasing the wheels for (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:54:32 PM EST
    obama with the hispanics...obama is pushing an amnesty agenda.  Makes me think Richardson thinks he has a chance at VP.

    Parent
    If Richardson's performance (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:09:06 PM EST
    on Lou Dobbs the other day is any indication, Obama should stay far, far away from him. Lou ate his lunch.

    Parent
    Did you catch the prime clip today? (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:09:16 PM EST
    Obama on Univision 'Nobody has done more, except Sen. Kennedy, than I . . . ' Loose paraphrase there as I don't remember his exact wording re immigration issues. I lost focus as he launched into his hype.

    The dude is bordering on delusional with some of his pandering, imo  ;)

    Parent

    Noticing more and more of this (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:15:48 PM EST
    the party elders are loaning Obama their experience and letting him credit himself with their work.

    It is so bizzare. What in the world is going on?

    Parent

    Well, he needs experience, and needs it (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:20:33 PM EST
    FAST.

    Me, not gonna play this game in the fall. They will own this dude, not me. When he announced he was running, he had 140 days in the Senate.

    Parent

    Guessing the party elders do not want to be (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:39:50 PM EST
    found out to be the idiots they have set themselves up to be seen as.  They have made a mistake and they don't know how to get out from under, so they just keep digging.

    Parent
    They'd like to, you know... (none / 0) (#176)
    by mattt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:55:37 PM EST
    BEAT McCAIN IN NOVEMBER.

    Supporting the likely nominee is more helpful in this cause than tearing him down or validating right-wing attack memes.

    Parent

    If they really want to beat the (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Grace on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:07:16 AM EST
    Republicans in November, they need to nominate the right person -- and that person would be Hillary Clinton, not Obama!


    Parent
    We don't have a nominee yet. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:38:28 AM EST


    Parent
    excuse me, that is exactly what (none / 0) (#187)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:07 AM EST
    happened in the il senate. what is it with this guy? can't he draft his own legislation?

    Parent
    Obama and Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by bridget on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM EST
    I bet Obama saw that famous picture of young Bill greeting JFK and he knew he had to include Kennedy in his family history,too. Somehow. Somewhere. Sometime.

    btw. I always have to lol@Nobody has done more than me Obama ....
    How can he say such things w. a straight face?
    The Obamafanatics really must drink the Kool Aid by the gallons.

    Parent

    Very dramatic, but if you think this is name (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:38:29 PM EST
    calling, I invite you to visit DKos or HuffPo...if we are too much for you, then perhaps this is not the site for you....just saying.

    Parent
    Not to mention, this is a meta-free zone. (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:56:05 PM EST


    Parent
    IMO the hispanic community will not fall for (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:36:10 PM EST
    this shameless pandering by obama.

    Parent
    I am thinking (none / 0) (#133)
    by LoisInCo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:26:07 PM EST
    Richardson only helps Obama with NM. If that.

    Parent
    amnesty? obama's core aa base won't (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:59:29 PM EST
    like that.

    Parent
    I don't believe Richardson has any real influence (none / 0) (#227)
    by stefystef on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:15:28 AM EST
    with Hispanics in this country.  Richardson is a back-stabbing drool.  Many Hispanic leaders were really turned off by his endorsement Obama after a pledged commitment to Hillary.

    He's baggage Obama doesn't want.  Barack is just using him and will drop him like a bad habit later.  Obama is only loyal to himself.

    Parent

    Perky man boobs?? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:36:10 PM EST
    You can see them for Thirty silver shillings ...

    Sincerely,
    J. Iscariot

    Parent

    Per Wikepedia (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:32:37 PM EST
    Timothy James Pawlenty is the 39th and current Governor of Minnesota (since January 6, 2003) and a member of the Republican Party.

    Parent
    C'mon now....you never heard of that candy, (none / 0) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:52:41 PM EST
    Good And Pawlenty?  :)

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#66)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:53:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Give me a woman with experience (none / 0) (#229)
    by huzzlewhat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    The trouble is, they can't just throw in any woman as a replacement for HRC without it being a very obvious pander. Ferraro has said outright that she didn't have enough experience to be on the ticket when she was Mondale's VP pick, and that she wouldn't have been there if she weren't a woman; see how well that went. Choosing a less-qualified woman than HRC is an insult -- and none of the female politicians on the current landscape who do have enough experience would ever be put forward as an option.

    Parent
    Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida... (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:24:39 PM EST
    That is Clinton and NOW McCain country. It is funny, Obama can't win where MOST of the people are.

    Even Dukakis carried Wisconsin (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:26:07 PM EST
    The fact that Obama is holding a slim lead there is not very impressive to me.

    And note the high undecideds among women (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:08:13 PM EST
    At almost twice the number of undecided men.  Really, 1 in 7 women undecided in Wisconsin, with our high involvement -- highest turnout of women in the country, per a 2000 study -- does not bode well for Obama.  

