Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[bhlloy]

Chris Matthews suggested that when push comes to shove, they'll let Michigan have delegates at the convention who can actually vote to avoid this possibility.

I read that last night. If they will allocate delegates based on last night's vote, that's messed up considering Obama and Edwards did what the party wanted and pulled out. I know, people could vote "uncommitted" but I'm sure that a lot of people either didn't know that or just voted for the best candidate that was actually on the ballot.

Still, it's the Democrats, and it helps the crappy candidate that the party wants, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I read that last night. If they will allocate delegates based on last night's vote, that's messed up considering Obama and Edwards did what the party wanted and pulled out. I know, people could vote "uncommitted" but I'm sure that a lot of people either didn't know that or just voted for the best candidate that was actually on the ballot.

Still, it's the Democrats, and it helps the crappy candidate that the party wants, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

My wife and I decided not to vote. Apparently if you vote in the primary, the party gets your name and address which can lead to spam mail. We both decided that voting for Ron Paul wasn't worth it.

When it comes to the general election in November, none of this will have any impact on how we vote. I am not bitter or angry about any of this.

[chesapeake]

Apparently if you vote in the primary, the party gets your name and address which can lead to spam mail.

All true. In most states, whether a voter selected a Democratic or Republican ballot in a primary election is a matter of public record and thus made available to anyone that wants it for a modest fee. The respective parties always buy the lists as they are incredibly useful when you are targeting which voters you want to encourage to turn out.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I read that last night. If they will allocate delegates based on last night's vote, that's messed up considering Obama and Edwards did what the party wanted and pulled out. I know, people could vote "uncommitted" but I'm sure that a lot of people either didn't know that or just voted for the best candidate that was actually on the ballot.

Still, it's the Democrats, and it helps the crappy candidate that the party wants, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I think the delegates would be given a free vote at the convention, not based on the primaries I think, so they go with Obama and Edwards. I could be wrong. It would be elementary by then anyways.

[chesapeake]

The expected scenario is that the either Hillary or Obama will have a majority of delegates already committed to them and that the DNC will seat the MI and FL delegates and allow them to vote. The possibility that the Democratic nomination will still be in doubt at the convention is remote.

[Jas_lov]

Hillary Clinton has won Nevada 51-45% over Obama. But she only got one more delgate than Obama 13-12. She does get all the headlines though, and puts another dagger into Obama's heart. Obama desperately needs to win S.C. and I think he will. Florida is irrelevant, so Super Tuesday will be where it's at and Clinton is probably strong in the bigger states like California, N.Y., N.J. Obama strong in Illinois. If Hillary comes back and wins S.C., is it over?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

No, it's not over if Hillary wins S.C. because John Edwards will drop out and potentially all his supporters will go to Obama. This thing is going to Super Tuesday, and perhaps beyond.

[JPhillips]

Hillary Clinton has won Nevada 51-45% over Obama. But she only got one more delgate than Obama 13-12. She does get all the headlines though, and puts another dagger into Obama's heart. Obama desperately needs to win S.C. and I think he will. Florida is irrelevant, so Super Tuesday will be where it's at and Clinton is probably strong in the bigger states like California, N.Y., N.J. Obama strong in Illinois. If Hillary comes back and wins S.C., is it over?

Your delegate count is backwards. Obama got one more delegate than Hillary even though he lost the popular vote. Much like the Electoral College, geography is more important that quantity.

[larrymcg421]

No, it's not over if Hillary wins S.C. because John Edwards will drop out and potentially all his supporters will go to Obama. This thing is going to Super Tuesday, and perhaps beyond.

Why do people assume all of his supporters will go to Obama? I think that's quite an assumption. Edwards message is appealing to blue-collar economic voters, who have been favoring Hilary over Obama.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Not assuming at all. I said potentially. It could happen, and that's why Obama will hang around, trying to get those. And why it's not over if he loses S.C.

[Buccaneer]

With solid backing from Latino voters and women overall

That, I believe, will be the death knell for Obama in the long run.


we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled.


I don't understand this - struggled with what? In a caucus by and for Dems, what had they been struggling with in the past?

[Jas_lov]

No, it's not over if Hillary wins S.C. because John Edwards will drop out and potentially all his supporters will go to Obama. This thing is going to Super Tuesday, and perhaps beyond.

Yeah, but don't you think it would be a pretty big blow if Obama loses another huge lead to Hillary, the comeback kid. She'd have beaten him 3/4 states and would have all the momentum. There'd still be plenty of chances to get delegates, but let's look at the Super Tuesday states:

Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah

How many of these states do you actually see Obama beating Hillary? Illinois for sure, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee? Mass. with Kerry's help?

Hillary picks up New York for sure, California is likely and it's for 441 delegates but I think it's proportional so Obama can minimize the damage, N.J., Arkansas, Utah, New Mexico, and a lot of these states probably have closed primary systems that will hurt Obama.

[Greyroofoo]

The Democratic debate has been kind of entertaining so far...

[Jas_lov]

It's a disaster. Instead of focusing on the issues, we've spent the whole debate talking about how Reagan is evil, Obama wants kids to visit sex shops, and Hillary isn't truthful. Hillary has put Obama on the defensive all night.

[Buccaneer]

“While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair – indeed, it’s demeaning – for a former president to say things that are patently untrue… or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former president is himself doing it,” he added. “Now, sadly, we’re witnessing a smear campaign against Obama that employs some of the worst aspects of the old politics.”


Whatever your views are of Clinton's former Labor Sec, Robert Reich, one cannot help but be reminded of Clinton's mode of operation. Those old enough to remember had to hear about this (underhanded, snide, machiavelli-like tactics) constantly for 8 years. Not saying the past 7 years were any better but I really hope we don't have more years of this from the Clintons.

[Young Drachma]

Whatever your views are of Clinton's former Labor Sec, Robert Reich, one cannot help but be reminded of Clinton's mode of operation. Those old enough to remember had to hear about this (underhanded, snide, machiavelli-like tactics) constantly for 8 years. Not saying the past 7 years were any better but I really hope we don't have more years of this from the Clintons.

He owes this to her and he's going to do whatever he can to make sure she wins..or at least, that he doesn't. I mean, it's bad enough that he's young and that he thinks he can insult her without reprisal AND that the media is basically treating him with kid gloves.

But that he's all of those things and (due to the this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule)) black, really probably offends them. I really never appreciated their racial pandering back in the day, because it was all toothless rhetoric and nothing substantive, but with the current soup de jour of pulling out all of the stuff as they have, it's clear that they care about no one but themselves.

[Buccaneer]

they care about no one but themselves.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

I had in my mind a while back that she/he/someone would come out and say, "do you want a black president??". This would instantly kill the candidacy so it was just wishful thinking. Not I'm not too sure that it won't happen since it is being strongly implied, you think?

[Galaxy]

I think the Dems need to keep an eye on Bloomberg. If he gets in, I think he could hurt the Dems (he seems to be center-left) and help the Republicans. If Hillary wins, I think he gets in.

[Young Drachma]

Bloomberg would surely appeal to the centre in a way that none of the Dems ever could. He'll mostly attract people who are fiscally conservative who are pretty much annoyed with the GOP and who can't hold their nose to vote for Dems. Or at least, I'd be inclined to vote for him more than anyone out there right now.

[flere-imsaho]

Bloomberg would surely appeal to the centre in a way that none of the Dems ever could.

What is "the centre"?

He'll mostly attract people who are fiscally conservative who are pretty much annoyed with the GOP and who can't hold their nose to vote for Dems. Or at least, I'd be inclined to vote for him more than anyone out there right now.

Isn't this an argument that he's hurt the GOP primarily?

[Galaxy]

What is "the centre"?



Isn't this an argument that he's hurt the GOP primarily?

I've always though he would sap voters from the Dems. He seems liberal in his social views. He's stated he would be open to the idea of looking at universal health care. He's financially conservative, but not in the tax-cutting way unless the budget allows for it (didn't he raise NYC taxes and create a nice fund surplus)?

I don't think he'll win. I think he could honestly compete with the other two in terms of votes, but the election will be thrown to the House of Representatives.

He'll have to declare pretty soon, won't he?

[JPhillips]

Bloomberg won't win a single state. What's his constituency? What's his issue? He really doesn't offer anything besides "Can't we all get along?" It's inconceivable that even with his cash he could start from zero and gain a plurality. Look at it this way, if 25% are going to vote R no matter what and 25% are going to vote D no matter what, Bloomberg will have to get 70% or so of the remaining voters. It isn't going to happen.

[Young Drachma]

I don't think Bloomberg would win anything. I think he'd be a more well-heeled version of Ross Perot. People would take him more seriously, but...in the end, all he'd do is cause the GOP to legitimately win the election the same way Perot helped Clinton in '92.

[Galaxy]

I don't think Bloomberg would win anything. I think he'd be a more well-heeled version of Ross Perot. People would take him more seriously, but...in the end, all he'd do is cause the GOP to legitimately win the election the same way Perot helped Clinton in '92.

Oh, I agree. Do you think he could compete in the meaningless popular vote race? Of course, anything is possible from now until November.

[Young Drachma]

Oh, I agree. Do you think he could compete in the meaningless popular vote race? Of course, anything is possible from now until November.

Nah, I don't think he'll compete in the meaningless popular vote, because as has been said earlier..he doesn't have national appeal, he's relatively unknown despite his cash...and people might -- in an continually declining economy -- feel like rich people like him are the reasons that things suck so bad in America.

I don't believe that, but I could see an Obama or a Hillary trying to inject of the populist rhetoric into the debate and make things interesting.

Frankly, I think Bloomberg is just teasing right now. I can't see what he'd have to gain from running a Presidential campaign knowing that he'd have a very slim shot at pulling off a win.

He might be bored or perhaps he's trying to maximize his legacy. Or perhaps he wants to leverage an Obama defeat in the Democratic primary into a scenario in which Barack becomes his VP candidate and they use Obama's appeal to turn the tables on "politics as usual."

All fanciful stuff to be sure. But we're just speculating and so, I'm just playing with crayons as to what he could possibly be thinking.

Another idea might be that if Romney is the GOP pick, Bloomberg could out CEO him in his sleep and that might take votes from him and if Hillary gets in on the Dem side, that my previously mentioned scenario with Obama might be just the trick to put them in a competitive situation with them, since neither has a super strong base of support.

But again, it'll be more interesting to see the next few months play out because this is so wide open that almost anything can happen as you said.

[Vegas Vic]

Perot enabled Clinton to win a few states that he wouldn't have won in a heads-up race with Bush (e.g. Montana), but exit polling and postmortem research indicates that Clinton would have still won the Electoral College 281 to 257. Perot's 19% of the popular vote did keep Clinton below the 50% mark, but the exit polling reveals that Perot voters would have split roughly 50-50 in the popular vote (with a percentage not even voting) if Perot wasn't in the race.

Before Perot re-entered the race late in the summer of 1992, Clinton had a substantial lead over Bush in every tracking poll. After Perot re-entered, Clinton's numbers dropped, Perot's numbers went up, and Bush stayed relatively static. This shouldn't come as a surprise, because both Perot and Clinton were seen as candidates of "change", while Bush represented the status quo.

Perot's Impact on Clinton's 1992 Victory (http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm)

[Young Drachma]

New York Times editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html) and John McCain for the primaries.

[flere-imsaho]

He'll have to declare pretty soon, won't he?

My understanding is that his "deadline" would be March 5th, as that's the first date in which you can start doing petitions in any state (Texas, in this case) to be put on the ballot as a third candidate.

On the other hand, if he continues to dither, he has the chance to "Fred Thompson" himself out of the race.

Frankly, I think Bloomberg is just teasing right now. I can't see what he'd have to gain from running a Presidential campaign knowing that he'd have a very slim shot at pulling off a win.

The various pieces that have been done about him all quote "sources close to the Mayor" as saying that he's inclined to enter the race if it looks like the two nominees are both uninspiring to their respective parties.

Of course, uninspiring by what measure?

[st.cronin]

My gut feeling is that Obama will win this nomination. Obama vs. McCain is how I see the general. (This could very well be wishful thinking on my part.)

[Jas_lov]

My gut feeling is that Obama will win this nomination. Obama vs. McCain is how I see the general. (This could very well be wishful thinking on my part.)

