Hillary has momentum

[RecycleMichael]

I believe Hillary can still win the popular vote, but probably not get the delegate lead. Obama is 700,000 votes ahead without Michigan and Florida voting, but if the previous votes were counted he will only be 80,000 votes ahead. She is ahead by double digit points in Pennsyvania which means that she will beat Obama by 300 to 400 thousand (if the vote were held today).

If Florida and Michigan revote, I expect her to win Florida handily and be very competitive in Michigan.

If she has the most popular votes, it will be hard for a superdelegate to ignore that. Superdelegates will decide this race and I believe she has always been ahead in superdelegates. What would you do if you were an Oklahoma delegate? The fact that she has the most votes nationally and she carried your district and state will be important factors.

This race is long from over and she is doing quite well now.

[FOTD]

RM....you are a wolf in sheeps clothing!

"Now, none of this would matter much if these had been the utterances of a small-time Clinton campaign worker. But Ferraro has a legacy in Democratic politics. Her remarks, coupled with those of former President Clinton comparing Obama's win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's victory there in 1984, reveal a reckless disregard for blacks in the higher echelons of the Democratic Party. Yes, it'll all be forgotten if Obama wins the nomination. But it'll fester if he doesn't.

Nor should Republicans gloat too much. Ferraro's implicit leveraging of white resentment over affirmative action was essentially an ad-hoc version of Richard Nixon's infamous "Southern strategy."

And what happens if black voters do become disaffected with the Democratic Party? Because the GOP isn't likely to embrace them, those voters would probably abstain from the process. And as even someone with the slightest knowledge of history should know, having large numbers of African Americans feeling alienated from the political system and with no place to turn isn't just bad for blacks but for the entire body politic. Now is as good a time as any for Hillary Clinton's supporters to realize that there are more important things than winning."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-rodriguez17mar17,1,7340434.column

Any good democrat can see the fallacy of supporting Billary....

[rwarn17588]

RM, quit bringing up Michigan's vote totals. Obama wasn't EVEN ON THE BALLOT.

It's a wholly unfair to put those vote totals from that state into Hillary's totals.

The total number of votes that Obama is ahead is over 800,000, by the way.

And I wouldn't hold your breath for a Florida or Michigan revote. Florida revote is dead, and Michigan revote is on life support.

[RecycleMichael]

If the national democratic party doesn't step in and either count the Michigan and Florida votes or organize a re-vote, the democrats will lose in November. Period.

These are two very swing states and the people deserve to have their results count. Not seating their delegations and saying their votes don't count will be a slap in their face.

Obama's campaign knows that Hillary did and will again do quite well in both states and they have made it almost impossible for any positive outcome for Florida and Michigan democrats. They, together with Howard Dean and the democratic national committee are now obstructionists to democracy. Every vote should count and they are saying they shouldn't because it doesn't benefit their motives.

The national party drew a line in the sand, the Obama camp is trenching it deeper and now it will trip up the voters going to the polls.

[pmcalk]

RM, I certainly understand the politics behind Clinton's desire for a revote.  Yet, how do you reconcile these two statements:

Back when the other candidates removed their names from the ballot, Clinton, in deciding not to remove her's said, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything,"

Now, Clinton says "When others made the decision to remove their names from the ballot, I didn't because I believed your voices and your votes should count."

Goodness, talk about trying to maneuver to "benefit their motives"

The push to have a revote reminds me of my kids, when I tell them if they don't eat any vegetables, they don't get any dessert.  Then after I take their plate away (with the vegetables), and its dessert time, suddenly they are willing to eat those vegetables I already threw out.

Obama has raised some very legitimate concerns about a revote in Michigan.  Michigan is an open primary.  Clinton's plan will bar any democrat that voted for a republican to participate in a revote.  Even ignoring the logistics (how would they check that), how is that fair?  How many democrats would have voted in the democratic primary, had they thought their vote would count?  If Clinton really wants Michigan's voices to be heard, why not allow all of the voices that could have voted participated in the revote?  How many republicans (who were supporting Obama in greater numbers until Rush Limbaugh told them to vote for Clinton) would have voted for Obama?  By the way, Michigan doesn't list party affiliation when registering, so how are they going to tell who is a democrat?  And aren't you a little uncomfortable with a privately financed election?

