home

SUSA: Clinton Widens Ohio Lead To 10

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:43:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

The new world's greatest pollster, Survey USA, has a new Ohio poll out showing Hillary Clinton extending her lead in Ohio from 6 to 10:

Hillary Clinton appears to stop the momentum of Barack Obama by converting voters focused on health care. . . . At the wire, it's Clinton 54%, Obama 44% . . . One week ago, Clinton led by 6. . . .

[T]he 16 minutes that Clinton spent arguing with Obama about health care at this week's NBC News debate appears to have paid off. Slightly more voters now name health care as the most important issue, and among those who do, Clinton today leads by 24 points, up from a 7-point lead last week.

< Krugman Again | The Commander In Chief Question >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA: Clinton Widens Ohio Lead To 10 | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Wait A Darned Minute (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    Voters might be actually deciding who to vote for based on an issue and what the candidates said about an issue in a debate?

    Crazy talk.  

    Brian Williams is upset about it (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:49:01 AM EST


    Parent
    small things to be thankful for (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    along the way

    Parent
    Oh, no, let your best line of the day (none / 0) (#4)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:51:07 AM EST
    not be over already!

    Parent
    so is charlotte allen. (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    among other sins she excoriates sen. clinton for was having the audacity to bore her to tears by actually discussing the particulars of an issue important to less than rich voters.

    it seems ms. allen had a cocktail party to get to, and was mighty peeved at sen. clinton for possibly causing her to miss out on the best shrimp. the nerve of that woman!

    Parent

    If this is true (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:00:00 AM EST
    My faith in voters just might return...

    Parent
    Teresa... (none / 0) (#25)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    ...these are the kinds of comments that are arguably the most insulting of all. Are the 11 million people who've voted for Obama (who wins overwhelmingly with academics) just blind fools who have been duped? Or do they just see things differently than you?

    If Hillary wins tomorrow in Ohio or Texas, it's because she got her game together, sharpened her message, and Obama finally came under more scrutiny.  Good for her.  But please, there's no need for you to lose faith in the millions of people who for a variety of reasons like another candidate than you.  

    I say this as an Obama supporter who likes Obama for what I think are legitimate reasons. I don't hate Hillary and think she'd be a fine president.  I happen to think Obama would be better.  Please, have some faith in me - we're all going to be on the same side in November.


    Parent

    Just as some here say that HRC (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    has made BO a better debater, it may be that BO has made her a better campaigner . . . although actually, I think she is a fine campaigner. It is more that he made her face up to having to fire staff to make for a better campaign behind her. Either way, it makes one of them better at what would be needed to win the GE.

    Parent
    And the two of them... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:06:52 AM EST
    ...have energized the party, brought millions of new voters in the process, and will both be great presidents.

    This kumbaya moment brought to you by Obama and Clinton supporters united in faith in one another.

    Parent

    hey, maybe it could be a movement (none / 0) (#41)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    and we can stop insulting one another!

    (a guy can always dream, right?)

    Parent

    why is everyone clutching their pearls (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    just because it's Obama's turn in the hotseat?  I mean, seriously, when Clinton was polling down and people were yelling for her head (and the media were saying she had actually quit when, in fact, she had not) no one was saying, "go easy on her."  No one was worried about being fair.  

    And now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's time to unite and support everyone?  That sentiment would mean so much more if there had been an ounce of parity to it.

    I would also like to add that Clinton supporters here are being very cautious about what they say because it's all still up in the air and we have never been the type to gloat.

    Parent

    Aw, Kathy, you know me better (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    than that -- I'm greatly enjoying the polls today, if also typing with fingers crossed, which makes it real slow. But heck, Obama's campaign has come up with some good advances in how we win -- and I really don't want Obama to be destroyed, fer pity's sake. I want him ready and, well, more experienced . .. so as to step in after Clinton serves. Then, we can have Dem presidents for the next 16 years. :-)

    Parent
    My reply to Teresa... (none / 0) (#59)
    by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    ...wasn't about Obama or Clinton.  It was about her disrespecting the millions of people who prefer a candidate other than hers as somehow just too ignorant (she doesn't have faith in them) to understand what's good for them.  I would never say that about Clinton supporters, who make good arguments for their candidate.  I just happen to think that Obama is the better candidate.  I don't think that's a reason for someone not to have "faith" in me.

    I have also never gloated about an Obama win, here or anywhere else.

    Kathy, do you actually read other people's posts (one of which was clearly meant to be ironic), or do you just "react" to them?


