home

Today's Test For Obama

Below I wrote that Barack Obama can win the nomination today by sweeping North Carolina and Indiana. But the reality is Obama can not lose in North Carolina. If he does, then he is in serious serious trouble. Why? Because in order to lose North Carolina, Obama will have to garner less than 30% of the white vote. Remember, North Carolina's electorate today will be comprised of at least 32% and likely more African Americans. They will vote for Obama by at least 9-1. Thus, in order to win North Carolina, Obama only needs to capture about 30% of the remaining vote, almost all of it white. Let me repeat - Hillary Clinton can win 70% of the white vote in North Carolina and lose. The fact is Obama can not lose North Carolina. Period.

More . . .

That is why the real test today is in Indiana. In order to win Indiana, Obama will need to run up his usual 9-1 advantage among African American voters (11% of the electorate by most polls). But he will also need to capture a significant amount of the white vote. By my calculation, Obama needs 45% of the white vote in Indiana to win there. Moreover, Indiana is next to his home state of Illinois and a quarter of the electorate is in the Chicago media market. Obama has no excuses in Indiana. If he can win the white vote in sufficient numbers to be viable with white voters East of the Mississippi River,(Kos has a post on the subject), then he will prove it by winning in Indiana. If he can not win in Indiana, then we have to worry about Obama's viability in swing states East of the Mississippi River.

To me, this is Obama's test - prove that he is viable with white voters in swing states. Indiana is a favorable proving ground for Obama. If he does not win Indiana, then his electoral map is not as promising as I thought.

By the way here are my predictions for the day:

Indiana -

Clinton gets 60% of the white and other vote (89% of the electorate) for 53.4% plus 10% of the African American vote (11% of the electorate) for 1.1% for a total of 54.5% to Obama's 45.5%.

Thus Clinton by 9 in Indiana.

North Carolina -

Clinton gets 62% of the white and "other" vote (65% of the electorate) for 40.3% plus 10% of the African American vote (35% of the electorate) for 3.5% for a total of 43.8% to Obama's 56.2%.

Obama by 12.4% in North Carolina.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Morning Predictions: Thread One | Gitmo Trials Unlikely Before Bush Leaves Office >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds very logical (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    to me, although Politico's article on NC did confirm that Hillary needs 60% not 70% of the white vote.

    Dang, I hate drawing this along racial lines, but it does seem to be inevitable in these states where the AA voter population is a big factor.

    I'm guessing that he will not get 90% in this state.  Just a gut feeling.

    Politico is wrong (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    I think we (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    might see different AA numbers in NC too.

    Parent
    i expect enormous AA numbers (none / 0) (#88)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:21:30 AM EST
    today for obama.  this is the biggest political day in the lives of thousands of people in this state and they won't let it pass them by.

    anybody hoping that clinton gets into that 90% of Obama and that the voting will be depressed by the AAs are seriously grasping.  the white vote will be pretty big for hillary, but the AA vote will sweep obama right into the nomination today.

    Parent

    What if he loses IN? (none / 0) (#117)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30:50 AM EST
    Then the nomination will not be decided today.

    Parent
    Perhaps not... (none / 0) (#152)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:50 AM EST
    Older AA voters are strong Clinton supporters and they come out to vote.  I think Obama will get about 79% of the AA vote, but will lose a lot of white men, women and working class people.

    Obama may win, but it will be a very small percentage and Hillary will win IN.

    Parent

    If so, Clinton wins with 66% of the white vote (none / 0) (#192)
    by cymro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:16 PM EST
    You can run the numbers in this NC calculator.

    Parent
    PS you can use it for Indiana too ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by cymro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:09:51 PM EST
    ... just adjust the %Black Vote to 11% instead of 35%

    Parent
    It is about race (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by dianem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    It's the unity that makes it an issue. I can't quite understand how one group of people can be so unified behind one candidate. No group is that homogeneous.  They can't all agree with Obama's politics. It's not as if black people, or even black Democrats, march in lockstep politically.

    Obama faced a unique situation when he started running. He had to find a difficult balance between being the "unity" candidate, who represented all Americans, and being "black". Early in the game, some black people seemed to feel that he was not "like them", and had laid a false claim to sharing the African American experience, since none of his ancestor's were slaves. He also had little reputation within the black community. Many black people rejected him in favor of Clinton, who had a reputation as a person who was supportive of Civil Rights. Axelrod knew that if Obama was to win, he needed those votes to balance out the minority of racists in the Democratic Party, who would be reluctant to vote for a black candidate. So he used a "divide and conquer" strategy to convince black people that Clinton was race-baiting, while at the same time Obama stood above it all as the "post-racial" candidate. They used race and denied it at the same time. But that couldn't last. You can't run as two different people. People may not be exactly sure why they feel that something is wrong, but they know that they can't quite figure out who you are, and they don't quite trust you. Most black people have stood together, because who on earth is going to refuse to oppose perceived racism, especially when you and your ancestors have been victims of that racism? Most non-black people were unaware of the conflict, though. They saw the media image of the post-racial candidate, they saw Obama though the filter that he wanted them to see him through. Until Wright. Obama was forced to make a choice with Wright. He could "throw Wright under the bus", and reject his black community ties, or he could try to explain to people why Wright said the things he did, and why he put up with it. His speech was simply not good enough. He didn't make his case. The media loved it, but people didn't get it. People started seeing the contradiction between who Obama was and who he was running as. Seed of doubt grew, and Obama is now paying the penalty.

    He may still overcome this, but not with the muddled message he has been using lately. He can't seem to get back on message. "Hope" and "Unity" have turned into "attack Clinton". He seems defensive, even hostile, toward the press. His "different kind of politics" message is being shown to be the lie it alwasy was, as he reverts to standard political phrases and commercials to gain support. He is trying desperately to convince voter's that he is like every other politician in the world, at the same time as he is telling them that he is unlike other politicans.

    Like I've said before, this didn't need to happen. If Obama had waited until he had a more established a reputation among the voter's it would have been much easier for him to convince them he was "like them", regardless of skin shade. He could have passed some bills, including some Civil Rights bills (preferably ones which benefitted Latino's as well as blacks), and established a reputation as someone who was going to fight for the rights of all groups. He could have skipped the divisive tactics and run as someone with feel planted in both the white and black communities - a truly post-racial candidate. The sad truth is that I think he really is that person, but in order to overcome Obama's negatives (particularly his inexperience), Axelrod tried to use smoke and mirrors, and that has obscured the fact that Obama is a good person who would represent all of us. He's a politician, but politicians aren't all bad. They want to help people.

    Sorry about the length, but this will probably be my only post today.

    Parent

    Hey......quality not quantity matters more (none / 0) (#189)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    although I am obviously a quantity gal.  :)

    But I liked your analysis.  His lack of experience and real record is why the Wright and Ayers and Bitter became "gates."  It's harder for that stuff to knock out your props when you have a strong record.

    But that was his choice to run on no record.

    It was a risk.

    I personally think I agree with some of the talk that he was "put up to it."

    I think he got over-encouraged?

    But I also trust the AA voters to be as commonsense as my own personal voting bloc.  We get that.  

    He's a man of great talent.  Nobody wants to see him humiliated.  I sure don't, anyway, even though he offended me beyond reason with his anti-Clinton rhetoric.  I still know talent when I see it.  And he's got it.

    I have always personally supported Hillary because I truly do believe we have a messy situation on our hands after 8 years of Bush, and we need someone whose used to slogging through dung.

    Really, that's my chief reason for backing her.

