home

Is It All Obama Now In The GE?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:59:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kevin Drum writes:

OBAMA vs. McCAIN....Gallup's latest Obama-McCain tracking poll shows exactly what you'd expect: now that Obama is firmly the Democratic candidate, he's making up considerable ground. There will be more ups and downs, especially around the conventions, but I'll bet that Obama never has much less than a five point lead for the rest of the campaign.

(Emphasis supplied.) I'll take that bet - IF Obama does not pick Hillary Clinton as his VP. I would expect an Obama drop the day, if it comes, Obama does not choose Hillary Clinton as his VP.

See, for those who do not get it, I am not arguing that Hillary Clinton is entitled to be VP, I am arguing that it is in Obama's best interest to choose her as it will insure his victory in November.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Did Clinton and Edwards Win The Argument On Health Care? | McCain Snubs Prison Guards Union >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Is It All Obama Now In The GE? | 215 comments (215 topical)
    I will also take that bet (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    and again, 5 points?  in this climate the dem should be 20 points ahead.

    And how many times do Obama poll ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:13:39 PM EST
    at least 5 points ahead on the eve of a primary ... only to lose?

    Parent
    right (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    and
    I think the general is where we really have to worry about the "Bradley Effect".
    people are going to lie to pollsters.

    Parent
    I think it's more just ... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    the difficulty in projecting turnout among Obama supporters.

    There's some pretty shaky science behind any claims of the Bradley Effect in any election, including Bradley's.

    It all sounds very plausible.  But when you look at the data, it's just not convincing.

    Parent

    well (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    whatever you wish to call it I am willing to bet that a good 5% or so will tell a pollster they will vote for Obama and go in the booth and vote for McCain.
    I base this on nothing but my feelings from talking to democrats.  many have deep serious doubts about Obama but dont like to talk about it.  even to someone they know.

    Parent
    I Believe You're Right (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    and I believe it may be more like ten percent lying about their vote.

    Opponents of Obama have been excoriated as "racists" for so long that the meme has taken hold even among those who object to him for legitimate reasons.  

    Beyond that, there are still five months in which we will learn more about the man selected to be the Democratic candidate.  What do you want to bet there are a lot more skeletons in his closet?

    Parent

    Right ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    and all I'm saying is sometimes things feel true, but aren't.

    A five-point lead is barely outside the margin of error for most polls.  A few demographic mistakes, and the potential of a huge loss can be hidden.

    Parent

    5 Points Where? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by talex on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    5 points nationally doesn't mean a lot when it is the Electoral votes in individual States that is what really matters.

    National polls are only worth so much. It is much more important to keep an eye on the electoral maps.

    Parent

    More problematic in polling (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:33:43 PM EST
    so many pollsters I've read say, is that there is no useful model for the November election, just as their models proved problematic for the primary.

    For example, the models base fall turnout of AAs on a percentage increase from primary turnout of AAs.  Makes sense, except that AAs likely already reached fall turnout levels in the primary, coming out for Obama.  If he and the Dems are counting on the usual level of increase from the primaries to the general election, AA votes may be 'way overestimated.

    Similarly, of course, turnout of women which always has been the majority of Dem voters reached record levels in a lot of states in the primaries, as much as 60 percent.  If it drops back to usual levels, or even drops below . . . problematic again.  For the pollsters, and for the Dems.

    Parent

    Isn't that what I said ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    when I commented on the difficulty in projecting turnout among Obama voters?

    Parent
    The national poll is a set up (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    You still need to look at state by state polls.

    Clinton's internet supporters were fooled by national polling dats all thru Fall.

    Parent

    Yes, the set up continues to work... (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    1st...Clinton demonized and chased out.   The goal of the Republican Party was to get Obama nominated.   Mission accomplished.

    2nd...The Right does NOT want Hillary for VP.  She is to dangerous to their win in Nov.   And, the Right wans Clinton voters.

    3rd...Obama will get swift-boated next.  Demsocrats will lose the General Election.  Republicans strategy will win once again.

    Howard Dean, Reid, and Pelosi won't know what happened.

    When it was a no brainer win for Dems, the Party has screwed up.

    HilLary is needed on the ticket to get a Democrat in the White House.


    Parent

    Yep -- this ought to have landed (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:19 PM EST
    in reply to the comment to which you replied.  Sometimes such matters seem to go awry.

    Parent
    Same with the youth group. (none / 0) (#208)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    I just read that the increase in this group has largely peaked since 2004.  That may be why the O camp is going after the 18-22 the group that still may have some growth.  Wish I could remember where I read it so I could cite it.

    Parent
    it was a ten point (none / 0) (#160)
    by isaac on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    swing in NC for helms v gantt

    Parent
    That is an excellent point. Especially with all (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:35 PM EST
    the positive news from the press.  Isn't there a "bump" when these events occur?

    Parent
    When Obama says he is going to "sit down and (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:06:28 PM EST
    figure out health care" with Elizabeth Edwards I get the feeling that I am listening to the same information level in him that is described  in the female anchor you just cited.  It makes me very worried.

    Parent
    Jer (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:53 PM EST
    can you delete Hillary 2012's account.

    no comments and handing out
    1s like candy on halloween.


    Parent

    NO (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by sociallybanned on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    I think the 5 point lead will shrink once Repubs start exposing Obama.  I think McCain will win by a landslide.  It amazes me that HUFFPO still will bash Hillary.  The new one today was how she spent 212 M on her 18 Million voters.  Really!  Because I can remember Obama tripled spent in Ohio and PA and guess what, he lost.

    Huffpo has become nothing other than The National Enquirer or The Sun. Poor reporting and blogging.  It's that site alone that Obama can thank for himself losing the election not the Hillary Supporters for McCain.  Huffpo keeps adding fuel to the flame and Obama will not even get a chance to recover but that's ok.  I'm glad they are screwing it up for him even more than ever.

    Hillary supporters for McCain, we all need to discuss in a separate group (yahoo groups or something), how we will build her up for 2012 election.  I know Obama will be running against her and we really need not to sit on this for 4 years.  Contact me:

    kscatlett  at gmail dot com.

    Parent

    The Indepedents and Republicans (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    who told me they were voting  Hllary in the General Electin now say they will vote  McCain.

    I am shocked that the Democratic Party is making such poor choices that they are losing MANY Independents and Republicans.