    But then, Wisconsin women are low in education and income, compared to the rest of the country -- just below the norms for both.  So the undecideds might reflect that women here (except in Madison, unlike the rest of the state in this and so much else) simply might be too bitter to be his voters. :-)

    Parent

    I'm sure this will be (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    true for downticket races, and it would have been true for any other Republican presidential nominee.    McCain, the "maverick," is nowhere near as tarred by that stuff as most other Republicans are, and I think the Democrats will lose if they try to make him out to be Bush III because voters simply will not believe it.

    He is a very attractive candidate to independents, and conservative Dems. who don't buy Obama's schtick.

    Obama will not be (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:55:17 PM EST
    able to get the votes of those who want someone with "experience."  

    Unfortunately, he's most like George W. Bush when you compare experience coming in, that Washington "outsider" status, the "I'm a Uniter" message.  

    Frankly, I won't vote for someone who is almost a complete neophyte.  I'm quite unhappy that the Democratic party seems to think I will.  

    Parent

    another person who doesn't.... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:42:35 PM EST
    understand what a "vote" is, I see.

    If intent mattered, Gore would have won Florida by about 30,000 votes.  But there is a difference between a "vote" and "intent".

    So Obama go ZERO votes in Michigan.  Those are the facts.  You wanna discuss intent, I'm there, as long as we can discuss how many people would have voted for Hillary if they had the chance to actually VOTE for her, and not spend four hours being harrassed by Obama personality cultists.

    And since we're on the subject of caucuses, people don't "vote" at caucuses -- they express a preference.  And if there aren't enough people who express the same preference to reach a threshhold for support, they get a second choice.  That's not "voting", and Obama didn't get "votes" out of caucuses, because "voting" does not all second choices if your preferred canddiae isn't doing well.

    Parent

    200k voted uncommitted (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by themomcat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:37:20 PM EST
    unless there is a clairvoyant that can who can tell who those people would vote for if ALL the candidates names were on the ballot, then those voters are still uncommitted. And the delegates that are representing those voters should go to the convention as uncommitted. Obama made the decision to take his name off the ballot. Let him suffer the consequences of that decision. Let him start learning that he will not always get what he wants. Yes, count all the votes as they were cast. That is a democracy.

    Parent
    You don't have to be a clairvoyant (5.00 / 0) (#169)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:45:02 PM EST
    Just look at the exit polls.

    Parent
    Exit polls don't count.. (none / 0) (#183)
    by themomcat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:59:01 PM EST
    Votes count. You vote uncommitted, you are uncommitted. I repeat: Obama made the decision to take his name off the ballot to game the system because he knew he would lose to HRC. Let him suffer the consequences of his decision.

    Parent
    Its not about the will of the people (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:18:16 AM EST
    you said votes.  "Votes" means something.  "The will of the people" means something else.

    and I'm more than happy to discuss 'the will of the people' with intellecually honest people, but by switching the criteria from "the most votes" to "the will of the people" -- THEN ACCUSING SOMEONE ELSE OF SWITCHING when you were doing the switching, show me that you really have nothing to contribute.

    Parent

    The only shifting game (none / 0) (#212)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:50:47 AM EST
    that is being played in MI is by Obama. I do not see it as "dishonest" to state facts. When the facts do not suit Obama's supporters they call "foul" and get insulting. Obama needs to take responsibility for his decision to take his name off the ballot. Unless you have something more convincing to add to your argument without insulting remarks, have a good night.

    Parent
    actually right now i don't! (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:03:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Exactimente gyrfalcon! Truth be known, I (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:02:18 PM EST
    have thought many times at some point, I would consider voting for McCain, if I didn't think our candidate could win...prior to this race...now it looks really attractive if obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    Well If The War (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by talex on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    is hurting Clinton - then what is hurting Obama because 1/2 the population is voting for Clinton.

    Note: BTW, you'll find that Clinton didn't vote for The War if you read her floor speech. She made that quite clear.

    Cheney's energy bill (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:37:26 PM EST
    Obama voted "yea"

    I also find it very problematic that Obama gave a $100,000 earmark to Father Pfleger.

    We all understand the reasoning behind Senator Clinton's vote on Iraq. Obama's choices on the above baffle me, though.


    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by talex on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:43:06 PM EST
    It's about using your power as an elected official to say yes or no - but the real factor is yes or no to what.

    She didn't vote for war. Read her floor speech before making the kind of comment you are.

    Parent

    The war hurt her with the VERY liberal imho, (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:25:06 PM EST
    I am a moderate to conservative Dem and I find strength in her vote for authorization of force, after her home state was brutally attacked on 9-11.... It was Bush and Cheney who lied and abused it.

    The Clinton "Campaign" hurt her the most. They planned on a cake walk and Mark Penn is repulsive. However, I still say nominating Obama is a mistake. He all ready has baggage, yet has accomplished NOTHING yet. The race baiting of his pastor[s] will hurt him most. The real problem is the SD's who support Obama will not switch to Hillary without THINKING they look racist, instead of doing their job. I know of only three white union men that will vote Obama. He will not get the blue collar workers. Also, more about Obama will come out in October, around the twentieth or so. The Republicans know how to gut liberals at the most vulnerable time. Anyone remember the tank ride, or the swift boaters or the wind surfing, or bittergate or guns and religion, or Wright? He will be the sacrificial donkey.