    I would love to see this end with everyone feeling as though both candidates gave it their best, nobody is to blame, and some vital political lessons were learned.  But nobody is "damaged goods."

    Heck, Oprah left that church years ago.  He left now.  There is such potential here.  

    Arnie in CA shows how this done.  Bill C. has done it.

    You just come out and say:  "Boy, I was naive then and now I've learned better."

    Works like magic, because it's the truth.

    Parent

    I'm not a clinician (none / 0) (#201)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    but there's a schizoid element to the campaign.

    Post racial candidate becomes mired in BLT past.

    It's a campaign killer.

    Parent

    your post is on right on target, (none / 0) (#195)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:16:57 PM EST
    and much appreciated!

    Parent
    I think it's safe to say (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by AF on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:37:10 AM EST
    Obama's electoral map is not as promising as it many of us thought after Wisconsin.

    That said, I would not interpret a loss to Hillary in Indiana as proof that Obama will lose Pennsylvania and Ohio to McCain.  

    There are people who prefer Hillary to Obama and Obama to McCain.  

    It is less likely that he will (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:38:31 AM EST
    if he can not win 45% of the white vote in Indiana.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#34)
    by AF on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:53:58 AM EST
    You really have to stop (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:43:13 AM EST
    and think about why second place finishes like Obama's  are being rewarded.

    McCain only needs to steal a small sliver of Clinton's coalition and Ohio, Penn, etc are gone.

    McCain's already achieved this theft in Missouri.  Missouri is lost and it nearly always follows suit with Ohio...so I suspect Obama's already lost Ohio.   That means Obama's defensive in Pennsylvannia and Kerry won there by 2%.

    Parent

    Obama will lose to McCain in Pa. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:03:13 AM EST
    Demographics will make the difference. Clinton voters will move to McCain.

    Parent
    you have to be careful here. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:09:49 AM EST
    I think the profile of Clinton's support will swing to Mccain just enough to make make it unbearable for Obama.

    The primary voters themselves will vote Dem for the most part.

    Parent

    I agree but McCain will peel enough (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    Clinton voters away from Obama, it may be dependent on who the VP candidates are as well, but Obama can't win with if his current troubles get magnified and I don't think they going to go away in GE.

    Parent
    please bear in mind (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:48:46 AM EST
    the real attack machine is not even warming up yet.

    Parent
    But by the same logic, doesn't NC (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:37:57 AM EST
    show a weakness for Obama too?

    That his wins are dependent on AA turnout? In the GE this will be mitigate by a much larger pool of non-AAs...

    I am not trying to say he loses even when he wins, but I think his victories and loses both are illustrative to his GE weaknesses, the wins highlight the problem more effectively though, and nobody is analyzing the wins, only his losses.

    Yes, it shows weakness for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:49:04 AM EST
    You can't win the General Election just on the backs of AA voters.  Obama has not secured any other groups outside of this initial groups supporting him- blacks, young voters, college-educated voters.

    That's about it.

    Obama did cut into some of Hillary's white male vote, but that changed after Ohio and Texas.  I think many men vote for Obama because they didn't want to vote for Hillary, but since she's really gotten out there on the campaign trail, they see the "real" Hillary, not the MSM demonized Hillary.  The women vote for Hillary may have decreased but that's because the polls are counting ALL women, including African-American women, who are voting for Obama (well, not all, but most).

    The fact is Obama has only won in states that will go RED in November.  It is only the Obama spin machine that will make you think states like Alabama and Colorado will go Dem in the Fall.

    If Obama wins by less that 5% in NC, it will be a HUGE blow to his campaign, especially going into WV and KY.  Hillary is already making dents in his lead in Oregon.  

    Hillary is stronger than ever and Obama is really starting to look strained.  After tomorrow, we'll see how Obama feels about being President.

    Parent

    A win is a win (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    if he wins NC and she wins IN the "perceived" value will be a split and "no change" in the dynamic of the race...no advantage momentum for either candidate...

    I just think that when we analyze his winning coalition, the REASON he won this state and not that state, the data will show that he starts out with a disadvantage to McCain...that is a serious problem for Obama...because it appears the original CW was wrong, and the more people are exposed to Obama the LESS likely they are to support him (the fervor is dissipating...to bad Andrew Jones was late to that party aye?)

    Parent

    Wait (none / 0) (#74)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:48 AM EST
    BHO said that Indiana was going to be a "tie-breaker".  I get from this that because Hill won PA and he is 'naturally' going to take NC, that IN would be the deal-maker (or breaker).

    Also, there was a post on TL a week or so back that IN AA voters felt neglected by BOTH camps because BHO & HRC were courting the rural vote.  Clinton should have sent Chelsea in to the AA community to stem that they were not being addressed.  I can see why, though, that HRC would not put 'too' much into AA outreach considering the astronomical support they are weighing in for Obama.  

    But if BHO even appears that he's taking the black vote for granted, I would hazard to guess that a lot of those good people will just not vote at all.  

    Parent

    It is hard to argue that someone is weak (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:39:11 AM EST
    when they win.

    But your point is taken. but the South is the South.

    Parent

    Right, thats the issue with the argument (none / 0) (#16)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    but I think it is telling...a win is a win, no doubt...

    but, with that said, humor my oversimplification...

    If Obama wins NC primary with 90% (of AAs) of 30% (AA pop of primary voters)...in the GE he will only be getting 95% (of AAs) of 15% (of NC GE voters)...

    In the GE his issue with getting non-AA voters is amplified, and regardless of how any poll reflects the race, Obama will have to play catch-up with McCain...

    This isn't just the South, this will be the case in PA, OH, possibly NJ or MA, ID, MI, the southwest (ant Latinos), gawd forbid CA...

    Parent

    and Latinos ...not ant Latinos (none / 0) (#19)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:47:03 AM EST
    Man. I did it again (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    You got me to click on a link to a Kos post. Now I have to shower.

    He is still saying things like "superdelegate coup" and winning most states. I remember when he used to ridicule republicans for winnning the rocks and tree vote whenever they claimed to represent more states. Back then, big states with more people mattered. Popular vote mattered.

    said it before (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:41:04 AM EST
    it pains me a bit to watch what is happening to Obama.
    I began this supporting him and I think his presidency could do a lot to make our country a better place.  it would give me no great joy to defeat Obama.
    however.
    defeating Kos, Ablog, HuffPo, Josh Marshall et al.
    would be one of the great joys of my life to this point.


    Parent
    Yup. It's not to my credit, but (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Jim J on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM EST
    the main reason I dislike Obama so intensely has more to do with his supporters than with the candidate himself. Doesn't say a lot about me, does it?

    Parent
    I used to think that way too (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:55:14 AM EST
    but if you really pay attention, Obama's campaign (by extension Obama directly) has cultivated their rabid supporters...

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:56:29 AM EST
    2008 Election: (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    The Guilt By Association Tour

    Parent
    plenty of guilt in 08 (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    but it has nothing to do with association.

    Parent
    Jim - do not feel bad (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by kenosharick on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:16 AM EST
    I feel exactly the same-the viciousness of his supporters have driven me to the point that I cannot see voting for him in Nov.

    Parent
    Waiting for Kos' head to explode (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:52:37 AM EST
    when Hillary wins both NC and IN.  Even better, Obama wins NC by only 2-3%, proving Hillary (and Bill) broke through his inevitability myth.

    It will drive these so-called leftist bloggers crazy!!!  And I'll enjoy the madness what will ensue.