    I have heard repeatedo6 (and I believe them) that their decisions not to voe for Obama is NOT about race.     I thought they would vote to have something other than the past 8 years....NOT.

    Parent

    Gallup says (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM EST
    that Hillary is continuing to give him an extra 3 points. That could easily be the difference between Ohio and not Ohio.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    Or PA or FL, for that matter.

    That's what worries me--the fact that there are at least three sizable states in play without Clinton on the ticket, and Obama could well need them all in November.


    Parent

    I think the longer Obama waits to (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:07:48 PM EST
    announce he wants Clinton as his VP, the less positive impact it will have on Clinton supporters.  

    If McCain picks (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate, I'll bet you anything Obama can kiss that 5-point lead goodbye. In most elections, I don't think the V.P. choice matters as much as it does this year.

    I think I might vote (none / 0) (#78)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    in that case.  The Downs baby would reel me in.

    Parent
    sorry, does she have a downs baby? (none / 0) (#79)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#105)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    She's got 5 children; the youngest (still a baby) has Downs Syndrome.

    Parent
    if McCain is smart (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    he will pick a qualified woman.
    and McCain is smart.

    Parent
    interesting (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    we have a 20 year old son with downs..i really don't know anything about Palin. I should do my homework!

    Parent
    Not sure I would accept a VP (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:57:39 PM EST
    offer under those circumstances, unless she is independently wealthy or has a house husband.

    Parent
    If she's handling being governor (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    with five children, she can handle VP.

    Parent
    She's not only handling ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:14:05 PM EST
    being governor, but she handling it with an 86% approval rating.

    Parent
    It would be an offer to her (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    not to any of us, and she can handle it.  Very impressive person, despite her politics.

    Parent
    no one turns down the VP (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:21:39 PM EST
    they all say they would but no one does.

    Parent
    Yeah, me either (none / 0) (#120)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:05:16 PM EST
    Her husband's a commercial fisherman, but I don't know what that entails for him - whether he's out on the boats or managing a fleet or what.  Plus, judging from her website, her whole family is big into winter sports and outdoor stuff.  Giving all that up to come to DC would be hard even without five kids.  I doubt she does it myself.

    Parent
    she'll get a book deal (none / 0) (#143)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    and a relative or two will get fat jobs in DC.

    Parent
    Tenacity Thy Name Is BTD (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    The longer Obama leads McCain in the polls the less likely IMO it will be that he choses Hillary as his running mate.

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    See here:
    Since Obama clinched the nomination, Gallup has also asked registered voters for their Obama-McCain preference if Clinton were Obama's vice presidential running mate. At this point, Clinton would seem to give a slight three-point boost to Obama's margin over McCain, with the Obama-Clinton ticket leading McCain by an average of 51% to 42% over the past three days.
    That's over the magic 50% mark. I think that's a compelling case.

    Parent
    And ... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    the difference in the 2004 election was less than 3 points.

    These days, three points could be the ballgame.

    Parent

    It will be... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sweetthings on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    If it holds up to late July. The danger to BTD's dream is that after two months of 'All Obama, All the Time' coverage, Hillary's electoral clout may be much reduced.

    Guess we'll see.

    Parent

    Either That (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:08 PM EST
    or she will never look better.

    But then I'm one who doesn't think the summer is going to be kind to Obama.

    Parent

    But maybe there will be ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    another shot of him in swimming trunks for his fans to hang on their walls.

    Parent
    Ok, I wasn't going to share this (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    But we all need a laugh (although this is not a joke - these are real)

    LINK

    Parent

    Selecting Hillary would show ... (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:18:08 PM EST
    Obama isn't the media's lap dog, and I think that would help him as well.

    He needs a little more media hate for some of us Dems to really feel he's "one of us."

    ;)

    I am less than impressed that (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    all Obama has managed to get out of being the presumptive nominee is this miniscule lead; from the way the media has been going on and on, you would think he was 20+ points up on McCain.

    I think this is going to be one long, hot summer for Obama; it will be interesting to see how he holds up, what his strategy is and how well it works.

    Not good if Obama waits till convention for VP (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Saul on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    pick.  He will have no time to correct any damage if he does not pick Hilary.  Best he makes his choice now even if its not Hilary and hope he can do damage control before the election.

    Obama knows his followers are still high (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    on Hillary hate. If he chooses Hillary for VP, he'll need to go very slowly or their tiny heads will explode.


    Parent
    So he has to appease new converts (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    who won't let him preach to the old Dem choir who just have to wait -- the ones who just want, in Clinton's words, to have their voices heard.

    So if he doesn't do this on just the very most perfectly calibrated day, both could feel disrespected and become invisible to him.

    My, what a pretty fix he is in, hmmm?

    Parent

    in my humble opinion obama has the (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    power groups in the dnc and democratic party who helped him get across the finish line to please. the bill due is in the mail. it says that they don't want hillary. how many times and ways will they say it to be sure everyone understands. i don't agree with it, of course. in fact it makes me angry beyond my ability to express it here. but the reality of this race is what it is.

    Parent
    He'd really be best served... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM EST
    ... by deciding soon if he wants Hillary on the ticket. I think the value of choosing her is greater now than later, and if he doesn't want to choose her, the two of them can probably work out some semi-graceful way of putting the issue to bed, even if he's not ready to actually choose someone else.

    Parent
    Unity can become Disunity in no time (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ajain on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    The Obama-Clinton pyschodrama has only just begun. Any percieved slight will be great for ratings and will hurt the Democrats. She is a powerful figure and has too much celebrity to be sidelined in this election and will be part of the story, if not the headlines, through the fall.

    Dems have a head start this year, but that has never stopped the GOP from winning before. It is also true that the GOP has everything against them this year, but Obama's problem is that the public doesnot trust the media and Obama's insane cheerleaders.

    Also, Kevin Drum seems to have gone on the deep end in his Obama love. Its weird to see him this way, but then again, its weird to see Josh Marshall & Greg Sargent do the same, and to see Andrew Sullivan taken as serious progressive voice.

    I am willing to bet that McCain has a 10 pt lead (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:47 PM EST
    before the end of August. IN fact, I would lay odds on it.

    Which is why Obama should (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:25:32 PM EST
    announce now he welcomes Clinton to the ticket.  Get Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea Clinton stumping for Obama now.

    Parent
    i would take that bet (none / 0) (#151)
    by tben on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    in a heartbeat

    Parent
    I seem to remember that (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    Gore had a double digit lead in Sept of 00 and lost...