    Parent

    no hotseat, no pearls (none / 0) (#61)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:07:09 PM EST
    valid criticism is fine.  I was talking about supporters insulting the other's supporters by saying things like "they've been duped" or whatever.

    Look, both candidates have each garnered approx 10 million votes.  Saying that "they've been duped" insults the process and the 10 million voters.

    This has nothing to do with whoever is in whatever hot seat.

    Parent

    "maybe it could be a movement" (none / 0) (#64)
    by tree on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:13:35 PM EST
    and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the
    guitar...

    Parent
    Someone's laughing, Lord -- (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM EST
    and it's me.:-) Loved your reply, sar75.

    Parent
    Now I could be wrong about this (none / 0) (#65)
    by tree on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    but I interpreted Teresa's comment as meaning that he faith in voters would be restored if they were actually voting according to issues, as opposed to meaningless stuff. I didn't see it as a slam at Obama voters at all. Just an alternate viewpoint before you get too incensed about it.

    Parent
    You're insulted (none / 0) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:12:39 PM EST
    that I like the fact that people are voting on issues?

    That's your problem, I think.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#56)
    by kmblue on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    my first lol of the day! ;)

    Parent
    Let's assume this is true, and the (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM EST
    speculation about Texas (leaning HRC, maybe) is accurate.

    That means I get my wish and the Dems continue to be able to Lincoln-Douglas all the way to the Convention.

    And it drives the media nuts, because they can't get to pick and define the nominee for us and, especially for those people who are only paying passing attention to the campaign at this point.  Like the fools who read this article (NY Post front-paging the nasty Obama-muslim propaganda, again, under cover of his denying it) and believe it.

    And maybe, just maybe, we can get over the feverish phases of Obamamania and Clinton Derangement Syndrome (respectively) and look at each candidate with a little more clarity.

    While, as a congresscritter I'm acquainted with rightly said "a vote is an emotion looking for a reason", we need the emotion (for either Dem) to be peaking in November, not early March.  Right now, we can start building reasons.

    Drives Them Nuts? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    And it drives the media nuts, because they can't get to pick and define the nominee for us...

    More like drives up their ratings. It is like a playoff game going into triple overtime. I do not watch MSM but I would guess that if they seem like they are going 'nuts' it is only theater on their part.


    Parent

    The point I've been making for weeks (none / 0) (#49)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:52:53 AM EST
    is that the media does not really care that much about ratings in the primary season. While that may sound nuts to the average intelligent person reading this blog, we need to look at it from a slightly different angle.

    During the primary season, the media has to cover the primary races.  Doing coverage imposes three obligations/costs on the media:

    1.  the candidates say what the candidates want to say and the media reports it.  The reporting is usually on the horserace aspects.
    2.  the media cannot be other than pretty evenhanded  - they cannot be seen as favoring one over the other too much.  (I know, fans of one candidate or the other will say "but they beat on my guy" or "they didn't beat on the other", but stepping back, the real dirt and negative propaganda out of the media does not start until later.  The way it is.
    3.  the media does not control the narrative while there is an undecided nomination race.

    The end result is that the Democratic (and Republican) primary contenders get a lot of free media time, coverage and attention without too much editorializing.

    Once a presumptive nominee is chosen, the control of the narrative passes:

    1.  the media has to be "evenhanded" as among the presumptive nominees, but they lean and we all know they lean Right.
    2.  the media controls the narrative - be it "Reagan old" or "Reagan happy", "Bush II resolute" or "Bush II stupidly intransigent", they get to choose their adjectives.  If it favors one candidate too much, the other candidate will complain and, if it's a Democrat complaining, they'll be dismissed as whining.  If it's a Republican complaining, it will be "the liberal media trying to do them in".
    3.  the candidates no longer get the benefit of free media without too much editorializing.  

    Moreover, once the primary/nomination races are over, there is a big dead zone (usually about 6 months from Super Tuesday in the beginning of Feb. through the conventions in August/Sept.) during which the candidates have to suck up to the media to be on the news.  The media then gets to decide whether and how to cover them.  With an on-going undecided nomination race, the media does not have that power.

    So, it favors the media to have the races whittled down to one Dem and one Rep as early as possible.  Then, the media gets to define the candidates the way the media (or, more precisely, their ownership) wants.

    OK?

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:35:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Pretty sure (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:38:56 AM EST
    the media would favor a brokered convention overall.  Gives them more to report on.