    Parent

    Chihuahua fire drill!!! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    Look there is more to Obama for these folks (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:53:51 AM EST
    than meets the eye.

    With a few exceptions the "netroots" candidates have all been losers (Lamont) or the folks have sold out the "netroots" values to be with a winner (Webb)

    Overall though, the political establishment sees the "netroots" as a GREAT fund raising tool, but they don't really listen when it comes to political advice, strategy, movement, etc...the "netroots" are losers with wallets...

    By tying their ship to Obama they made a conscious decision to try to win "the big one" to legitimacy to their quest for a chair at the table in the party...which in effect...isn't "crashing the gates" at all...more like - selling out -

    But...that is politics, that is how the game is played...this is all about money, power and access...when Markos and others attain their power, they will be uprooted down the road by some other upstart...and although their meal ticket may not turn out to be Obama (if he loses the GE), they'll get their meal ticket at some point...look at how they are fighting for Obama...

    Parent

    the interesting thing is (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:56:08 AM EST
    I dont think they are helping him much.

    Parent
    True that (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:55 AM EST
    He's distancing (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    as I predicted.  His foray onto Fox put them into a snit.  :)

    Parent
    You've got (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:06:40 AM EST
    it. They've put everything into Obama.

    Parent
    He's a shill and has lost all credibility (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Jim J on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:41:42 AM EST
    If you'd told me five years ago when I first started out at dKos that Armando would prove to be far the bigger man than Markos, I might have laughed. But 'tis true.

    Parent
    I was just (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:50:20 AM EST
    thinking about what a thoughtful job Armando's been turning in lately.  Well done, sir.  

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:29:02 AM EST
    he is one of the very few Obama supporters that I can tolerate reading on the blogs anymore. I have no problem with someone supporting Obama. I do have a problem with hypocrits and outright liars who throw Progressive values and large swaths of the Party under the bus in the name of winning.

    Parent
    I think the Wright situation (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:39:35 AM EST
    may depress the AA vote.

    If she wins or comes close in NC, it will be because she has managed to make inroads into his coalition. That's not good, because I agree that in order to win the GE, he will need to make inroads into her coalition. IMHO, that's not happening.

    Obama thinks he can beat McCain without Clinton Democrats, but I believe he is 100% wrong.

    Polls Show Hillary At 18% With AA Vote (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    It was said by Joe Scarborough (and I don't know how reliable he is) that if she makes it to 20% obama is in trouble.

    Parent
    She's gonna make it to 20% (none / 0) (#161)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM EST
    Older black voters like Hillary and Bill.  Bill's been going to the rural communities and many older black voters have been reached.

    If Hillary get 20% of the AA vote, Obama is in a lot of trouble.

    I think a big turnout is good for Hillary.

    Parent

    I agree (n/t) (none / 0) (#11)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:41:35 AM EST
    Clinton Dems (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:42:32 AM EST
    He never said he didn't need Clinton Dems, he said he thought he would get them.  He obviously needs them.  With an election this tight, neither can win the general without the other's "coalition".

    Parent
    His electability argument (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    depends on expanding the traditional electoral map with a new coalition.

    Her coalition is more traditional and includes the Clinton Dem states.

    See here.

    I also disagree that his attitude has been that he needs Clinton Dems. He's arrogantly asserted that he'll get their votes, but he's done nothing but dismiss and insult them, like with the BitterCling remarks, for example. Axelrod even said they usually vote Republican so they weren't counting on those votes.

    Parent

    Amen to that (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by kmblue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:51:30 AM EST
    I'm still waiting for Obama to reach for my vote.
    He hasn't done it yet.
    And there are many women who feel as I do.
    Old, bitter women. ;)

    Parent
    Well, I personally do have a lot of gray hair (none / 0) (#151)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    For being under 40, I mean ;)

    Parent
    I can sense (none / 0) (#166)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:01:09 AM EST
    myself graying today.  How many hours left?

    Parent
    That unity thing (none / 0) (#202)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:12:51 PM EST
    One thing that gave me a favorable opinion of Clinton was watching the debates in which they have been asked about their supporters (negativity).... Clinton would say 'our' supporters.  Once I was more firm in my support of Clinton, I remember in the back of my mind, this came up again.  I was waiting for Obama's statement... it was about him and his supporters... I just kept thinking, WTF, what about me?  His message wasn't targeted to pick up us stragglers in the GE.  He was dismissive from the get go.

    Parent
    McCain can easily make an appeal to ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    ...Clinton's core voters. A Female VP pick being the most obvious one.

    Any VP candidate happy comnversant will a bit of populist rhetoric would also do quite well with the voters that Clinton has begun to attract recntly.

    Parent

    Not so, and on two counts (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:55:09 AM EST
    1.  Clinton's core voters are core Dems, and
    2.  Not just any woman will do to win women -- not as VP for Obama anymore than as VP for McCain.  See numero uno above.  These are not voters who would back a Republican woman (anti-abortion, anti-working class, etc.).  More likely that some, and time will tell how many, might just leave the prez box blank and vote downticket or stay home.


    Parent
    Or write in Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM EST
    especially if we think she's been unfairly railroaded (see: disenfranchising FL/MI) out of this election...

    I'm going to wait and see.  If control of Congress is even close, I'd hold my nose and vote for Obama. Not that he'll win Tennessee in, oh, a hundred million light-years (and it's not racism; Harold Ford came a whisker's breadth from winning here.  It's blue-collar-ism.)

    Parent

    That depends on what McCain chooses to do. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    Like I said he only needs a sliver of that vote.  He doesn't need it all.

    Parent
    No, (none / 0) (#111)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:09 AM EST
    he won't get the Democratic women with that tactic.

    However, if Republican women are secretly voting for Hillary, they might be swayed by a McCain female VP pick.

    Parent

    He doesn't have to get their vote. (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Radix on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:02:24 AM EST
    He just needs to depress it. All he needs to do is get a small percentage of the Women Democrats to feel betrayed and let down enough so they, as an another poster suggested, leave that box blank.

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    A woman Republican vice-president (none / 0) (#109)
    by BGP on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    is no consolation prize for a woman Democratic president.

    Nor is the choice of a woman VP by Obama going to do the trick. Who could he pick? I don't think he's going to make up to the women who are angry with him by giving a woman the subordinate position. And Cheney to the contrary, VPs are powerless.

    Parent

    Christine Todd Whitman (none / 0) (#190)
    by JoePittsburgh on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    watch the women flock to the Republicans

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#200)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    You might have found McCain's perfect running mate.

    Parent
    I think Wright may be waning (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:47:20 AM EST
    and Ayers may be waxing.

    Parent
    Nah*...... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:16 AM EST
    Ayers is going to heat up again.  Now, the connections to Obama's thought processes are starting to be explicated.  It's back to Murtha's Marxist remark.  Plus, Michelle Obama really did another one of her numbers yesterday on the road.  Apparently, she came off as quite bitter.  LOL*  

    Ayers has had some real interesting forays in his so-called "normie" life that indicate a very obvious and deep-seated radical left work.

    The Republicans are just dropping the breadcrumbs one by one.

    Moreover, even Oprah dropped out of Wright's church.  Sounds small potatoes, but that was a killer story.  No more "Maybe he didn't hear" baloney.  

    The polls won't show the effects directly on this story.  Nobody wants to talk about someone's religious affiliation or lapel pins, but the fact is the damage is done.  

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    waxing = heating up.
    that pic of him standing on the flag will be on the cover of time and or newsweek.


