True, but what does that have to do with Republicans coming out to the polls? I doubt that even with the cult of personality around Obama, Republicans are going to decide not to come out simply because it isn't Hillary Clinton on the other side.

I'm not saying anything about Dukakis.

I'll say this, I know plenty of people that are conservatives that are not on board with McCain. Many feel that if we are going to get "Hillary-lite" in McCain, better to let the Democrats have the White House and clean the mess up in 2012 when we have a better candidate.

The problem is that the Republican base is not motivated. We've been screwed by the current generation of Republican leaders. Since Newt (say what you will about him), there has not been a great conservative leader.

My point about Obama is that he has seen some HUGE mobs greet him at rallies in the red states. Hillary hasn't pulled those numbers to see her speak. If Obama gets the nod, he'll get the blue states anyway. Those states are voting blue for Obama or for Hillary. Obama puts some red states into play.

Regarding Clinton, she won Tennessee big because the blacks down here consider Bill to be the first black president. They got out and voted in the primaries. In the general election, without another southerner on the ticket Hillary gets trounced. Bill was tolerable to a lot of people down here, Hillary is not. She won the primary, but she gets killed in a general election. However, Obama will still pull the black votes, and I know plenty of Republicans here that are buying his message. If Obama wins the nomination, I think Tennessee falls in the blue column.

The big thing you are missing is that McCain is not motivating the right. Without Hillary in the fight, they are going to stay home. You're not going to see a massive turnout like you did in 2004 where much of the vote was to keep Kerry out of office. Obama is not nearly as threatening to the right as Hillary. The fact that we don't know everything about Obama is working to his advantage right now and will continue to do so.

If the campaign comes down to issues, I'm still not sure if it changes much. You'll have the anti-war vote come out against McCain, and you'll have the lower taxes guys come out against Obama. But, I don't think that will change much, if anything, when the votes are tallied.

If Obama gets the nomination, he wins in a landslide not seen since Reagan v. Mondale.

I don't think you fully understand the hatred that the right has for Hillary. It rivals the hate that the left has for Newt.

As I'm sure I've mentioned before:

1) Right now, there are more self-identified D's than self-identified R's. Any R will have to pick up around 6 points to get back to level. If it's against Hillary, sure I'll buy that argument. Against Obama this is not going to happen.

2) Any candidate with an 'R' next to their name is going to have a difficult time winning anything. They have to run on Bush's record and their voting for it, as well as being part of the incumbent party while the economy is in the toilet.

3) If it's not obvious by now, the religious right and McCain don't get along. Mediocre candidates depress voter turnout.

+1

Yes, of course that we don't know everything about Obama is working to his advantage! That's my point! McCain isn't going to let that continue. He can slam Obama for being too liberal without hurting himself (as Clinton would if she tried the same). As you stated, in 2004, the Republicans came out to get Kerry out. When Obama's positions become well known, I'm doubting that the Republicans will sit on their hands. They may not like McCain all that much, but they'll come out to vote AGAINST perhaps the most liberal candidate since George McGovern.

Clinton, btw, won in Tennessee because of white voters. The African American population isn't all that big in TN and isn't really that much of a turning point. I'm really not sure how Clinton would lose TN big in the general election, but Obama would win it, especially since Clinton trounced him in the primary there. It makes little sense.


I think you'd dipped into the Kool-Aide too much. Obama ain't winning in a landslide. And definately not of Reagan/Mondale proportions.

McCain's head to head numbers with Obama show that.


Not when McCain points out that the next President may be in the position to appoint 3 new justices to the Supreme Court (if not more). The one thing Conservatives can point to that was a huge success during the Bush Administration is Roberts & Alito.

Which is funny, because the hate for left has for Newt Gingrich seems incredibly subdued and lukewarm. Though maybe I don't see it that much because I don't mind Newt?

Which ones?

That's a risky move with several potential supreme court openings coming up.

Yep, exactly. The one thing the Religious Right is REALLY smart about is that if the politicians are just playing lip service, the one place where they can get real change is in the Supreme Court. Bush didn't do anything, really, about abortion through legislation, but he really helped them out greatly by appointing Roberts and Alito to the bench.