    Didn't Dukakis have more than 10 pts lead (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    in July? So Drum is saying that Obama's not even as good as Dukakis? well, I would agree.

    Parent
    On the contrary (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:35:33 PM EST
    Bush almost always led.

    Parent
    Yes, and I am wondering (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    why Obama doesn't have at least a 10 point lead, as I said on other thread...he has some repubs, lots of indies, and supposedly a unified dem party...so why not a much wider margin at this point?

    Parent
    Bush held a consistent 3-5 (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST
    point lead against Gore going back to the Fall of 1999.

    Parent
    But Kerry (none / 0) (#92)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    was something like 7 points ahead at this point of the election.

    Parent
    According to Rasmussen (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    who was very, very accurate in 2004, the weekly polling of Kerry v. Bush did not change all that much.  The week of June 10, 2004, Bush was up by 1.3%.

    I think Rasmussen may have just been lucky in 2004 because a large Republican turnout helped Bush....This year, Rasmussen has generally been the pollster most favorable to McCain.   Today, Rasmussen shows Obama up by 6%.

    Parent

    Gore had a lead for short time (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    But Bush had a huge 10-15 pt lead most of the time.

    I'm not sure how these companies got it so wrong.  Bush get less votes overall.

    Parent

    not in the mood to google, or argue (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:43 PM EST
    but the way I remember it and THIS time in the race.
    before the race had really even begun I seem to remember leads for all of them.


    Parent
    oh it's cool (none / 0) (#142)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    I'm running on memory only.

    He was most assuredly in the mid 50s for a long time.

    Parent

    Did Bush lead in 2000? (none / 0) (#99)
    by stefystef on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:52 PM EST
    I don't think so.
    McCain was stronger than Bush and Gore during 2000.

    Up until the Bush machine crushed him in South Carolina.

    I think these numbers will be very different in August/September.  As usual, Obama is being over-hyped.

    Parent

    Gore, Kerry, Dukakis etc (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:34:15 PM EST


    Parent
    I know alot of people would like Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by stefystef on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    as Obama's VP, but I honestly don't see it happening.

    I think Obama is going to pick a white man who can help bring in votes from so-called purple states, like Colorado and North Carolina.

    Obama (and Axelrod) will not pick Hillary because they don't want her.  And you know what?  The back-stabbing DNC doesn't want her either.  Many in the Democratic Party want remove the Clintons totally from the Party.  

    There will be NO woman near Obama's VP choices.  His wife will be the only woman in his circle.

    I think you're right (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:26:38 PM EST
    What will be interesting is when Obama loses big in November -- which I sincerely believe he will -- and Hillary ends up with more power (a la Gore in 2000) than before.

    If they were really focused on destroying Hillary and Bill at all costs -- even a General Election loss with a famously inexperienced Nominee --, I can guarantee you it will backfire and make Hillary even more powerful than she was.

    Now people actually LOVE her and admire her strength.  She will be the person to beat in 2012 for the Nomination and I confidently predict she'll be our first female President when she beats the do-nothing Incumbent John McCain.

    As for Obama, I wonder if he'll be able to hold his Senate Seat in 2010.  His enemies have too much on him now that's public and I suspect the people of Illinois may not be as besotted with him as they were in 2004, especially when they keep regurgitating that "Senate work is boring" quote again and again and again and again.

    Parent

    I was never besotted -- he ran against (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by abfabdem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    Alan Keys for God's sake, what else were we supposed to do???  In fact it's because of his Senate record that I was suspicious of him from day one.  He has never shown leadership or taken a stake in any issue that could cost him politically in any position he has held--how is he going to do it now?  (PS - This is not Hillary's problem to fix.)

    Parent
    I trust there will be a stronger opponent (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    than Keyes in 2010 and all of Obama's garbage (what we have now plus what the Republicans are going to blast us with in the General) will be resurrected plus his upcoming inevitable gaffes and then add to that what looks to be a very slender recored of achievement during his first term as Senator and it looks like Barack Obama will lose his Seat in 2010 and eventually be likened to a political comet:  hit like gangbusters, burned brightly and then sputtered and disappeared.

    Parent
    i agree with you and just wrote that (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    in a post. of course i very seriously disagree with their thinking, but it is what it is.

    Parent
    Then Why (none / 0) (#149)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    Did Obama's communications director, Gibbs, this morning say, in response to questioning on Morning Joe, that they fully intended for Hillary to play a prominent role in the campaign and the Obama campaign also wants Bill Clinton involved in campaigning?

    Parent
    They want her to get more votes (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    ditto with Bill.  Campaign is not administration. They are nothing more than vote getters to Obama, imo. And he'll have no problem "using" them and then casting them aside.

    Parent
    I am in Hold Pattern (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    It all comes down to if he picks Hillary. That is the make or break deal for me and a few of my friends. The funny thing is that they have all said they feel no guilt this time around. Obama will make the choice for them. Let's see if he will do the right thing or not.

    I don't want her to go near him . . . (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by abfabdem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    he has too much baggage in the GE.  It will bite him and whoever is his running mate.

    Parent
    This plays into (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    a story I saw today (forget where, so no link) that says the Republicans are "worried" about the fall.  I personally think it's a ruse - they licked their chops to get Obama and now they don't want the mantle of inevitability.  This kind of stuff is perfect - McCain looks like the underdog.

    I don't think Republicans like being (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:15:06 PM EST
    the "underdog."  That is inconsistent with the Republican psyche--they want to win and be seen as winners....Bad poll numbers depress contributions and take the macho out of Republicans....

    Democrats do well to be ahead.....as longs as they don't let it go to their head....

    Parent

    Democrats love underdogs (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    Republicans want to be on the winning team....

    Parent
    front runnner is always dangerous. (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    Especially if it is in national polls instead of state by state match ups.

    Build it up and tear it down; my fair lady...

    Parent

    I think this year is different (none / 0) (#156)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    When Obama as the Messiah looks inevitable, any gaffe (which we all know he WILL make) or any other shady association of his (Meeks, Ayers, McClurkin) really gets attention, the harder he will fall.

    Parent
    underdogs (none / 0) (#189)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:53:08 PM EST
    are often the winning team.  Minority status.  Under siege by lib values.  Never say die.

      Feed the beast.