    Parent
    Got it, got it, got it........ (none / 0) (#138)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    need another cuppa.

    Parent
    What memnonic device to (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    you recommend to distinguish convex and concave?

    Parent
    Cave (none / 0) (#187)
    by squeaky on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    Is always inward.

    Parent
    I Don't Understand (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:49:36 AM EST
    I thought Obama had the nomination sown up?  That's what I'm told daily by numerous media types and bloggers.  If he's won the nomination then it shouldn't matter whether he wins a single additional contest.   Although given people somehow seem determined to vote, shouldn't he win every state?  Shouldn't the winner, win?

    He is NOT the winner yet (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:58:01 AM EST
    and his campaign is starting to falter badly.  But the MSM still want to push his campaign and his nomination inevitability.  

    But they, the MSM, are wrong (as usual).

    Parent

    Ann Coulter (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:21:33 AM EST
    made fun of the fact that the MSM picked the GOP candidate.  She also said that the media is pissed that Hillary is not letting that happen on the Dem side.

    I absolutely do NOT agree with ANYthing this woman stands for.  However, I will concede that she is right on this issue.  The media is trying to pick our candidate(s).  The Clintons are not to be counted out.  I love that HRC has the gumption and fortitude to stay in it for the long haul.  Any lesser person would have dropped out by now.

    Parent

    it is a bit odd (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    to find ones self agreeing with Coulter and Gingrich isnt it?
    but I do.

    Parent
    I wish this article had come out sooner. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by JohnS on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    It's the first real defense of Clinton's gas tax holiday. Not sure it needs defending in Indiana, but maybe from here on out...

    It's called Obama is wrong about the gas tax

    It's written by George Frost, general counsel at CivicActions LLC, and counsel to several other tech and green energy companies. (In the past, Frost represented Alaska, Louisiana and other states  in major tax and royalty litigation against oil companies, and represented the state of Hawaii in an antitrust case against Chevron and other firms accused of gasoline price fixing.)

    Here's a snippet:

    "...under Clinton's plan, if properly implemented, any additional profit realized by an oil company by passing on the cost of the windfall profits tax to customers would also be subject to the tax. This means a dollar passed through to consumers to offset the tax would appear as profit ... and be taxed."

    I hope this isn't off-topic, and apologize if it is, but it struck me as important.

    But the price of gas goes up! (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by mcdtracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:13:55 AM EST
    1. take the government tax off the price.
    2. extract a windfall profit from the oil company to re-capture government revenue.
    3. "oil company by passing on the cost of the windfall profits tax to customers" and the price goes back up to cover the lost reveneue to the oil company

    The price on the pump might go up past the original level... the $30 "summer money" would evaporate.

    The plan assume too much based upon bad economics.

    It the plan had a price freeze AND a windfall profit tax... maybe it could be defended as delivering a discount at the pump and protecting revenue for road repairs.

    There's no way it will happen "this summer" and it's a clear pander to buy extra votes by a desperate candidate.

    She should deliver before the convention or suffer in that election for the use of this tactic. The "Summer tax holiday" should be in place before Aug 25, right? The Super-deleigates might use this as a litmus test of her ability to fight for the working man.

    Parent

    Frost would disagree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by JohnS on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    He persuasively argues that:

    -suspending the tax will lead to a small decrease in retail prices

    -current gas inventories are high enough to absorb any resulting increase in demand

    -a summer length price drop of this tiny size will have little or no long-term effect at all

    -there will be no infrastructure-hurting lost construction jobs if the plan is implemented correctly, meaning that "any additional profit realized by an oil company by passing on the cost of the windfall profits tax to customers would also be subject to the tax. This means a dollar passed through to consumers to offset the tax would appear as profit ... and be taxed."


    Parent

    Frost also states (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by JohnS on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    that the only actual study of the gas tax holiday that Obama voted for back in 2000 and now tells Fox news was a failure is just not true. There was a something like 3% savings at the pump as a result.

    Parent
    here's what pandering looks like (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    Wall Street Journal - May 5, 2008
    Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.


    Parent
    WHAAAAT???!??! Do we have linkage on this? n/t (none / 0) (#172)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    Hillary will win both. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:53:53 AM EST
    Hillary will win Indiana by 7 and NC by 3. I think the pollsters are underestimating the tiny towns in NC where Bill Clinton has pulled HUGE crowds and has been vigorously campaigning. They, like in PA, have not taken those NC voters into account. Hillary will win NC just like she did PA.

    you and me pal (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:43 AM EST
    sink or swim

    Parent
    vicsan....I Pray You Are Correct.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST
    I think I am. (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    I think the Clinton campaign KNOWS they will win NC and that's why they have lowered expectations (Terry McAuliffe). They want a huge impact tonight. Kinda like CA. NO ONE expected Hillary to win CA. Zogby had Barack winning by 10+ there.  

    Yep. Hillary will win NC and she can thank her husband after she does.:)

    Parent

    if you are correct (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM EST
    and I think you may be.
    its hello steamroller.


    Parent
    thank her husband (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:18:04 AM EST
    really
    he will have been on every front porch in NC by tonight.

    Parent
    Yes he has (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    been on every front porch in NC and he looks good on front porches! They suit him well. He fits in.

    I read an article yesterday where they quoted him saying, "First let me say this. People have said I've been assigned to the backwater towns, but I'm from the backwater and I like it here!" He does like it. The people who live in those "backwater" towns KNOW he likes it and they appreciate the fact that he is there. It's a first in history for most of those towns. They have NEVER had a President of the United States visit their towns...ever. One man was quoted saying, "everyone here will be voting for Hillary." I take him at his word.:)

    Parent

    This is true for my little backwater town (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by BGP on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:34 AM EST
    in Kentucky. Bill came to the VFW, they let out the school, pictures of him with his arm around local dignitaries and shaking kids hands ran front page in the weekly for two weeks.

    Parent
    last night (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:27 AM EST
    there was a graphic on NYT front page of places the Obamas and Clintons had campaigned in IN and NC.
    Wow - the Obamas were in cities, the Clintons were in cities and small towns where bitter voters live with their "God, guns, and racism."
    Interesting that Obama "can't" go to small towns - but he claims he'll expand the map.


    Parent
    That happened in NC the other day. (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    He was in a town named Dunn (?), I think and the schools extended the lunch breaks so all the teachers and students could attend his rally. ALL the town stores closed down just so the employees could attend the rally. Then they had a pulled pork BBQ (yum!) to celebrate Bill being there. His visits mean so much to them and IMO, that will translate into votes.

    Parent
    I'm soooooooooo hoping you're right! (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:45:01 AM EST
    The cutest Hillary supporter statement from my forays yesterday:

    A typical working class guy says after Bill visited, "I did best under Bill Clinton of any president, and I can tell he'll help her out...so I'm going for her."

    hooting......I just loved it.  Rank sexism and for such a sweet reason.  :)

    Who would have thought that Bill would be viewed as an asset?

    Parent

    Bill really has found his niche. (none / 0) (#167)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    Small town America loves Bill Clinton. I am SO happy they have relegated him to the "backwater" towns. It's perfect for him.

    Hillary WILL win NC because of him. :)

    Parent

    But they showed HRC (none / 0) (#58)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:42 AM EST
    winning PA...they have Obama winning NC by 7 points...tiny towns at best = 1 point...advantage Obama +6

    Parent
    Why are tiny towns only +1? (none / 0) (#95)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    Bill has been campaigning in those towns for weeks. 7, 8, 9 rallies a day. At one tiny town he pulled a crowd of over 3000 people. These are towns where no president has ever visited and they LOVE Bill Clinton. I think those towns and their impact are not being taken into account. Look at what Hillary did in expected Obama districts in PA. She wiped the floor.  She may have been expected to win PA., but Barack saturated the airwaves with ads. He overspent her 2-1, 3-1 and she still won it. Chelsea has been traveling across NC too. I think Hillary will win it. Not by a large margin, but she'll win.

