View Story | 239 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Rassmussen has posted that they are going to stop polling Hillary v. Obama to focuse on the General Election: Obama v. McCain. It's over. http://rasmussenreports.com/...
"Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor
by SpiderStumbled22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:45:49 AM PDT
Makes me think of Sharpton's remarks. Theater is empty, lights are out. It's over. No one is watching any more Hillary.
by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:35 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
at her rally in WV yesterday than Obama had following him at the Capitol.
by Phil S 33 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:52:13 AM PDT
against McCain in many groups including among Democrats, and in electoral college votes matching both candidates against McCain, she has been alone in beating McCain for the last month in electoral college votes.
McCain already vetoes every environmental bill !
by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:03:17 AM PDT
Have you looked at the date on that poll?
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -- Mark Twain
by Riddle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:47:36 AM PDT
show her still beating McCain, not Obama, as she has been doing since PA. A picture of last week is the same going back a while, today she beats McCain 280/258. So I don't see huge demographic swings from week to week. This is really how it looks if you read the exit polls from each primary. Now that Rasmussen will not poll any more between Clinton and Obama, this is as much as we know(part of the ec poll is state by state Rasmussens.)
by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:58:23 AM PDT
link for today
by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:07:53 AM PDT
You could as well have used Rasmussen's daily tracking poll, which today states (in part):
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama attracting 47% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This is the fourth straight day that Obama has had at least a one-point advantage over McCain. While it is not a statistically significant lead, it is the first time Obama has led McCain on consecutive days in two months. The last time Obama outpolled McCain for four straight days was in mid-February (see recent daily results). One key to this changing dynamic is that Obama now leads McCain among unaffiliated voters by nine percentage points. As we look to November, the Obama-McCain match-up will feature a clear generational component. Obama leads by twenty-three percentage points among voters under 40 while McCain leads by eleven among those over 50.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama attracting 47% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This is the fourth straight day that Obama has had at least a one-point advantage over McCain. While it is not a statistically significant lead, it is the first time Obama has led McCain on consecutive days in two months. The last time Obama outpolled McCain for four straight days was in mid-February (see recent daily results). One key to this changing dynamic is that Obama now leads McCain among unaffiliated voters by nine percentage points.
As we look to November, the Obama-McCain match-up will feature a clear generational component. Obama leads by twenty-three percentage points among voters under 40 while McCain leads by eleven among those over 50.
by Riddle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:12:18 AM PDT
national preference, however, since the electoral college site I linked is compiling many state by state polls, it is perhaps more important, as it assigns likely states won or lost by the electoral college votes that decide elections.
I would call it the opposite of cherry picking, as it is a composite of polls. And more relevant in the general, as it matches that data with electoral votes per state.
From that we can see why big states that have more electoral votes are indeed more important to win than smaller states with few electoral college votes or hopelessly Republican dominated states. Not to diss those of us Democrats who live there, but just being realistic about chances to take the White House, which we really need to do.
by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:52 AM PDT
needs to teach the low income voters how McCain's party hurts them. They have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the MSM that it won't be easy.
I have taught classes for kids with learning disabilities, and I learned not to use too many "big words." I think that's how the "elitist" tag sticks. My students felt really hurt when I used words they didn't understand. They thought I was trying to humiliate them. The Republicans realize this, which is why Bush says "nucular" and so on.
I wonder if they could do focus groups to see how these folks can be reached.
Seriously, if anyone should vote for Obama, it's the lower income voters. They are voting against their own self interests, voting for McCain.
He needs to talk to them directly. Tell them he knows how they are finding it hard to make ends meet and tell them that he will help them. Tell them that Bush and the Republicans only give the American people lip service, but listen to the lobbyists, who are shipping their jobs overseas and closing American plants.
Look straight into the camera and ask them to hear what he has to say. "I am working for you and your family, not the lobbyists and special interests that do what is best for the CEOs and the real 'elitists,' who only care about their bottom line, not yours."
Perhaps he could hold a press conference or an ad in a town that has been hit hard, in front of a closed down company to illustrate his points. (That's another way to reach them: visually. They remember images, which is why the Republicans focus on flag pins, a visual, to get accross concepts.)