    The people at Kos and that group of democrats will NEVER learn. I saw one post over there today that said Al Gore losing Tennessee was not that bad for him.... Hello... He would have been President...

     

    Parent

    If its all about votes and not about speeches (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by tree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:00:18 AM EST
    then Obama is no different than Clinton on the war.

    Parent
    iowa and oregon, too (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Turkana on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:50:01 PM EST
    white states obama should win handily.

    The problem is (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:52:30 PM EST
    that Obama just isn't strong enough in the interior west to be as weak as he is you know where. Indeed, I expect him to get more votes than John Kerry did or Hillary Clinton would in places like Idaho or Montana, but they will just be wasted votes, because he can't win those states. He needs more strength in the industrial east.

    Parent
    no question (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Turkana on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:58:44 PM EST
    and oregon and iowa should be democratic states, anyway. the race will be decided in the northern industrial states, and there are no expanded playing field states that can compensate for losing them.

    Parent
    Maybe in Oregon (none / 0) (#199)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:08:28 AM EST
    I have my doubts about Iowa.

    Parent
    You are very optimistic. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by themomcat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:54:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Not as optimistic (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:55:56 PM EST
    as this one comment would suggest.

    Parent
    not optimistic (none / 0) (#195)
    by Turkana on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:05:51 AM EST
    realistic. obama should be strong in those states. his problems will be elsewhere...

    Parent
    Comment #199 (none / 0) (#206)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:20:56 AM EST
    should have been here. Obama may do well in Oregon but Iowa will go for McCain. Just my feeling on it. My husband's Republican family is from Iowa and they  went for HRC in the caucus.

    Parent
    "For once" a primary result is a good (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Anne on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    indicator?  Not sure what that means, except that it sounds like, for some reason, we're supposed to be able to draw a straight line between primary and general for Obama in Wisconsin, but we're not supposed to be able to do that in states Hillary has won?

    With 10% undecided and a 4% margin of error, I would not take much comfort from a 6-point lead.

    Would be nice to know how Clinton would poll.

    A straight line also for McCain... (none / 0) (#54)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    Note that McCain also won the Wisconsin primary, although he only got 55% compared to Obama's 58%.

    Parent
    I thought he was being snarky? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:04:01 PM EST


    Parent
    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by djcny on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:56:43 PM EST
    now how about voicing the same objections to Obama supporters.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:57:01 PM EST
    I really doubt that poster is for real.

    I hope not. The implications are (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    a bit unsettling.

    Parent
    February.... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    well there is bad news and good news and bad news...

    but before we get to the news, Obama's lead among whites is 3 points not 5 points as you said.(that's a 46%, not a 48%).

    The bad news is that Obama was leading McCain by 11 points in a SUSA poll taken Feb 26-28, and had 51% of the white vote back them.

    The good news is that Obama's support slipped by Mid March, when SUSA polled again, and had Obama with a 4 point lead... and 45% of the white vote. So since then he's pretty much held his 'white vote'.  And the May poll has more GOPers and "conservatives" than the March poll.

    The bad news is that the march poll was taken right after the Wright story first broke,...and exposes some rather significant vulnerabilities than can be exploited at whim by the GOP...

    Wow the Celtics made the Championship. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:35:03 PM EST
    Now I know anything is possible.  Hillary will be 44.  Ok, I know, OT, but come on, the Celtics?  Woot!

    Boooooo (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:38:32 PM EST
    As a lifelong Pistons fan, I demand a recount or something.

    Parent
    No way! (none / 0) (#49)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
    Have you any idea how long we have been waiting for this?  :)

    Parent
    Heh. (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    They are the team we've been waiting for.  ;-)

    Parent
    Were there any "flopping" violations (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:08:45 PM EST
    called?  Big discussion of the Lakers/Spurs game on Dan Patrick am radio sports talk show on this issue.  

    Parent
    They should have won that superbowl. (none / 0) (#143)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:30:27 PM EST
    It was to be our triple crown.  Thrre championships in less than a year.  Damn shame.

    Waiting since 1987 at any rate.

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#151)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:34:30 PM EST
    You have like 73 championships.  It's like listening to Yankees fans complain that they haven't won the World Series since 2000.

    Parent
    That is surely Obama's electoral strategy: (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by magnetics on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM EST
    that he can stiff FL, MI, Appalachia, women, etc in the primaries, and still pull out victory in November, simply because people won't elect a Rethuglican dogcatcher these days.

    This reeks of cynicism in my view.  They say in Chicago that 'politics ain't beanbag', which is certainly the case, but it certainly doesn't fit well with the call to a new post-partisan politics of unity.