    Parent
    Tiny towns have telephones (none / 0) (#185)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    Pollsters, especially random dialers like SUSA, should be polling them.

    Parent
    Clinton went about the Wright (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Danbury on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:07:49 AM EST
     thing the wrong way.

    She should have framed it that Obama was abandoning the AA community and one of its churches for political expediency (which would have been true, actually).

    In other words, Obama divorced himself from a church the black community LIKED. Why?

    AAs should feel that Obama dissed them over this issue, something he's done before as well.

    Dems are about to pick the wrong person, IMO.  And the only reasons I've seen given by SDs for supporting Obama are 1) they spoke to their 12 yr. old; 2) "Obama can unite the country.

    Really?  Have they taken a stroll through even the liberal blogs?  Try being a Clinton supporter at HuffPo or FDL.  Ain't pretty. Ain't no unity.  Ironically, Hillary's supporters are far more civil.

    no cause then she would have been seen as (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    attacking the community itself. It is for the AA community to decide that Obama has dissed them on a regular basis. He didn't even go to the "State of the Black Union" event. Smiley called him out on it and then Smiley gets death threats. Seems that should tell the AA community something, but they have to figure out what his actions or lack thereof mean themselves.  

    Parent
    oldest political ploy in the world (none / 0) (#159)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM EST
    >>>Obama can unite the country.

    Parent
    Yep, Obama Is An Uniter Not A Divider (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:15:04 AM EST
    and we saw how that played out over the last 7+ years and how it is playing out during the primary. Obama maybe uniting under Republican ideas, but he is sure tearing the Democratic Party apart.

    Parent
    For those math junkies who can't wait (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:55 AM EST
    Via Pollster, under the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina has to track a lot more voter info than most other states.  It helpfully uploads the info on early and absentee voters every day.  You can download information by race, sex, district of folks who already voted.  Here's the link to the application.  Also according to Pollster, as of May 3, approximately 40% of early voters were African American, 60% were women.  Of course, the demos of early voters may not match final numbers.

    Does your opinion that (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:22:09 AM EST
    a loss in Indiana (which I believe is as inevitable as a NC win) for Obama damages his electibility argument hold if he goes on to win Oregon by a solid margin?

    Sure it holds (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:25:12 AM EST
    In fact, he MUST win Oregon to even have an electability argument it seems to me.

    Parent
    Sorry BTD I don't buy that (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    The voters of OR are a far cry those in OH and PA.  I know there are quite a few white and rural voters in OR, but Toledo and Scranton AIN'T Portland or Salem.

    I have been to Portland, McMinville, Salem and Dayton, OR.  Lots of hippie types migrated there from California...and they take their voting habits with them.  I can def see Senator Obama winning there.  I have a doctor friend who practices Eastern/Chinese medicine outside of Portland in McMinville...and she and her group of friends are all Obama supporters.

    His style appeals to them.  But this is a pretty sophisticated group of people (doctors/wine, grape growers/professors at the Univ of Portland, artists).

    Somehow I don't see that translating into GE material, but that's just me.

    Parent

    Cue Hillary chopping a tree down (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    with the edge of her hand and using a rope line to haul in the lumber.

    Obama screams "Pander!"

    Parent

    Obama's Weakness Is Not Just with Whites (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:23:22 AM EST
    He's shown a weakness across the board with non-AA voters, particularly Mexican Americans.  His problems with the white working class vote show up east of the Mississippi.  His hispanic problem showed up in California (where he had an even larger Asian problem) and Texas.  It even showed up in Illinois where Hillary won Latino Democrats and only lost the Latino vote by 1 point to Obama (50-49).  He also has gotten crushed in several states, including California, among Asian Americans (the notable exception was Hawaii).

    His weakness with other non-AA groups could have consequences in swing states like New Mexico and even in California, where recent polls, including SUSA, have him up only 7 against McCain.

    MO Has A Small Latino Population (1%) (none / 0) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    but the disparity between Hillary vs Obama in this demographic is amazing.

    Latino Voters (SUSA)

    Clinton 67%  McCain 33%
    Obama 18%   McCain 70%

    Parent

    The reason that Bill Clinton won two elections (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by athyrio on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    is because he has great appeal to the Clinton Democrat who is "blue collar", slightly conservative on many subjects, etc....If Hillary isn't the nominee, McCain has more appeal to that group due to his long record of being a maverick...Those are the cold hard facts that are now starting to come to light and that is BEFORE the GOP attack machine gets into full force with Ayers stomping on the flag, etc....He will be toast in the fall....

    Again, with a MILLION voters purged in Inidana... (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Dadler on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:38:58 AM EST
    ...the result will be fishy at the least, completely illegitimate at the worst.  Why this issue isn't getting more play here, I have no idea.  Purging 20 percent of the registered voters, and doing so mainly in a few counties, fits the "politics of crime" moniker this site has had since its inception.  

    why no play here? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:12:08 AM EST
    because Indiana purged DEAD voters. And voters who had moved.
    Imagine that!  Dead Democrats not voting - as they did in the south for so long.
    Guess you didn't see the follow up DK diary that debunked your information.


    Parent
    If they are being purged, (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:22:16 AM EST
    what is the rationale?  Before I retired, my job used to take me out of town a lot, often unexpectedly.  While I always planned ahead and got an absentee ballot for major elections, I often missed the locals.  When I would show up in person at the polls the next time, I would find myself purged and placed on an inactive voter list.  It only took me a couple of minutes to get myself put back on the active voter list again.  Is the claim that these people will be refused a ballot? Or that they will have to prove who they are and that they still live in the district?

    Parent
    BTD (4.40 / 5) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM EST
    What happened to Kos? He used to believe in the nascar strategy that people like Mark Warner used effectively? I thought that was a really good goal to have. It's also a winning strategy. Now, we're back to the same old Duakakis stuff with Obama---hoping for high AA turnout and enough latte liberals to win a general election if Obama's the nominee. It's a strategy that repeatedly failed. I can't imagine why any blogger or candidate would want to repeat a known losing strategy.

    I honestly think (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:21:36 AM EST
    it's not about Obama winning anymore, but about Hillary losing.

    Parent
    Probably (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    I think they'd rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary.

    Parent
    Exactly! (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Danbury on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    One can only hope that disgust with Republicans is enough to overcome this this year, but polls showing McCain tied, or even ahead, don't bode well.

    How is it even possible that this country could consider electing a Republican now???

    Hillary knows this electorate. Dems are doing themselves in with their usual self-righteousness.

    Groan.

    Parent

    With (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    McCain vs. Obama the election is going to be about national security and patriotism. McCain wins that argument hands down sorry to say. Besides with the Dems in control of congress, voters can always vote for McCain with with the belief that his worst instincts will be held in check by congress and the senate.

    Parent
    good point! (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM EST
    >>>voters can always vote for McCain with with the belief that his worst instincts will be held in check by congress and the senate.

    Reagan Dems voting for Hillary will not vote for Obama - because they see him as weak and mamby pamby - and arrogant.
    McCain has made some big gaffes, but is forgiven because he has a record as a "fighter" while exuding a degree of humility.