It is. Romney and Hillary will meet in the general election. No doubt about it. McCain and Romney are now dead even in Florida as Romney is capitalizing on his business background, the terrible economy, and Washington being broken. At the debate last night, everybody was saying how Romney won the economy part hands down while McCain looked like an idiot without the focus being on the Iraq war. Giuliani has fallen off and will probably finish 3rd in Florida, his highest finish yet. He might be done. All indications are that Huckabee is out of money. Obama will win S.C., but Hillary will win big on Super Tuesday. In any closed primary, she has the advantage as does Romney on the Republican side.

[Malificent]

Hilary vs Romney, also known as the "I'm writing a candidate in" vote.

[larrymcg421]

It is. Romney and Hillary will meet in the general election. No doubt about it. McCain and Romney are now dead even in Florida as Romney is capitalizing on his business background, the terrible economy, and Washington being broken. At the debate last night, everybody was saying how Romney won the economy part hands down while McCain looked like an idiot without the focus being on the Iraq war. Giuliani has fallen off and will probably finish 3rd in Florida, his highest finish yet. He might be done. All indications are that Huckabee is out of money. Obama will win S.C., but Hillary will win big on Super Tuesday. In any closed primary, she has the advantage as does Romney on the Republican side.

Latest Florida poll (Survey USA) is: McCain 30, Romney 28, Giuliani 18, Huckabee 14

[Young Drachma]

Hilary vs Romney, also known as the "I'm writing a candidate in" vote.

+1

[Bubba Wheels]

Romney vs. Hillary. Practically guaranteed now. Love or hate Bill O'Reilly, he did predict this over a year ago.

[sterlingice]

Whatever your views are of Clinton's former Labor Sec, Robert Reich, one cannot help but be reminded of Clinton's mode of operation. Those old enough to remember had to hear about this (underhanded, snide, machiavelli-like tactics) constantly for 8 years. Not saying the past 7 years were any better but I really hope we don't have more years of this from the Clintons.

C'mon, Bucc. You're above this post, aren't you? I mean, this is just not what this thread is about, is it?

SI

[Buccaneer]

SI, in my dislike for the Clintons? No. People had wondered why some that were beyond college age during the 90s still carry a dislike for them, as well as why Hillary still has such high negatives. Reich nailed it, imo, and there have been many words written recently about their tactics against Obama. That would be the source of much anti-Clinton mentality - from both parties. But you're right. Libertarians should be above such petty partisanship because that's not where the focus should lie. But past feelings and perceptions are hard to get over.

So what do libertarians realistically want? A Congress that is more libertarian-minded. For example, don't do what the Senate is trying to do with the stimulus bill. But in the end, if we can get a split legislature/executive, that'll help.

[sterlingice]

SI, in my dislike for the Clintons? No. People had wondered why some that were beyond college age during the 90s still carry a dislike for them, as well as why Hillary still has such high negatives. Reich nailed it, imo, and there have been many words written recently about their tactics against Obama. That would be the source of much anti-Clinton mentality - from both parties. But you're right. Libertarians should be above such petty partisanship because that's not where the focus should lie. But past feelings and perceptions are hard to get over.

So what do libertarians realistically want? A Congress that is more libertarian-minded. For example, don't do what the Senate is trying to do with the stimulus bill. But in the end, if we can get a split legislature/executive, that'll help.

The Clinton post just seemed kindof petty to me.

As for agreeing on politics, and how we rarely do it, I'm with you on this ridiculous stimulus package, tho.

EDIT: I also agree with the split legislature/executive but let's be honest. The Dems in the legislature can never get their stuff together as they splinter and bicker like children when "in power" so it's almost like having a split legislature. Whereas the GOP is really good as having a hammer and getting things done when they're in so it's why a GOP Exec/GOP Cong is about the scariest thing out there.

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

Michigan is so firmly Democratic at this point that the highly unpopular Dem Governor Jennifer Granholm easily won re-election in 2006. All the Dems had huge leads in the most recent polls (December) that tested matchups in Michigan. I think there's virtually no chance that Michigan goes red, unless the Dem nominee drives to a rally in a foreign made car and then gets out to take a piss on an American made car.

Today's Detroit News shows Michigan as 3rd worst place to do business (behind NY and Cal) down from 5th just last year. Michissippi can't help but continue to decline, and that perpetuates it going more blue cause the red business-minded folks are leaving in droves.

This was a state that ran Dick DeVoss, west-stater businessman vs. Jennifer Granholm female socialist. Sounding familiar?

[Galaxy]

Looks like Obama wins Carolina by a very impressive margin.

[Young Drachma]

I think Super Tuesday will be the most telling thing now, because I think the questions are the inevitability of Hillary versus whether Obama can "actually pull this off." One would hope that without the smokescreen of race or gender able to give the Clinton's a chance to throw Obama off his game and strengthened by a big win whether he'll able to get back to his original message of hope and bringing people together.

[Galaxy]

I think Super Tuesday will be the most telling thing now, because I think the questions are the inevitability of Hillary versus whether Obama can "actually pull this off." One would hope that without the smokescreen of race or gender able to give the Clinton's a chance to throw Obama off his game and strengthened by a big win whether he'll able to get back to his original message of hope and bringing people together.

Interesting point. How does such a big win that he has today work? Does it have any impact?

[Vegas Vic]

Great win for Obama, and totally expected. ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_primary-234.html)

Looking at the upcoming primaries with fresh polling data:

Florida - Clinton +18 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_democratic_primary-261.html)
Missouri - Clinton +15 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mo/missouri_democratic_primary-534.html)
Illinios - Obama +29 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/il/illinois_democratic_primary-351.html)
Arizona - Clinton +10 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/az/arizona_democratic_primary-311.html)
Tennessee - Clinton +14 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tn/tennessee_democratic_primary-540.html)
California - Clinton +12 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html)
Alabama - Clinton +15 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/al/alabama_democratic_primary-281.html)
Massachusetts - Clinton +37 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/al/alabama_democratic_primary-281.html)
Georgia - Obama +6 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ga/georgia_democratic_primary-268.html)
New Jersey - Clinton +18 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_democratic_primary-246.html)
New York - Clinton +22 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ny/new_york_democratic_primary-265.html)
Connecticut - Clinton +14 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ct/connecticut_democratic_primary-273.html)
Pennsylvania - Clinton +20 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html)

[Buccaneer]

It looks like the Clintons will not be supporting the youth-centric 'Rock the Vote' campaign.

[larrymcg421]

Great win for Obama, and totally expected. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_primary-234.html)

Looking at the upcoming primaries with fresh polling data:

Florida - Clinton +18 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_democratic_primary-261.html)
Missouri - Clinton +15 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mo/missouri_democratic_primary-534.html)
Illinios - Obama +29 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/il/illinois_democratic_primary-351.html)
Arizona - Clinton +10 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/az/arizona_democratic_primary-311.html)
Tennessee - Clinton +14 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tn/tennessee_democratic_primary-540.html)
California - Clinton +12 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html)
Alabama - Clinton +15 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/al/alabama_democratic_primary-281.html)
Massachusetts - Clinton +37 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/al/alabama_democratic_primary-281.html)
Georgia - Obama +6 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ga/georgia_democratic_primary-268.html)
New Jersey - Clinton +18 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_democratic_primary-246.html)
New York - Clinton +22 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ny/new_york_democratic_primary-265.html)
Connecticut - Clinton +14 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ct/connecticut_democratic_primary-273.html)
Pennsylvania - Clinton +20 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html)


He might make some gains in Missouri, Tennessee, and Alabama, but I don't see him overcoming Hillary in many of those other states. The delegate count is not in his favor.

California - 441
New York - 281
Pennsylvania - 188
Illinois - 185
New Jersey - 127
Massachusetts - 121
Georgia - 103
Missouri - 88
Tennessee - 85
Arizona - 67
Connecticut - 60
Alabama - 60

He's going to be far behind in the delegate race after Super Tuesday, unless he pulls off a stunner in NY or CA, which I don't see happening.

[DaddyTorgo]

He might make some gains in Missouri, Tennessee, and Alabama, but I don't see him overcoming Hillary in many of those other states. The delegate count is not in his favor.

California - 441
New York - 281
Pennsylvania - 188
Illinois - 185
New Jersey - 127
Massachusetts - 121
Georgia - 103
Missouri - 88
Tennessee - 85
Arizona - 67
Connecticut - 60
Alabama - 60

He's going to be far behind in the delegate race after Super Tuesday, unless he pulls off a stunner in NY or CA, which I don't see happening.

you're forgetting that the Dems aren't "winner take all" though, they are porportional. So as long as he continues to run strong it can still be close.

[Jas_lov]

And he will keep it close in some states to keep the delegate count close. He'll win Illinois and some other southern states. Hillary will win New York and a lot of the rest. How many of these Super Tuesday states can Obama beat Hillary?

Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah

[larrymcg421]

you're forgetting that the Dems aren't "winner take all" though, they are porportional. So as long as he continues to run strong it can still be close.

Yeah, but even if he's close in the delegate race (which I doubt), she's going to have all the momentum after winning 5 of the 6 biggest states. Even with a South Carolina bump, I don't see him overtaking her in any of those 5 states.

[larrymcg421]

And he will keep it close in some states to keep the delegate count close. He'll win Illinois and some other southern states. Hillary will win New York and a lot of the rest. How many of these Super Tuesday states can Obama beat Hillary?

Alabama
Arizona
Georgia
Illinois
Minnesota
Missouri
Tennessee


I think this is about it.

[Jas_lov]

7/21 isn't very good. I'm not sure what the delegate count would be if that were the result. Seems like a decent scenario though. Hillary will win in the north east, California, Bill's home state, not sure about the other western states. Some of those states are probably closed primaries/caucuses which will also favor Hillary. Maybe Obama can give Edwards VP or AG in exchange for his endorsement, but that might not change the result too much as Edwards supporters could go either direction. But we'll see if this big win gives Obama any momentum in the polls.

[st.cronin]

It seems to me that Obama has more talent as a campaigner, and has lower negatives even among Democrats than Hillary. Meaning, I think voters are more likely to switch from Hillary to Obama than the other way around. I feel this will be at worst a close contest, and I can easily see Obama pulling ahead.

[Big Fo]

Dead heat between Obama and Clinton among white males, behind Edwards.

Obama won 82-17 among African-American voters.

50% of the white vote 29 and under went to Obama.

[Arles]

I think Cali is key. Prior to his win today, Obama was 12 points behind Hillary. If the SC win gives him a bounce and he can get within single digits, I could see him pulling the upset there.

[larrymcg421]

I think Cali is key. Prior to his win today, Obama was 12 points behind Hillary. If the SC win gives him a bounce and he can get within single digits, I could see him pulling the upset there.

It could happen, but it will be very difficult for him. Hillary is very popular among hispanic voters, and will have the LA Mayor working very hard for her. I agree that targeting the state is very good for him, though. It's his best chance in the big states and if he wins it, it will make up for most of the other states he is likely to lose that day.

[Young Drachma]

He's an impressive guy, that Obama. Say what you want about his politics and his relative inexperience. But he's really impressive, even being able to go toe-to-toe with the Clintons, when by all conventional wisdom he has no business even being in the conversation at all.

Hillary is pissed that this kid is getting in the way of her coronation and I'm sure it's just going to get uglier as things go forward and I think it will fail to serve them well.

But I don't know that Obama and his whole movement will be able to do it. That said, their is something happening and I think the longer he hangs around, the worse it gets for HRC. Especially with Edwards hanging around. It's not like the guy has anything else to do, his whole career has been devoted to running for President the last seven or so years. He might as well hang out and give a speech at the convention in Denver.

[Young Drachma]

Chicago Tribune endorses Obama (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,3012467.story) and while that's not a shock, since it's his "hometown newspaper" of sorts, theirs is interesting because they have a say about his time in the Illinois Senate, too.

[Bubba Wheels]

If Bill and Hill are Bonnie and Clyde, then Obama is the County Sheriff. This will continue to be great fun to watch.

[flere-imsaho]

Chicago Tribune endorses Obama (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0127edit1jan27,0,3012467.story) and while that's not a shock, since it's his "hometown newspaper" of sorts, theirs is interesting because they have a say about his time in the Illinois Senate, too.

That's a startlingly good endorsement for an editorial board that's about as right of center as the NYT's editorial board is left of center.

[albionmoonlight]

If there is one thing at which the Clintons excel, it is being able to adapt during a campaign. Bill went a bit crazy the last week, and the voters did not like it. He will now remain behind the scenes. And the Clintons have eight days to re-soften Hillary's image. That is like eight weeks to normal people.