    Parent

    Pretty tough for Republicans (none / 0) (#197)
    by 1jane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    to be on a winning team when they are desperately trying to hang on to 41 Senate seats. The RNC is very low on funds, the political tide is against them with 80% of Americans looking for a new direction.It only took 8 years to break the country's back, even Tom Delay says it will take years and years to rebuild the Republican Party.

    Parent
    An addendeum (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:25 PM EST
    Team Obama / the MSM (one in the same) is already positioning that their loss in the fall will be HRC's fault:

    Link

    Blaming Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:12:17 PM EST
    That's more passive-aggressive lameness from Camp Obama.

    What we need is a specialist in cult psychology to tell us why that appeals to his followers.


    Parent

    That article is so discouraging (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    and very counterproductive. If Hillary's going to get blamed no matter what, why should Clinton supporters factor saving her reputation into our votes?

    Parent
    Ding, ding, ding! (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:26:43 PM EST


    Parent
    I think... (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:49:13 PM EST
    and this is just me, mind you.

    But I think that it'll be close--the candidates practically neck and neck--right up til the week before the election. And suddenly poof...it'll go one way or the other.

    Unless something very interesting happens, my guess is that it'll go McCain 51/49.

    If you're right (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    I'd better start growing my fingernails now.

    Parent
    fingernails? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:07:15 PM EST


    Parent
    For biting, I guess? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:11:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Interesting to compare 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    to today:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/148573.php

    (OK, I know there are reports that Josh has been kidnapped and replaced with a replicant, but this was a piece by Spencer Ackerman).

    How depressing to read the sunny optimism of four years ago.

    I don't expect this election to be a re-run of 2004 -- what I do expect is that we'll find, as in 2004, that it's still a very long way even to the Conventions, much less November.

    Note (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    that Gallup switched from a 5-day rolling average to a 3-day rolling average (if you read the whole article).  If you factor that in, the bump is no bigger than the last "bump" he got in mid-May, followed by McCain's "bump".

    But yeah, now the attacks from McCain will start.

    I see that Andrea Mitchell had to apologize today for calling Virginians rednecks.  (see TVNewser).  And on another blog, someone mentioned that CBS News pointed out that Penn might not go for Obama this fall because of "racism".

    If there is a Bradley effect, it may be a "reverse Bradley" effect, meaning that people won't vote for him because they are tired of the media insults that he does nothing to stop.

    racism is racism and it doesn't matter (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    where it comes from. any group can be guilty of such things.

    Parent
    If He's Smart (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Alegre on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    He'll go to Hillary and BEG her to join the ticket.

    Its the only way he can win in November and I'm pretty sure he knows that.  Question is, can he actually rise up to the challenge and make the right call... for the good of the party and for party unity.

    I actually think he can win without her. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    I just think they would win big together.  Everyone would have a stake in the election.  It's best for the Party and the country.  Most importantly, she's a huge asset in the WH.

    Parent
    Obam's Choice (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    Obama is at a fork in the road.

    He can choose Hillary Clinton and hope to win.

    Or he can choose to lose.

    "two roads diverged in a yellow wood (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    and sorry i could not travel both." personally i think obama will take the more traveled road with a man as a veep from a swing state.

    Parent
    Polls (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by clinton dem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    does not prove anything at this point. macCain has not even started campaigning against Obama yet and he is doing well. Just imagine when he start attacking him will all the materials exist against him.
    I will never waist my vote on the "chosen" nominee!

    He clearly won't pick Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    That's done, over, caput.  If he is "partnering" with Elizabeth Edwards on Hillary's signature issue, I think we can safely say he won't pick Hillary.  Let's just stop all this talk.  It's not going to happen.

    I'm afraid you're right. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:54:45 PM EST
    I really liked your diary about her being a smart pick for him, BTW, but the comments alone show you how the Obama crowd are thinking. Too bad  politically, even though I kind of hated her taking second place when she's more qualified. But I hope they work out a way where it seems like he offered it, this won't end well otherwise.

    Parent
    1,2 (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by Addison on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    Two things:

    (1) the expected drop in Obama's numbers -- which would probably be shallow and temporary, IMO -- after he doesn't pick Clinton could be mitigated. The "Bill Clinton must be vetted" line is persuasive, since I think we all agree that whether anyone wants it or not Bill will play a larger role as the VP's husband than as "merely" a former president. And, Lord knows, Hillary has a LOT of jobs open to her, and that could be set up and "announced" (in the ways cabinet posts and such things are "announced" before an election) in advance of the VP selection. So, I think there could be effective damage control, and it wouldn't be impossible to pull off.

    (2) Of COURSE Obama will not be at least 5 points ahead for the next 5 months. That's ludicrous. Political horse races are like basketball games, in which there's an average buffer for the better candidate but the margin can, in any short-term period, fluctuate wildly outside of the general average. See yesterday's Celtics-Lakers game. The Celtics were, on average, ahead by about 15 or so, but to expect them to maintain that through all 4 quarters is silly.

    The fact (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST
    That Obama isn't 20 points up worries me. With Bush's approval ratings in the tank, the Dem's should be able coast into the WH. Even the Republican have turned against him. I realize McCain isn't Bush, but the Republican brand has been dragged through the mud. And McCain's platform is the same. Also supposedly the hardcore Republican's aren't backing McCain and yet it's close?

    in obamabotland (4.33 / 12) (#32)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    hope, change, unity, and bright swirls of purply magic will effortlessly carry him to the white house, where flowers will bloom, birds will sing, and we'll all hold hands as freedom, peace, and prosperity flow from the heavens.

    are you double posting as squeaky? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:02 PM EST


    Parent
    not sure (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:24:45 PM EST
    i get the reference. i may not be well-oiled, but i'm not squeaky.

    Parent
    read some of the other threads today (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    youll get it.

    Parent
    His team (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    I can only hope that his campaign team knows that what Drum is saying here is not only unfounded speculation, it is also dangerous. Obama will have to work hard for every single vote.


    Parent
    if his campaign team (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    was as oblivious and inept as are many of his online supporters, he would not be the presumptive nominee.

    Parent
    Yeah, his campaign team is going to (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    kick a$$ in the fall caucuses!

    Parent
    give them credit (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    they worked the system as it is, and they will likely do the same in the general. if clinton's team had had but a fraction of obama's team's understanding of how delegates are allocated, she'd be the presumptive nominee.

    Parent
    I hope you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    and it is not just a matter of manipulating democrats with guilt and threats which will not work nearly as well in the general.

