Big Latin population. I don't think its likely, but you never know.

dola, also Schwarzenegger keeps getting elected governor, and he's pretty tight with McCain.

I disagree. They are not forcing the matter; she has lost. The only way she wins is to completely rip her party to shreds, even though it would be by the rules (although FL and MI are big issues on that end), by overriding the delegate and popular vote. I'm not a Democrat and don't give a crap about what happens to the party; I'm just an interested observer amazed at what they are doing to themselves. From what I've read, the "you'd have to be an idiot to vote for Clinton at this point" people in the Obama camp have already made it impossible for Clinton supporters to come back "with their heads held high." The tie between white blue collar voters, Clinton, and the lofty notion that Dems are supposed to be above pandering to them like Republicans supposedly do, has already done its damage. I honestly don't get what they are playing this out for, whether that's respectable or not. I'm fairly certain "respectability" is not high on their list of reasons for letting this go on.

Not yet.;) We'll sort something out once fall rolls around though.

You forgot ME for 4. MA is 12. I can't see McCain winning any of the states you have in the blue column. That's where Obama STARTS from.

Sorry, my math is wrong. Add in MA and ME and you get 251. My point is that Clinton's math is much, much more favorable, because I think she also gets Florida as a starting point.

Er, actually 259... maybe somebody else should do this...

I can. I can see McCain winning Pennsylvannia (though he wouldn't if Hillary was the nominee). I think he makes Michigan and New Hampshire tossups as well.

According to a bunch of articles out there, Obama plans to declare victory after the OR and KY primaries on May 20th.

Yes, she has lost. No doubt about it, and as a Dem I'm glad she has. But you're not going to bring the party together by forcing the issue right now and rubbing the Clinton supporters noses in it. You'll have a last few weeks of a nominal campaign, starting to turn down the negativity and negotiations behind the scenes to give yourself the best possible chance to heal the party before the convention.

Listen to the majority of Clinton advisors the past couple days. You've still got your Lanny Davis' out there beating the same old drum because 1) you've still got to try and keep some money flowing in if for no other reason than helping retire the debt and 2) you don't negotiate from weakness but have to keep a public persona of fighting on. However, there are more of her advisors like Lisa Caputo who are talking a far more moderate message on the cable networks then they have been.

This has nothing to do with Clinton's supporters. This has to do with her and Bill, period. All losing candidates' supporters have to deal with their candidates' losses at some time. Why would asking her to cease a pointless campaign be rubbing her supporters' noses in it?

I imagine that Bill is apopleptic right now. But I disagree with you entirely as to who this is about. They know the money is drying up, and they both are political animals who have legacies to protect. This is all about saving face for them and their supporters, IMO.

What "saving face"? How does taking this through May 31st, or June 3rd, or to the convention, "save face"? If anything, she's completely damaged her reputation nationwide among pretty much everybody, including Dems with fond memories of the Clinton Administration. I don't get the connection. If anything, she's not trying to save face, she's trying to steal back the nomination she feels she is owed (both by her husband for sticking by him, and by the party). She's lost face in this whole debacle.

Because middle-age and older women who passionately want Hillary are crucial to Dems and they are rabid right now about feeling that the Democratic party is abandoning them. Check out Talk Left or Taylor Marsh's blog or MyDD. Those are probably the major ones of the Democratic blogs that have drunk the Clinton kool-aid.

But like I said, that's just my opinion.

I think I get what you are saying, but I don't think "saving face" is what you mean. I don't see a connection between what you are arguing and what I would call "saving face."

I've been playing around on this site:

www.predictnovember.com

If the Democrats don't hold Pennsylvania, they have no chance.

Interesting post from Gallup, suggesting that Barack Obama may be the next John Kerry.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Ob...rrys-2004.aspx

You can't see any chance of McCain winning Pennsylvania? A state where Kerry barely beat Bush in 2004? A state where Obama got trounced in his own party's primary? A state where McCain is in a near dead heat with Obama in current polling? A state that, outside of Philadelphia, has millions of people who "cling to guns and religion"?

McCain has a reasonable chance of picking up this state in November.

Interesting read, right up my alley. Thanks for the linkage.

I think there is a reasonable argument that McCain is enjoying something of a high water mark in all these polls. The Democratic base is as fractured as it is going to be during the election year, and he has had a comparatively quiet period to go around to his base to firm it up and raise money. But his fundraising is comparatively lagging and, at best, he only reaches dead heats in national polls and in a number of key states. The GOP's Congressional fundraising has been the worst in modern times. Tom Cole, the head of the House Republican Campaign Committee, told his membership this week that they can expect no help from the national party -- even embattled incumbents.

I'll say it again -- voters are angry and they want change. Now.

That argument ignores the fact that McCain can't get in the news now no matter what he does(unless he were to do something horrifically stupid). It's basic common sense that if he were in the news as much as Obama or Clinton, his numbers would improve.

I'd expect Congressional Republicans to get waxed this November(and deservedly so, by the way). The party as a whole is at it's lowest ebb since at least Watergate. But McCain is not suffering from the same opinions, mostly because of his maverick reputation. I think it's entirely possible that McCain could win the presidency while his party loses scores of seats in Congress.

I think that's a very likely outcome as well.

I still say that California could come more into play than the last 4 elections. You cannot underestimate the Asian votes, Latino votes and those million+ conservative voters of SD/Orange Counties. If I recall, look at the California exit polls from the Dem primary, Asians will not vote for Obama and to some extent, neither will Latinos. Also, this doesn't happen in a vacuum, McCain and Rep party will have something to do with it, in Cal. and elsewhere.

I also think st.cronin's map is close.

Which, to me, is about the only reason to vote for McCain. I have no problem with Congress becoming more (D) - even if that's contradictory to me placing the emphasis on libertarianism to where it counts the most, in the legislature - I would no more desire a straight (D) federal than I would a straigh (R). Ugh.

Obama has a legitimate shot to pick up Nevada. McCain isn't very popular here, as he's been on the anti-gaming side of federal legislation. However, to pull it off, Obama needs a huge union and African-American turnout in Clark County to offset the rural areas and more affluent suburbs of Las Vegas like Summerlin and Green Valley, which will go heavily for McCain.

The reason I don't buy the "voters are angry" and thus will kill McCain is because if that were true, we'd be seeing it in the polls right now. No way McCain is this close if voters were truely that angry.

Eh, just because they're angry doesn't mean they're angry only at the GOP.

Nor does it mean that the angry voters (some of which are also GOP voters) are angry at McCain/are connecting their anger to McCain.

Some Republican voters don't even recognize McCain as their own, seems reasonable to think that there are also Democrat voters who don't either.

Same here. I think Jon's post there was right on the money.


LOL :p


Not convinced. I think the current polling is a bit bunk. I think the polling is being influenced by two things that will change come November:

1. The rival Democratic camps who currently say they won't vote for the other candidate in the GE. Fact is, they probably will, and there's little to no evidence of such a divide following a hotly-contested primary in the past.

2. McCain's getting a boost because no one's been seriously examining him. For instance, there are a lot of pro-choice Democrats & Independents who are polling in support of McCain prior to learning that he's ardently pro-life. I think some of this changes once McCain gets under the spotlight.

One can say the same thing with Obama. His numbers have dropped as some moderates who previously supported him realized how left wing he actually is.

McCain has a Reaganesque teflon quality though. A lot of the bad stories just haven't stuck to him.

I don't think that invalidates my point, which is that the polls are currently not terribly indicative of what's going to happen in November.


I'd still argue that this is because he hasn't really been scrutinized to this same extent, yet.

Exactly what has Obama advocated that is so left wing? The National Journal rating doesn't count. I'm talking about actual votes or proposed policies that are far to the left of Clinton.

How many moderates do you think believe Clinton is moderate/right wing?

He's only been square in the public eye since 1998, running for President once, and being one of the big shots in the Senate ;).

For more scrutinized than Obama... though admittedly less than Clinton.