I think that she will still win the nomination, though I sure do hope that it is Obama.

[Big Fo]

Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama. :cool:

[rkmsuf]

Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama. :cool:

what are the odds Ted gets his name right?

[st.cronin]

Ted Kennedy is about to announce his endorsement of Obama. :cool:

Is that a surprise? I don't really know, but Teddy K. never seemed to be in the Clinton's sphere.

[Young Drachma]

Is that a surprise? I don't really know, but Teddy K. never seemed to be in the Clinton's sphere.

It is because Hillary had seemed to have a monopoly on the Democratic establishment.

[ISiddiqui]

I found this an interesting article by Krugman in the NY Times Op-Ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/opinion/28krugman.html?hp


January 28, 2008
<NYT_KICKER>Op-Ed Columnist</NYT_KICKER>
<NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">Lessons of 1992 </NYT_HEADLINE>

<NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">By PAUL KRUGMAN

</NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>It’s starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there’s a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton’s campaign 16 years ago.

Now, I’m not sure that’s a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a “gilded age of greed.” Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here’s my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let’s review the sad tale, starting with the politics.

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.
For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what good did Mr. Clinton’s message of inclusiveness do him?
Meanwhile, though Mr. Clinton may not have run as postpartisan a campaign as legend has it, he did avoid some conflict by being strategically vague about policy. In particular, he promised health care reform, but left the business of producing an actual plan until after the election.

This turned out to be a disaster. Much has been written about the process by which the Clinton health care plan was put together: it was too secretive, too top-down, too politically tone-deaf. Above all, however, it was too slow. Mr. Clinton didn’t deliver legislation to Congress until Nov. 20, 1993 — by which time the momentum from his electoral victory had evaporated, and opponents had had plenty of time to organize against him.

The failure of health care reform, in turn, doomed the Clinton presidency to second-rank status. The government was well run (something we’ve learned to appreciate now that we’ve seen what a badly run government looks like), but — as Mr. Obama correctly says — there was no change in the country’s fundamental trajectory.

So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats?

First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s — a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy — are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn’t one of them.

Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.

I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates — which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage — doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.

My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can’t make sense of the claims that he’s somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.

What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues — a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign — and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.

[JPhillips]

I think Krugman's dead wrong about policy specifics. You don't win the general by having the best policy, it's all about likability. It would be wise for Obama to present a plan to Congress early in his trem, but arguing the specifics of a health care plan during the general election would be fighting on enemy turf. Obama's strength is his oratory and inspirational message, anything that takes away from that is a mistake IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

I think Krugman's problem is that Obama doesn't have a specific policy ready to go (some candidates do have specifics), he'll waste political capital and by the time its ready to be voted on his political honeymoon will be over and they'll miss out on the chance.

But the main thing was that he was harkening back to Clinton in '92, that it wasn't Clinton who looked for partisanship, but that he was slammed by the Republicans from the first day. So, basically, don't expect some sort of lack of partisanship if Obama wins the high office.

[Galaxy]

I think Krugman's problem is that Obama doesn't have a specific policy ready to go (some candidates do have specifics), he'll waste political capital and by the time its ready to be voted on his political honeymoon will be over and they'll miss out on the chance.

But the main thing was that he was harkening back to Clinton in '92, that it wasn't Clinton who looked for partisanship, but that he was slammed by the Republicans from the first day. So, basically, don't expect some sort of lack of partisanship if Obama wins the high office.

Didn't Clinton have to face a GOP-controlled congress? I honestly don't know how congress will shape up (I think the Dems will retain control), but won't this make a big difference?

[ISiddiqui]

Didn't Clinton have to face a GOP-controlled congress? I honestly don't know how congress will shape up (I think the Dems will retain control), but won't this make a big difference?

Not for his first two years, remember. The Republicans didn't take over until January 1995 (after the "Revolution" of 1994). If you recall, Clinton had to push NAFTA through his own party.

And the healthcare bill was with a Dem controlled Congress... but by the time it was introduced, it was year into his presidency and the honeymoon was over. If it was done in the first 100 days, it may have gone through. Which I guess, is Krugman's fear... he wants things to get done (esp universal health care) so he wants whatever candidate to have a plan ready to go, which is why he wants the Dems to focus on campaigning on ideas.

[Galaxy]

Not for his first two years, remember. The Republicans didn't take over until January 1995 (after the "Revolution" of 1994). If you recall, Clinton had to push NAFTA through his own party.

And the healthcare bill was with a Dem controlled Congress... but by the time it was introduced, it was year into his presidency and the honeymoon was over. If it was done in the first 100 days, it may have gone through. Which I guess, is Krugman's fear... he wants things to get done (esp universal health care) so he wants whatever candidate to have a plan ready to go, which is why he wants the Dems to focus on campaigning on ideas.

I was 8 when Clinton took office, so my late 80's-to-mid 90's memory is a little blurry. :)

[Vegas Vic]

Didn't Clinton have to face a GOP-controlled congress? I honestly don't know how congress will shape up (I think the Dems will retain control), but won't this make a big difference?

As someone else pointed out, Clinton had a democrat controlled congress after he was elected.

Even so, Vice President Al Gore had to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, a bill that raised taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers combined with drastic cuts in government spending. Every single republican congressman and a number of democrats voted against the bill.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has since recognized the bill as being the major cause of the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s.

Libray of Congress Link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp105&sid=cp105AqBYv&refer=&r_n=hr648.105&item=&sel=TOC_627612&)

[Bubba Wheels]

I think Krugman's problem is that Obama doesn't have a specific policy ready to go (some candidates do have specifics), he'll waste political capital and by the time its ready to be voted on his political honeymoon will be over and they'll miss out on the chance.

But the main thing was that he was harkening back to Clinton in '92, that it wasn't Clinton who looked for partisanship, but that he was slammed by the Republicans from the first day. So, basically, don't expect some sort of lack of partisanship if Obama wins the high office.

Disagree. I remember Clinton's first State of the Union only because Comedy Central allowed Dennis Miller to commentate throughout the speech. Great stuff. Miller did not give Clinton a hard time, mostly observations about others in the audience that night. Miller concluded by calling Clinton "a good man." Congress was very warm to Clinton that night also. So what changed?

It started to become apparent very soon afterwards that the Clintons (both) had a hard and very partisan agenda and attempted to ram it down everybody's throats. Gays in the military (don't ask, don't tell was the compromise), all U.S. Attorney Generals sacked and replaced by ACLU lawyers (obviously Hillary at work) and finally the Health Care fiasco (closed door meetings with criminal penalties for those going outside the plan once implemented.) It was this high-minded arrogance that brought about the 94 GOP takeover of both houses and the Contract With America.

Obama would probably be a little smarter than that.

[ISiddiqui]

Disagree.

Of course you would.

It started to become apparent very soon afterwards that the Clintons (both) had a hard and very partisan agenda and attempted to ram it down everybody's throats. Gays in the military (don't ask, don't tell was the compromise), all U.S. Attorney Generals sacked and replaced by ACLU lawyers (obviously Hillary at work) and finally the Health Care fiasco (closed door meetings with criminal penalties for those going outside the plan once implemented.) It was this high-minded arrogance that brought about the 94 GOP takeover of both houses and the Contract With America.

His attempts to have homosexuals serve in the military was so partisan that people on the left and on the right hated it! And of course, we all know how hard left partisan he was when he pushed NAFTA through Congress, which we all know the hard left really wanted.

[Bubba Wheels]

Of course you would.



His attempts to have homosexuals serve in the military was so partisan that people on the left and on the right hated it! And of course, we all know how hard left partisan he was when he pushed NAFTA through Congress, which we all know the hard left really wanted.

The left hated it? Don't remember that, remember instead the left outraged that Clinton sold them out on that when he compromised.

NAFTA? The only one who seemed to understand NAFTA was Ross Perot, and its a big reason that he took votes away from Bush Sr., throwing the election over to Clinton with less than 50% of the vote.

NAFTA, btw, makes perfect sense being backed by Clinton when you figure he and she are up to their eyeballs in Dubai lobby money (something like a $10,000,000 contribution to the Clinton Library) and other globalist interests.

[ISiddiqui]

The left hated it? Don't remember that, remember instead the left outraged that Clinton sold them out on that when he compromised.

It's because Clinton always had a compromise. He didn't go full bore for gays in the military. He advanced the idea so that he could negotiate it downwards. The far left was outraged that he sold them out.

NAFTA? The only one who seemed to understand NAFTA was Ross Perot, and its a big reason that he took votes away from Bush Sr., throwing the election over to Clinton with less than 50% of the vote.

NAFTA, btw, makes perfect sense being backed by Clinton when you figure he and she are up to their eyeballs in Dubai lobby money (something like a $10,000,000 contribution to the Clinton Library) and other globalist interests.

I love how all of this ignores (willfully) the fact that NAFTA was being pushed by the Republicans. That George H.W. Bush signed it, but couldn't get it through Congress at the time, and how Clinton had to get it through the Democrats, with a solid base of Republicans backing the measure.

Btw, Perot got destroyed on NAFTA by Al Gore (who actually understands trade far more than Perot) and you bring up Dubai lobby money like its supposed to bother me.

[JPhillips]

The 1994 elections were only partially a rebuke to Clinton. Another major factor was the general corruption of the Democratic Congress. The banking scandal, Rostenkowski, etc. caused the Dems to get a very deserved ass kicking. It wasn't all about Clinton.

[Bubba Wheels]

and you bring up Dubai lobby money like its supposed to bother me.

No, if Clinton selling nuke missle gyroscopes to China so they can hit what they aim for in the U.S. doesn't bother you, then being owned by Dubai wouldn't either. And I use the term 'you' in the broad sense to mean anybody.

[Toddzilla]

Never let facts get in the way of a good slandering, Bubba.

[path12]

No, if Clinton selling nuke missle gyroscopes to China so they can hit what they aim for in the U.S. doesn't bother you, then being owned by Dubai wouldn't either. And I use the term 'you' in the broad sense to mean anybody.


Wasn't it Bush that tried to have the US Ports run by that Dubai company? And walking hand in hand with the Saudi princes? You sure you want to toss those stones at Clinton?

[chesapeake]

No, if Clinton selling nuke missle gyroscopes to China so they can hit what they aim for in the U.S. doesn't bother you, then being owned by Dubai wouldn't either. And I use the term 'you' in the broad sense to mean anybody.

I worked with the committee, led by House Republicans, that investigated that technology transfer to China. With all due respect, your statement on this is wrong.

[Buccaneer]

albionmoonlight, it appears that there are quite a few notable Dems, as well as left-leaning editorialists that are telling Bill to stop acting like Bill Clinton and to STFU.

[Jas_lov]

With 5% of precinicts reporting, Hillary has 54%, Obama 27%, Edwards 16%. Remember that there are no delegates for Florida and nobody campaigned there. Hillary is there tonight though for a victory speech.

[Jas_lov]

Hillary Clinton is the winner of the irrelevant Florida primary!

[Young Drachma]

So...is Claire McCaskill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_McCaskill) angling for a possible VP pick from Obama should he win the nomination?

I think if he beats Hillary, no way he runs with a man of any kind..so he'll have to narrow his choices down to a woman.

I don't think Senator/Senator tickets work all that well, but...she's one of his early supporters and while she hasn't been in the Senate very long, she seems poised to be somewhere in his cabinet. And Missouri is a swing state.

I just thought about it today, when I saw her on his plane (on TV) heading back to the midwest.

Probably nothing to it, but...it was an interesting idea. Or maybe one of these female governors from the Heartland? I doubt he'd go after someone from the northeast, given that it's unlikely they could deliver anything for him (we're talking a woman again) and out west, I'm not so sure about that, save for one of those crunchy blue dogs from the "libertarian west", but I can't see that working either.

Thoughts?

Hillary's situation would be way different I think if she were picking a running mate, especially with everyone wondering aloud about the technicalities of Bill running with her. Neither of them is that silly to even consider attempting to do that, when they just could just do it de facto once she were to be elected.

Bill Richardson would be the "logical" choice, given his Clinton ties and such, but I don't know if his "street cred" is really as big as the media likes to believe it to be in the "hispanic community". And New Mexico is a western state, to be sure, but given McCain is from out west and Romney is Mormon, the west isn't exactly going to be an area that they can expect to dominate anyway regardless of who'd they get pitted against.

As the race dwindles down, it's all just interesting stuff to ponder.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think if he beats Hillary, no way he runs with a man of any kind..so he'll have to narrow his choices down to a woman.

Agreed.

Question is, does he go with a white woman or maybe a Hispanic woman?
And does he run with one from the middle or does he throw a bone to the (perceived) further left?

[Racer]

So...is Claire McCaskill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_McCaskill) angling for a possible VP pick from Obama should he win the nomination?

I think if he beats Hillary, no way he runs with a man of any kind..so he'll have to narrow his choices down to a woman.

I don't think Senator/Senator tickets work all that well, but...she's one of his early supporters and while she hasn't been in the Senate very long, she seems poised to be somewhere in his cabinet. And Missouri is a swing state.

I just thought about it today, when I saw her on his plane (on TV) heading back to the midwest.

Probably nothing to it, but...it was an interesting idea. Or maybe one of these female governors from the Heartland? I doubt he'd go after someone from the northeast, given that it's unlikely they could deliver anything for him (we're talking a woman again) and out west, I'm not so sure about that, save for one of those crunchy blue dogs from the "libertarian west", but I can't see that working either.

Thoughts?

Hillary's situation would be way different I think if she were picking a running mate, especially with everyone wondering aloud about the technicalities of Bill running with her. Neither of them is that silly to even consider attempting to do that, when they just could just do it de facto once she were to be elected.

Bill Richardson would be the "logical" choice, given his Clinton ties and such, but I don't know if his "street cred" is really as big as the media likes to believe it to be in the "hispanic community". And New Mexico is a western state, to be sure, but given McCain is from out west and Romney is Mormon, the west isn't exactly going to be an area that they can expect to dominate anyway regardless of who'd they get pitted against.

As the race dwindles down, it's all just interesting stuff to ponder.

I really think Indiana senator Evan Bayh is the likely choice for Hilary's VP if she gets the nominee. He's really high up in her campaign. I also heard from somone I know who heard from someone who knows Bayh's college roommate that Bayh believes he has a really good chance of being the vice president if Hilary is nominated.

[Flasch186]

Wasn't it Bush that tried to have the US Ports run by that Dubai company? And walking hand in hand with the Saudi princes? You sure you want to toss those stones at Clinton?

bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Young Drachma]

Agreed.

Question is, does he go with a white woman or maybe a Hispanic woman?
And does he run with one from the middle or does he throw a bone to the (perceived) further left?

He can't go further left. He's already firmly to the left of Hillary. He's willing to work with Republicans, but he's a hope-filled modern liberal idealist. He has to get someone in the vein of Hillary (with personality) to balance him out.

And a white woman has to be the choice. A Hispanic woman is too much ethnicity and I think 'tolerance fatigue' will set it on election day. For better or worse, he has to get someone that the majority of voters can "relate to" because he sure as hell isn't that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think 'tolerance fatigue' will set it on election day.

I have a growing suspicion it already has.

[st.cronin]

Why did they even have this primary?

[ISiddiqui]

If we are talking about potential Clinton running mates, lets not forget Wesley Clark, who has been behind Clinton since the beginning of the campaign and is a former general (good on the national security issue).

[Abe Sargent]

If we are talking about potential Clinton running mates, lets not forget Wesley Clark, who has been behind Clinton since the beginning of the campaign and is a former general (good on the national security issue).

Yeha, because two people on a ticket from the same state is a good thing...

[ISiddiqui]

Does anyone actually consider Hillary Clinton as from Arkansas? Anyone?

[Toddzilla]

Don't forget about Jim Webb - the perfect running mate for either Obama or Clinton.

But I got the suspicion that Edwards is staying in the race to grab as many delegates as he can before the convention hoping neither of the two leaders has a majority, in which case he's got some serious capital, and could trade it for the VP job.

[st.cronin]

Does anyone actually consider Hillary Clinton as from Arkansas? Anyone?

Sorry, I do. First thing I think of with her is WJC's First Lady.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sorry, I do.

+1

[Young Drachma]

Don't forget about Jim Webb - the perfect running mate for either Obama or Clinton.

But I got the suspicion that Edwards is staying in the race to grab as many delegates as he can before the convention hoping neither of the two leaders has a majority, in which case he's got some serious capital, and could trade it for the VP job.

Attorney General.

[Dr. Sak]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UG88MO0&show_article=1

[albionmoonlight]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UG88MO0&show_article=1

(1) HUGE help to Hillary. Exit polls showed that most of his supporters would have backed her. The whole idea that he and Obama were splitting the "anti-Hillary" vote was absurd. Anyone motivated by anti-Hillary to that extent would have voted for Obama, the candidate with a realistic chance to beat her.

(2) I have no idea why he is doing this now. He seems to like campaigning, and it is not like he has a day-job of any consequence to go back to.

(3) Putting (1) and (2) together, I think that Hillary promised him the moon if he dropped out before Super Tuesday, and he decided that it was the best offer that he would get from either candidate.

(4) And, might I say again, HUGE help for Hillary. Might have just sewn up the nomination for her.

[Dr. Sak]

I don't claim to be an expert in politics but everything I have read and heard this morning is saying that the Edwards camp has been talking to the Obama camp for weeks about a deal. They said that there is no way Edwards would endorse Clinton because, they just don't like each other. And to be frankly honest, they are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying.

It's just what I have been hearing. Not sure what is right or not, but I wanted to bring these points up.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't claim to be an expert in politics but everything I have read and heard this morning is saying that the Edwards camp has been talking to the Obama camp for weeks about a deal. They said that there is no way Edwards would endorse Clinton because, they just don't like each other. And to be frankly honest, they are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying.

It's just what I have been hearing. Not sure what is right or not, but I wanted to bring these points up.

Don't let my use of a well organized list and carefully placed HUGE in all caps fool you. I generally have no idea what I am talking about. ;)

My logic sounds good to me. But I've certainly been wrong before.

[Dr. Sak]

Don't let my use of a well organized list and carefully placed HUGE in all caps fool you. I generally have no idea what I am talking about. ;)

My logic sounds good to me. But I've certainly been wrong before.

That makes two of us! :)

[albionmoonlight]

That makes two of us! :)

And the comments here are a ton more uninformed opinions. More than anyone could ever want: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Zero_sum.html#comments

[Kodos]

Dang. Edwards was still my choice out of those still left. I knew he didn't have chance, but still disappointing.

[Galaril]

That makes two of us! :)

I also agree with bsak. I think most "VOTERS" not people since alot of people don't vote or aren't Dems, consider Obama-Edwards to be the the anti-Hillary choice. I think the states of IOWA,NH,SC,is an accurate gauge of the average american voter. I belive even without an endorsement for Obama by Edwards which is very llikely by Super Tuesday this is good for 5-7 points for Obama. Considering a few of the states are pretty tight this is big. Also, I think Barack has done a decent job of expressing his desire to reach out to the Repubs enough to snag alot of the independents and even some mod Repubs.

[ISiddiqui]

But haven't exit polls showed the Edwards voters were generally split in their support for Clinton and Obama if Edwards wasn't there?

[Dutch]

Also, I think Barack has done a decent job of expressing his desire to reach out to the Repubs enough to snag alot of the independents and even some mod Repubs.

How so?

[Young Drachma]

How so?

In pretty much every speech, he mentions Republicans and "breaking down the divisions" of Washington.

He's painting his as a coalition of those disaffected with "politics as usual" and that theirs is a group that transcends race, gender and politics.

[Young Drachma]

From Joe Klein (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/30/edwards/index.html)from this story on CNN.com today:

An aide said Edwards does not plan to endorse either Clinton or Obama at this time but he may do so in the future.

"The cynics will say that with Edwards out of the race, a lot of the white working-class people who voted for him will now vote for Hillary Clinton; they'll see it in racial terms," said Time magazine journalist Joe Klein. "On the other hand, you could just as easily say that with Edwards out of the race, those people who are more interested in change who were part of his constituency, will go vote for Obama."

He added, "I don't think he endorses Hillary Clinton. The question is whether or not he endorses Barack Obama."

Klein contends that Clinton "represents a lot of the things that [Edwards] campaigned against, you know, the old Washington Democratic establishment that he believes got too close to the corporations in the '90s."

[Bubba Wheels]

I worked with the committee, led by House Republicans, that investigated that technology transfer to China. With all due respect, your statement on this is wrong.

I am more than willing to be corrected on this, if that is the case. From what I have understood, it was under Clinton that dual tech transfers (both civilian and military use) was moved from Dept. of Defense to under the Treasury's jurisdiction.

[Bubba Wheels]

Wasn't it Bush that tried to have the US Ports run by that Dubai company? And walking hand in hand with the Saudi princes? You sure you want to toss those stones at Clinton?

As someone that feels NAFTA is actually SHAFTA, and that Fair Trade is good for American workers while Free Trade is what the country-club shafters have given us, I have long ago cut ties with Mr. W.

[chesapeake]

At this point in the campaign, I think most of the Edwards voters had been whittled down to those who were voting for him, not against someone else. The anti-Hillary crowd had mostly gravitated to Obama already.

As to how those folks may break, Edwards' fire on the stump appealed to the angry part of the Democratic party -- namely my father and my wife. My dad doesn't think Hillary can win, so I expect he will support Obama in the CA primary. When VA votes, I think my wife will go for Hillary. I think the greater split will also be fairly even, with a slight edge to Hillary. From what I've seen of the demographics of Edwards voters, they have skewed more towards her than Obama.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

In pretty much every speech, he mentions Republicans and "breaking down the divisions" of Washington.

He's painting his as a coalition of those disaffected with "politics as usual" and that theirs is a group that transcends race, gender and politics.

As a voter that is a moderate Republican who 'swings both ways', all of the talk you just mentioned tells me he's really good at being a politician and tells me nothing about whether he'll be a good president. I'm sure that he'll lay out a few more details if/when he secures the nomination and maybe I'll know a bit more about him then. Right now, I don't know anything about him outside of his messages about cats and dogs living in harmony. I'm here to tell him he's living a pipe dream if he thinks that will occur if he becomes president.

[chesapeake]

I am more than willing to be corrected on this, if that is the case. From what I have understood, it was under Clinton that dual tech transfers (both civilian and military use) was moved from Dept. of Defense to under the Treasury's jurisdiction.

Your earlier statement claimed that Clinton sold gyroscope technology to China. There is not even a tiny factual basis for that statement. I refer you to the (unbelievably named) Cox-Dicks report if you want hard details on what happened. You probably can still find it on the internet somewhere.

In a nutshell, in 1996 Loral Space and Commications and Hughes Electronics were using a Chinese rocket to launch their satellite. The rocket went boom. Loral and Huges determined what they believed to be the cause and improperly shared their findings to their Chinese launch partners, which likely enabled the Chinese to make a better rocket.

The NYT picked up on the story in 1998. GOP blowhards at the time, wanting to bash the President, blamed it on the decision of the Clinton Administration to move licensing authority for satellite launches from the Department of State to Commerce (DoD was never in the picture). The decision to move the authority, however, happened later in 1996 -- after the launch accident and tech transfer took place. State had licensed that launch, not Commerce.

I hope this helps.

[ISiddiqui]

As a voter that is a moderate Republican who 'swings both ways', all of the talk you just mentioned tells me he's really good at being a politician and tells me nothing about whether he'll be a good president. I'm sure that he'll lay out a few more details if/when he secures the nomination and maybe I'll know a bit more about him then. Right now, I don't know anything about him outside of his messages about cats and dogs living in harmony. I'm here to tell him he's living a pipe dream if he thinks that will occur if he becomes president.

That is a lot of the reservations I've heard about him from Republicans. They don't know anything about his policies. All they know is "unity", but what exactly does that mean? One thing is for sure, if he tries to push for "lefty" programs, he isn't going to find a lot of unity from the right.

I'm not sure that the Kennedies fawning all over him helped in Republican estimations as well. They usually don't particularly like JFK.

[Arles]

That is a lot of the reservations I've heard about him from Republicans. They don't know anything about his policies. All they know is "unity", but what exactly does that mean? One thing is for sure, if he tries to push for "lefty" programs, he isn't going to find a lot of unity from the right.

I'm not sure that the Kennedies fawning all over him helped in Republican estimations as well. They usually don't particularly like JFK.
Obama has come out as a social liberal, in favor of raising taxes on "the rich" (ie, anyone making over 75K) and universal health. Hardly a platform that will attract many conservatives. once the debates start between party candidates and all the platitudes go away, I doubt Obama gets much republican support. Still, I think he wins over McCain as republicans may not even show up. And no vote from a republican is as good as a vote for Obama.

[Young Drachma]

Story (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/)

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Democrat Barack Obama praised John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth Wednesday, in a statement issued shortly after news surfaced the former North Carolina senator plans to drop his presidential bid.

“John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news," he said. "At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington."

"John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose," Obama continued. "So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America."

[Warhammer]

I'm not sure that the Kennedies fawning all over him helped in Republican estimations as well. They usually don't particularly like JFK.

Republicans not like JFK? Good grief! If a democrat ran on JFK's platform a good number of Republicans would get on board with him.

[Alan T]

Republicans not like JFK? Good grief! If a democrat ran on JFK's platform a good number of Republicans would get on board with him.

Yeah, this one had me puzzled too.. Perhaps its because I grew up in the south where Democrats were often on the conservative side.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Never fear. Jimmy Carter is getting involved. He's "titillated"...............

One former president has long assumed a very outspoken role in the presidential race. Now another is speaking up.

Jimmy Carter says he's not formally endorsing any candidate, but in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the former president lavished praise on Barack Obama, calling his campaign "extraordinary"

"Obama's campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family," Carter told the newspaper in an interview published in its Wednesday edition. According to the paper, Carter was particularly praiseworthy of the Illinois senator's rhetorical skills, comparing them to those of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Carter also said Obama "will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government."

Carter, a onetime governor of Georgia and one of only two Democrats to win the White House in the last forty years, also said he thinks Obama's candidacy could put several southern states in play in a general election match up.

Carter also commented on the recent criticism surrounding Bill Clinton, following that former president's comments on the campaign trail that some have viewed as racially divisive. Carter said Clinton personally called him to explain the remarks.

"He doesn't call me often, but the fact that he called me this morning and spent a long time explaining his position indicates that it's troublesome to them, the adverse reaction," he said.

"I told him I hoped it would die down. — the charged atmosphere concerning the race issue," Carter said

[ISiddiqui]

Republicans not like JFK? Good grief! If a democrat ran on JFK's platform a good number of Republicans would get on board with him.

You mean like increasing the minimum wage and massive increases in federal spending on housing, unemployment, education, and medical care? ;)

[Young Drachma]

Never fear. Jimmy Carter is getting involved. He's "titillated"...............

Haha...first Ted Kennedy and now this. With friends like these.....

[Bubba Wheels]

Your earlier statement claimed that Clinton sold gyroscope technology to China. There is not even a tiny factual basis for that statement. I refer you to the (unbelievably named) Cox-Dicks report if you want hard details on what happened. You probably can still find it on the internet somewhere.

In a nutshell, in 1996 Loral Space and Commications and Hughes Electronics were using a Chinese rocket to launch their satellite. The rocket went boom. Loral and Huges determined what they believed to be the cause and improperly shared their findings to their Chinese launch partners, which likely enabled the Chinese to make a better rocket.

The NYT picked up on the story in 1998. GOP blowhards at the time, wanting to bash the President, blamed it on the decision of the Clinton Administration to move licensing authority for satellite launches from the Department of State to Commerce (DoD was never in the picture). The decision to move the authority, however, happened later in 1996 -- after the launch accident and tech transfer took place. State had licensed that launch, not Commerce.

I hope this helps.

Good stuff, thanks for the correction. Always willing to look at facts. Guess with all the Britney/Paris/Lindsey news to put out by the stalwart media a little thing like the Chinese suddenly being able to nuke us (for reasons different than I first thought) gets some short shrift.

I mean, with all the problems Michigan is having in particular, local Fox News channel 2 Detroit anchor thought we should know that Justin Timberlake was seen kissing someone other than his steady girlfriend in NYC recently. And, I know it was Fox, but I channel surf. Its all like that.

[Galaril]

You mean like increasing the minimum wage and massive increases in federal spending on housing, unemployment, education, and medical care? ;)

And what is wrong with spending money in those areas? Not enough bombs in our arsenal for ya?

[ISiddiqui]

And what is wrong with spending money in those areas? Not enough bombs in our arsenal for ya?

Have you not met any Republicans?

[Subby]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080126/i/r181019547.jpg

[path12]

I refer you to the (unbelievably named) Cox-Dicks report if you want hard details on what happened.

That may be the most awesome sentence ever.

[Galaril]

Have you not met any Republicans?

lol:)

[Flasch186]

Good stuff, thanks for the correction. Always willing to look at facts.

Color me skeptical after you shrug off the Bush Dubai Ports thing which totally Pwned you. care to make commentary on that? Perhaps you posted something in the thread way back when it occurred to show your consistency?

[JPhillips]

The latest poll has Obama within the margin of error in California.

[Bubba Wheels]

Color me skeptical after you shrug off the Bush Dubai Ports thing which totally Pwned you. care to make commentary on that? Perhaps you posted something in the thread way back when it occurred to show your consistency?

Excuse me? About the only theme I have ever posted on Bush is in regards to him running as a Reagan Conservative and turning out to be a Corporate "Country Clubber." Given the expectations, perhaps the most dissappointing President in my lifetime, but still lightyears better than Billary looming on the horizon.

[chesapeake]

Color me skeptical after you shrug off the Bush Dubai Ports thing which totally Pwned you. care to make commentary on that? Perhaps you posted something in the thread way back when it occurred to show your consistency?

In fairness to our Republican friends, the port thing was (and is) a massive red herring.

In our country, most ports are public entities, run either by elected commissioners or appointed by elected officials. The ports at which Dubai Ports World (DPW) was seeking to operate terminals were all public facilities.

At the risk of overexplaining this, ports are made up of many terminals, most of which are leased and operated by private entities. Most of these private entities are headquartered overseas -- EU, South Korea, Japan, China, although some are US. This is international trade we are talking about. Foreign countries and companies do need to be involved. DPW is one of these companies and, by and large, a widely respected terminal operator.

At no point in time was there ever a proposal on the table for DPW to operate a US port. Just terminals. The security risks were blown way out of proportion; although terminal operators bear some responsibility for security within the terminals they operate, port authorites, US Customs and Border Protection and the US Coast Guard are responsible for security at US ports and do a pretty good job.

[GrantDawg]

Haha...first Ted Kennedy and now this. With friends like these.....



...you can win the Democratic nomination. You can down-play these guys once you achieve the nom, but they will definitely help you with getting to the nom. It is a sign that the democratic political machine is pulling away from Clinton, and that is very good for Obama.

[ISiddiqui]

To be fair though, it isn't like Ted Kennedy hasn't been a part of the Democratic political machine (at least in the national party) any time lately. He likes to march to his own beat. The DNC brings him out for conventions, but usually doesn't consult him that much.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The DNC brings him out for conventions, but usually doesn't consult him that much.

That's totally inaccurate. I know for a fact that he is asked to hand select the booze for each of the Democratic fundraisers.

[Bubba Wheels]

In the next episode of "Bonnie and Clyde vs. the County Sheriff," Bonnie and the Sheriff plan a shootout tonight while Clyde does some 'global gold-digging' of his own! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ei=5065&en=6a843530898e147a&ex=1202446800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Stay tuned!

[Big Fo]

The latest poll has Obama within the margin of error in California.

It begins. Looking at our poll results FOFC called it way before the media. Obama should get the majority of the Edwards crowd, people are either for Clinton or find her to be detestable. Can't wait to see his inauguration.

[st.cronin]

My gut feeling is that Obama will win this nomination. Obama vs. McCain is how I see the general. (This could very well be wishful thinking on my part.)

It is. Romney and Hillary will meet in the general election. No doubt about it. McCain and Romney are now dead even in Florida as Romney is capitalizing on his business background, the terrible economy, and Washington being broken. At the debate last night, everybody was saying how Romney won the economy part hands down while McCain looked like an idiot without the focus being on the Iraq war. Giuliani has fallen off and will probably finish 3rd in Florida, his highest finish yet. He might be done. All indications are that Huckabee is out of money. Obama will win S.C., but Hillary will win big on Super Tuesday. In any closed primary, she has the advantage as does Romney on the Republican side.

Romney vs. Hillary. Practically guaranteed now. Love or hate Bill O'Reilly, he did predict this over a year ago.

:)

[albionmoonlight]

:)

You do realize that if it ends up being Romney v. Hillary, you will get this smile quoted back to you. In Mockery.

[st.cronin]

You do realize that if it ends up being Romney v. Hillary, you will get this smile quoted back to you. In Mockery.

Oh, definitely. I don't think I was being especially wise, either. As I said it was more wishful thinking than anything else.

[-apoc-]

It begins. Looking at our poll results FOFC called it way before the media. Obama should get the majority of the Edwards crowd, people are either for Clinton or find her to be detestable. Can't wait to see his inauguration.

I wouldn't go that far because 2 days ago Hillary was ahead by a vote. I really do hope Obama pulls it off just because it would be something different. Obama and McCain would be perfect because then I would actually have 2 candidates that I would be willing to vote for rather than having to vote against someone.

[panerd]

Is there any chance that Hilary/Obama selects the other as their running mate? What about Edwards running for VP again? I don't have any real insight except that I would think Hilary would never want to play second fiddle while Obama might. But I thought you guys may actually have some insight or ideas on who might run with either of the canidates.

[Young Drachma]

Is there any chance that Hilary/Obama selects the other as their running mate? What about Edwards running for VP again? I don't have any real insight except that I would think Hilary would never want to play second fiddle while Obama might. But I thought you guys may actually have some insight or ideas on who might run with either of the canidates.

Hillary/Obama won't happen. Too much personality and well, it's just a bad idea. Edwards has an outside shot, but I seriously doubt he wants to go through the 2nd fiddle thing again and he can't deliver the South making him a really bad choice. Edwards is likely going to be someone's Attorney General of the Dems win.

If you go back a page, you'll see a list of random ideas for VPs we discussed. A few interesting ideas were thrown out there.

[larrymcg421]

Hillary/Obama is possible. Obama/Hillary is not.

I think the most likely running mates are Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Evan Bayh, and Jim Webb.

[Swaggs]

Is there any word on whether or not Mark Warner is going to run for the VA senate spot that John Warner is retiring from?

He could be an interesting VP choice and could certainly put Virginia into play as a swing state.

[yacovfb]

Is there any word on whether or not Mark Warner is going to run for the VA senate spot that John Warner is retiring from?

He could be an interesting VP choice and could certainly put Virginia into play as a swing state.

I'm pretty sure he is running for the Senate.

[flere-imsaho]

In fairness to our Republican friends, the port thing was (and is) a massive red herring.

Oh absolutely. I mean, I was happy to see it get blown out of proportion in the media to discomfort the Administration, but yeah, it was completely a non-issue.

The latest poll has Obama within the margin of error in California.

Wow. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, last I heard he was behind by a good margin.

Is there any word on whether or not Mark Warner is going to run for the VA senate spot that John Warner is retiring from?

He announced two weeks after John Warner announced he wasn't running for re-election. I think Mark Warner decided not to run for Pres because he didn't want to turn his family upside-down. Being a senator from Virginia (next to D.C.) is perfect for him, so I'd be surprised if he wanted to be Veep (Veep's typically do a lot of travel, never mind campaigning).

[Swaggs]

Latest Rasmussen poll had Hillary leading Obama by 3 points prior to Edwards dropping out. Right now, it is a big outlier, but it is the most recent poll.

[DaddyTorgo]

during our dinner table conversation tonight I sorta started to talk myself into voting for hillary. idk

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is there any word on whether or not Mark Warner is going to run for the VA senate spot that John Warner is retiring from?

I'm hoping the Warner sister Dot will decide to run instead ;)

[-apoc-]

I'm hoping the Warner sister Dot will decide to run instead ;)

Dude I almost spit out my drink laughing at that. Good show Good show

[Flasch186]

In fairness to our Republican friends, the port thing was (and is) a massive red herring.



not the case as applied to the context in which the idea of foreign involvement/investment/donations as a negative, BW brought it up in this thread.

[Young Drachma]

I'm watching the CNN Democratic Debate right now. Obama seems to really have found his voice with the whole deal being mano a mano. Hillary seems on the defensive in this debate. I don't know if it'll have a demonstrable effect. But...it seems really clear to me that he's got a strength in this debate that he's not previously had.

Any other takes?