McCain has never, IIRC, been attacked for his stance on abortion. He really does have a conservative social outlook on things.

Well VA if you count that as a red state, TN, CO, ID, AR. NC, SC and GA if you want to be optimistic. Not sure if IN and IA are red states, but I don't see a reason Obama can't do well there.

And ISiddiqui, if you want to make a friendly margin of victory wager assuming Obama gets nominated I'm all ears. :D

Reagan beat Mondale by 512 electoral votes. In 1988, Bush beat Dukakis by 315.

So what you are saying is that Obama will win by more than 315 Electoral votes. Is that the bet you want to make?

McCain has an 80 rating from the American Conservative Union, a score comparable to those of numerous other Senate conservatives, including Sens. Charles Grassley, Lamar Alexander, Bob Bennett and former Sen. Rick Santorum. For comparison, Barbara Boxer has a 12, Clinton has a 12 and Obama has an 8. McCain also has a 4 percent lifetime rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League, voting pro-life 123 times out of 128.

Once the general campaign begins, this stuff will be brought up ad nauseum by the republicans.

I'm going to bookmark this thread and come back on November 5. The Democratic nominee will not win any of those states, and the margin won't even be within 5 points except in Virginia, Colorado and Arkansas. In Idaho, McCain will carry the state by at least 25 points.

+1

Very much so.

From the beginning, Squiddy has downplayed the hatred for Hillary or the anti-Clinton sentiments because he supported her. It really does mean something.

It's amazing to read how those on both extremities think there will be a massive red/blue state shift. As it stands right now, no way. Kerry + 40,000 Ohio makes a lot of sense but I still predict that California will not be automatic.

A lot of conservatives don't think McCain would appoint the right kind of justice, less Scalia and more Souter. If you believe that what's it matter if McCain is appointing judges? At least with a Dem as president you can actively work against liberal nominees. How would a minority Republican Senate fight against nominees of a Republican president?

I read a fairly compelling argument recently on why conservatives should stay home in November. It was the first such column I'd read that wasn't just a slam of McCain. It boiled down to the argument that McCain losing will result in the shortest time until a real conservative can be president. If he wins he'll either be popular and win again in 2012 or be unpopular and lose to a Dem in 2012. If a Dem is in office they could again win in 2016 and if McCain wins two terms it's highly unlikely that one party would win five contests in a row. It may be 2020 before a real conservative can win the White House.

However, if a Dem wins this year and gets stuck with a bad economy, a polarizing Iraq withdrawal, and a minority as hostile as the 90's maybe a real conservative can win in 2012. I think that's a fairly good argument if your concerns are about a specific set of policies as opposed to a comprimised winner.

Red state/Blue state talk is ridiculous. It'll come down to the same swing states it always does. Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico, and others. Just because McCain wins the N.Y. Republican Primary doesn't mean he'll win there in November. Someone has to win the damn state for the Republicans. Obama or Clinton, it doesn't matter, they'll carry N.Y. easily.

In general I agree, with the caveat that I think CO could go to Obama. They have a strong Senate Candidate in an open seat and the state is adding more traditionally Dem voters. It may be another cycle before a Dem wins, but it wouldn't be a surprise this year.

edit: And a Dem Governor which means a built in infrastructure.

If you can't win your own base, you can't win an election. The fact that he has to convince people to vote for him that ought to be automatic, is never a good sign for McCain.

Obama will get people who don't vote and who haven't factored in other elections engaged. There is no amount of smearing, lying and anything that's going to dissuade a 'movement'. For better or worse. Slander won't work either, so they're going to need a strategy fast to get to him and frankly, the only way it'll work is to go negative early and often.

But go too negative and people won't like it and the backlash will result in something crazy.

I do find it funny that some of the bloggers are trying to paint Obama as a lightweight like W. Obama isn't an intellectual lightweight and while he might bumble or stumble out of the gate, I can't see how anyone could possibly think those two have anything in common. Just given how unlikely it is for him to be in the situation he's in right now.

Except for one things, Gov. Ritter is closer to McCain politically than to Obama. I would hope by now we have moved away from (R) or (D) next to their names.

Dark Cloud is probably closest in thought to me regarding Obama. Obama is a movement, and movements are not measured well by polls and pollsters.

DC, you and others talk about the "base" as one entity. It is not. Just like with the Dems, there are multiple "bases" or segmentations. The Southern/Midwestern evangelical base is one thing but the evangelical base in the West is another thing (Huckabee barely registered here in the Evangelical Capital of the World). Then there's the fiscal/anti-tax base, the libertarian base (the Dems have one too but it's a different animal), the war on terror base, the pro-military base (which comes in play in CA, CO and VA), etc.

I haven't heard him say it during this election cycle yet, but James Carville has a funny quote that I've heard several times before. "What do you call a candidate who is relying on first time voters?" "A loser."


The republicans won't have to resort to smear tactics. They'll heavily publicize his voting record, which as noted before, is to the left of Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton. That's going to be a very hard sell for Obama to the small percentage of voters who decide presidential elections, regardless of his wonderful and inspiring oratory skills.

McCain will have issues in the south. He isn't widely liked here. However, when given the choice between a westerner and a yankee, we go west...

Winning by 315 might be a stretch, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. The R's were comprehensively beaten in the mid-terms, failing to pick up a single seat and haven't shown me any reason to think that trend won't continue this year. Today I would not make that bet but check back in September. ;)

Thinking some more, whoever mentioned Idaho going R is almost certainly right, but the other four (VA, CO, TN and AR) will all end up D or very close to it.

And that's somehow a harder sell than McCain's voting record(equal to 31% approval rating Bush in every meaningful way)? That's ridiculous.

I think people are miscalculating the voter frustration. This election is going to be studied for a long time as evidence of people who missed the point and didn't see the trees in the wider forest, because they were too busy heading towards the valley outside of it.

As for the whole first-time voter thing, I said in the GOP thread that the major if is that he's staking his campaign on the 18-29 year olds. But they're not enough of the electorate to do anything other than tip the scales.

I think he's relying far more on his ability to capture independents, figuring that the base will come along with him in the end anyway. All of that math would point to a victory for him.

People are severely underestimating his ground game and how ridiculous it is that he's even in this situation. He's a first-term Senator from Illinois with all of these things that could be scrutinized and attacked. But it seems that because he's so likable, no one wants to say anything too swarmy about him and the obvious skeletons that anyone would want to dig up and throw out have been scoured for and the whispers haven't scared anyone off yet except people who weren't going to vote for him to begin with.

The bottom line is, if this guy gets into the general election..he's going to present the right with something they haven't seen before. He's not George McGovern. He's not JFK. But he's galvanized an entire generation and gets new converts every day who don't care that he's a modern liberal who doesn't tell you how he's going to pay for anything, that he's got too many ideas that relate to what government "ought to do for people" and all of that.

What they want, is a chance to believe again. And he's speaking to that. Warmongering, scaring people into believing he's a Muslim and even talking about race incessantly isn't going to be enough to beat him.

It's going to take... ::gasp:: innovation and creativity. Maybe even a little inspiration.

It's not rocket science, but maybe this is what the old guard needs to realize that the game isn't as monochromatic as it used to be.

Mix metaphors much? Might was well throw in Congress 24% rating and prevent anyone from there running.

Congress has a lower rating becuase D's hate Congress as much as R's and I's even though their party is in charge. I can dig up that polling data if you really care.

DC, a "New Hope" is what they said in 1992, 1988, 1976 and 1972 as well.

I know where that number comes from and that's my point. McCain will not run on Bush's record (he's a maverick, remember?), just as neither should run on being associated with this Congress, for whicever reasons.

As an orator, the comparisons to JFK are appropriate, but that's where the comparisons end. Politically, Obama is much closer on the issues to George McGovern than he is to JFK. JKF was a proponent of tax cuts, individual responsibility and a strong national defense. McCain and JFK are closer on most of the issues than Obama and JFK.

That's not my point. But I'm just going to reserve judgment for a while. It's easier that way.

DC, but Vegas Vic is right even if you were trying to bring up JFK for another reason.