    Parent
    their focus on the caucuses, (none / 0) (#135)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    and their ability to motivate people to attend, speaks for itself. we're definitely in a different landscape, now, but i assume they have a similarly well thought out plan for the next phase.

    Parent
    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    I'll give you three reasons why: Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio.

    Parent
    yes but you fail to note that the folks (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    being inspired as it were is limted to a rather small group ie aa, creative, latter drinkers, and well educated/good income. the rest have been told there are no reservations available.

    Parent
    Yes but in the GE people only get to vote once (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Nike on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    They clearly "worked" the system--but it is unclear how much of the Obama caucus wins came from 1. busing in out of state college students (see Iowa); 2. Dems for a day (see Texas). In the GE, it is much harder for people to vote twice and that may prove a problem. I assume the Obama campaign will have new ways to game the system, but these ones won't obviously work. See Jeralyn's post from last week, I think, talking about the disparity between the number of votes that it took Obama to win each delegate vs. the number it took for Hilary to win each of hers.

    Parent
    I'm not possitively certain that is true. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    There are other contingencies.

    If edwards had stayed in for supertuesday, I suspect Obama would have had an insurmountable defecit.

    Also the pre and post wright returns. If The Clinton's had made sure edwards was kept in and had ruthlesslly used Wright in January or December Obama would have had enormous trouble.

    I don't think this was about organization on the ground.  They blew the big set piece plays.  Whereas Obama was able to ride the media and the drop out of the Edwards campaign.

    Clinton would not have won in the Rockies even if she'd paid for Caucus voters to turn up.  She needed to knock the halo off Obama's head and keep the anti Clinton vote split between Edwards and Obama.

    Parent

    i partially agree (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Turkana on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    but clinton didn't need to win in the rockies, or in the potomac primaries (which were really the turning point), she just needed to not get blown out. had she held to manageable losses, obama wouldn't have had the popular vote or delegate advantages he did.

    i agree that the repugs will fight dirty in ways the obamabots do not understand. they think clinton fought dirty- they have no idea!

    as for edwards, i have a hunch his voters split somewhat evenly, on super tuesday. and he just didn't have enough money left to make much of an impact. as i've been saying all along, it's no coincidence that the two best-funded candidates ended up as the final two standing. edwards's entire campaign was a fight against special interests, and in our money-driven system, that cost him. for all the talk of obama's online fundraising, he still raised tens of millions from bundlers.

    Parent

    the only thing that would impress me (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    would be to get on a bus or train right now and head off for the heartland. i'd go where all of this tragedy with the weather is taking place. i'd have some of these young people out there asking people what they need and want instead of telling them. how's that for campaign stragedy. maybe i am old fashioned.

    Parent
    OT!!! (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST


    Parent
    now Michelle says he'll (none / 0) (#83)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    make us work too... I think we take turns polishing his halo! ;)

    Parent
    I all ready have a job, TYVM! (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Personally.. (4.00 / 4) (#11)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    I don't think he will pick her because I am not convinced that the Dems want to win this November.  I think it was much more about beating Clinton than anything else.

    Speaking for me only.

    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    Pretty sure the dems do want to win the WH.  

    Parent
    I am not sure.. (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    I think the momentum behind keeping Clinton out was the driving force for most of the primary season.  I think the DNC had to accept that they were taking a chance when everything started to swing Obama's way.  I think the DNC saw dollar signs and that made it all ok.  I would not be surprised if there have been discussions about the party gains vs losses if Obama does lose in the November, and it was decided the gains outweighed the possible loss.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:23:46 PM EST
    You're simplifying a really complex issue and advancing a pretty out there conspiracy theory.  Keep in mind that Clinton had tons of support and money to begin with, was "inevitable," and (thanks to Penn) lost to a campaign that planned for contests occurring after Feb. 5th.  

    Parent
    Do you think Clinton could (none / 0) (#50)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:29:52 PM EST
    have won some of those caucus states if she had planned for them?  Did she have the money?  Would her peeps come out to caucuses?  I don't know.  I liked Halperin's thoughts that it was in the demographics from the beginning and she probably could not have won many of those caucuses even if she planned.  Perhaps she could have reduced the margins which I guess could have helped enormously if she could have been within 50 or so pledged delegates.

    Parent
    reduced the margins (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM EST
    yes
    she could have.  and after all. the margins were not that large.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#84)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:46:35 PM EST
    She could have won a couple.  Or, like you said, reduced the margins.  Either way it would have cut into the "winning streak" narrative.

    Parent
    She also lost momentum (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by abfabdem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:02:34 PM EST
    when she won Michigan and Florida but they didn't count!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by JustJennifer on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    I don't see how out there it is to consider that they party has had discussions about "what if" and they have planned for either option.  If they haven't they are doing a terrible job at governing the party.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    I think they are doing a pretty terrible job of running the party.  I also think you're giving way too much credit to a very diverse group of people. Many, you'll remember, supported Clinton.

    Parent
    They do, but not when (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by hairspray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:19:30 PM EST
    it requires some pragmatism.

    Parent
    I think you're right. Party leaders (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:15:27 PM EST
    in an internecine battle, gaming us party regulars as their pawns.  Well, I'm not gonna be played anymore.

    Parent
    I think they want to win, they've just (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    been side-tracked trying to get the Clinton's out.

    I'm sure not going to reward them.

    Parent

    i read an article this morning that says (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    the dnc and dem leaders are thinking more in terms of money and future voters. that may well be based on some of the comments brazile and others have made. it is reflected in the attitude toward the democratic base. hmm, good luck with that type of magical thinking.

    Parent
    the fix is in (none / 0) (#215)
    by isaac on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    mccain will be a caretaker president, a la ford to nixon

    nobody in the establishment wants the truth of the bush admin's crimes to come out

    Parent

    I Trust His Judgement (3.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Spike on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    "I am arguing that it is in Obama's best interest to choose her as it will insure his victory in November."

    Considering their track record in running a highly disciplined, effective campaign, I have no doubt that Obama and his team clearly understand his best interest. I would not be so presumptuous as to substitute my judgment for his on an important decision like this. If he picks Clinton, I'm fine with that. If he doesn't, I'm fine with that too.

    If it's so disciplined (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    and effective, why did he lose more than half of the  last several primaries?

    Also...I'm thinking of OH and PA (2 states Dems need to win) where he outspent her 4 to 1 and still didn't win.