Yes, it would be nice for them to figure out a plan that was fair to all involved (not just Clinton supporters).  But to create some kind of scare is silly.  FYI, a SurveyUsa poll had Obama beating McCain with 280 delegates to 258 without winning Florida.  Swing states are a moving target.  Other states--Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and even Oregon are considered swing states.  I really like the fact that Obama doesn't put all of his eggs in a few "big state" baskets.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD


And what happens if black voters do become disaffected with the Democratic Party? Because the GOP isn't likely to embrace them, those voters would probably abstain from the process. And as even someone with the slightest knowledge of history should know, having large numbers of African Americans feeling alienated from the political system and with no place to turn isn't just bad for blacks but for the entire body politic. Now is as good a time as any for Hillary Clinton's supporters to realize that there are more important things than winning."

That's what I've been trying to get across in the other thread to HT.  Unfortunately, the GOP has done a poor job of reaching out to the black voters, so I think you are right.  Many would forgo voting all together.  

For some reason the Clintons are mis-calculating that they would have the same voter base they enjoyed with blacks in '92 and '96.  Now that there is a black candidate and it's this close, if they go back, re-do Florida and Michigan or the superdelegates go to Hillary, there goes five to ten million Democrat votes who will just stay home, because they think their guy got hood-winked.  If the black vote stays home in a state like Ohio which has been close the last couple of elections, that could be pivotal come November.

That's the beauty of this for McCain.  All he's got to do is sit back and watch the Democrats implode for the next five months.  Personally, I'm already sick of this field of candidates, by the time August rolls around it will have been a year and about nine months of campaigns.

[RecycleMichael]

Those are considerable concerns about Michigan re-votes, but the real issue is that Obama was not on the ballot and most of his supporters crossed over and voted for McCain. I believe that was way more prevalent than republicans voting for Hillary because of Rush's comments.

I don't care how they voted...if they only let democrats who voted for democrats re-vote or let everybody re-vote. It doesn't matter to me.

I just think that something has to be done to seat a Michigan delegation. To tell the Michigan democrats that their votes don't count because their state party couldn't agree with their national party on what day to hold a primary election is crazy.

The Michigan and Florida voters will not forgive the democrats easily and the effects will not only elect McCain, but possibly effect every other race in both states.

Hillary wants a re-vote and Obama doesn't. This is one time when the cnadidates should agree. You can't disenfranchise two whole states of voters. Obama is going to have more delegates no matter what happens, but is playing the role of obstructionist to doing what is right for the party.

[FOTD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ymHdbd_tU&NR=1
The Angry John McCain Song

Senator McNuts will be beat. Besides, who is his running mate? I want to know that just in case one day he spins outa control

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3948673n?source=search_video

.....he may become known as the gaffer.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/a_mccain_gaffe_in_jordan_1.html?hpid=topnews

The election belongs to the democrats. The republican circus is a side show with Hannity and Rush playing calliope.

The candidate we deserve...
http://pabloonpolitics.com/obama_speech.htm

[RecycleMichael]

Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/ts_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama for the first time in weeks in the race for the party nomination, according to a Gallup poll.

The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.

Gallup said it was the first statistically significant lead for Clinton since a tracking poll conducted February 7-9, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. The two candidates had largely been locked in a statistical tie since then, with Obama last holding a lead over Clinton in a March 11-13 poll.

Gallup said polling data also showed presumptive Republican nominee John McCain leading Obama 47 percent to 43 percent in 4,367 registered voters' preferences for the general election. The general election survey has an error margin of 2 percentage points.

The Arizona senator also edged Clinton 48 percent to 45 percent but Gallup said the lead was not statistically significant.