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm watching the CNN Democratic Debate right now. Obama seems to really have found his voice with the whole deal being mano a mano. Hillary seems on the defensive in this debate. I don't know if it'll have a demonstrable effect. But...it seems really clear to me that he's got a strength in this debate that he's not previously had.

Any other takes?

I agree. He seems much more comfortable.

and it's nice to see them both showing respect for each other too.

[Young Drachma]

If the live blogging comments on the NY Times web site are indication, Obama is gaining ground. Just in the sense that the comments are usually heavily titled towards Hillary and today, it's still pro-Hillary, but there is a strong bend towards Obama. I don't think it's anything "important" but I do like it to gauge where people are with things.

Another comment is, I'm AMAZED that he's kept up with her in terms of his ability to fundraise. When he first announced his campaign, I thought he'd struggle to raise money, but he's done a hell of a job getting enough cash to go toe-to-toe with the Clinton financial juggernaut.

I'm sure it helps that they both represent two of the largest cities in the country, but she's been preparing her bid since her first Senate campaign and so, she's obviously had a lot of time to fundraise.

Given the ground he's had to cover, it's impressive that he's managed to make it even this far.

[JPhillips]

The fact that Obama could pull in 170,000 new donors in January is simply amazing.

[flere-imsaho]

Not only that, but wherever Obama goes, he has rallies that draw tens of thousands of people. Whatever else he may be, he's inspiring.

[Jas_lov]

You do realize that if it ends up being Romney v. Hillary, you will get this smile quoted back to you. In Mockery.

His gloating is a little premature, but I understand it. It's hard to be humble when you're right. But we don't know if he'll be right yet. Obviously it's looking like McCain will be the nominee. Romney isn't leading any Super Tuesday states that has been polled thus far. Republican primaries like New York, Arizona, and New Jersey are winner take all and McCain should win all of those. He'll also probably win the big state of California. Huckabee and Romney may win a state here and there, but it should be over February 5th.

The Democratic race is far from over. The debate tonight was basically a wash. Of the Super Tuesday states that have been polled, Clinton is winning in the rcp averages in 6/7. Obama is leading in Georgia. Clinton expanded her lead by 18 points in Massachussets according to the latest poll despite Kennedy and Kerry's endorsements. She's going to dominate New York and New Jersey. Obama has made grounds in California and Alabama. He'll dominate Illinois and win Georgia. So basically it's a tossup and it may still be after Super Tuesday.

[Vegas Vic]

Not only that, but wherever Obama goes, he has rallies that draw tens of thousands of people. Whatever else he may be, he's inspiring.

While his actual skill as a potential president is debatable, his skill as a political orator is unsurpassed in modern history.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Good stuff, thanks for the correction. Always willing to look at facts.

Somehow I doubt that. How's the fact checking going on with the NAFTA Superhighway, anyways? Oh, right, you didn't check those facts or a million others before posting inane comments.

[ISiddiqui]

While his actual skill as a potential president is debatable, his skill as a political orator is unsurpassed in modern history.

When does "modern" history start? ;)

I'd say that Reagan guy was pretty good as a political orator.

[Bubba Wheels]

Somehow I doubt that. How's the fact checking going on with the NAFTA Superhighway, anyways? Oh, right, you didn't check those facts or a million others before posting inane comments.

You're saying that the NAFTA Highway is not being planned as we speak? What part of that is not correct? Think its you in La La Land on this one.

[albionmoonlight]

It's actually pretty scary when you think about it. Right now, it is possible to drive from the Mexican border all the way to the Canadian border without ever having to leave a road.

Your tax dollars at work.

[chesapeake]

While his actual skill as a potential president is debatable, his skill as a political orator is unsurpassed in modern history.

Also, please check Kennedy, John Fitzgerald. He could turn a phrase.

[Vegas Vic]

Also, please check Kennedy, John Fitzgerald. He could turn a phrase.

Agreed. His speeches from about 50 years ago were very inspiring.

[Toddzilla]

NAFTA Highway?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'll be playing blackjack with jb, so it doesn't bother me.

[chesapeake]

Agreed. His speeches from about 50 years ago were very inspiring.

Indeed, they were. I'm sorry I missed them. My father has told me some interesting stories about his time on the Kennedy campaign in 1960.

But you whippersnappers should know that the "modern presidency" did not start on your birthday. Most definitions of the "modern presidency" start no later than the beginning of the television era. But really, it goes back to FDR and the steps he took to consolidate power in the executive branch.

I hope you learned something. Now I'm going to go walk uphill in the snow to my one room schoolhouse.

I'd agree that Obama's oratory is the best we've seen as a nation in at least 8 years. I was at a campaign event for VA Governor Tim Kaine in 2005 at which Obama appeared. He was electric. I don't know what "it" is, but he definitely has it.

[Vegas Vic]

When does "modern" history start? ;)

I'd say that Reagan guy was pretty good as a political orator.

Reagan had an excellent delivery on prepared speeches, especially when reading off of a teleprompter. However, when speaking off the cuff, he would often stammer and stumble for words.

[st.cronin]

I'm one of the few, but I actually am very fond of Dubya's oratory.

[Young Drachma]

I'm one of the few, but I actually am very fond of Dubya's oratory.

That explains it.

[Bubba Wheels]

Ann Coulter has just announced: If McCain is the GOP nominee, she will actively campaign for Hillary. Funny stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

[Bee]

Ann Coulter has just announced: If McCain is the GOP nominee, she will actively campaign for Hillary. Funny stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

Wow, that would be big blow for Hillary. :D

[Young Drachma]

Wow, that would be big blow for Hillary. :D

+1

[molson]

While his actual skill as a potential president is debatable, his skill as a political orator is unsurpassed in modern history.

It took me a while to get past his voice - it sounds fake and pretentious.

[Warhammer]

I don't know when Coulter lost it, but she has gone wacko the last two or three months. There was a time when she wasn't such a hack, but that was long ago.

[Kodos]

As a rule, anything that drives Coulter nuts -- I like.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm one of the few, but I actually am very fond of Dubya's oratory.

I'm gonna need an explanation here.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know when Coulter lost it, but she has gone wacko the last two or three months. There was a time when she wasn't such a hack, but that was long ago.

The last "two or three months"? I think it was way before that.

[sabotai]

Ann Coulter has never gone wacko. That implies that there was a time she wasn't batshit insane.

[Big Fo]

Ann Coulter has just announced: If McCain is the GOP nominee, she will actively campaign for Hillary. Funny stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

I could only watch half the clip before feeling a strong urge to stab my laptop.

[st.cronin]

I'm gonna need an explanation here.

What can I say? I just enjoy listening to him talk, more so than Bill Clinton or Hillary or Papa Bush or even McCain really.

[Greyroofoo]

I'm in Alabama and I've only seen Obama and Huckabee ads. I dunno if it means anything but I'm just saying

[Buccaneer]

Figures. Some of you guys (generically-speaking) rightly never gave any credence to what Coulter had said and now she is taken seriously?

[Vegas Vic]

Figures. Some of you guys (generically-speaking) rightly never gave any credence to what Coulter had said and now she is taken seriously?

I've always given a lot of credence to what Coulter has said insofar as how it relates to putting money in her pocket. She is an exceptionally shrewd businesswoman, and rest assured that she doesn't do or say anything without calculating the potential benefit.

[Toddzilla]

Ann Coulter has never gone wacko. That implies that there was a time she wasn't batshit insane.+1

[molson]

What can I say? I just enjoy listening to him talk, more so than Bill Clinton or Hillary or Papa Bush or even McCain really.

Same here.

There's obviously times Bush loses himself and stops making sense (and those are the moments you see on the Daily Show), but more of the time, once he gets rolling, he has a pretty inspirational manner of speaking - (if you can seperate the manner from the points he's making). And obviously all that ties together, and I'm not a Bush suporter, but the guy can control a room.

[path12]

Same here.

There's obviously times Bush loses himself and stops making sense (and those are the moments you see on the Daily Show), but more of the time, once he gets rolling, he has a pretty inspirational manner of speaking - (if you can seperate the manner from the points he's making). And obviously all that ties together, and I'm not a Bush suporter, but the guy can control a room.

It's really amazing how people can get such different viewpoints from the same thing. When I watch him speak I hear condescension and mangled syntax. Granted, I agree with him on practically nothing, so that might play a part.

[Warhammer]

My thing with Coulter is that when she first, first, first started, she actually made some points (as most pundits that make a name for themselves do). Then, she became a bigger deal than her message, and then she proceeded into hackdom. Finally, in the last few months she has gone bat-shit crazy.

[Vegas Vic]

Finally, in the last few months she has gone bat-shit crazy.

Crazy like a fox. All the way to the bank.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

You're saying that the NAFTA Highway is not being planned as we speak? What part of that is not correct? Think its you in La La Land on this one.

Thanks for making my point.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Same here.

There's obviously times Bush loses himself and stops making sense (and those are the moments you see on the Daily Show), but more of the time, once he gets rolling, he has a pretty inspirational manner of speaking - (if you can seperate the manner from the points he's making). And obviously all that ties together, and I'm not a Bush suporter, but the guy can control a room.

Ah, this to me would be an obvious example of a terrible orator. Go figure.

[Bubba Wheels]

Thanks for making my point.

Still waiting, your point being that NAFTA doesn't really exist, or that it does exist and its a good thing? Which is it? How does being non-committal and obtuse make you look like anything more than a side-stepping liberal?

[Flasch186]

Still waiting, your point being that NAFTA doesn't really exist, or that it does exist and its a good thing? Which is it? How does being non-committal and obtuse make you look like anything more than a side-stepping liberal?

Like when you ignored the point about Bush's port giveaway? You side step counterpoints in almost every thread you dissolve.

[Toddzilla]

Still waiting, your point being that NAFTA doesn't really exist, or that it does exist and its a good thing? Which is it? How does being non-committal and obtuse make you look like anything more than a side-stepping liberal?Just a slight correction - liberals don't side step. Point obfuscating conservative idiot apologists side-step. *cough*

[Bubba Wheels]

Just a slight correction - liberals don't side step. Point obfuscating conservative idiot apologists side-step. *cough*

Thanks, I almost used that word in my last post, then realized that the first to call names loses. Always the liberal thing to do.

[Flasch186]

Thanks, I almost used that word in my last post, then realized that the first to call names loses. Always the liberal thing to do.

care to reference your earlier negative connotation regarding foreign involvement in our country vs. Bush's port deal, or are you going to pull a Limbaugh, lie or make a ridiculous statement than not apologize when caught in it or clear up the hypocrisy in it? I mean at least he's high.

Liberal isn't a bad word, fuck is, shit is, etc.

[Bubba Wheels]

care to reference your earlier negative connotation regarding foreign involvement in our country vs. Bush's port deal, or are you going to pull a Limbaugh, lie or make a ridiculous statement than not apologize when caught in it or clear up the hypocrisy in it? I mean at least he's high.

Liberal isn't a bad word, fuck is, shit is, etc.

Liberal's first response when losing an argument is to name-call. You and a few others here do it on a steady basis. If I do it I get 'boxed', but conservatives have learned long ago that we need to win on merit while liberals get a free pass on trolling.

Like Lee Marvin says to Robert Ryan in Dirty Dozen..."You really are quite...emotional...aren't you?"

[Flasch186]

how about the Bush Ports deal? You missed out on that, again.

You referenced as a bad thing, foreign involvement in our country, we're you against the ports deal? Just want to make sure youre consistent.

...and why does it take 4 reminders to get you to comment on the FACTUAL stuff, that you claim to be all about, but when it comes to name calling you're tit for tat. If you would debate about the issues, like this one, and the hypocrisy or consistency, that would be nice. So what is this, poke number 4 on the same issue to get you to see if youre going to be consistent when it comes to foreign involvement in our government and country. BTW, for reference I was WRONG on the issue originally and was able to listen to oppositional standpoints and be open minded enough to change my viewpoint on the issue.....but am still glad it didnt happen.

[Flasch186]

amazing. I saw him on here reading it yet still nothing. Tis easier to spin BS and get into a namecalling contest than actually debate issues or fact, for him.

sorry to hijack the thread, back to your regularly scheduled thread but please note this as another time where BW ignored a direct response or question regarding an issue he brought up.

[Jas_lov]

Yes, let's get back to talking about Super Tuesday.
New polls show Connecticut and Missouri up for grabs. Both within the MOE. Alabama is a dead heat.
Chicago Tribune poll shows Obama ahead by 30 points in Illinois.
Still no new post debate California poll without Jonn Edwards.
Hillary is still way ahead in Tennessee, New York, New Jersey, and Massachussetts.
Minnesota, Alaska, Colorado, Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Delaware, Idaho, and North Dakota have not been polled.