    Parent

    He ran a campaign (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    where the press suppressed evidence against him.  If Wroght had been on ABC/NBC and CBS in November Obama would be a footnote by now.

    Disciplined, no.  Conspiring with a compliant media, yes.

    Parent

    thought maybe... (none / 0) (#128)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:09:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Axelrod's track record of marketing (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM EST
    His track record, Spike, is in marketing.

    And your comment could have been lifted verbatim from any number of gushy, perspective-free paeans to the brilliant campaigning of George Dubya Bush and his puppetmaster Karl Rove.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#1)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:00:19 PM EST


    I like Schweitzer (none / 0) (#4)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    I think he needs to add a little of that "executive" experience, and it adds a bit of that western flavor...

    I saw Senator Tester pushing him a (none / 0) (#6)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    little the other day!

    Parent
    Schweitzer's awesome, (none / 0) (#133)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    but we need him in Montana, pls. He's cruising to relection this fall with a 67% approval rating, and we don't have a strong Dem in the wings to take his place. He gets term-limited out in 2012, so he'd be a good VP pick then.

    Parent
    good point (none / 0) (#186)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    that's a problem with many good VP choices... Schweitzer for Pres in 2016!

    Parent
    I expect Obama to continue (none / 0) (#5)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:02:56 PM EST
    to gain some momentum unless he is tripped up by another Rev Wright kind of incident.  I believe your call on Clinton is correct, unfortunately, I don't think team Obama is listening. The first time they are on stage together I expect Obama to get a bump, would be surprised if that did not happen.

    the unity pony (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:05:56 PM EST
    has left the barn.  you can close the door any time now.

    Parent
    Yep, the Hillary nutcracker (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    is displayed on DKos' front page today.  They just discovered its existence.  And it seems to be the only example of sexism that they can find yet.

    Ah well, the diarist is apparently attempting a sort of rapprochement -- but the comments, no.  They want to burn down the barn, so the pony never will find its way back home.

    Parent

    they discovered the nutcracker (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST
    well bless their hearts.
    its been on the front page of their main source (Drudge) for about 6 months.

    Parent
    You will not be surprised (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    to hear that the first comment was horrific, followed almost immediately by thread hijacking to talk about . . . racism.

    They're "hope"less.  And they're not going to "change," no matter what -- no matter what even Obama tells them to do.  He is not in charge of this, if he ever was.  He just enjoys benefitting from it.  

    Parent

    Have the discovered (none / 0) (#214)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    the Hillary Urinal Target yet?  Or have the searched the archives for DHinMI's posts?  I doubt it.  

    Parent
    sad to say, a watch has been called for (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    our dear unity pony. the little thing left the barn this past week and although we searched high and low, it was no where to be found. wanted posters are out on phone poles, etc.

    Parent
    milk cartons (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:47:43 PM EST


    Parent
    yes that too. wipes away a tear! (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM EST


    Parent
    bjorn....looks like Rev. Meeks is the (none / 0) (#14)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    current fly in obama's ointment.

    Parent
    I will have to google that I have not (none / 0) (#18)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    heard about MEEKs yet!

    Parent
    check out no quarter today (none / 0) (#86)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:46:57 PM EST


    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#93)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:49:49 PM EST


    Parent
    the list of questionable people (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by abfabdem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:36 PM EST
    that Obama claims he didn't REALLY know, is getting longer by the day.

    Parent
    poetry (none / 0) (#163)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:46 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan's Overdetermined Tendentiousness

    And there he reclines on his swivel chair in his antiseptic office. Flanked by two dogs, the hirsute critic types a few mindless words as the computer slides onto the rippling folds of excess flesh that spill off his lower abdomen. "Not glib enough, not misogynistic enough," he mutters to himself. He slowly lifts his lame wrist and languorously depresses the delete key. Suddenly he remembers the letter he received from a contact in the Obama campaign who explained how all political commentators must refer to Hillary Clinton's supporters with the barbarism "Dead-Enders." He also remembers how he is charged with exasperating Hillary's followers at all costs. Staring at the opaque space that lies just beyond his aquiline nose, he struggles to recall a verb that evokes the image of a hysterical woman. He ruminates; he struggles; he licks the beads of sweat glistening on the surface of his unkept beard. "Hyperventilate," he screams. And he raises his flaccid wrists in order to resume the arduous task of writing once again.

    Parent

    nice....but kinda makes you want to throw (none / 0) (#188)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    up at the same time, i.e., his physical description... :)

    Parent
    Drum (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    is saying that 5 pts is the most that Obama will probably lead McCain?

    really (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:06:22 PM EST
    are we the only ones who see a problem with that?

    Parent
    apparently! (none / 0) (#180)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:43:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:06:49 PM EST
    He is saying it will be the LEAST that he will lead McCain by.

    Whether that's true or not is debatable - but that's his point.

    Parent

    Drum's direct statement is: (none / 0) (#71)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:37 PM EST
    ". . . I'll bet that Obama never has much less than a five point lead for the rest of the campaign."


    Parent
    Wrong again (none / 0) (#74)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    He said,  
    l bet that Obama never has much less than a five point lead for the rest of the campaign.

    I dont' believe that he specified exactly what would constitute "much less" than 5. 4 point lead? Two point lead? Even? One point behind?

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#119)
    by CST on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    Really confusing language.  But he definitely doesn't say it will be the most Obama leads by.  The language implies (to me) that he thinks it will be higher.  I really don't have much of a personal opinion on this.  I think it's kinda stupid to make any kind of prediction on what the polls will be like this summer.

    Parent
    No drum said (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    5 is the closest it will ever get.

    Parent
    But in enough states, and states needed? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    Ah, there's the question. . . .

    Parent
    Alaska. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:36:39 PM EST


    Parent
    The probability... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:36:54 PM EST
    ... that Obama wins by >5%, and loses in the electoral college is nil (Gore won by 0.5%).  It'd take some freakish set of circumstances for that to happen.

    Parent
    One instance does not (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    an argument make.  Think we never saw the like of the 2000 election before?  The Bushies used a blueprint called the 1876 election.  That time, the loser won more than 3 percent more of the votes.  Is that starting to get a little close for comfort levels?

    Parent
    The fact that you have to go back ot 1876... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:03:31 PM EST
    ... I think is pretty demonstrative of the freakishness of what would have to happen.  And 3%, I should add, is still less than 5%.

    Incidentally, 1896 was Rove's blueprint for the 2000 election (i.e. the McKinley realignment).  They didn't exactly plan on getting fewer popular votes.