[pmcalk]

Of course, that is just one poll.  On average, Obama is ahead by 3 points.  Rasmussen, as of just yesterday, has Obama ahead by 5%.  Interestingly, it looked at the effects of Rev. Wright and Obama's subsequent speech.

The truth is, whatever the polls say, this race is just about over.  The ability for Clinton to get the nomination is almost negligible.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

In truth, it really harms the democratic party at this point for her to keep attacking Obama.  I agree with Hometown--it would be nice if Obama offered her the Vice Presidency.  But I doubt she would take it.

[RecycleMichael]

Hillary should not get out.

Obama does not have enough delegates to assure the nomination. There are still key states yet to vote and Hillary is ahead in the polling in almost all of them. By Memorial Day I think she is going to be ahead in the national polls and ahead in the popular vote.

If you ignore Florida and Michigan, Obama is right now barely ahead in popular vote 49% to 47%. This race is incredibly close and Hillary is catching up fast. Millions and millions of democrats are yet to vote.

All you Obama supporters just want Hillary to give up before the rest of America has a chance to really get to know your candidate. That is just unrealistic. Obama has not been able to close out this race and now that people are beginning to take a hard look at him, he had better get his act together.

If not, he will be the one that will be forced to withdraw.

[rwarn17588]

It seems apparent to me that Obama already HAS his act together.

He's weathered the worst time since his campaign began, and his speech Tuesday has helped him recover immensely. Everyone's talking about it in positive terms except for the lizardbrains, and even some of them praised it.

If you want to blame anyone for Florida and Michigan delegates not being seated, blame the stupidity of those states' party leadership. They knew the rules, but decided to play chicken and break them anyway. There shouldn't be any whining if you break the rules and consequences occur.

Besides, RM, you know as well as I do that those delegates eventually will be seated at the convention. They'll probably split 'em 50/50 and be done with it, like the GOP did when one of the states broke the rules in a similar fashion.

[pmcalk]

It's true that more people will begin to learn about Obama in the months ahead, just as they learn more about Clinton, at least when she finally releases their tax records.  It will be interesting to see how they amassed as much as 50 million dollars since they left the White house.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4421457&page=2

I think people are just now starting to see the role she played on Walmart's board, something that hasn't really been scrutinized before.  And now that we finally see records of her role in the White House, I hope she is prepared for the onslaught of accusation that will come with that.  And I don't think the suspicion around the Clinton Library donations will go away any time soon.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html  
And that's even before we start to look back at some of the previous issues that the republicans won't let go.

The truth is, whomever is the the candidate the republicans are going to throw dirt at them.  I really see no reason to believe that Clinton will do any better at diffusing the attacks then Obama.  Tuesday's speech was an excellent example of that.  Obama has accusations thrown at him, and he takes it as an opportunity to educate people, and unify the country.  When has Clinton come even close to doing something like that?  Quite frankly, I don't think she ever did a very good job at diffusing attacks.

[rwarn17588]

^ +1

Plus the fact that Hillary's got negative ratings in the mid- to high 40s.

Anyone who's harping about electability shouldn't be someone who turns off nearly half the voters.

Maybe it's unfair that her negative ratings are so high. But they are, and they've been basically unchanged for a year, despite all her campaigning.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

The truth is, whomever is the the candidate the republicans are going to throw dirt at them.  I really see no reason to believe that Clinton will do any better at diffusing the attacks then Obama.  Monday's speech was an excellent example of that.  Obama has accusations thrown at him, and he takes it as an opportunity to educate people, and unify the country.  When has Clinton come even close to doing something like that?  Quite frankly, I don't think she ever did a very good job at diffusing attacks.

Thing is though, everyone knows the Clintons have skeletons in the closet, they know Hillary is divisive, but for the most part they don't seem to care.  The Clintons just keep winning.  Does anyone know of an election either Clinton has ever lost?

In your comment about the GOP throwing dirt at the Dem candidates, certainly you aren't omitting the fact that Democrats are throwing dirt at McCain, right?

At this point, I'd be willing to bet 75% or better of the mud directed at Obama is coming from the Clinton camp.