Or he could go to a grocery store, shopping with his kids, and pick up gallon of milk and say, "Milk has gone up X% this week. Then be pumping gas into his car, shake his head, "Ouch!" Then be with a group of average folks and tell them how he will address their problems. "Look, I have a plan to help you and America work again. I have a plan to build better, more fuel efficient cars..."
United we stand. Divided we fall. Don't let them divide us.
by CIndyCasella on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:11:41 AM PDT
but most of these groups prefer Clinton more than Obama against McCain. Only the last three demographic groups prefer Obama more than Clinton over McCain. What it shows is Obama is less likely than Clinton to beat McCain, looking at these general demographic groups.
details at gallup
by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:08:30 AM PDT
I interpreted the poll with only McCain/Obama in mind.
The numbers are in, and we must do what is best for America, which is to elect a Democratic President with excellent judgment to avoid unnecessary wars that hurt our national security and bleed us into bankruptcy.
I hope we will all re-unite and rally for Obama. The sooner, the better.
by CIndyCasella on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:48:35 PM PDT
I agree, that would be a good ad.
The price of the bread I use has gone up $0.20 in the last two or three weeks.
My password is: "transparency" This is a communal account. Everyone may play, few will win!
by nanobubble on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:49:06 PM PDT
Guess again!
by HorseThief on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:01:57 AM PDT
We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.
by Lepanto on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:06 AM PDT
that The Politico is running with a story that says that HRC has many superdelegates who, for a variety of reasons, are remaining "quiet" until the time comes. (Don't blame me...I'm just reporting the reportage.)
According to a senior Democratic aide, Clinton asked some uncommitted superdelegates if they could commit to her privately — without the political risks of a public endorsement — so that she could gauge whether she has the support she feels she needs to remain a viable candidate. A Clinton staffer acknowledged Thursday that the campaign was in the process of "counting up" superdelegates because, "at the end of the day, we have to know where our numbers are." "We do have some private supporters," the staffer said. "[But] for their own political purposes, they can’t be on record."
According to a senior Democratic aide, Clinton asked some uncommitted superdelegates if they could commit to her privately — without the political risks of a public endorsement — so that she could gauge whether she has the support she feels she needs to remain a viable candidate.
A Clinton staffer acknowledged Thursday that the campaign was in the process of "counting up" superdelegates because, "at the end of the day, we have to know where our numbers are."
"We do have some private supporters," the staffer said. "[But] for their own political purposes, they can’t be on record."
"We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson
by mayan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:09 AM PDT
Not on you for quoting it but that strikes me as a pretty transparent ploy by Kamp Klinton. They're full of shit seven days of the week and it also doesn't make any sense. It makes far more sense that Obama has more in reserve.
by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:17:09 AM PDT
I agree. This thing is ovah. I just took a stroll through the political reporting on MSNBC and both First Read and Russert are brutal. Here's Russert's response to the politico story...
Tim Russert: I talked to a lot of active Clinton supporters and I asked them what they thought. Based on my reporting, what I learned was I could not find an objective Democrat who did not think the race was over – that Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee. Msnbc: There’s a story of Hillary Clinton asking superdelegates to quietly support here so they won’t face public scrutiny. Is she really getting anyone to do that or is it just a way to explain the lack of reports of people switching to her? Russert: I think it’s a painful period for the Clinton campaign. She has fought a very energetic race, but the math just isn’t there. If you add up all the elected delegates that are still to be won and the undeclared superdelegates, she would have to win 70 percent of those and no one has done that in 48 contests. If you just take the elected delegates, she’d have to win 88 percent of them and no one has come close to doing that. It’s just a difficult process to go through, but again, people who support her and like her are telling me – they won’t do it on the record – "We know it’s over. It’s just finding the best way to end it."
Tim Russert: I talked to a lot of active Clinton supporters and I asked them what they thought. Based on my reporting, what I learned was I could not find an objective Democrat who did not think the race was over – that Barack Obama would be the Democratic nominee.
Msnbc: There’s a story of Hillary Clinton asking superdelegates to quietly support here so they won’t face public scrutiny. Is she really getting anyone to do that or is it just a way to explain the lack of reports of people switching to her?