    Parent

    and (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:30:18 PM EST
    Karl, hows that realignment workin out for ya?

    Parent
    Tell me all the times it happened (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM EST
    between 1876 and 2000, and then get to back to me.

    Parent
    That's exactly my point. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ramo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:01 PM EST
    Popular vote winners almost always win the electoral vote.  Large popular vote winners tend to be even larger electoral vote winners.  And large popular vote winners never lose in the electoral college.

    Parent
    Anyone want to posit a guess (none / 0) (#23)
    by talesoftwokitties on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:14:48 PM EST
    when he will announce his VP pick?  Before the convention or at the convention.  Hoping he pick Hillary.

    I predict it will be at the (none / 0) (#31)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    convention, it may be leaked a few days before but not officially recognized or announced until convention.

    Parent
    I think McCain (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    is going to wait on his VP selection to see what Obama does - for this very reason - get a bump and it will be the newsmaker.

    Parent
    A week or two before the convention. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimotto on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:41:00 PM EST


    Parent
    When he needs the news cycle (none / 0) (#152)
    by Knocienz on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    I expect he'll hold off as long as he can so that he can get the best polls on what demographics he needs to shore up or who he can swipe from McCain.

    If he really needs a news cycle, then he might announch early, but otherwise I expect him to hold off until the convention.


    Parent

    Question about site rules: (none / 0) (#41)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:24:38 PM EST
    Is "McSame" allowable? I think that violates Jeralyn's guidelines on referring to candidates.
    the lonely view (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:26:48 PM EST
    he can earn my vote without picking Clinton as vp.

    He can burn Kos.  He can reject arianna and make it clear to me that brand of activism will not be  condoned in his party.

    Then he would have no party (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:33:41 PM EST


    Parent
    but its all about defeating mccain (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    now and everyone is totally selfless.

    Parent
    oh (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    and he can stop staring off into the distance too.

    The way he carries himself is not for everyone that's for sure.  The best thing I can do now is pretend he doesn't exist and vote against mccain.  1.5 seconds  of his image on tv is enough to destroy whole days of "getting over it"

    Parent

    I thought I was the only one who noticed that! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:45:36 PM EST
    Somebody needs to tell his campaign photographer to end the "chin high staring into space look". It reminds me of an 19th century general posing for a portrait.  

    Parent
    can he really afford (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    to trade tweetys tingle for some... Votes.  It really is a question of what be values more.

    Parent
    Now?! (none / 0) (#102)
    by xdemocrat on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    Check your calendar.  It's not February.

    Parent
    Too many "experts" on the web... (none / 0) (#47)
    by citizen53 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    and TV, but certainly not enough intelligence.

    I guess people need to fill up all that TV time and bandwidth with something.

    FWIW, I find it all very depressing to see all the white noise about the smallest things, when, in fact, no one knows what will happen tomorrow.

    I wouldn't take that bet (none / 0) (#72)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:40:44 PM EST
    At least polls since June 3, I am not seeing much of a post-win bump that indicates that Clinton supporter's who didn't support Obama before have switched to Obama. A lot of people are waiting on the sidelines until they find out what his decision is. I think that if he does choose Clinton, then his numbers will go up, but if he does not then his numbers will stay where they are - at least until the 527's start their work.

    Could Obama Avoid the Problem? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Decal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:41:57 PM EST
    If Obama isn't going to name Hillary as his running mate, could he lay groundwork to limit the backlash for that decision? And by groundwork, I mean arranging for Senator Clinton to officially announce that she's not interested and has in fact turned down Obama's generous offer well  before he does announce his VP. Would that avoid the problem of the big day of the VP announcement being all about Hillary?  

    Seriously doubt it. (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    I went back through the Dem conventions, and this primary is one of the closest ever--on average, the nominees from 72-92 were 1660.5 delegates ahead of their nearest challenger, and the median was ~2800. Obama v. Clinton is just too close in pledged delegates for her to be ignored and cast aside, plus the popular vote issue and FL/MI problems.

    Before we picked our nominees via primaries, the closest race ever was FDR v. four opponents in 1932, all had 600+/- delegates. And FDR ended up with the nom by offering his nearest rival John Nance Garner the VP. Pretty traditional, actually; Edwards was Kerry's closest competition, JFK/LBJ, et al. So not picking Clinton is going to be a big problem no matter how they do it.

    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#77)
    by ChrisRO on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    Why does anyone think Obama MUST pick Hillary? I would like to see Clinton on the the ticket, but I'm afraid of it energizing the Hillary Haters on the right. Do you think she can bring Florida or Ohio? I don't, if Obama can't do it by himself it will not happen. Now of course I would love to see the Clinton machine shredding McSame, and since the VP is an attack role for the GE, she would get the job an do it well.

    The Clinton Machine (3.00 / 0) (#201)
    by Panhandle on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    I don't think the "Clinton Machine" is what it used to be, and if the "Obama Machine" can't shred McCain on its own then we have problems.

    I also think she may have lost some credibility on the criticism after some of her glowing comments about McCain in the primary.


    Parent

    How is Obama doing in the key (none / 0) (#94)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    state polls, since Hillary dropped out?

    When I checked... (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:15:36 PM EST
    ...electoral-vote.com yesterday, they had Obama leading McCain for the general--but I saw a lot of states that were in the too-close-for-comfort range, including OH and PA.

    McCain leads in FL and MI, which augurs ill in a year that should have been a Dem sweep, not to mention pointing out the boneheadedness of the RBC's decisions.

    Parent

    And the last time that site (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Cream City on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:31 PM EST
    had a Clinton-McCain matchup, just last week, it showed that she would have at least 307 votes in the Electoral College.

    My spouse got excited by the Obama-McCain map on that site yesterday, first time he checked it for a while . . . but then I took him back but a few days to the Clinton-McCain map.  My spouse started to see what I have been talking about, and he started to worry.

    Parent

    Last I saw (none / 0) (#121)
    by Claw on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:05:27 PM EST
    He was beating McCain.  Not by margins as wide as Clinton's, and he loses FLA, but wins enough states to put him over the top.  I'd really like him to put Hillary on the ticket to shore up his support in the Midwestern states.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#138)
    by tben on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:14:45 PM EST
    didn't you predict, rather confidently, that Obama would NOT get any bump once Hillary quit the race?