    Parent
    The Media has tried to destroy (none / 0) (#27)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    the Clintons for years.Of course the monied right wing was behind it. It is all described in the book by Joe Conasen and Gene Lyons (The Hunting of the President)and it started with the NYT and WaPo. All the lemmings followed.  If Clinton pulls this off they will be apoplectic.  Even when Bill's approval rating was in the mid 60% they were trying to "shape" the story. Newsweek has done a good story on how the news media operates.

    Parent
    The New Clinton Team (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    FWIW, this bit from My DD poster Natasha Chart makes me think Clinton will stay in so long as she wins Ohio.  If her campaign is finally - finally! - firing on all cylinders why not give them some time to find out what they can do.  It's really too bad her campaign hasn't been as good as she has been, if it had been even 25% better, she'd be the nominee by now.  Although, of course, she's just as responsible for her campaign as Obama is for his.  

    Anyway, here's the gossip

    A little bird in the Clinton campaign tells me that it feels like a whole new campaign without Patti Solis Doyle at the helm; that you used to hear 'no' in every direction and now it's all 'get it done'. The term breath of fresh air, or some equivalent, came up. A family friend who'd been in charge of youth outreach has also been shifted out, and I'm told that they've gotten more done on that front in the past three weeks than for several months now. Also, that Mark Penn is widely referred to by staff as Mark Shrum, which I pass on because I think it's funny.

    And I totally admit I'm passing it on primarily for Mark Shrum because that is geeky political inside humor at its best.  It's just too bad it's about my candidate's chief advisor.  But still funny.

    And it's a 50-state strategy (none / 0) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    When you have an unvetted candidate as a front-runner, you keep both in until viability becomes more certain.  That's called the 50-state-strategy applied at the presidential level...after all, isn't the whole idea of the 50-state strategy to put viable candidates into races, even when you know they likely won't win?

    Ohio by 10 is not tiddlywinks...voters in a purple state are saying something!!!!.  A virtual tie in red Texas (even with slight loss), on the other hand, might be not that big a deal.

    Parent

    Mark Penn thought (none / 0) (#24)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:43:17 AM EST
    she was going to win Iowa, so maybe one shouldn't put much stock in his predictions.

    In any case, what is the point? If (in your interpretation) he expresses doubt as to whether she will win, we're supposed to just go with that and not let the people of Ohio, Texas, etc. vote? That seems silly to me.

    Parent

    Or... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    Or the sailors are getting ready to make him walk the plank. :-)

    Good for you getting to vote in a primary that counts! It's fun, isn't it?

    Parent

    minds made up (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    What is really important isn't Clinton's 10 point lead overall, its that with 86% of likely voters saying that their minds are made up, Clinton is way ahead 48% of likely voters have 'made up their minds' to vote for Clinton, while only 37% have "made up their minds" to vote for Obama.  

    (using SUSA poll numbers below)

    The trend is even more startling.

    FEB 10-11
    Mind made up for Clinton 41%
    Mind made up for Obama  27%
    Leaners/other/undecided 31%

    Feb 24-25
    Mind made up for Clinton 40%
    Mind made up for Obama  37%
    Leaners/other/undecided 22%

    March 1-2
    Mind made up for Clinton 48%
    Mind made up for Obama  37%
    Leaners/other/undecided 14%

    In other words, a whole lot of people who leaned toward Obama but had doubts decided to support him in the two week period from Feb 11-25 -- meanwhile, the Hillary leaners still had their doubts.  But in the last week, just about everyone who "made up their minds" went with Hillary.

    This poll ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:36:44 AM EST
    looks like some of the previous polls may have had some artificial tightening in OH.

    You often see this in elections.  A percentage of a leading candidate's support falls into the undecided column as they assess the opponent's criticisms.  But as the race comes down to the wire, and the criticisms don't sway them, they fall back in line with their original choice.

    In short, this SUSA poll fits a believable pattern, and bodes well for Clinton.

    The crosstabs on the OH poll... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    ...linked to in the OP provide some stunning data:

    • Women are breaking 62-43 for Clinton, while men are breaking 55-35 for Obama: a greater number of men remain undecided. The poll projects actual voters will be 55 percent women and 45 percent men.

    • Clinton leads in all age groups except 18-35.

    • Democrats, who are expected to be represented by 77 percent of all OH voters, break for Clinton 57-41.

    • Those voters who name Iraq as their top issue break for Clinton 52-48--a negligible difference, but one of the first polls I've seen where Clinton has the edge on the issue.