[Racer]

I have a question. What polls are generally considered to be the most reliable? For example, in Tennessee, InsiderAdvantage has Hilary up 33%, Rasmussen has Hilary up 14%, and WSMV-TV has Hilary up only 5%. I don't see how all these polls could possibly be accurate if they were all setup correctly. All of these polls were taken between January 28th and January 30th.

[DaddyTorgo]

I have a question. What polls are generally considered to be the most reliable? For example, in Tennessee, InsiderAdvantage has Hilary up 33%, Rasmussen has Hilary up 14%, and WSMV-TV has Hilary up only 5%. I don't see how all these polls could possibly be accurate if they were all setup correctly. All of these polls were taken between January 28th and January 30th.

look for the ones with the lowest margin of error combined with an actual disclaimer about who they polled.

obviously one that polls only women in one community at a grocery store is going to be less accurate then one that polls 5,000 people at random by telephone.

[Jas_lov]

I guess a larger sample size would also make for a better poll, but I don't know much about which ones are most reliable. I usually use the rcp average, but those can be misleading as well in these states that haven't been polled more than once or twice recently and go back all the way to December. The rcp average for Tennessee taking all of those 3 polls into account is Clinton 48.0, Obama 30.7, so I guess that's a little more accurate then just going by one poll but in some of these states there is only one recent poll. I see your point though, as Massachussetts has Clinton ahead by only 6 points in the 28th, and ahead by 24 points on the 30th.

Does anyone know if polls done by local newspapers, colleges, and tv stations are generally better than national pollsters like rasmussen's and survey USA?

[Toddzilla]

Still waiting, your point being that NAFTA doesn't really exist, or that it does exist and its a good thing? Which is it? How does being non-committal and obtuse make you look like anything more than a side-stepping liberal?

Liberal's first response when losing an argument is to name-call. You and a few others here do it on a steady basis. If I do it I get 'boxed', but conservatives have learned long ago that we need to win on merit while liberals get a free pass on trolling.OMG :eek: Bubba is ......... a *LIBERAL* !!!

*cue scary music*

[JonInMiddleGA]

Does anyone know if polls done by local newspapers, colleges, and tv stations are generally better than national pollsters like rasmussen's and survey USA?

Mostly depends upon who they paid to do them (very few of the smaller sources are set up to handle their own polling, it's typically outsourced to a polling firm).

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Still waiting, your point being that NAFTA doesn't really exist, or that it does exist and its a good thing? Which is it? How does being non-committal and obtuse make you look like anything more than a side-stepping liberal?

I have no real need or interest in reminding you of your hyperbole and innaccurate and false statements on the subject in the thread that you started on the topic and the factual, correct, and rational rebuttals from others you wouldn't respond to. You can go re-read that thread yourself.

I'd also add that it wasn't your name calling but more your offensive and racist thread starting that got you banned.

As to your question, yes NAFTA does exist. It was signed and ratified several years ago.

And you calling someone else "sidestepping" is perhaps one of the most hilarious comments you have ever made.

[Vegas Vic]

I usually use the rcp average, but those can be misleading as well in these states that haven't been polled more than once or twice recently and go back all the way to December.

The RCP average with fresh polling data is extremely accurate, and always has been.

They nailed the 2004 presidential election. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html)

Here are the RCP updated states, with fresh polling data:

Alabama - Clinton +1% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/al/alabama_democratic_primary-281.html)
Tennessee - Clinton +17% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tn/tennessee_democratic_primary-540.html)
Illinois - Obama +28% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/il/illinois_democratic_primary-351.html)
Massachusetts - Clinton +17% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_primary-539.html)
New Jersey - Clinton +10% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_democratic_primary-246.html)
New York - Clinton +21% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ny/new_york_democratic_primary-265.html)
Connecticut - Clinton +3% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ct/connecticut_democratic_primary-273.html)
Missouri - Clinton +12% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mo/missouri_democratic_primary-534.html)
Georgia - Obama +8% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ga/georgia_democratic_primary-268.html)
California - Clinton +11% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html)

Right now, it appears that Obama will add Illinois and Georgia to his South Carolina victory, with a decent shot at Alabama and Connecticut.

[flere-imsaho]

It's really amazing how people can get such different viewpoints from the same thing. When I watch him speak I hear condescension and mangled syntax. Granted, I agree with him on practically nothing, so that might play a part.

Same here. Mangled syntax aside, when I listen to Bush, he always sounds like a) he feels he knows better than everyone else, especially his audience and b) if you disagree, you're clearly a lunatic.

Of course, I disagree with his policies too, so maybe that's part of it as well. If that's the case, though, then are there "great orators" we can all agree on? And if so, what is it that they do that makes them great orators?

I mean, I think Obama's a great orator, but maybe you guys on the other side of the aisle disagree, in which case he's not a good example.

Winston Churchill? FDR?

[st.cronin]

Same here. Mangled syntax aside, when I listen to Bush, he always sounds like a) he feels he knows better than everyone else, especially his audience and b) if you disagree, you're clearly a lunatic.

Of course, I disagree with his policies too, so maybe that's part of it as well. If that's the case, though, then are there "great orators" we can all agree on? And if so, what is it that they do that makes them great orators?

I mean, I think Obama's a great orator, but maybe you guys on the other side of the aisle disagree, in which case he's not a good example.

Winston Churchill? FDR?

Wesley Clark?

[Flasch186]

Ted Haggard

[flere-imsaho]

Wesley Clark?

I'd say he's only OK. To me, a great orator makes his/her point to the audience immediately, directly, and on both an emotional and intellectual level. You leave inspired with a sense of direction and purpose. Perhaps it also depends on the occasion, too.

I feel this with Obama, but the other thing I get from Obama which is new to me is the feeling that he's thought about what he's saying. Contrast this to Hillary. Whenever I hear her speak (watch the latest debate, for example), I feel like she's just spitting out the lines her team has had her memorize. Obama sounds like he's considered the question carefully and is giving as thoughtful and honest an answer as possible.

But again, I'm a partisan here.

Ted Haggard

Can't say I've heard him speak.

[st.cronin]

I think Obama is a convincing orator to the people who already agree with him - Clark came to mind because his actual positions on things struck me as ludicrous, but his speeches had a hypnotic effect on me. I found myself nodding, and saying "yeah, that's it."

I've been trying to think of other contemporary guys that I don't agree with their positions but find myself swayed by their oratory, and I'm drawing a blank.

[Flasch186]

sorry I thought you meant oral, hence the Ted haggard. Carry on.

[Young Drachma]

I don't agree with Obama politically at all. I tried really hard not to like him and what's been more telling isn't the fact that I'm even remotely close to considering voting for him in November, though it's not a slam dunk at all (not that it matters whether I do or not, since I live in Wyoming which will go GOP and I'm moving to Illinois which is already his territory), as much as the people who come to me who are more to the right of me who are saying that he's "their guy." They all know what the political implications of voting for him are, technically.

But he seems to represent something to them that they're really happy to see, that they're glad he's there when he is and it seems like it just takes the cake that his main rival in this race is Hillary. The like-minded conservative folks I've talked to -- excluding my college friends who are rooting for Ron Paul on principle -- seem turned off by Romney, think McCain is too old and that you can't really believe anything he says and so when the choice is a RINO, a flip-flopper and Obama, the choice for them seems easy.

Whether this will translate to anything is anyone's guess. But I will say that there is no doubt that he's transcending politics in a way that no one really expected and that the steam engine he's riding is catching momentum, it's not slowing down.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Right now, it appears that Obama will add Illinois and Georgia to his South Carolina victory, with a decent shot at Alabama and Connecticut.

I would have figured Illinois & Georgia were obvious Obama's (incidentally, he's spending a nice chunk of change in GA for the past week, the only candidate from either party to do so). Alabama doesn't surprise me at all, while Connecticut would probably cause me to raise an eyebrow slightly if he wins it. Tennessee is the one I'm expecting to be closer than expected.

[QuikSand]

Right now, it appears that Obama will add Illinois and Georgia to his South Carolina victory, with a decent shot at Alabama and Connecticut.

So, from a perspective of "is this thing over now?" -- what does Obama need to do on Tuesday to keep his hopes of being the nominee alive? In my view, if he pulls off wins in his home state, one southern state, and maybe one other wild card... while Senator Clinton rolls to easy wins in delegate-rich California, New York, New Jersey, and most everywhere else on the table... isn't this thing basically over Wednesday morning?

I'm just curious -- let's say Obama makes it fairly close in California and Tennessee (he loses by maybe 3-5 points in each state?), and he wins both Alabama and Connecticut, on top of IL and GA. And she sweeps the rest. Is he still a viable option for someone who is undecided but votes on February 12th? I really don't know.

[Young Drachma]

So, from a perspective of "is this thing over now?" -- what does Obama need to do on Tuesday to keep his hopes of being the nominee alive? In my view, if he pulls off wins in his home state, one southern state, and maybe one other wild card... while Senator Clinton rolls to easy wins in delegate-rich California, New York, New Jersey, and most everywhere else on the table... isn't this thing basically over Wednesday morning?

I'm just curious -- let's say Obama makes it fairly close in California and Tennessee (he loses by maybe 3-5 points in each state?), and he wins both Alabama and Connecticut, on top of IL and GA. And she sweeps the rest. Is he still a viable option for someone who is undecided but votes on February 12th? I really don't know.

My gut says that either Hillary will have a huge Super Tuesday and kill hope or the polls will be wrong like New Hampshire and we'll see a pretty big upset. I think she'll win where she's expected and he'll win around the country and will use that momentum to play the whole red state v. blue state thing against her. One of those two scenarios seems the most likely to me. Muddled and close would be...interesting and anti-climatic. But possible.

If he wins states like Kansas, Georgia, Illinois obviously and perhaps a western state like Colorado..he'll be able to play the whole "we're representing all of America" and turn her into the big city candidate, giving him flyover country momentum.

It's in his best interest for this thing to drag out as long as possible, because as soon as he's the presumptive nominee, the GOP will sharpen their knives and he'll be sullied or at least, there will be so many internet lies out there that the media might pick up, that undecideds who might be on the fence about him, might jettison the chance to pick him.

It's hard to say, but...this whole race hasn't played out like "it was supposed to" yet, so I just can't imagine that he's gonna just "go away" like that. I feel like the storyline isn't going to be written that way.

Oh I just wanted to say that he has to win some of those states you mentioned. I don't think "close" is gonna do it for him. He needs some solid cross-section wins, especially in states where he's not "supposed" to win or where it's close for him to be able to come out of that day with some life. If he just notches where we expect him to win as of today and gets nothing else, he might experience the tumble.

[Jas_lov]

I guess it comes down to the states that could go either way. It's proportionate delegates so Obama can lose closely in those big states and still keep the delegate race close. The perception will probably be that Hillary is the big winner of the day though if she wins all of those big states. New York and New Jersey should go to her easily, but California may not. I also think she'll win pretty easily in Massachussetts despite Kennedy and Kerry's endorsements of Obama.

Obama can counteract with winning fairly big states like Illinois and Georgia. But the key is if Hillary is able to win these close states like Connecticut, Alabama, Missouri, and of course California. Then you look at the states that haven't been polled and Hillary could get decent sized states like Minnesota, Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico. I think Hillary has the latino vote behind her which bodes well in CA and those south western states. Arkansas was her home for many years.

It could be over Super Tuesday. Depends how those close states go and how close Obama can keep the race in the larger states. But she could keep close in states where he wins too, so it works both ways.

[st.cronin]

I actually think Obama will win New Mexico fairly easily.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If he wins states like Kansas, Georgia, Illinois obviously and perhaps a western state like Colorado..he'll be able to play the whole "we're representing all of America" and turn her into the big city candidate, giving him flyover country momentum.

Seems more likely to me that a win in Georgia would just further label him as "the black candidate", which is something that really started to pick up momentum in South Carolina. And while Kansas & Colorado (presumably) go against that, the Georgia win would be the second largest & I would think would get more play because of it.

From the perspective of perception, I would think he would be far better off in the long term to (hypothetically) lose Georgia and get the same number of delegates from other states that wouldn't be so easy to dismiss. I don't think that'll happen, but he'd be better off if it did.