    I have pulled the lever Dem in every presidential election since McGovern, but I may sit this one out, even though it will cost me a lot of skin at home.  As someone once said. 'I will vote the Democratic candidate, be he even a yellow dog; but lower than that ye shall not drag me!'

    I plan to tell all my Obama leaning (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:58:13 PM EST
    friends that I'm donating to McCain, if he's the nominee. Whether I do so is another question---but I'll enjoy torturing them a bit.

    Parent
    I know emotions are high (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:00:32 PM EST
    But we need to be rational about this.  Think of the differences between McSame and Obama (even if he is your second choice):
    Iraq, Taxes, Climate Change, Health Care, Civil Rights, Judges, etc.
    There's no comparison.  You can't help McSame, can you?

    Parent
    It's not policy, it's competence. (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:03:59 PM EST
    and ethics, to a lesser extent.
    Honestly, I think McCain could be a better President than Obama, who I think is woefully underprepared, and bring a horrible, W-like attitude to the job.
    Yes, McCain is harmed by being a Republican, and by having been so close to Bush, but Obama? Well, his problem is that he's Obama, and that may be too much to overcome.

    Parent
    Actually i think if people thought about (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:12:36 PM EST
    the qualifications for the Presidency seriously, Obama would never have been encouraged to run.
    I feel that electing him would be truly reckless---a terrible risk to our national security, for starters.
    McCain? He will have to get along with a Democratic Congress. I can live with that.

    Parent
    Your problem is that you think ANYONE (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:25:19 PM EST
    is better than McCain, whereas I think almost NO ONE could be worse than Obama.

    Parent
    Look, McCain's not my guy, but (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:36:25 PM EST
    for crissake stop calling him evil.  It's hyperbolic.  This is the same guy Kerry wanted to run with just 4 short years ago.  Evil isn't going to fly.

    Parent
    Spite has little to do with it actually. (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:37:12 PM EST
    I've said many times that it's not that Obama has (probably) won that's the problem---it's that he is such a poorly qualified candidate. It does not matter whether I like him or not. I  know with conviction that his lack of experience, and his almost total lack of political accomplishments is probably enough already to make him lose in the fall; couple that with his horribly divisive, racialist campaign, toss in the Pfleger and Wright videos, and you have someone who will lose worse than Dukakis.

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#137)
    by LoisInCo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:28:33 PM EST
    rank Huckabee worse than Obama. Yes. I would vote for Obama over Huckabee.

    Parent
    You GO, girl! (none / 0) (#139)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:29:03 PM EST


    Parent
    I thought I could never ever vote for Huckabee (none / 0) (#205)
    by Grace on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:16:33 AM EST
    but the last couple of days, I've given it a little more thought.  (I am not a Christian Conservative, by the way.)

    Huckabee was Governor of Arkansas (which is a responsible job to have).  I like his wife a lot.  She just seems like a really nice person.

    So...  I'm not going to say I could never ever vote for Huckabee because maybe I could if I knew more about him and he were running against Obama.  

    Parent

    although I would vote (none / 0) (#218)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:24:26 AM EST
    for neither Obama nor Huckabee, I actually like Huckabee -- and I think he'd make a pretty good president.  He really is a Christian -- he gets Christ's teaching about the OBLIGATION that all Christians have toward the poor...

    Parent
    I enjoy (none / 0) (#221)
    by LoisInCo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:53:15 AM EST
    Huckabee's wit. If it weren't for him being anti- choice and anti-gay I would probably be very inclined to him. But, the anti gay thing prohibits me. Log cabin I ain't.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#142)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:30:05 PM EST
    No one worse?
    And I agree that McSame isn't completely awful on all domestic policy.  But international affairs?  Complete train wreck.

    Parent
    Ha! He and Kerry (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:36:21 PM EST
    were the ones who got us back to talking to Vietnam.  

    I'm so sorry but it's Obama who is the disaster on International affairs.  He didn't even know his World War II history!  

    The last president we had with such little knowledge of things outside the USA was GWB!  

    Parent

    amen, (none / 0) (#219)
    by kelsweet on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:28:36 AM EST


    Parent
    Wow you're really amazed Wow (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by RalphB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:29:23 PM EST
    Well Wow right back at ya.  I agree 100% with the other poster that Obama would probably be a disaster for the country.  I honestly don't know how anyone, if they seriously consider his lack of qualifications. could possibly vote for him over Sen McCain.

    Agree with McCain or not, he is obviously a man of great character who loves this country.


    Parent

    The competence part (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:21:50 PM EST
    is the most important to me.  I trust McCain to be a competent president even if he won't be my favorite or even my real choice.  

    With a Democratic House and Senate, McCain should be limited in the amount of damage he can do.  He's been known for creating bipartisan agreement so I think he would actually be able to work with the Democrats to get some things done so it won't be a totally useless 4 years.

    I think McCain is fairly ethical too, plus, he's older so he doesn't have as much to prove as a young man might.    

    Obama is a risky candidate.  Doesn't have enough experience, shifts positions on a regular basis, and I don't really trust him at this point.  He gives fabulous speeches, but I don't believe it's good to pick a president based on speeches.  