McGovern strikes me as an almost perfect comp for Obama. But the differences between JFK and McGovern are almost all external - switch them in time, and McGovern is probably president, and JFK not.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/V...4281404&page=1


Looks like Edwards will support Clinton or nobody.

McCain can't get rid of the 'R' next to his name. And my point is Obama's going to bring it up early and often.

EDIT: Here's how McCain wins: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...U1NDdlM2I1ZmM=

"For McCain to win in this current anti-incumbent, anti-Republican climate of war and economic uncertainty, everything will have to break right — the base will have to make a choice for the better, not the best, alternative and soon cool the rhetoric; the VP choice will have to be inspired; independents and moderates will have to be convinced that McCain’s unique life-story and national security fides trump all else; and he will have to wage an effective campaign, hope his opponents don’t, and trust that Iraq will continue to improve while the economy is stabilized."

Why is this a selling point? Shouldn't it be a health care plan that covers those that are without coverage?

Come on Buc. You know that Ritter will work for Obama or Clinton come the fall. There's no way in hell he supports McCain regardless of stands on the issues. Ritter owes his job in large part to the support of the party(as does any Gov) and he'll repay that support in the general election unless he wants to be abandoned come time for federal appointments and/or his re-election campaign. That's the way party politics works.

edit: I should also add he'd love to have the recognition and potential authority of being the guy that turned CO blue.

Well, they also can't get rid of the fact that McCain went against his own party and blasted the Bush administration on the handling of the Iraq war, and that he was largely responsible for Rumsfeld's ouster. They also can't get rid of the fact that McCain has publicly humiliated some of his "R" colleagues on the senate floor for pork added to spending bills.

That won't matter to some people, but to some it will be a sign of political courage.

I'm not saying one way or the other, just sayin' that Ritter is a moderate Dem in a very politically independent state. Not every governor enthusiastically supported their party's nomination (depending where on the spectrum either falls). There is no Dem machine here in Colorado. Hickenlooper and Denver are moderates (it'll be 55/45 Dem), Boulder and Ft Collins are too small to counter the effect of the Colorado Springs, the Western Slope and the Plains.

A healthcare plan that covers everybody sounds like a socialist plan. A plan that just covers those without coverage sounds like the rich paying for the poor. While neither plan would be an easy sell, I think the socialist plan would be easier.

I will :p. By then, we'll basically know how close it'll be, I'm sure. I think Obama, if he wins the Dem nomination can get to a 150 EC votes above McCain, but not much more than that.

And DC, I think Obama fans are drastically overestimating the level of voter frustration. He does have a great ground game, but I think it'd be folly to underestimate the Republican machine. Hell, these people got Dubya re-elected. That's incredible.

That might be, but McCain is no Dubya.

I don't think Obama fans are the ones who overestimate voter frustration. It's been a bully pulpit the Dems have beaten since they took back both houses of Congress, all the while with FOX and GOPers saying that things aren't as bad as people say they are.

I'm excited to find out who is right, mostly because I think it'll be a signal of where America is headed. Because the voter turnout and the results of this race will be a canary in the mine for what people are really thinking.

That's akin to being 8-8 and hoping your opponents lose so you can make the playoffs, hoping the teams ahead of you all lose their best starters and flop on the way to you making the Super Bowl.

I mean, just because you can win the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer doesn't mean you ought to do it if you can help it. But if you have to, you better make damn sure the other parts of your team are sound.

I know McCain isn't Dubya, he's a FAR, FAR more attractive candidate.

Ok, maybe it isn't just Obama fans, but I think the Dems who keep hammering voter frustration are being a bit silly. They said the same thing in 2004 about Kerry. Even though Kerry had a crap campaign and was a boring candidate they said that President Bush was so disliked and voters were so frustrated it wouldn't matter. Now, clearly, Obama and Clinton are FAR better candidates, but I don't think the voter frustration is going to play the role that those people think it will.

Especially when you have McCain, who, for better or worse, has been imprinted in the public's mind as a "maverick", something the media still harps on.

Blasted Bush or not, just like Clinton he went with the war eventually.