Russert: I think it’s a painful period for the Clinton campaign. She has fought a very energetic race, but the math just isn’t there. If you add up all the elected delegates that are still to be won and the undeclared superdelegates, she would have to win 70 percent of those and no one has done that in 48 contests.
If you just take the elected delegates, she’d have to win 88 percent of them and no one has come close to doing that.
It’s just a difficult process to go through, but again, people who support her and like her are telling me – they won’t do it on the record – "We know it’s over. It’s just finding the best way to end it."
MSNBC: Russert on Politics
by mayan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:21:07 AM PDT
is, why am I supposed to have sympathy & compassion for Hillary Clinton? She is rich. She is successful. She is a US senator. She has a trillion options and opportunities not open to me. She is clearly concerned solely with her own best interest and does not give a shit about mine.
I don't want to alienate supporters. But if they are unable to see that Barack Obama is more in line with their self interest than John McCaine Mutiny, there's no hope for them anyway. This is not a 7th grade class election.
by KibbutzAmiad on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:30:24 AM PDT
It has been very personal in regards to Hillary. There has definitely been a different standard and something that reminds me very much of a royal impulse that people have towards her.
Her supporters very often been very obviously projecting as they accuse Obama supporters of making everything personal.
Witness too the way people respond to any criticism of Chelsea. She's a grown woman, a lawyer (right?) with a ton of name recognition out campaigning for a presidential candidate, including private calls to superdelegates but if you call bullshit on her for something you get lumped in with Rush Limbaugh making fun of a little girl.
There has definitely been an embarassing royal family treatment going on this whole time. The bar was lowered a great deal for Hillary and she simply did not get over it.
by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:36:21 AM PDT
is a hedge fund manager but agree with everything else you said : )
I am just tired of hearing simultaneously about what balls of titanium Hillary has while at the same time being told everyone must tiptoe around her feelings.
She has $100+ million . That should buy some emotional assuagement.
by KibbutzAmiad on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:44:04 AM PDT
I was trying to remember if she had gone to law school like the folks.
What they've done with the personal stuff is a cynical campaign ploy. They imply that Obama has gotten an unfair advantage because the black community rallied around him in a big way. What is always ignored in the discussion is the fact that a majority of the Democratic electorate are women. And the anecdotal evidence of people voting based on that association is quite abundant.
It's not that you don't have a right to vote based on the desire to see a woman president, it gave me extra reason to consider Hillary's run in the beginning. It's that they have been very divisive and manipulative in trying to fully take advantage of that natural sentiment.
Anyone without their head deep in the sand knows that women are victimized in our society all the time. We've hardly reached some completely post-sexist era all of a sudden. So there are strong feelings to be manipulated if you're a cynical enough politician. Hillary and her crew certainly are. Hence we get the 'boys club' references and all that. Hillary has hardly been shut out of power and wealth in this country. But because so many women have been she intentionally appeals to their personal anger and frustration so that it will be projected on her as the victim.
They have lowered the bar for her every way they could in this thing no matter the cost to actual feminism or race relations or my digestion.
by Sun dog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:58:34 AM PDT
She plays a consumate victim while also playing the consumate alpha. She gets away with it to the extent the public, press and her p.r. staff allow it. She had great surrogates who know how to play the game...at the least, they've been doing it for a long time. And last but not least, she knows how to parse with the best of 'em.
by mayan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:59:07 AM PDT
Perhaps she had hopes of joining the Billionaire Club, the way Bush, Cheney et al have been working on since Day 1.
The Prince of Peace has been usurped by the God of War.
by Spoc42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:17:26 AM PDT
with her yesterday; that's okay, she can have those.
"The man and the hour have met!" Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States, Barack Obama!
by PittsburghPete on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:03:00 AM PDT
One being, of course, that it's no fun to endorse someone who has no choice but to race bait for the next week and a half.
Maybe when she's regained her sense of decency they'll declare their support?
Oh wait... race will be over by then... hm...
Lights out.
by chicago DEM on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:22:13 AM PDT
if I knew I had lost but wanted to stay in the race to recoup dough and sew up some delegates to fend off Gore in case Obama slips on a banana peel between now and Labord Day.
by SpiderStumbled22 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:24:44 AM PDT
to (1) not take responsibility for an ill-advised action she's taken [the supers made me do it!] an (2) allows her camp to brand more people Judases.
by conlakappa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:05:05 AM PDT
We've secretly replaced our delegates' reputations with Folger's Crystals.
Let's see if anybody notices...
by Riddle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:51:01 AM PDT
so that we can see if Obama really opens up a large lead nationally among Democrats. It would be a good sign that Democrats think this race is over as much as the press does.
I am a liberal and I'm damn proud of it
by smash artist on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:42 AM PDT
With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race ... While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.
Obama/Obama '08
by Yirmiyahu on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:07 AM PDT
Tracking poll results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Two nights of interviews for today’s update were completed after the Indiana and North Carolina Primaries. For those two nights on a stand-alone basis, Obama leads Clinton by eleven percentage points.
'[Obama] has treated us like adults throughout this primary, and it is time to act like adults.' - John Cole
by RichM on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:30:18 AM PDT
I'm so confused by the traditional media. What suddenly woke them up to the fact that this thing is over??
On Feb. 19, Obama led by by 160 pledged delegates; today he leads by 162.
by Yirmiyahu on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:52:55 AM PDT
He needed a big win post-Wright.
To me, the absolute most important issue ANY of us has, and this nation has, is that we are currently being ruled by a gang of immoral war criminals. -Hornito
by discocarp on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:58:50 AM PDT
by Yirmiyahu on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:01:18 AM PDT
People sick of it?
by Heart of the Rockies on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:02:09 AM PDT
I turned off the glass teat long ago. The only person I watch now, is KO.
Consign corporatism to the dankest crypt, and assign justice to the highest crag. For A More Perfect Union.
by Alohilani on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:12:23 AM PDT
"This is not Nam. This is bowling. There are rules." -- Walter Sobchak
by Clyde the Cat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:12:43 AM PDT
Bl - aw - ging.
by 88kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:15:06 AM PDT
going on and on about how Timmeh was saying that it was over based on the math. I said that Timmeh knew this back in late February but wouldn't report it because it was in their best interest to keep the race going. The fact of the matter is that this race was over after Obama's 12 state win streak, and especially after TX and OH did not provide a game changer. Since that time the MSM has been artificially sustaining this race for their purposes. There are few news people who have any credibility left, in my opinion.
by PittsburghPete on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:06:11 AM PDT
In February, he was up almost as much, but there were far more to go. Now she needs almost 70% of the total delegates to win and 75% of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up in the pledged count.
The Empire never ended.
by thejeff on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:27:11 AM PDT
It wasn't Obama's convincing win in N. Carolina. It was that Hillary needed a convincing win. I called it that Hillary needed 25 more delegates than Obama coming out 0of last Tuesday to have a shot. If she followed up that with comparable wins for the rest of the primary season, she'd be 100 behind Obama in the elected delegates with a convincing story for the supers. Instead, she's further behind in the elected delegates. 40% of the (pledged) delegates remaining on Monday were elected Tuesday.
"The three main issues in this campaign are Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq." -- Bill Foster
by Frank Palmer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:23:35 AM PDT
Someone tell HRC's contributors.
A new SurveyUSA poll shows that if given the chance to vote again, Californians would choose Barack Obama by a 6-point margin, 49%-43%.
by Inland on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:13 AM PDT
by mayan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:23 AM PDT
It's her turn! She's owed!
John McCain '08 - Hope Less!
by kitebro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:55:20 AM PDT
At an Obama meeting flailing her arms yelling "Hey--look at me! I'm more electable! Whitey's not going to vote for him!"
by catnap1972 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:16:08 AM PDT
by justlen on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:23:35 AM PDT
But did it have to be hitler as Senator Clinton? I mean, really; hitler?
Doesn't invoking hitler lose the argument or something....
Anyway- funny video none the less.
And all too believable as to how it goes down in her war room....
in the end
by skyounkin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:38:13 AM PDT
Just kidding of course.
by PittsburghPete on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:07:09 AM PDT
That's huge.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." W B Yeats
by stonepier on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:29:17 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 239 comments