    Parent

    My personal theory (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    is that American liberalism (Progressivism)  is a regional identity as much as if not more than a philosophical one.

    Californians and New Englanders look at people with a Southern drawl as culturally alien.

    Yet, it's that alien landscape in the south we need to win, to win the Presidency. Kerry couldn't do it. Dukakis couldn't do it. Mondale couldn't do it.  For the left it's like looking at foreigners, or dare I say it--The enemy.

    The Republicans understand they are basically a regional party that can adapt to liberal/border regions pragmatically.


    Parent

    Primaries (1.50 / 2) (#110)
    by timpundit on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:34 AM EST
    First of all I don't take what Drudge reports as serious. Let's just see.

    I think that what everyone expected months ago will happen. Obama will handily win NC and Hillary will win IN.

    So, Hillary's Vanity Campaign will continue, as she promises eveything to everyone.

    Obama had an primary plan from the beginning and he's won all the states he needed to win. She thought she'd be crowned by now and therefore didn't plan for a loss and didn't plan on having to compete this late in the primary.

    Clearly Hillary wasn't ready on day 1 or 2 or day 126, either.

    Obama will be the nominee. Period. She ran a lousy campaign and only recently got desparate enough to pander like she was Mitt Romney or something.

    What does Drudge have to do with my post? (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:34:31 AM EST
    Moreover, this is false:

    "I think that what everyone expected months ago will happen. Obama will handily win NC and Hillary will win IN."

    Indiana was believed to be an easy Obama win for months.

    As for the rest of your comment, well, it is not worthy of any response.

    Parent

    Wow Obama is going to do badly today (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:39 AM EST
    The rate of this meme appearing here today has already increased by a factor of 4.62x, which if I use my Obama Fear Equation translates into a net loss of 3-4% of support, causing a significant spike in "Clinton can't win, its over, he has already won" messages across the internets...

    Parent
    lol* (none / 0) (#146)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:47:29 AM EST
    I used to post that a lot.  Ahhhhhh.......I see the ad was effective!  :)

    Parent
    If I inadvertently plagiarized... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:42 AM EST
    I apologize and give credit to the original Fear Equation... ;)

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    Obama's own spreadsheet disagrees with you on what "everyone expected months ago."

    Parent
    Obama never had a Plan B (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    if he didn't win Feb. 5 - evidenced by his continuing his empty "hope and change" meme as the economy tanked. He only recently climbed down from his ivory tower and began venturing into working class venues after polls indicated his bitter remarks were resonating negatively.
    Obama's campaign has been based on promoting Hillary-hate and playing the Race Card that far outweighs his substance and knowledge on the issues.

    Parent
    Actually (4.50 / 2) (#125)
    by Danbury on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    it was assumed by everyone that she'd be the nominee (it's so ironic that Obama's supporters use the "entitlement" argument against Clinton even as they spend weeks demanding she step down and HAND him the nomination!), and Clinton designed her campaign around winning the General, which she was wise to do.

    At this point, the momentum is in her favor, and many are having new doubts about Obama's ability to win in November, with good reason. So now, I think the battle is between pragmatism (biting the bullet and going for the first choice, Hillary, which is what our teachers always taught us to do since it's usually the right one) or stubbornness and continuing to buy an argument about change that never had any substance or real traction to begin with.

    Parent

    No one really understood (none / 0) (#136)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    how the Rocky vote would have defied the demographics that existed in other states.

    Also she simply didn't campaign against Obama early enough.

    When Edwards was going after her, she should have started to drag Obama down with her instead of forcing Edwards out.

    Parent

    apart form Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:48:33 AM EST
    And I doubt he'd have won those caucuses if Wright had surfaces in December or January.

    Parent
    A President must (none / 0) (#176)
    by zfran on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:13:29 AM EST
    adapt to ongoing conditions and situations. Who between the two candidates has done that. Sen. Obama sounds the same (albeit more tired). Sen. Clinton has changed her gameplan over and over to adapt to the American people and demographics...a President "of the people, by the people and for the people"...sounds like a President I want!!!

    Parent
    Months (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    ago Obama was expected to win IN so you are wrong on that account.

    Parent
    That plan relied on ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    ...collusion from the media and a quiescent set of rivals.

    Which suggests Obama has the whole thing in the bag or he believes that the system is conspiring to pick him anyway.

    Parent

    wow (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:31:18 AM EST
    a blogger who reexamines his positions in real time.
    what a concept.
    proud to share a thread with ya.


    BTD, I've come to count on (none / 0) (#23)
    by Lil on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    your analysis, so your prediction on NC bums me out. I notice it is quite different than SUSA's latest poll numbers. Since you usually support SUSA, what say ye about the discrepency?

    Easy (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:51:07 AM EST
    They giove Hillary close to 20% of the A-A vote. Also I predict higher A-A turnout than they do.

    This has been their Achilles heel and I always make an adjustment o the SUSA numbers on these two issues.

    Parent

    Big AA vote might be good for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    I still think Hillary (and Bill) have a lot of support in the AA community in North Carolina.  Under the Clinton Administration, NC and African Americans did very well, especially with social programs.

    A lot of older AA voters will go for Hillary.  I think the Bill's Rural Ambassador Tour is a BIG success and will bring out a lot of rural voters who usually never pay attention to the primaries.

    I get the feeling Obama is going to get a rude awakening tomorrow.  Never say you are inevitable.  Only death and taxes is inevitable- winning the Presidency of the United States is completely different.

    Parent

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:04:26 AM EST
    Doesn't that sound like the Titanic?  Don't tempt fate by claiming you are "unsinkable"....

    Parent
    unless (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:18:45 AM EST
    you're Molly Brown  ;)

    Parent
    A strong, independent woman (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    Hmmm, sounds like someone else I know....

    Parent
    What a cool reference! (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    Hahahahahaha, Mollie Brown!  Didn't think of that.
    That says alot.

    Parent
    I agree with (none / 0) (#113)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:29:33 AM EST
    you totally if she wins the nomination.  I'm convinced of that.  

    However, in the primary, I think racial pride will trump.

    Parent

    SUSA (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by bigbay on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    has women at like 52% of the vote

    Most telling is Obama's inability to crack 50% in any poll.

    I'm thinking Hillary carries the undecideds and this thing will be very close. Maybe 52-48 Obama

    I also think Indiana will be a blow out.

    Parent

    my only problem is (none / 0) (#26)
    by TruthMatters on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:50:43 AM EST
    when people make this arguement that if he can't win White Democrats now he won't in the fall.

    they are DEMOCRATS, they are not voting against Obama they are just for Hillary, that doesn't mean that if Hillary isn't the nominee they will drop off the face of the earth, they will vote for the next best democrat.

    thats like saying that each candidate should have been worried about edwards voters since they weren't winning them.

    if Obama is the nominee, he will beat McCain with working class white Democrats, they aren't going to say oh well Hillary lost, I guess I will vote to make the bush tax cuts permanent or continue the war in Iraq.

    This simply is not true imo (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:52:20 AM EST
    "If Obama is the nominee, he will beat McCain with working class white Democrats. . . "

    If you look at the polling, it simply is not true.

    Parent

    Classic Democratic Mistake (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    What Obama did to get here and what he is doing to get to the nomination, is splitting the party.  He had not chance if he was splitting the AA vote with Hillary.  Hillary then had to focus on the white working class vote.  So, at a time when we need both, I blame the Obama campaign with their winning at any cost and their political arrogance for creating this party split.  