    Candy Crowley mentioned that the NAFTA flap is affecting Obama negatively in OH; if this is the case, then Clinton will only increase her lead in the next 24 hours and gain the edge among undecideds.

    Parent
    missouri definitely (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by joei on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    something fishy went on over there.

    if you tabulate the exit polls data, clinton should have won by 5 points. obama folks sure pulled a rabbit out of the hat. this is were the money advantage does wonders.

    If we were on another blog like... (none / 0) (#35)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    we would be screaming "stolen election".

    Parent
    not necessarily fishy (none / 0) (#37)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:06:13 AM EST
    in most (not all, but most) states, Obama exceeded the average of the polls leading up to the race (not only Missouri, but Wisconsin, and many others).

    I don't know what accounts for that.  Perhaps the ground-game and web-networking.  Someone noted that over the weekend, over one million calls were made over the weekend in Texas from Obama web volunteers, and that HRC doesn't have anything comparable to that.  But I'm just guessing . . .

    But there is a general pattern of Obama doing 5 points (or more) better than the most recent polls in most of the states.

    We'll see . . . .

    Parent

    SUSA in MO (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    SUSA did just the one poll in Missouri...   At least half the problem was their distribution - for instance, they based their numbers on 11% independents, and exit polls showed independents making up 22% of the MO vote -- and breaking for Obama significantly more. (SUSA Obama +21, Exit Polls Obama +37).  

    IMHO, the more polling a firm does in a state, the better they get at it -- especially when there are a lot of other competing polls and yours looks like an anomoly.  

    Texas? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:58:09 AM EST


    Nothing yet (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    Though SUSA says half of the vote is ALREADY in.

    Parent
    I've Seen Polls Go Both Ways In Texas (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM EST
    On who leads among the already voted.  I'm very interested in seeing what the SUSA numbers for that are.

    In Ohio, according to SUSA, Clinton has a lead of 13 points among those who have already voted.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    Half the vote? That is a shocking lot. What's your take on who this favors? I really am an addict!

    Parent
    Hard to say (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:07:33 AM EST
    In the past, Hillary, not sure now.

    Parent
    In the past it would favor Hillary (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    to be ahead among the already voted, because the places who typically early vote most are Obama strongholds (Austin, Dallas, Houston).  Hillary's strongholds should be behind in early voting, so if she's really ahead there now it's a very good thing.


    Parent
    ...But will (none / 0) (#18)
    by Lena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    superdelegates overturn the popular vote?

    And if so... how dare they? Since it's the most accurate measure of the voter's intent...

    I don't think anyone ... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    is saying that Obama doesn't still have a chance if he loses TX and OH, merely that Clinton's chances greatly increase.

    And the notion of Obama "being unable to seal the deal" is going be out there for more than just a few news cycles.

    In a race this close, the delegate math alone (given all its strangeness) won't save Obama.

    Parent

    Your count does not seem to include (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:05:28 AM EST
    popular vote in two rather significant states, and not just for Dems: MI and FL. That changes what follows in the rest of your points. (And because of MI and FL, I don't think as highly of the DNC as you do.) And when you switch to delegate count, you're also counting a lot of delegates as yet not allocated -- as no caucus states have done so as yet, and many have processes that allow them to not follow popular vote . . . however it's counted.

    Parent
    how can you include Michigan (none / 0) (#39)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    for popular vote totals when Obama wasn't even on the ballot!

    Parent
    Oh No (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    not this again!

    Parent
    Oh, yes. Answer: his choice (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    which is not the situation we'd like to see, but there 'tis. And it could matter. Note that Nader and Gonzalez weren't on the ballot, either, but that doesn't seem to be affecting their chances. :-)

    Parent
    We're not really a Republic ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    not only because that term is too amorphous to have any substantive meaning.

    But also because it's the balancing of interests which separates us from direct democracies, and this is not a factor necessary in a Republic.

    The term for this type of system that balances interests as we do is "liberal democracy."

    But who really cares?  Call our system Herman, if you like.  Or Myron.

    I think I like Myron.

    Regardless, our system of government, has nothing very little to do with how our private political parties work.

    Parent

    Super Delegates Decide (none / 0) (#40)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:09:23 AM EST
    And its highly likely at this point that neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, meaning that the Super Delegate votes will be decisive.

    Whether these go to the popular vote leader or the pledged delegate leader, or the popular vote leader among Democrats only, or none of the above, is anybody's guess.