    I dunno.  I'm still pulling for Hillary because I think she would make the best President.  I think a campaign between her and McCain would be better for the American public too since I think they would both want to fight a cleaner campaign.  (They are friendly and I notice they never go at the throat with one another.  I think they would probably both agree to leave personal issues out of it since both of them have had their personal problems aired extensively in the press already.)  Clinton and McCain have a lot of differences in policy.      

    Parent

    Ageism (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:33:57 AM EST
    I think Obama will pull the ageism thing on McCain ("losing his bearings" was a test run) just like he used the sexism thing on HRC.

    He's going to get the AARP right down his throat and inspire a huge turnout of elderly voters, who show up at the booths more than any age group, anyhow.

    I'm beginning to find ageism in this country almost as remarkable as the sexism.

    Parent

    Ha ha! And the elderly are the most faithful (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Grace on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:12:56 AM EST
    voters the Democrats have!  

    The only thing is this:  My father is almost 90 and voted for Obama in the primary because he thought Obama was "the next new thing."  He told me Hillary and McCain were "status quo" and he wanted to be progressive, so he voted for Obama.  

    Well, that was BEFORE he heard Reverend Wright.  After he heard all that, he changed his mind and decided it would have to be Hillary or McCain in the fall.  He's a conservative Democrat from the Midwest, so either Hillary or McCain will fit the bill (though he likes Hillary best because she's a Dem).  

    Anyway, the ageism will get bad with McCain and Obama but I think McCain is taking the issue head on and won't allow himself to be "swiftboated" on it.  The late night comedians are helping him out quite a bit as will SNL.  

    Obama should be more concerned making comments because it does point out that he's young and inexperienced.    

    Parent

    As this campaign develops (1.50 / 2) (#107)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:11:35 PM EST
    we'll see McSames "Maverick" image disappear.  I too thought he was an independent and a straight talker.  But as I've read more and more about him - he's a conservative through and through.  And downright frightening when it comes to foreign policy - just read Yglesias's piece in TAP.
    We have a chance at 60 seats in the Senate, +60-70 in the House, and the Presidency all at once.  If you are at all a progressive, this is a window we can't let go by.

    Parent
    Yglesias? I'd rather read T.P. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:13:59 PM EST
    You think McCain's lost the maverick appeal?
    I'd say his proposal to institute question time is the boldest thing I've heard in 20 years. He definitely has what it takes to convince people that he's new and fresh.

    Parent
    T.P.? (3.00 / 0) (#123)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:21:32 PM EST
    I assume you're not talking about the bathroom.  So please decode.
    I'm not arguing that he's lost his maverick appeal yet.  I'm saying he will.  McSame has never been hit from the left.  Ever.  Ever.  You can see it now.  Every time he gets questioned about any policy, any statement, he hits back with anger and vitriol.  He's not used to it, and it's going to show over time.  Likable Grandpa McCain is going to turn into Grumpy McSame.  I promise.
    And as for installing "question time", please.  Do you really think he'd do it?  Boldest innitiative in 20 years?  Methinks not.

    Parent
    Actually I was talking about the (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:23:38 PM EST
    bathroom.
    Yglesias has been one of the most shameless Obama supporters. He positively cheered when Obama flipped off Hillary. Since I've never found him insightful in the least, anyway, I won't read him again.
    I have been mystified by the rise of Yglesias and Klein, who are not 10% as bright as they think they are.

    Parent
    Just because a democrat, liberal, or progressive (none / 0) (#136)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:28:21 PM EST
    picks the opposite side in this election doesn't mean they're evil on all counts.  I find Yglesias to be very thoughtful on a wide range of issues.  And his piece on the history of McSame's foreign policy views - where they were in the 80's and early 90's as opposed to where they've been the last 10 years - is well worth the read.

    Parent
    It's not about picking the opposite side-- (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:29:50 PM EST
    it's about displaying some class. MY is not going to get any site hits from me.

    Parent
    You don't have to go to his site (none / 0) (#144)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:31:29 PM EST
    Just to to TAP.  I'm just trying to help.

    Parent
    Can you cut it with the "McSame" name (none / 0) (#159)
    by tree on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:37:10 PM EST
    calling? It childish and disrespectful. Every candidate deserves better than silly name calling. You shold be able to make your point without it, and if you can't then maybe you don't have a point worth making.

    Parent
    Obama never flipped off Clinton. (none / 0) (#217)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:18:32 AM EST
    That's a silly urban legend.

    Parent
    It's a fact. Please don't insult my (none / 0) (#220)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:40:43 AM EST
    intelligence. I have SEEN it with my own eyes.


    Parent
    You saw it from one angle. (none / 0) (#223)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:14:05 AM EST
    There were pictures from another angle that showed clearly that he was just scratching his face with two fingers.

    There's a picture here, so that you can SEE it with your own eyes: http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10162

    Parent

    That is literally the stupidest argument (none / 0) (#230)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM EST
    of the entire campaign.
    One shot, without a time stamp, of one instant, as opposed to a face-on view which clearly shows what happened.
    Truth 1, you 0.
    Give it UP.

    Parent
    It probably was the stupidest CLAIM - (none / 0) (#231)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:52:17 PM EST
    - of the campaign season so far, but hey, since you insisted on bringing it up, there is also video from yet another angle that shows that his index finger was extended and that it was a harmless gesture. Takes about ten seconds to google it.

    Here's one angle (look around 1:20):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31VwNbTIVI

    And here's another:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZE6E8CkFvc

    The second one is a brief clip that shows that the still you saw in the earlier link is actually from the same speech.

    Parent

    Go away, troll. (none / 0) (#233)
    by MarkL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry to trouble you with facts.n/t (none / 0) (#235)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Anyway, trying to scare people about (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:15:13 PM EST
    McCain in order to elect Obama won't work.
    Obama is the scary, new proposition.

    Parent
    "Keating 5" McCain (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Nadai on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:33:07 PM EST
    has never been a straight talker or a maverick.  The problem is, that doesn't matter.  Most people aren't going to do some sort of in-depth investigation of the man and 99% of the country has no idea Matt Yglesias even exists.  As long as the media narrative continues to portray McCain as a John Wayne figure, that's what most people will think he is.

    BTD thinks that this time the media will choose Obama as their darling.  I won't say it's impossible; the Fourth Estate isn't completely faithful.  But I doubt it.  McCain's story is exactly the sort of thing they like, heroics and manly men and spitting in the enemy's eye - everything that pack of jackals isn't.  Obama's story just isn't as compelling as surviving torture, and his story is a major part of what he's run on.

    Parent

    The other problem for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:56:22 PM EST
    is that McCain is very friendly with the press.  He gives them loads of access.  

    Obama hides from the press, restricts access.  Remember him whining "I already took 8 questions" and calling that reporter "Sweetie"?  

    Look for friendly Obama press to end the minute they decide to end it.  He's going to have a much harder time with that "Media darling" image.    

    Parent

    Did you know (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:04:59 AM EST
    that a couple members of the Keating 5 work on the Obama campaign.

    One is DeFazio, an Oregon superdelegate who has endorsed Obama.

    Obama has neutered that whole Keating 5 thing.

    Sory, but he's in that mud up to his eyebrows.

    Parent

    I did not know that (none / 0) (#202)
    by Nadai on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:10:52 AM EST
    Thanks!

    Parent
    Link? Source? (none / 0) (#210)
    by mbuchel on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:38:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#222)
    by Steve M on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:58:21 AM EST
    I don't think Pete DeFazio had anything at all to do with the Keating 5.

    Parent
    You are correct (none / 0) (#224)
    by themomcat on Sat May 31, 2008 at 02:27:15 AM EST
    but former Sen. Deconcini and Sen. Reigle are Obama supporters. And they were two of the five. Sen. John Glenn, also on of the five, was a Bill Clinton supporter. The fifth senator was Alan Cranston who died in late 2000.

    Parent
    And think about Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:11:46 PM EST
    when they no longer stand for the working class....which is where they're heading and where they'll continue to head if Obama wins.

    Democrats, not for the working class?  As far as I'm concerned they aren't even Democrats then.

    For me, I literally am alive today due to policies of Democrats.  I will not vote to elect a "Democrat" whose policies are those of elitists.

    Besides that, it all goes back to my first reason for not wanting Obama to win.  An incompetent Democrat in the White House (Carter) ensured Republican rule for 12 years.  Don't want THAT to happen again.

    Of course, since I drew that conclusion, Obama enacted a whole bail of last straws for me (some eg.s the racist spin, bitter/cling, RFK, Wright).

    I do look at McCain with more confidence, and I've NEVER voted for a Republican in my life.

    Parent

    I've been a Democrat my entire life too (none / 0) (#168)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:43:16 PM EST
    and I can't remember voting for a Republican except maybe once (I might have voted for Bush Sr.  I can't remember who he ran against even.)

    Anyway, it scares me too that I'm willing to vote for a Republican for President this time around.  It's that competence/experience thing.  

    If it were any other Republican than McCain, I probably would have more second thoughts about it -- but I still think of McCain as being a Maverick.    

    Parent

    How much is Obama paying you? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:15 PM EST
    When you use the published Obama talking points to try to move Clinton supporters to your side, you give your troll status away.

    The primary isn't over.

    Parent

    Actually the obviously paid ones--- (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:39:55 PM EST
    like "April"---are much worse than MBuchel. Hard to get good help, you know.
    MB isn't a complete newbie.
    But I also tire of the unity shtick. Now is not the time. After Hillary is nominated will be the time.

    Parent
    I'd appreciate you avoid (2.00 / 0) (#156)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:36:19 PM EST
    the insults.  Just because I'm not blindly behind HRC yet still visiting this blog doesn't mean I'm a paid troll.

    Parent
    Last time I looked (none / 0) (#236)
    by jondee on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:54:28 PM EST
    The site was named Talkleft, not TalkClinton (and nothing but Clinton). We're still aspiring to democratic principals in this country, yes?

    Parent
    Climate change? Health Care? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:26:41 PM EST
    If you cared about those issues you would be donating to Hillary,  because Obama won't do SQUAT, especially on the first.
    Obama is the energy/finance/insurance candidate.

    Parent
    I didn't (none / 0) (#225)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:58:14 AM EST
    know that there even was a candidate named "McSame" except in the Class President contest at some local Jr. High School. Such name-calling for a United States Senator and a Vet who's life story is well known is a BIG mistake IMO.

    Iraq, Taxes, Climate Change, Health Care, Civil Rights, Judges, etc.

    Those are all good issues when discussed like an adult.

    Parent

    just not being bush won't get obama (none / 0) (#198)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:07:36 AM EST
    elected in my humble opinion. i don't think we have seen half of what obama can be hit with by the repubs. just the tip i am afraid. it will be a long hot summer. i noticed for example both cnn and fox not being very kind to him today.

    Parent
    In a poll from yesterday, McCain got higher (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:57:23 PM EST
    marks than obama regarding the economy...now that is bad.

    Question for Big Tent (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by shadow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:58:25 PM EST
    How much change do you think there will be in the state polls between now and November? Once the general election campaign picks up, do you predict any specific changes or trends?

    In past elections there have occasionally been some significant swings.

    Caveats (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:58:33 PM EST
    1. Obama has done consistently better in the "bare" (no VP) bracket of these SUSA VP-testing polls than he has in straight head-to-head polls (no VP questions asked).

    2. The AA fractions consistently make no sense.

    3. Edwards helps the ticket, other choices put him underwater. In the GE, there will be VP's on both tickets.


    1984 again... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by margph on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:07:34 PM EST
    This whole blog entry is too 1984-ish for me.  Hillary isn't mentioned except in some obscure fashion -- as though she doesn't exist.  It's like Winston Smith working for the Department of Truth whose job it was to rewrite history so it matched the party line.

    Curious too that this "poll" was released on the eve of the RCB deliberations-- though the data was gathered two weeks ago.  

    To publish this poll at this time is underhanded.  To present it here on TL is equally so.  Just about had enough here.

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:53 PM EST
    and I didn't write it!

    This is still a two person race.

    Parent

    I think it's o.k. After all, when we (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:00:18 AM EST
    Clinton supporters are periodically feeling down, BTD throws us a poll favorable to Clinton.

    Parent
    Doesn't Susa (3.66 / 3) (#11)
    by Maggie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:34:26 PM EST
    also have Obama up in both Ohio and PA?  

    I'm really not worried about Obama's chances in the fall.  The fundamentals are very bad for the Republicans.  The current closeness in polling comes after two months of Obama battling on two fronts, and in the wake of a close primary battle that has left a lot of bitterness.  McCain still has the positives that come from not being in the spotlight much.  The margin between them only widens from here on out.

    But Maggie, the flip side of that is that the (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Teresa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 09:39:26 PM EST
    Republicans are laying low a little. I think they want to run against Obama now (I think originally they wanted Hillary). Wait until they slam him and then we'll see a difference possibly. I'm not confident at all.

    Parent
    I wish people would refrain from name (2.00 / 0) (#128)
    by tree on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    calling ANY candidate. And that includes McCain. All this McSame, McShame, McBush cr*p should stop. I ain't voting for him, but I don't think anyone, no matter how much they dislike him or his policies, should resort to name calling. Its childish no matter who is the recipient.

    SUSA is losing it (none / 0) (#48)
    by indiependy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:39:24 PM EST
    First the screwy MI results and now these from WI that are just as bad. In what planet is SUSA polling where they think John McCain will get 23% of the black vote vs Obama?

    Tiny sample. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ben Masel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:58:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Definitely. Even more so re Hispanics, etc. (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:34:55 PM EST
    If pollsters are going to categorize by race and ethnicity, and especially in this election year with an AA candidate, they really have to enlarge the sample.  They need a lot more than 600 total to correctly capture these subcategories in states like Wisconsin, well below the national norms in AAs, etc.

    Parent
    28 A-A's responded, only 16 stuck with BO ... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:11:43 PM EST
    ... through all 17 ticket matchups.

    Parent
    Black Republicans perhaps? (none / 0) (#55)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:47:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Interestingly, Wisconsin's leading black paper (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:31:41 PM EST
    is Republican.  The editor and publisher is very prominent and also is a regular on a very popular Sunday morning conservative tv talk show.

    Parent
    Bush Got 14% Of AAs In Wisconsin in 04. n/t (none / 0) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:53:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Kerry wasn't black. (none / 0) (#74)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:56:42 PM EST
    Obama will get 90-95% of the black vote.

    Parent
    "Kerry wasn't black." (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:57:40 PM EST
    Got to remember that line!

    Parent
    MI in 00 and 04 (none / 0) (#83)
    by indiependy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:00:00 PM EST
    Bush got 8% in 2000 and 10% in 04. So to say McCain will more than double that against a black candidate, is quite a stretch.

    Parent
    oops those were MI numbers (none / 0) (#97)
    by indiependy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:06:42 PM EST
    Regardless, even the leap from the 14% in WI in 04 to 24% is absurd.

    Parent
    Since 14% is less than 24%, (none / 0) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:45:17 PM EST
    I think my comment pointed to the fact that it was extremely doubtful that black Republicans were 24% of the WI AA community.

    I agree that 24% is not realistic. Against Obama 14% is probably not realistic but I'm not convinced that AAs who are actually Republicans will cross over party lines to vote for Obama at a 9-1 ratio.  

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#71)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:55:53 PM EST
    'cause there's like a dozen of those in each state.

    Parent
    African-Post-Partisan-Americans? (none / 0) (#84)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:00:15 PM EST


    Parent
    the same planet... (none / 0) (#59)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:50:16 PM EST
    its the same planet where McCain gets only 43% of the white vote against Obama.

    Obama doesn't seem to be picking up white support since it was at its low in March in SUSA polling.  McCain is just losing his... which tells me that all he needs to do is focus on Wright/Pleger a litte bit, and he'll be beating Obama among white voters.

    Parent

    Hate to break it to you (none / 0) (#75)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:56:45 PM EST
    But Democrats always lose white voters in the GE.

    Parent
    So why is it racist for Hillary to bring up (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:59:00 PM EST
    that she does better among white voters than Obama?

    Parent
    Because anything (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by themomcat on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:06:18 PM EST
    that Hillary says that disparages Obama is racist. Get with the program, will ya! ;-)

    Parent
    Did I say that? (none / 0) (#89)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:02:35 PM EST
    Don't think I did.

    Parent
    You didn't, but surely you know that (none / 0) (#92)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:04:37 PM EST
    is exactly what happened to her.

    Parent
    That said (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by mbuchel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:15:14 PM EST
    it is at the minimum a bit crass to brag about winning the white vote - especially using the adjective "hard-working" to go with it.
    Obviously HRC is not a racist, but words do matter.

    Parent
    What's wrong about being hard working? (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by MarkL on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:15:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Tell the Associated Press (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:19:11 PM EST
    as she was quoting its article.

    You did know that, right?

    Parent

    Mhmm, true. (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by masslib on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:02:34 PM EST
    A pollster sometime in March said trends showed Hillary was poised to win more white vote in the general than any Dem since LBJ.  Then, there is the rest of the Democratic coalition that I believe she would easily net, particulary if she put Obama in the VP spot.  That's one broad coalition.  Would be good for the Democrats.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:08:48 PM EST
    I agree with you, but it does matter how much we lose the vote by.  There is a huge difference betwween losing it 60-40 then by 65-35, the difference that may just swing to the election.  (Those numbers are estimates, I don't know the current polls or the historical gap the party has lost by, so take this numbers with a grain of salt.)  And remember, if there is a gender gap at all, it will be much smaller this time around.  And if BHO can't get the Hispanics by a better margin, then we are on McGovern Drive heading into downtown Dukakisville at about 100 mph.  Not a fun drive at all.

    Jackson

    Parent

    A Little Bit Of History (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:01:38 AM EST
    2000 Election 81% of voters were white. Bush 54%  Gore 42%

    2004 Election 77% of voters were white  Bush 58%  Kerry 41%

    Parent

    In RE (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:10:52 PM EST
    This was to mbuchel (sorry, guessing from memory) and it showed late because I'm a crummy typist.  :)

    Jackson

    Parent

    Parent button (none / 0) (#196)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:06:32 AM EST
    If ever in doubt... click your parent button.  It will show you that you responded to the correct person.  About the only time you won't match up is if a comment is deleted.  (that rarely happens)

    Parent
    They only "always" lose white MALES (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by tree on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    Bill Clinton won white females convincingly in 1992 and 1996, Gore nearly broke even, and only Kerry lost white women, but he still did much better with white women than with white men.

    Parent
    Hate To Break It To You But That Is One Of (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:49:13 PM EST
    the reasons that the Democrats normally lose the GE.

    Parent
    i sincerely wish i could remember where i saw (none / 0) (#201)
    by hellothere on Sat May 31, 2008 at 12:09:34 AM EST
    that obama was beginning to bleed aa votes. sorry about that

    Parent
    SurveyUSA (none / 0) (#215)
    by minordomo on Sat May 31, 2008 at 01:13:31 AM EST
    Wisconsin will not be a problem for Barack Obama in my view. Now Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida? Well, that could be another story.

    SurveyUSA also has Obama winning Ohio (+9) and Pennsylvania (+8). AFAIK, they haven't done Florida yet, and in Michigan they have him -4.

    Obama Leads McCain in Wisconsin | 215 comments (215 topical)