Imran, I agree with you (except we will not know that Obama/Clinton or even McCain will campaign well in general). I think, though not strongly, that if there's a backlash, it is against the neo-cons. That will work in McCain's (and Obama's) favor.

People (and the media) keeps harping on McCain not having his base. He already has his base, just not one fringe of it. The same could be said for Obama/Clinton. Watch what happens if Nader runs and you will see a fringe defect.

Just like in 2004, I don't think agreeing to go to war is the problem, it's what has happened after the Fall of Baghdad. When you have fucktards like Cheney, Rumsfeld and his cohorts miscalculating and misappropriating on nearly everything, it would prove to be right to blast such post-war planning.

I do think that many remember McCain standing up to Rumsfeld and hammering the President on how he's running the war. He's definately not a neo-conservative (his foriegn policy is more of a old conservative interests based FP).

I'm just going to reserve judgment. I have my idea of where I think things will go, but given where things have gotten to this point..I'm convinced anything can happen at this point and so, we'll just sit back and watch. Because like you and others have said, we've seen groundswells of energy before that haven't bubbled to be much more than a burp come November.

So there isn't necessary any evidence that this year will be any different until we see it happen.

I'm curious about something for those who are arguing that McCain has a good chance of prevailing in the general.

What do you make of the turnout differences so far? Record turnouts for primaries and caucuses on the Dem side, and nearly doubling the turnout on the Rep side. Both races have been competitive. You could argue that people are switching sides and voting in the Dem primaries for some sort of Machiavellian purpose of getting the weaker candidate nominated, but I don't think that explains much more than a small percentage of those numbers.

I tend to agree with Dark Cloud on this at this time, but we'll see. I'm of the opinion that the prevailing wisdom of the past 20-30 years is not going to be predictive of this election.

This time next year CO is likely to have a Dem Governor and two Dem Senators. There may not be a machine, but the results are still pretty good.

This has the makings of a fascinating race, however it turns out. If Obama does end up winning the nomination and election, will he be the most liberal candidate to ever be elected president? I can't think of another one. LBJ perhaps, but he was actually conservative on some issues.

I think that's a hard statement to make, given the word liberal has morphed from the understanding of what a classical liberal is, versus the big-government modern liberal that we've come to understand it as.

And as with Supreme Court justices, people get into office and change.

GWB wasn't exactly a shining example of conservativeness IMHO.

In terms of domestic economic policy Obama doesn't hold a candle to FDR.

It's similar to the massive democratic turnout in the 1988 primaries with Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, Al Gore and Dick Gephart. After the primaries, Dukakis had a 17 point lead in the polls over GHWB. That trend has been fairly consistent over the years. In 1984, Walter Mondale was actually ahead of Ronald Reagan at this point in the election season.

But in both of those years there was a prohibitive Republican nominee -- in 1984 Reagan was the incumbent, and in 1988 there was little doubt that GHW Bush would be the nominee. So it makes sense that Dem turnout would be higher. That's not the case this time with both races starting fairly open.

That's a good point.

As for the polling that shows the democrat (Obama) with a slight lead over the republican (McCain) in the general election -- I think that's been the case with every presidential election since 1980 at this point in the election season:

1984 Mondale over Reagan (slight)
1988 Dukakis over GHWB (substantial)
1992 Clinton over GHWB (slight)
1996 Clinton over Dole (slight)
2000 Gore over Bush (slight)
2004 Kerry over Bush (slight)
2008 Obama over McCain (slight)

The Primary Boom.

This was published on January 17th. But it still signals how significant this year's voter turnout has been and points to the fact that this primary season has yielded higher than ever voter turnouts during the primaries.

I wish we could talk more about the Republicans in this thread. Less Obama and Hillary, more McCain!

Barack Obama for President 2008!

Colorado:

Obama 46
McCain 39

McCain 49
Clinton 35

Missouri:

McCain 42
Obama 40

McCain 43
Clinton 42

New Hampshire:

Obama 49
McCain 36

Clinton 43
McCain 41

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/

That's the spirit.


Edit: Beaten on the polls, plus I missed the Missouri one. Still more good signs for Obama, hopefully superdelegates and elderly women don't screw it up.

You mean they're interesting given the same exact polls given one post back!