I don't care what people believe. I want some actual evidence that he's pursued or is pursuing policies that can reasonably be described as far-left. I get that he'll be labeled as a commie, but I'd expect people here to be able to point out specifics that make Obama far-left.

Specifically I'd like to see positions and polling data that show that position is well outside the views of the majority of Americans.

We are talking about politics right? So, I guess you can be like the Dems in 2004... don't care what people believe and see the other party get the White House ;).


Universal health care (which Obama speaks about, even though he's not demanding everyone gets it) is a left wing policy. As is increasing the capital gains tax (for fairness). Amending NAFTA (and "fair trade agreements") is left wing. Banning permanent replacements for striking workers is left wing. A windfall profit tax on oil companies is left wing.

For those who thought he was a moderate, they've realized that he's not much different than Hillary Clinton in his campaign positions (and more to the left than Bill Clinton was).

On foreign policy, I'd saying his position that he he would sit down with the leaders of our enemies is a pretty left-wing position.

I'm not running the campaign, so I don't need to care what people think.

Universal healthcare, amending NAFTA, and windfall profits tax all poll well. I doubt much of anyone cares about replacing striking workers and I doubt capital gains taxes would resonate with the majority of the populace.

There's plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama, but this idea that he's far-left isn't backed up by any polling data. He's made gaffes, but those aren't policy positions. The Republicans may be able to portray him as far-left, but those of us here that follow things more closely than the average voter should at least present some sort of evidence before presenting the same ole hackery.

dola

Cam: Is Ron Paul also left-wing? It may or may not be a good idea, but negotiating with Iran isn't left-wing or right-wing in any meaningful sense.

Was it left-wing when Nixon sat down with Brezhnev or Mao? Maybe it's just when proposed by a Democrat. ;)

Yes, actually. You do realize that in terms of left/right political terms, Nixon was not a rabid right-winger in many respects.

Would "outside the political mainstream" make you feel any better? And hasn't Ron Paul received some support from lefties, in part because of his foreign policy positions?

I just find the whole left wing/ring-wing thing to be tedious at best and dishonest at worst. It allows people to not engage the argument by slapping a fairly meaningless label on it. I'm fine with you or anyone else disagreeing with negotiating with Iran as I think there's an interesting an valuable discussion to be had there. I don't, however, find any merit in saying he's a crazy left/right winger.

That doesn't mean I think we should all agree in some post partisan fantasyland. I just want everyone to take the time and effort to discuss the merits of positions as opposed to using tired attack language.

Wait a minute...what does polling data have to do with whether his policy positions are left-wing or not? Those are fairly well static - they are either left-wing or not. What relevance does how well those positions poll have to whether they are left-wing, moderate, or right-wing positions? They are what they are, and people may or may not support them. That doesn't change the character of the positions themselves.

Exactly. And my point was earlier a lot of moderates and conservatives liked him because they thought he was a moderate. They didn't realize he had left wing positions on many issues. He was kind of a black canvas for their hopes and he isn't that.

But left/right/center is constantly moving and the only real way to gauge what's far left or far right at any given moment is to compare it to the beliefs of the population at large. On the far extremes it probably never changes, but there are very few extreme ideas being discussed at the national level in the U.S.

You keep making this point, but you aren't providing any evidence. Where's the proof that moderates are fleeing from Obama because they believe him to be far-left?

edit: If you can show some data, I'll believe it, but saying it's so doesn't make it so. A lot of the working class and older people he's having trouble with in the primaries are farther left politically than he is.

Remember kids.

Right Wing.
Left Wing.
Same Bird.


Good Evening.

Look at his falling poll numbers against McCain. Right now in the polls Clinton does better against McCain than Obama! Back in Feb and March Obama was beating McCain by some good numbers. Now... it's a very small number of % points.

So presumably Reagan was also left-wing.

Edit: Nixon sitting down with Brezhnev & Mao (separately, of course) and Reagan sitting down with Gorbachev are arguably two of the better foreign policy decisions since WWII. If that's considered left-wing, then I definitely think our foreign policy needs to be more left wing, especially after the past 8 years.