    We can only win by adding to our base, not taking away.  

    Parent

    He has tried to (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:31:25 AM EST
    court them.  But you just can't be who you aren't.  They just don't relate to him.

    Parent
    People will write in Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:00:00 AM EST
    She has some real loyalty out here, on the part of people who remember the Clinton Administration.  You know, gas wasn't $4 a gallon, people had jobs, the economy wasn't in the crapper, etc.  

    A lot of folks where I live think this is going to be Clinton 2: Electric Boogaloo.  They think of Obama as a sort of usurper, in other words "not a real Democrat like them."

    There people will vote for McCain, because he'll talk like a populist and they'd rather have him, even though they don't think he'll do as good a job as HIllary would, because they can't relate to Obama AT ALL.

    And it's not racism, as much as many people would like to call it that.  It's urban vs. rural, and whether they like it or not, elitism vs. just-us-folks mentality that a lot of people have, especially in the Midwestern and Southern states.

    (FWIW, three states have voted for the winner in every election since 1960:  Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee.  Obama won't win any of them.  Of course, there's a first time for everything, but I think his demographics are such that he's completely toast under any GE scenario.)  

    Parent

    It's a preview... (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:57:17 AM EST
    ...of the demographic patterns that McCain will exploit.  Missouri has gone GOP if Obama is the nominee. Ohio will undoubtedly follow their example (that's the way it goes).  At that point Obama is hanging on for dear life in Pennsylvannia, which he's proven he loses heavily, even if he buries the opponent in adverts.

    That's probably the end of the election contest.

    I don't see a route to victory that allows Obama to lose Missouri, Ohio and Penn.

    Parent

    and Florida to boot. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Lil on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    Not necessarily true (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:16 AM EST
    He and his campaign have done a lot of damage when it comes to traditional Democrats.  He doesn't get votes just because he may become the nominee if we think he won't serve our interest any better than McCain would.

    Parent
    I'm white. I've been a DEMOCRAT (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:01:24 AM EST
    forever...since I registered to vote in 1973 and I'm not voting for Barack. I'm writing in Hillary's name. I also know about 15 other white women who are doing the same thing. Maybe you need to rethink your spin because it's not true. If I'm disposable as a white, over 50 Democratic female.....the Democratic Party can kiss my behind. I'm leaving the party after this election if they hand this election to Barack without counting MI and FL. I-am-finished. Women VOTE. Women are 50% of the Democratic vote. They are making a HUGE mistake here by making us disposable voters. BIG, HUGE, GIGANTIC mistake.

    Parent
    Chill. Let's wait and see and, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by bslev22 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:10:49 AM EST
    if Barack Obama is the nominee, then you and I and millions of other Democrats are going to have to make a decision about stepping up.  I will be wounded and I may even feel a little bitter, but Obama's got my vote if he is the nominee.  Remember, it's important to elect a Democrat not because of, but despite what we have seen in our neck of the blogosphere and in reasonable facsimiles thereof.

    But we still have Indiana (hopefully), and we have to be proud of how hard the Clinton campaign has worked in North Carolina.  I don't have the greatest vibes this morning, but I'm like that lol.

    Parent

    <here> (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    <Insert comment about the slippery slope of rolling over and letting a candidate win who won by disenfranchising 2 large states.>

    If we let the DNC get away with this, what will they do next?  They are on their way to becoming a seriously corrupt organization.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    Worries hell out of me what would happen if they suddenly decided not to let folks vote for certain candidates in general elections due to some technicality.

    If they're allowed to rig the GE in favor of Obama's candidacy, I quit, until there's dramatically rejiggered leadership, anyway.  And I'm a sixth- or something generation Democrat, whose forebears were among the first elected Dems in the country.

    Parent

    The constitution (none / 0) (#199)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM EST
    will prevent them from doing what you propose (at least it will for now).

    However, the sky is the limit on the wierd BS they could pull in primaries.

    Parent

    electing a democrat is not as important (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:21:52 AM EST
    as electing a candidate that has earned the voter's trust. Obama does not have my trust. He doesn't get my vote. I haven't spent 16 months, reading , listening and contemplating to toss my vote to the candidate least qualified. This is about being bitter because my candidate didn't win, this is about our country and who can best lead. He ain't it, neither is McCain. For the very first time in 30 yrs. of voting I'm writing in a name and that name is Clinton.

    Parent
    Sorry! I'm with you. I am totally loyal (none / 0) (#104)
    by bslev22 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    and committed to Hillary Clinton.  I'm just vocalizing my internal mishigash I guess.  Forget everything I wrote!!!

    Parent
    No need to be sorry. I agree with you. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    The GE is 6 mos. away. No need to get in a tizzy now. Support Hillary now and wait and see what happens. Plenty of time to make decisions later.

    Parent
    Don't be sorry- (none / 0) (#196)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:36:19 PM EST
    Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I just happen to strongly disagree that's all. No tizzy here- just planted firmly in my beliefs. I have an uneasiness about Obama. It's a trust factor. You could refer to it as the "Wizard of Oz" syndrome. Obama is the proverbial wizard behind the curtain and but this time I don't like what I see when the man is revealed. I believe most Dems will remain with the party nominee no matter who that nominee is, but there will be a segment that will move to McCain or not vote. Given the outcome of the primary, the growing discontent with Pelosi and the incompetency of DNC many will change their registration to independent or unaffiliated during the next election cycle.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#197)
    by nell on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    I am with you. He has not earned my vote, and he will not get my vote in November. If he wants to win, he can do it without me. He lost my vote when he played the race card in SC and painted Bill Clinton as a racist. As a minority, I have experienced racism, and Bill Clinton is no racist. Disgusting. That, combined with the general lack of respect his campaign has shown to Hillary and her supporters, not to mention the DNC's despicable behavior towards FL and MI, has made me realize that I will never vote for him because voting for him means rewarding the behavior of his campaign and the behavior of the DNC. While I want a Dem in the white house, I also think that approving of such behavior is highly problematic in the long-term interests of the Dem party and of constituencies, such as women and working class voters, who will continue to be taken for granted.

    Parent
    The day the Obama campaign painted (5.00 / 7) (#127)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    Bill and Hillary as racists was the day they lost my vote. I was neutral until that day. I voted for Obama to be my Senator. I donated to his Senate campaign. I met him. I went to a local rally when he came to town, but I will NOT vote for ANYONE who tries to paint the Clintons as racists. Two people who have spent most of their lives fighting for Civil Rights are not racists. Sorry. Barack will not get my vote.

    Parent
    Absolutely. (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Emma on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    Bill and Hillary as racists was the day they lost my vote.

    And the day they painted Bill and Hillary as racists is the day they painted me as a racist, too. Might as well be shot for a wolf as shot for a lamb:  he's not getting my vote.

    Parent

    (sound of loud cheering) n/t (none / 0) (#170)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    Is voting for Obama... (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by jackyt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    voting for a Democrat? Not the way I'm seeing it.

    Parent
    I'm writing her name in too... I'll be #17! (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by kimsaw on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    But maybe it doesn't count because I'm an independent, but that may make it worse for Obama. I'm an independent who he tried to romance and glad to say I didn't swoon. I think the bitter, clingy comments drew independent support to Clinton. Those who match my demographic may move to McCain or simply not vote. Party loyalty is will be less and less a determining factor in up coming elections.  Some of us just aren't party goers and we're not willing to toss our vote to someone we don't trust.

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM EST
    this democrat is an indy if the party doesn't play fair.