    Since you were wrong about that, why do you have confidence you are still right about the other prediction?

    Why would Obama go down once he chooses a VP not named Clinton? Its not like everyone assumes he will pick her, so by not picking her he turns people against him.

    Beleive it or not, there are lots of people who really dont like Hillary, and would be relieved that she is not on the ticket. Overall, they might equal or outnumber those who would be disappointed.

    speculation (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    Go ahead, Obama.  Tell 18 million voters to get back on their backs.

    Parent
    what does that mean? (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by tben on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    Why on earth would everyone, all 18 million, who voted for Hillary want to see her get the VP slot.

    VP is not like a silver medal in the Olympics. Its not unambiguously the second best position to have. In fact, barring some tragedy, it is probably the least interesting and least powerful position that Hillary could hold in the next 8 years.

    Why does everyone assume that being in a totally subservient postion to Pres. Obama would be good thing for her, or the best use of her skills for the country? The VP has very little power except what is given by the president. And that can be taken back at any time. Wouldnt you want her to remain a free and independent voice?

    Parent

    Not even offering VP to her (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    is going to be a serious problem for many supporters, even if many of us would rather not see Clinton take it for our own reasons. Disrespecting her in that way and then arguing that it's for her own good is really, really not going to help.

    Parent
    Of the 18 million (none / 0) (#212)
    by 1jane on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    voters some have changed their minds since they voted, others voted to have the chance to vote for a woman for the first time in a presidential nomination, others will put their country first before anything else and those who have not registered or didn't vote will soon be meeting Obama campaigners at their front door.

    Parent
    Rasmussen has Obama... (none / 0) (#185)
    by mike in dc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:48:32 PM EST
    ...getting 81% of registered Democrats now, a jump of several points.  Even the strongest GE candidates we've ever had don't tend to do better than about 85-90% with registered Dems, and he's got time to improve his standing with them.  He does gain 3 points from having Clinton on his ticket, but that's before any new negative media and before CDS kicks in with the Republican base.  So, I don't know for sure if that benefit will hold up in the fall, and neither does anyone else.  

    and just how accurate have they been? (none / 0) (#198)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:01:19 PM EST


    Parent
    They called the GE for Bush in 2004... (none / 0) (#204)
    by mike in dc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM EST
    ...pretty accurately, if I remember correctly.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#213)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    We all know the media hearts Obama

    "Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year--Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

    At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama. "

    Rasmussen

    But (none / 0) (#217)
    by Blue Jean on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 05:44:02 PM EST
    Not nearly as much as the media hearts McCain.

    Article: 6/7/08 Is this what Obama is about? (none / 0) (#218)
    by jgilmore on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:35:07 PM EST
    Check this out

    http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=507

    Supposedly, when Senator Clinton argued that Sen. Obama was not electable, the big dogs in the party said it didn't matter. What did matter in their eyes was the huge number of new registrants in the Democratic Party and the enormous amount of money that Obama had been able to bring into the organization
    .

    I doubt Hillary will be the VP (none / 0) (#219)
    by beachmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:45:02 PM EST
    I also question the wisdom of trying to force a presidential candidate to pick a running mate he is thoroughly incompatible with.  You do know that this is not just for a campaign but to actually govern?    It won't work.

    Obama Should Be (none / 0) (#220)
    by bob h on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 05:14:25 AM EST
    further ahead than 5 points given the media focus on him now.

    I fear that he will pick an insipid, mousey, lady Governor as VP, and that will signal that he is a loser.

    Hillary/Obama: a win or Obama/Whoever: a loss (none / 0) (#221)
    by Silhouette on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    Look, it's pretty simple...Obama was propped by Big Media outlets (which are republican owned propaganda machines) and Hillary's momentum was ridiculed, belittled, downplayed and even censured on CNN, MSNBC, FOX and most major newspapers.

    Which begs the question, why?  

    When your running a race you are intent on winning, do you want to face off with a strong and formidable candidate or one who you can crush like a bug?

    Yes Grasshopper, see beyond the veil...

    Then there is the disturbing view of many men in black surrounding Obama looking very concerned.  Gee, I wonder who supplied them for the cameras?  My guess is George W. and Cheney supplied them free of charge.  Their message?  Even if he gets elected, he won't make it to inauguration..

    They'll stop at nothing.  They're like caged hounds waiting for the bell to ring after the Dem convention in August.  The media talking heads can barely contain their verve for disemboweling Obama while seeming to still prop him as the "favored democratic nominee"...just in case some superdelegates wake up from their fog of "hope" and "change" by August..

    You know, they want him to seem electable, until it's too late for us to change our minds.

    Then comes October Surprise.  Set your watches by this one.  After a month and a half of treating him exactly the way they treated Hillary, you will see a Big Media blitz come around October 15th of a new scare of war in the Middle East.  My guess is that they'll choose that day or thereabouts to concoct an Iran crises.

    At that point, any of the wise old democrats that Obama has somehow wooed to his camp will have new ice running in their veins when they have this new element to consider: in time of imminent new war, vote for a man with no military service whatsoever, or a decorated war veteran...

    See?  They know what they're doing..

    We would've made history with a Clinton/Obama ticket.  Obama would have 8 years on-the-job training (like Hillary already has had)and gain everyone's backing in 8 years for president...and he'd get it too.  Every single democrat plus a few republicans would vote for this ticket.

    Instead Obama won't win because too many Clinton voters are chronically and permanently unimpressed with his qualifications to serve as commander in cheif of foreign affairs and war this time around..

    We'll make history this year all right: It will be the first year that both a woman and a black man ran...and lost...the bid for the Whitehouse.

    With Clinton/Obama, we would've had the first woman president and the first black VP in a slam dunk this Fall.

    There's still time Obama supporters to resurrect his chances at walking through the Whitehouse doors next January: write your delegates and superdelegates.  Tell them you changed your mind.  Tell them you want us to win this Fall instead.

    If enough people do this (it doesn't take much time)we can make our representatives actually represent the Will of the People.  This really isn't a "left" opinion.  It is the opinion our founding fathers would've held as well.  They would've died for their unpopular and wise decisions.  

    And after all that's what it's all about.  I don't know about you guys and gals but I'm sick of being on the losing team.

    Oh, and one more little thing.  Under the last run of Clinton in the Whitehouse, the US economy was the strongest it's been in US history..

    Write your representatives or don't complain!

    Is It All Obama Now In The GE? | 215 comments (215 topical)