[Young Drachma]

Clinton's new stump speech (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/clinton-unveils-new-stump-speech/), might actually help Obama among independents.

Referring to Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton said at one point, “My opponent will not commit to universal health care,” triggering a round of boos. “I do not believe we should nominate any Democrat who will not stand here today, tomorrow, or any day” who will not explicitly support universal health insurance,” she added.

Mr. Obama has said that his health care plan would sufficiently lower costs to make insurance affordable for Americans to obtain it. But unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would not require all people to purchase or obtain it – a key difference, she argues.

[Young Drachma]

Dola --

The first comment from that blog post:

Today:

She gets 5,000 in LA.
Obama gets 15,000 in Boise.

A harbinger for Tuesday?

[larrymcg421]

I think it just means there's not much to do in Idaho.

[sterlingice]

I think it just means there's not much to do in Idaho.

He's right. I've been there ;)

SI

[JPhillips]

I think it just means there's not much to do in Idaho.

Not that Idaho will change the election, but it is interesting at least that Obama got seven times as many people at his rally as caucused in 2004.

[QuikSand]

Okay, with all the necessary caveats about polling, here's what electoral-vote.com posts in its summary for the Feb 5 states in the D primaries:

I will sort the two groups to make it easier to read:

Clinton states:


Democrats
State Clinton Obama Date Pollster
Alabama 43 42 Jan 31 Insid+Surve+Capit
Arizona 41 26 Jan 24 Rocky+Arizo
California 47 36 Jan 29 Four polls
Connecticut 44 41 Jan 31 ARG-1+Surve+Rasmu
Massachusetts 50 35 Jan 30 Surve+Rasmu
Minnesota 40 33 Jan 27 U. of Minnesota
Missouri 48 44 Jan 31 SurveyUSA
New Jersey 50 38 Jan 31 Surve+Rasmu
New York 55 33 Jan 31 Surve+Gallu
Oklahoma 44 19 Jan 27 SurveyUSA
Tennessee 59 26 Jan 30 Insider Advantage


Obama States:


Democrats
State Clinton Obama Date Pollster
Colorado 32 34 Jan 23 Mason-Dixon
Georgia 36 52 Jan 30 Insider Advantage
Illinois 32 56 Jan 31 ARG-1+Rasmu


...plus several other states without recent statewide polling -- DE, ND, KS, AR, NM -- but I am not aware of Obama holding much organization or maintaining much particular presence in any of them. I don't have any particular reason to guess that Obama has a particular edge in any of them.


So, if the list of states holds according to that polling summary, I think the extended headline is basically:

CLINTON ROLLS TO MAJOR WINS ACROSS COUNTRY
OBAMA WINS SELECT STATES, BUT TRAILS IN DELEGATE COUNT BY 250


It seems to me that for Obama to come away looking still viable, he basically as to have a hidden tide at work -- one that isn't showing up in the polling, even that done since the win in South Carolina - and he needs to close the gap and win all the states that are even fairly close. Using the same polling data ass above, I think he probably needs to win a list that looks like this:



Democrats
State Clinton Obama Date Pollster
Alabama 43 42 Jan 31 Insid+Surve+Capit
Colorado 32 34 Jan 23 Mason-Dixon
Connecticut 44 41 Jan 31 ARG-1+Surve+Rasmu
Georgia 36 52 Jan 30 Insider Advantage
Illinois 32 56 Jan 31 ARG-1+Rasmu
Missouri 48 44 Jan 31 SurveyUSA
...and then perhaps also New Mexico and a couple of the other oddballs...


...and honestly, even then she wins the day, but he can claim that he remains competitive (I guess). I guess I still look at this thing as basically over with -- Obama has shown thus far that if the electorate gets an extended view of both candidates and hear form them in depth, he can compete with her head-to-head, but in a nationwide primary, it's much more about the organization, early supporters, and the machine -- and she has him by leaps and bounds there. All these states like Oklahoma and Minnesota are just flyover country for him (by necessity, I'm not trying to criticize), but she started out with huge name recognition and support from the word go, and they are *all* hers to lose.

[Buccaneer]

Some of you guys are depressing.

[JPhillips]

QS- I'll narrow it down even more. If Obama manages to steal California he wins, otherwise there's no way to spin all the big states as anything but a major win for Hillary.

[QuikSand]

QS- I'll narrow it down even more. If Obama manages to steal California he wins, otherwise there's no way to spin all the big states as anything but a major win for Hillary.

That's pretty much where I am, too, and I just don't see it happening. For both entertainment and political purposes, I wish it would, but I think he is just too far back and has too little time to do so.

Honestly... those last few days leading up to the SC primary when he stayed, but she gallivanted all across the country at appearances and fundraisers -- I reckon it helped him get his impressive margin down there, but those are three or four days he wishes he had back right now.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

The key is, as has been stated, if Obama wins one big unexpected state like California. That's all he needs. But it's no guarantee.

[mrsimperless]

So assuming Hillary takes the nomination does anyone think a Ron Paul / Obama ticket is possible?

[QuikSand]

The key is, as has been stated, if Obama wins one big unexpected state like California. That's all he needs. But it's no guarantee.

And what other state is on the table for him to make that sort of impact? New York? New Jersey? Fat chance, he's way up the track everywhere in the northeast. New Mexico? Minnesota? Missouri? I don't see any one of them... hell, even all of them... adding up to "this guy can win." I really do think it's down to California.

And can he keep momentum by getting an "elector split" in California? Mathematically, sure -- if he finishes within a handful of points of her in the vote count, and he gets something like 45% of the delegates, then he could claim that he didn't really fall to far behind in CA. But what is the headline? What is the perception?

I think he needs to pull of a stunning win in Cali to stay alive for the nomination, and I don't see any other mosaic of closer-than-expected finishes elsewhere adding up, unless all the polls in most states are wrong by some massive tidal wave of voters who for some reason are not indicating their preference for him but who will descend on the polling places come Tuesday. And if that happens, we will need to come up with some clever new name for what we just saw, because it will be unprecedented.

[QuikSand]

So assuming Hillary takes the nomination does anyone think a Ron Paul / Obama ticket is possible?

No.

[flere-imsaho]

QS - Bear in mind that I believe a lot of those states reward their delegates on a proportional basis. So he can lose a lot of states by a small margin, but still be pretty close in delegates. So the real question is where he can go to make up delegates. Obviously his big predicted win in Illinois will help (Illinois is #3 in number of delegates, I believe), but beyond that, I'm just not close enough to the numbers.

The X Factor here, of course, is that the polls for this nomination have been all over the place. I know I'm not placing a lot of faith in them beyond indicating general trends.

[JPhillips]

Well these numbers from Zogby are interesting, although I would add the caveat that Zogby's numbers have been a bit hit or miss. I don't know if he has enough time, but the numbers almost everywhere seem to show Obama has momentum.

California

Obama 45
Clinton 41

New Jersey

Clinton 43
Obama 42

[GrantDawg]

Well these numbers from Zogby are interesting, although I would add the caveat that Zogby's numbers have been a bit hit or miss. I don't know if he has enough time, but the numbers almost everywhere seem to show Obama has momentum.

California

Obama 45
Clinton 41

New Jersey

Clinton 43
Obama 42

I wish it were a better source, but if he could pull those two states, Clinton would be sunk.

[Barkeep49]

QS: I think you're missing two important pieces of info here of how Obama could still win (though I think Hillary is definitely the favorite).

1. The Democratic primaries aren't winner take all. I would say both candidates remain viable as long as the delegate split is around 55/45 or closer.

2. After Feb 5th, the calendar slows down a lot. Obama has done better when there is time for him to really campaign in a state. I could see him doing better with this slower calendar.

[Young Drachma]

So assuming Hillary takes the nomination does anyone think a Ron Paul / Obama ticket is possible?

You're kidding right? Neither would have incentive to do this. Obama has money, notoriety and well...credibility. All things Dr. Paul doesn't.

Let's not even talk about politics. Ron Paul doesn't represent any real wing of the Republican party, so it's not like has much of a constituent base and his core are people who spend their time at the Mises Institute lamenting the way the country "has been lost" and who falsely thing that supporting a guy who just want to "change" the country by browbeating us to death over stuff that he's not going to change, will work.

I appreciate his presence in the GOP debates, because at least he's interesting. Well for a few minutes until he starts to ask detailed policy questions to his opponents. Then he's just being belligerent and it's when people stop listening.

Those people have a very bichromatic view of the world. They don't understand the nuances that exist in the margins of society and I can't see how anyone could profess to want to run the country without having at least a decent understanding of the people who make up this great place.

Ok, back on topic now.

[Young Drachma]

I wish it were a better source, but if he could pull those two states, Clinton would be sunk.

I do think the Obama ground game is really been stepped up since they first got started. I think that Hillary has her elites and such, but...if the Obama folks on the ground do the work they're supposed to, they might turn some heads. I do think they're going to suffer with the Hispanic vote in places where that's going to matter.

But just from the stuff I've been reading the past few days, the indication is that they're on the rise and that they're constantly turning people who were initially pro-Hillary over to their side as this thing goes on.

I think the idea that he'll do better as the calendar stretches out the single states is a good idea, because he does do better when the stage is set for them to both descend upon the same place, because I think those two are a real contrast.

[Schmidty]

I am sticking to my plan. If Obama wins, and Romney wins, I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life. Ron Paul has no chance, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna vote for that slimball Romney.

[finkenst]

I am sticking to my plan. If Obama wins, and Romney wins, I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life.

+1


i'll just add "for president" to this sentiment. I did vote for Barack Obama when he ran for senate in illinois. Of course, alan keyes (i think that's his name) was an idiot and got dumber every time he talked.

[BishopMVP]

Don't forget the undemocratic "Super Delegates" who are going to vote mostly for Hilary.

[JPhillips]

SO looking around at a number of various polls what has struck me is that undecideds are often still at 15% or more. In a number of states the gap between the two is within the margin of error, so that many undecideds makes it impossible to predict. In both NH and SC the undecideds broke very heavily towards one candidate(Hillary in NH and Obama in SC).

Look at the Field poll(2-2) in CA(Field is very highly regarded). They have Clinton at 36 and Obama at 34, but Undecided is at 18 and Other is at 12, meaning almost a third of the voters are still up for grabs. I just don't see any credible way to make a prediction at this point.

[Barkeep49]

Don't forget the undemocratic "Super Delegates" who are going to vote mostly for Hilary.
I don't think that's necessarily true. They've been breaking awfully heavily towards Obama ever since Iowa. She certainly had an initial advantage, but it hasn't held up as of late, with Obama outflanking her on the left and right.

[Swaggs]

Zogby AND Rasmussen both have Obama ahead in California today.

That is pretty surprising to me and I do not see Clinton gaining anymore traction there (as I think Obama has more momentum on his side right now) between now and Tuesday.

[Young Drachma]

Zogby AND Rasmussen both have Obama ahead in California today.

That is pretty surprising to me and I do not see Clinton gaining anymore traction there (as I think Obama has more momentum on his side right now) between now and Tuesday.

Wow. If he wins there, credit the ground game for sure. That would be huge.

[Swaggs]

I'd say the ground game and the number of high profile endorsements he has been receiving.

I honestly thought that momentum was on his side, but that he would not have enough time to make up ground on Hillary. Not that a California win is guaranteed for him, but a few days ago, I figured Hillary would sweep nearly all of the Super Tuesday states and cruise to the nomination. If Obama can win, even by a narrow margin, in California, I think he rides the wave to the nomination.

Wow. If he wins there, credit the ground game for sure. That would be huge.

[Jas_lov]

Field and Mason Dixon both have Hillary ahead in California, so it should be close.
We finally have polls for Oklahoma(Hillary up 24), Utah(Obama up 24), and Arizona(Hillary up by 2 in mason dixon and 6 in rasmussen's). Another poll from Tennessee came out and Hillary was up 20. Missouri is extremely close, but Hillary is still up by a decent margin in N.J. in every poll except Zogby.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

[QuikSand]

Actually, it's looking like the date of polls is a huge factor right now, as Obama seems to be gaining day by day in quite a lot of places. He may make a race of this thing yet, I'll be damned.

[Swaggs]

I got a good chuckle from the Utah GOP poll. :)

Romney is up on McCain by a margin of 84-4. :)

[JPhillips]

The latest good news for Obama is the unexpected endorsement of Maria Shriver. By itself it's fairly meaningless, but it will generate a ton of free local coverage in CA.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hitlery http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31