+1

I think the office of Presidency moves liberals and conservatives alike to very similar decisions. I think many a candidate has made campaign promises, believing them to be true at the time, only to realize they must change those viewpoints upon receiving the full picture.

To put things in some perspective here on February 13, 2008, here is a poll from February 13, 2004. ;)

Obama is going to dominate because of all the meta factors in his favor, not because of any polling done in February. Looking solely at poll numbers to draw comparisions to past candidates is pointless.

And sorry to pick on you here Vic, but could you use words other than conservative and liberal to describe what you mean?

How the Texas primary election will work:


How the delegate count breaks out in Texas


This explains the entire process in detail. But it's head spinning.

Here's a NY Times story, talking about how Hillary is already planning to challenge to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. And how her people are already trying to convince the superdelegates to go her way, believing her to be more electable, etc.

Seems history may again repeat itself in the Democratic Party.

Wisconsin- Obama 47 Hillary 43

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-270.html

Ohio- Hillary 51 Obama 37

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-263.html

Two polls in a row that show Hillary with a big lead in Ohio and within striking distance in Wisconsin. She needs to win Ohio big so maybe a close win in Wisconsin would put her back on track.

Wall Street Journal columnist on Obama's Wonder Land.

Repeats a lot of the mantras we've heard in here (go FOFC Political Journal) about how Obama is giving speeches that once you strip them down to their core, could've been given in decades past, when times were more bleak than they are now.

The piece wonders aloud when people will get tired of hearing the same ol' thing from him.

It's hardly surprising that the WSJ op-ed page is anti-Obama. At least they aren't saying he traffics in coke or kills his colleagues yet.

Yes, it's a bit odd here it seems.

Still, Mrs. Clinton was down here (The Rio Grande Valley) yesterday, and is already scheduled to come back for two more events on one day in a week or so I think it is.

What really drives me nuts about politicians is the ass kissing they do. What is even worse is that people either act surprised by it or don't even notice it. She was down here yesterday with spanish versions of music playing, promising a VA Hospital down here, and just being a twat IMO. Came off as normal BS from a politician to me. I am pretty sure she will win down here though, since she has the support of a good number of the elected officials down here who are pretty popular.

Obama is supposed to come down sometime soon as well which I didn't really expect. The Valley has never had this kind of attention.

http://www.themonitor.com/articles/o...ton_texas.html

New Quinnipac Ohio Poll:

Hillary 55
Obama 34

Pennsylvania:

Hillary 52
Obama 36

When matched up with McCain in Florida and Ohio, McCain has slight leads over both. In Pennsylvania, Hillary was 46-40 over McCain, Obama was 42-41 over McCain.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/index.html

I think that, after running a very very very very poor campaign up through the D.C. area primaries, Clinton seems to be making some smart moves.

She has played Wisconsin/Hawaii smart. She let the momentum of Virginia/Maryland form the natural media narrative of "She won't win anything until March 4th." Then, after that became conventional wisdom, she started sending a ton of ads into Wisconsin and her daughter into Hawaii. No one is polling Hawaii, and Wisconsin is almost within the margin of error. If she manages to win one of these states--even by a little bit--then she has all of the positive press.

Now, most years it would be silly to talk about momentum and expectations after Super Tuesday, but I do think that momentum and expectations can matter for the next set of races--Ohio and Texas. At the least, it can't hurt. And she has managed to find the best way to try to make a win in a state with a 4 point difference in the polls seem like a Douglas Beats Tyson level upset.

And, she is going all out in Ohio and Texas--and right now the polls seem to be favoring her. She seems to have enough money. She has the support of a lot of local leaders (inc. the governor of Ohio who has been working like a dog for her).

Also, her ad spots in Wisconsin have slanted just a bit to the negative--going after Obama for refusing to debate (and then responding to his response to her first ad). I don't think that those ads are designed to help her win Wisconsin (though that would be a great side effect). I think that they are designed to see how they work. I think that a lot of research and polling will go into measuing their effect to see if it is worth going negative in Ohio/Texas.

Since Obama is the candidate of hope and change, and she is the candidate of "the name you know," it always made sense for her to go negative against him. If he responds, then he is no longer about hope; if he does not, then he is weak and the ads start to have an effect.

Their huge problem (worth about two of the "very"s listed above) was the manner in which they went negative early--Bill Clinton doing the functional equivalent of putting on war paint and screaming the N-word at the top of his lungs. That was such a stupid move that it forced them to stop all negative campaigning for a while. Now, I think that it is coming back out slowly and carefully. And it will stick. And it will work.

I'm not saying that Clinton can win after the hole she dug for herself. But I am saying that she is playing the expectations game well, has started to make the race about mud-slinging (her turf) instead of hope (his turf), and leads in the next big state races on the calendar.

Oh--and Obama really needs to start pointing out that four states are voting on March 4th--not two. Why let the media only talk about the states you are least likely to win?

The latest round of polls released in the past two days have Clinton up by double digits in Texas,Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Obama is up slightly in Wisconsin.

Obama certainly has work to do in Texas and Ohio.

I think the media is playing out of Hillary's hand at this point. They're pulling the same "Hillary is dead" stuff they did back after Iowa and she came back and pulled into a victory. The only difference is, Obama's people clearly have learned from that and given she was leading there huge not too long ago, the fact that he has a lead there at all has to be good news for those people on his side.

The real question is whether or not they can win one of the "big two" that she's already claimed are her firewall. I think she will, in the sense that she's controlling the media conversation at this point. She's got them eating out of her hand and I think if when this all settles, she'll manage to get things where she wants them.

Here's her new ad. Second negative ad in as many days in Wisconsin. No rebuttal from the Obama squad, yet. Wonder how it'll all play out.



McCain wants him to take public financing if he's the nominee with McCain, as he promised last year back when he was still a huge underdog.

Given he's raised over $100-150 million so far, restricting himself to just $85 million in the general would be insane. Sure, he'll take a hit. But no way he can do that. Premature discussion, but he's getting it from all sides now, so it'll be interesting to see how they'll deal with it all going forward.

.... WTF?


This can't be right.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

TX Primary

Obama 48%
Clinton 42%

Polling is, how shall we say it, an inexact science?

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Spread RCP Average 02/11 - 02/14 - 50.3 40.0 Clinton +10.3 Rasmussen 02/14 - 02/14 577 LV 54 38 Clinton +16.0 InsiderAdvantage 02/14 - 02/14 403 LV 48 41 Clinton +7.0 TCUL/Hamilton 02/11 - 02/13 400 LV 49 41 Clinton +8.0 See All Texas Democratic Primary Polling Data

I actually think Hillary is backed into a corner here. She's got Ohio by 20 points and Texas by 8. If Obama comes closer (especially once he starts campaigning in the states) and loses both by say 10 and 4, the narrative is that Hillary is not winning by enough. It's hard to see those margins widening before those primaries.

I voted for Bush the last two elections, but am now looking at Obama in a serious light.
I would have some serious thinking if its McCain-Obama.
If its McCain-Clinton its a no-brainer. I will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

Agree with all of the above there, tarcone.

New York Times, after endorsing Hillary, has a story today about some discrepancies in the New York primary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html

Apparently there were something like 80 districts where the "official" vote count had 0 for Obama, including districts in Harlem and Brooklyn. It's not going to change who "won" the state, but it might have a minor impact on the delegates Obama gets from the state. Current count is 139-93 for Senator Clinton, but that might end up changing somewhat.

To be fair it appears that there were also a few districts that had zero votes for Clinton. It doesn't seem like there is any conspiracy. From what I've read it looks like a one or two delegate pickup for Obama.

Yeah, not calling it a conspiracy. It's just a funny happenstance.

And I don't expect it to have a major impact, but in a race as close as this, picking up even a couple of delegates is a boost.

And this is why Obama *has* to be the democratic nominee. The DNC - are you listening Howard Dean? - must realize that there is a small yet steadfasty percentage of voters out there who will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstance. Doesn't really matter what this is based on - sexism, Clinton-weariness, astrology - it is real and must be respected.

# of people who could never be convinced to vote for Clinton < # of people who could never be convinced to vote for Obama. Its just that the former group has been around longer, and you're more familiar with their arguments. There's also a large group of people who would never vote for, say, Russ Feingold - but why would anybody express that opinion? Obama is still new to the national scene, so the opposition to him hasn't coalesced.

Do you have any evidence to support that? Most polls show the opposite. Obama has done far better with independents than Clinton and has much lower negatives. He's also done very well with first time voters and donors.

Oh hell no. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_p...electable.aspx

"...Hillary Clinton is a highly unpopular figure. In the last Gallup survey, 50% of respondents have a favorable view of her, and 46% negative. Sometimes her averages goes higher, but sometimes it veers into negative territory. Obama has very high ratings. In the most recent poll, 59% view him favorably, 32% negatively. The difference between plus 4 and plus 27 is enormous--a Detroit Lions v. New England Patriots-size gap.

On top of that, independents who vote in the primaries and caucuses have shown a very strong preference for Obama over Clinton. That is the closest available approximation of a swing voter."

Clinton's negatives have not budged since the beginning of the primary campaign. In other words, despite all of her/his campaigning over the past 8 months, no one (generally speaking) have gained a more favorable impression of her that was originally negative. Now I know that it includes all types of voters but you would think that with all those tens of millions of dollars, it would make some difference?

None whatsoever, its just my gut based on the reading I've done of him. He's going to get torn to bits by the GOP, unless this country has moved WAY left in the last four years, always a possibility I guess.

People in both threads are severely underestimating what sort of media frenzy will occur when Hillary or Barack wins the nomination. Throw all of your 'past' information out, because no matter what you think...nothing is going to stop history from happening.

And I didn't feel that way before, but I'm convinced now that the stakes are too high for people who want to see something happen like this and this is going to be the year for it.

John McCain is just the perfect backdrop for them to run against. War hero or not, soundbyte America will just turn him into an old white guy and "everything that is wrong with America" or part of the "good old boys" club.

Whether it's true or not, won't matter. Obama isn't that liberal. He might vote that way for his Chicago district, but no guy who open courts Republicans and refuses to be a populist in a Democratic race that would call for it is that at all.

Voter turnout is higher right now than it's been at any other point in history during the primaries. If that's not the clarion call that "things are different" this year, nothing is.

Especially with no credible third party candidate to steal enough votes to be formidable, the bottom line is, the media is going to beat the history drum before it's all said and done and that'll be the end of that.

Ouchie, nasty bit of headlining done to Obama by AP at the moment (and despite my feelings about him, it's not the first time I've seen him really get the worst end of something from them.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8URN8EO0.html
Headline reads:
Obama Wears Iraqi Soldier's Bracelet

Of course, the story is actually about a wristband given to him by the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq.

But damn, AP's anti-Obama bias is getting pretty obvious even to me.

Many Republicans are already supporting Obama. They are called 'Obamacans." http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476

They're not influential people, it's folks with last names we might recognize or folks like Lincoln Chafee who have defected from the party anyway.

I'm sure he gets some crossover votes, but none of that matters right now. I think the percentage will stay the same if he were in the general. His wild card is keeping turnout high and keeping the folks who have been key to his ground game activated and engaged through November.

Cronin: I think you're putting too much credit into "policy". It's a likability contest and Obama has likability by the bucket load.

While nothing is certain, there are some trends that seem to benefit Obama.

1) The previously mentioned likability. Since FDR (and mass media) the most likable candidate has won the general.

2) Surveys show 30-40% saying they wouldn't consider voting for someone 72+ years of age. Way more than racial, gender or religious categories of any flavor.

3) Only once since Eisenhower was elected has one party held the White House more than 2 consecutive terms.

"Likability" sounds like post facto analysis. If Obama wins, its because he's "likable." If he loses, he wasn't "likable" enough.

But, you might be right, I just have a feeling that Obama would get absolutely destroyed in a GE. At this point nobody really knows.

Do you have any opinion as to why Obama is barely ahead of McCain in head to head polls at this time? Given the voter dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, he should be at least 20 points ahead. Historically, the potential Democrat nominee is well ahead of the potential Republican nominee at this point, and that tends to change drastically during the summer and fall.