    Parent
    I'm taking (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:04:25 AM EST
    my toys and bank account and going home

    Parent
    27% Of Self Identified Democratic Voters In MO (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:44 AM EST
    will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee per latest SUSA poll.
    This was also the case in exit polls for PA and other states.

    If Obama ignores this fact and does nothing to win over these voters, we will see McCain swore into office in January 09.

    Parent

    Mass...he risks losing Mass (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    the bluer of blues for Pete's sake.  

    Parent
    You're (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:12:26 AM EST
    making the same fatal mistake that the Obama campaign is making. You have to realize that the people who are voting for Hillary are much more likely to support McCain over Obama.

    This is what I see:
    Obama has no appeal to the working class. His economic policies are too academic for them and he doesn't sell them. If the election is Obama vs. McCain, the election is going to be based on national security and patriotism not the economy since both McCain and Obama have limited appeal in this area.

    I don't assume that Hillary will get all of Obama's supporters either. I think it's more likely for Hillary to get Obama's voters than the other way around. And the polls tend to support this.

    Parent

    Sorry to disappoint ya (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:23:55 AM EST
    But I know way too many lunch bucket Dems who are so completely turned off by his pastor and his wife that they will never vote for him.

    Obama really comes off as WAYYY to liberal and aloof for some people's taste.  His brand works well in Chicago, San Fran and maybe Seattle, but in the heartland a lot of folk are just not getting him.

    Parent

    If Obama's getting 45%... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:49 AM EST
    ... of the white vote, then it's likely that most of those he's not getting would go for him in November. If he's down around 30%, I think that suggests that a lot of those voters are actively voting against him, and not for Hillary.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#198)
    by nell on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    it could be that these people are FOR Hillary, but could not support Obama. While knocking on doors in Indiana, I came across a few people who said they wanted Hillary, but if it wasn't Hillary, then it was going to be McCain for them in November because they couldn't vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Of course, Hillary is already (none / 0) (#42)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:57:08 AM EST
    in serious, serious trouble.  She had better have impressive showings in both (lose in NC by less than 5 and win IN by more than 10), or there will be a BO superdelegate stampede.

    Baloney (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:27:03 AM EST
    WHy are there two metrics for success?  Hillary has to win by 90% or she loses.  BHO wins by 2% and it's a landslide.

    As a Clinton supporter, I find this trend entirely hypocritical.  A win is a win.

    And she's not in SERIOUS SERIOUS trouble?  Dude, last time I checked MI and FL were still part of the Union, and with those votes counted (rules be damned) she LEADS!

    Parent

    Bleah - spin (none / 0) (#60)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    if Obama had a number of SDs lined up ready to stampede, he would have pulled that trigger weeks ago...you think he liked dumping losing cash into PA?

    Parent
    We shall see (none / 0) (#63)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    Right right the stampede (none / 0) (#119)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    Which started night of OH/TX, but has gotten lost in the bowels of the hotel room, trying to make it to the conference room (shades of Spinal Tap for those who have seen it...)

    Parent
    BTD, Do you think that Bill Clinton's efforts (none / 0) (#45)
    by bslev22 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:58:02 AM EST
    in rural NC can lead to any material increase in turnout in the areas he's focused on and, if so, do think President Clinton's impact on turnout can be or has been accounted for in the polling that has been done?  

    "East of the Mississippi" argument is... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:18:14 AM EST
    ...too simplistic.  Yes, as you go west in this country, you find more populations that evolved out of meritocracy and are, generally, more willing to look past race or gender. But, that is only one factor. Education, income level, religion, ethnic roots, and many factors also come into play.

    evolved out of meritocracy ? (none / 0) (#99)
    by bigbay on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:24:22 AM EST
    I'll tell that to the farm workers in Cali. I think California has the highest level of income inequality, save for Louisiana, in the country.

    Parent
    That's true... I was referring to the white (none / 0) (#139)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    populations and the theory the observation that Obama does better West of the Mississippi.  

    Parent
    Aprt form (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:47:27 AM EST
    losing Missouri Kansas Arkansas etc...

    Colorado is his one hold out.

    Parent

    Obama has lost more counties west (none / 0) (#162)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    of the Mississippi than Clinton and that's even including caucus states, that don't really reflect the will of the people.

    Parent
    This has been mentioned briefly before (none / 0) (#191)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    But do you think the Anti-Affirmative measure that is on the ballot in CO could hurt his chances there? Or at least make it difficult?

    Parent
    Meritocracy? (none / 0) (#106)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    What you find is Mountain/Plain states where sexism is more prevalent in the voting patterns than in the midwest and northeast.

    Parent
    That may be true... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:53 AM EST
    Although, half of the states west of the Mississippi have had a female governor at some point in their history, while only about 1/3 of the states east of the Mississippi have had a female governor. Same holds true for U.S. Senators elected.

    Parent
    First exit polls will be out around 1 o'clock (none / 0) (#96)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:23:16 AM EST
    but will just be gender, race breakdown and issues that determined their vote but they will give an idea which way things are going

    1 PM EST? CST? n/t (none / 0) (#174)
    by Eleanor A on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM EST
    If Hillary Clinton wins NC... (none / 0) (#102)
    by stevenb on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    then BTD should get an upgrade on the ol' crystal ball.

    I'm starting to think that BTD actually wants Obama to win.

    Snark right? (none / 0) (#122)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    You know BTD believes Obama is a better GE candidate (or has been consistently saying it until today anyway)?

    Parent
    He's been wavering on that subject for a bit. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Faust on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    Obama needs to re-prove himself to BTD.

    Parent
    My projection... (none / 0) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    NC: White 61/Hisp 4/AA 35.  Obama 34% of white, 30% of Hisp and 90% of AA vote.  52.5% or so a 7 pt spread.

    IN: White 86/14 AA. Obama 40% of white and 90% of AA vote... 47% or so a 6 pt spread.

    Margins still matter (none / 0) (#134)
    by Faust on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    I think there is truth to the argument BTD makes here. However margins matter here as in every contest this primary season. If Obama does not win but keeps Indianna very close that will def help mitigate (though not eliminate) this argument.

    However, if he does lose by 9 points then the "what is his problem with white voters?" questions will remain.

    If Oregon goes well for Obama (must win for Obama imo) this will be an opportunity for him to recover from that narrative, though clearly there is some apples and oranges in such a comparison the media will probably just say "he's solved his problem with whites."

    In other news wtf is up with Zogby? Obama hopes he's right but he's seems way out of touch in Indianna. If it is true Zogby is a pure charlatan that massages his numbers then I have to ask: what is his GOAL with his Indianna numbers. It makes no sense to me.

    I always dismiss Zogby polls because (none / 0) (#147)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    his brother James is an Obama Super Delegate. His polls cannot be trusted.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Faust on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:17:07 AM EST
    That's...interesting.

    Parent
    'tis true. (none / 0) (#181)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:19 AM EST
    Funny how that fact remains unreported in the MSM, isn't it?

    Parent
    Nothing about the MSM is funny. (none / 0) (#194)
    by Faust on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    We do not ride the information super highway. The information super highway rides on us.

    Parent
    Two edged sword. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Faust on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    His numbers for California created some pretty bad expectations letdown for Obama. But I suppose it's true he does create some positive spin for Obama as well.

    Parent
    That's Zogby in a nutshell. (none / 0) (#188)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    I cannot believe the MSM still quotes his polls. If I know his brother is an Obama SD, the MSM knows he is and are covering it up....just so Zogby can continue his positive Obama spin with his polls.

    Parent