    Your assertion above that they should vote for the pledged delegate leader doesn't make sense ... why would we have them at all if they should merely vote for the pledged delegate leader?  Might as well just have a rule that allocates them proportionately.

    The other question that is begged is whether the Super Ds should consider or ignore the non-Democratic vote that is the source of Obama's lead in the popular vote (and pledged delegate count) at the moment (he leads Hillary 2.8 mil to 1.8 mil among Indy's and Repubs) ...

    Seems to me this is an important distinction ... we'll see what the Super Ds think when the time comes.


    Parent

    At least 2 points off the top of my head (none / 0) (#45)
    by Lena on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:16:52 AM EST
    1. The superdelegates are designed to vote their conscience, not the leader in the pledged delegates. IOW they can choose which path to take. I (obviously) would want them to go with the voters, either in their state or in the country, but it should certainly be up to them, whatever criterion they choose. Again, whether republic or democracy, their choice doesn't hinge on either conception.

    2. Obama leads by varying amounts, but the number you choose is probably the most optimistic for him. Others would find a much narrower lead.


    Parent
    I don't understand this argument from either side (none / 0) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:12:53 PM EST
    Why do we care about the "original intent" of the superdelegates? The party created some delegates who could vote however they wanted, based on whatever they wanted. Whether it was to give a faux impression of how united we are, or to pick the strongest ge candidate, why does that matter in today's election?

    I repeat, the party created some delegates who could vote however they wanted, based on whatever they wanted. The superdelegate voting rules could have been structured differently if the party had wanted a particular outcome -- if, e.g., the party wanted the faux unity result, it could have required that superdelegates vote for the delegate leader after the first vote. If it wanted to validate the popular vote winner, the rules could have been written to require that superdelegates vote for the overall vote winner, or the winner in their respective state. The superdelegates are not bound by any rules of this type, and I don't find the original intent argument persuasive, no matter who is making it.

    Parent

    No, that's not true (none / 0) (#58)
    by Shawn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    Your history is wrong there.

    Carter won a majority of pledged delegates in the primaries, but he lost several late primaries to Kennedy (NY, CA, PA). Kennedy stayed in mostly in the hopes that he could force an "open convention" where delegates who were pledged to Carter would be free to vote for someone else. He used his late wins and the bad poll numbers for Carter to make his case [Carter's big victories in the early primaries were during the period when the country rallied around him in response to the Iran hostage situation]. On the first or second day of the convention, he lost the vote on the "open convention" question and pulled out of the race.

    The creation of the superdelegates really had nothing to do with addressing a situation like the '80 floor fight. To the extent it was a reaction to 1980, it was designed to prevent an "outsider" like Carter (and before that, McGovern) from ever emerging as the party's nominee in the first place.

    Parent

    I live just over the state line (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:39:21 AM EST
    from MO.
    I was VERY surprised Obama won.
    The San Francisco Chronicle (none / 0) (#31)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:55:48 AM EST
    editorial today takes on the issue of NAFTA. They point out that it has been on balance a good thing for America but that the infrastructure to replace the smokestacks have not been in place.  Of course not, the GOP took over and gutted it.  I lived in Ohio and it was very GOP and very anti-tax.  There hasn't been progressive leadership there for decades. It is the same old story, the Democrats respond to a problem with a system solution and the GOP and uses a linear response and cuts the legs out from under it.

    Don't agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    If she wins ohio by 10+ and barely wins TX popular vote the story will be "Obama momentum falters." The same stupid two dimensional horse race coverage that so far has favored Obama will be turned against him and be made to look like he lost everything.

    All of which is silly, in either direction.

    It also gets the MSM to play ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    the one positive story about the Clintons the press likes to run.  You know ... "the comeback kids."

    In fact, I think that's the only positive story the press ever runs on the Clintons.

    Parent

    Exactly my thoughts. No matter what (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    . . . the pundits will pundify -- or perhaps pundoviate? And they ought to do so, but not any candidates nor their supporters. It would be as unseemly as the calls for Clinton to quite as it would be to call on Obama to do so. And as unwise. History is being made, politics is being remade, so let it run its course. It has been quite a learning curve already -- and I, for one, would like to learn more about how both of our candidates handle this. (And, admittedly, how McCain handles it, if the old dog has to learn some new tricks to switch whom he attacks.:-)

    Parent
    SUSA: Clinton Widens Ohio Lead To 10 | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment