Skip to main content

SUSA and Rasmussen give us the first polls of South Carolina in 2008.


SurveyUSA. 1/4-6. Likely Democratic Primary voters. MoE 4.2% (12/17-18 results)

Obama 50 (39)
Clinton 30 (41)
Edwards 16 (17)

Rasmussen. 1/6. Likely Democratic primary voters. MoE 4% (12/16 results)

Obama 42 (33)
Clinton 30 (33)
Edwards 14 (17)

SUSA seyz:

There is across-the board movement away from Clinton to Obama. Among women: Clinton had led by 17 points, now trails by 14 points. Among blacks, Obama had led by 20 points, now leads by 46. Among white voters, Obama had been 3rd, is now 2nd, tied with Edwards, the two of them 9 and 10 points back of Clinton. Among Moderates, Obama was tied, now leads by 23. Among voters age 65+, Clinton had been at 61% a month ago, 40% today. In the Low Country, Clinton had led by 13, now trails by 16. Upstate, Obama had been tied, now trails by 16. In the Midlands, Obama had led by 5, now leads by 26. South Carolina Democrats name the Economy as the issue the next President should focus on ahead of all others. Among voters focused on the Economy, Obama leads Clinton 2:1. Among voters focused on Health Care, Clinton leads Obama 41% to 37%.

And note the Iowa effect:

One quarter of SC likely voters say they could change their mind before the SC Primary. Of those who may change their mind, Edwards' support is the weakest, Obama's the strongest. Among voters who made up their mind AFTER the Iowa Caucuses, Obama leads Clinton 63% to 13%.


SurveyUSA. 1/4-7. Likely Republican primary voters. MoE 3.9%

Huckabee 36 (30)
Romney 19 (19)
McCain 17 (10)
Thompson 11 (18)
Giuliani 9 (13)
Paul 5 (0)

Upstate, Huckabee leads by 22. In the Midlands, he leads by 16. In the Low Country, he leads by 14. South Carolina Republicans think the next President should focus on Immigration ahead of all other issues. On Immigration, Huckabee and Romney had been tied, Huckabee now leads. Among Republicans who say the Economy is most important, Huckabee's support has quintupled over the past 60 days and he is now 2:1 preferred over all other.

And Republicans remain unsatisfied with their field.

43% of SC likely voters say they could change their mind before the SC Primary, significantly higher than the percent of SC Democrats who say they may change their mind. Among the comparatively few SC GOP voters who say they made up their mind after Iowa, Huckabee leads Romney 41% to 10%.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:05 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yep, she will lose there nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GainesT1958, Sharon Wraight, rigso
    •  But I still think she will win the nomination... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tryptich2, rigso

      ...Nevada and Florida should help her regain her momentum.

      •  Nevada is far from a lock for HRC (3+ / 0-)

        Culinary Workers will soon endorse Obama if he wins NH and this will definitely give him the momentum to win Nevada.

      •  umm (2+ / 0-)

        yea Nevada and Florida are not a lock for Hillary..from the way its looking she will lose Nevada as well and probably even Florida.

        But that is just my opinion..I guess we'll wait and see!


        The American people are not the problem in this country; they are the answer--Sen. Barack Obama

        by FuPrez on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ha! (4+ / 0-)

        If she gets slaughtered tomorrow, and with her already hemorrhaging in South Carolina and unable to get the Culinary Workers' endorsement in Nevada, she's done.  

        And crap like this will just make things worse:

        DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow's primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.

        She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.
        "I don't think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister," she said. "They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do.... Let's not forget you're hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down."

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:12:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't think so, with all respect. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Democrats are too hungry to win the White House (perhaps too hungry) and are eagerly jumping on the Obama train for the long haul.

        Don't Legitimize Fox News.
        "Democrats have the heart to care."

        by jeepdad on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a good point, jeepdad... (0+ / 0-)

          ...I fear you are correct, and we will end up losing the WH because of this, IMO, misplaced over-exuberance and the resulting 'reality' of the general.


          •  Bull (0+ / 0-)

            You are going to ride that wave of denial till the day he's inaugurated aren't you?

            Look, the Democrats are poised to take it back. The Primary turnouts are double the number of Democrats than Republicans.

            It will be the same thing in the General and Congressional. Watch.

            "We, as a Congress, have to stand up to a president who acts like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on Sept 11..." - Sen.Russ Feingold

            by WeBetterWinThisTime on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:15:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Vaguely Reminiscent (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PoliMorf, PsychoSavannah

              Of the post on how Kerry was a lock four years ago after making Bush look like a fool in the debates.

              There are no sure things, and the Republican slime machine has not even been oiled and put into service yet. When it does, look out.

              The Republican Creed: Pray and Pass the Ammunition

              by johninPortland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bingo - you nailed it (n/t) (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PoliMorf, PsychoSavannah
              •  Kerry was a sitting duck (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Kerry ran on the "Im not Bush" Platform, where as Obama is running on the "I'm Obama" platform. A world of difference. We tend to elect who ever sounds the most optimistic, presidential looking, and straight talking. And, bizarrely enough, that was Bush. I think thats why we're going to end up with a Obama & Huckabee. So far they are both anti-Slime. Wouldn't it be awesome if politics was decent again? Where the vote was decided based upon the issues?

                Oh, wait I already said that it came down to appearances. Well, if the appearances and mannerisms were close, then maybe the issues would influence people.  

                •  I disagree that was Bush (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  Bush won because people were still in denial about the Iraq war and Kerry ran a bad campaign, refusing to differentiate himself except that he was a more competent Bush.  Bush didn't look Presidential by any means.  

                  If the election had been in 05, Bush would have lost.  He was lucky he didn't go into Iraq until 2003, because it was just early enough that it couldn't completely go to shit before the next election.  

                  Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

                  by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  not at all reminiscent (0+ / 0-)

                unless you want it to be. What I love (not really) about all this amateur (and not so amateur) analysis is how people go around drawing exactly the wrong conclusions when evidence to the contrary is right in front of them.

                First of all, I think we can safely say that the election won't be exactly like any election in recent memory. Quite a bit not like Kerry/Bush (somewhat popular incumbent vs. incompetent campaigner), maybe a little more like Reagan/Carter, but not quite, not like Clinton/Bush, esp. w/o a Perot etc. The only conclusion I have drawn about patterns is the pattern of political space. If your chief rival is in your political space (ie. draws the same group of voters, geographically or demographically that you do), you must win the first primary. That's been consistent in 2004 and 2008. Otherwise, don't take patterns so seriously.

                Secondly, we are not electing a demographic group to office, we are electing a person. So if Obama has the campaigning skills to overcome his "racial disadvantage" or whatever other disadvantage you think he has, take that into account as much or more than any historical or demographic truisms. Barring something unexpected (or worse), I don't really see any obstacles to him becoming president at this point. Hillary was always the biggest obstacle/question mark.

                Is it January yet?

                by JMS on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 05:34:14 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  the Obama bashers are among the stupidest people (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              here; people like Universal and Goldberry. They're barely worth responding to.

      •  Remember...... (0+ / 0-)

        His base ( The Youth ) are still not being polled. But they sure as hell are text-messaging each other all over the nation saying,

        "We Got This. We Just Need To SHOW UP!"

        So, again. The polls are still old fashioned and traditional. As Obama rises in them, it just makes his win even bigger . But you always have to remember those who are not polled which make up a ton of his support.

        We already know they show up, soooooo. I am not worried about the early state polling. We can win . All we have to do is show up. Because we sure as hell are not switching.

        "We, as a Congress, have to stand up to a president who acts like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on Sept 11..." - Sen.Russ Feingold

        by WeBetterWinThisTime on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:12:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What happened (0+ / 0-)

      to your oh-so-witty S.S. Obama pic?

  •  can i just say (5+ / 0-)

    i think it's awesome that Paul out polls 9u11iani

    Don't start a blog, build a community with SoapBlox - the NEW blog framework.

    by pacified on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:06:52 PM PST

  •  I'm starting to worry about Huckabee. (6+ / 0-)

    He's really bad news. Yeah, maybe the Dem would trounce him...and maybe not.

    I'd prefer the GOP nominated McCain who would probably lose and would be (slightly) less bad than the others if he won.

    When a government violates the unalienable rights of the people, it loses its legitimacy.

    by Rayk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:08:02 PM PST

    •  Oh c'mon... (17+ / 0-)

      you really think an evangelical governor without any foreign policy experience could really win the presidency just because he's folksy and "down to earth"? Ha ha ha ha!!



      "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:10:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush didn't follow the teachings (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        homo neurotic

        of his "saviour". He worships a crucifix once a week and dumps on the poor the rest of the time. Huckabee has read the Gospels. That is why he is being maligned by the neocons. The fact is, Jesus would be considered an ultra-left wing radical if he was around today. (And for the record: I'm not religious.)

        The Bush Administration changed everything.

        by kitebro on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:16:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jesus was no liberal! (0+ / 0-)

          Uh, no he would not. He would not support abortion or same-sex marriage. Nor,do I think, would he care for a lot of pop culture that we seem to defend.

          Don't get me wrong, he wouldn't be a ultra right-winger either. He did care for the poor.

          Christ was beyond our confining modern politcial definitions and we should not try to showhorn him into them.

          •  Jesus WAS a liberal. What Testament (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jqb, kitebro

            are you reading, dude?

            Probably the wrong one.

            •  the only one (0+ / 0-)

              I am reading the only one there is. What, you think there is more than one. The is only one Truth, Light and Way and that is Christ.
              You may sooth your own ego by reassuring yourself that you can sin and Christ will look the other way? That is not what Christ was about.

              What is so confusing about him saying "Go and sin no more"?

          •  Abortion existed back then. (0+ / 0-)

            What did he say about it? Homosexuality did , too. You've been misled.

            The Bush Administration changed everything.

            by kitebro on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 03:19:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are the one who has been mislead (0+ / 0-)

              There were lots of thing he didn't explicitly say. Christianity isn't Islam where everything is spelled out by "revelation"
              Christ said to love one another. How can you say you love someone who is compleltey innocent of anything and then kill them?

              No, you have been mislead. How anyone can read Christ's words and actiona nd think he would be ok with abortion is downright ludicrous?

              •  Cite his words against abortion. (0+ / 0-)

                Use the Gospels.

                The Bush Administration changed everything.

                by kitebro on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:46:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's easy (0+ / 0-)

                  I think it is evident in my prior post, but here you go:

                  He said to him, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
                  This is the greatest and the first commandment.
                  The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
                  The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." (Matthew 22: 36-40)

                  So first of all, the Ten Commandemnts (which are still valid) says "You shall not Murder(Kill)" which is pretty straight forward. Jesus is saying in the above quoted passage FROM THE GOSPELS to "love your neighbor as yourself". Neighbor here isn't merely the man or woman next door but EVERYONE. Everyone living on earth is your neighbor. Who more is our neighbor than our own children? Who loves their child and then kills it? If you do you certainly can't say, again based on Christs words, then say you are following Christ.

                  •  I don't want to keep this (0+ / 0-)

                    going forever, but it depends on your definition of "child". Like in Genesis it reads "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Some argue that until a child breathes on its own, it isn't a person. I believe that once a fetus has brain activity that it is a person. Others argue that life begins when it "quickened" in the womb. This "quickening" refers to the first movements of the fetus detected by the mother.
                    My point is, so-called "Christian values" are often composed of a great deal of embellishment. I find no ground in the Gospels for calling Jesus  a conservative. He fought to help the poor and the sick. Right-wingers don't. Anyways, thanks for the give and take. We believe what we do and that's about it. Have a good one!

                    The Bush Administration changed everything.

                    by kitebro on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  we can agree on one thing.... (0+ / 0-)

                      Jesus was not a conservative either. I don't think any argument can be validly made that he can be boxed into any limited current political boxes, He did speak up for the poor and downtrodden. Remember he ran the money changers from the temple. But, lets remember that the crowds in Jerusalem turned against him becuase he didn't act how they thought the Messiah should act. They had thought the Messiah would be a temporal leader that would defeat Rome and Israels other enemies and restore teh Kingdom. To put it in the leftist terms of our time, they wanted an activist and a revolutionary. he brought the Kingdom in a different, and I say more truly revolutionary way.

                      Look, as a Catholic, I believe Christ was the Savior and that is neither conservative nor liberal.

                      Also, as a Catholic I believe that life begins at conception. That is the only viable answer to when one is a child. To me all the others that you mentioned leave doubts. We do know that their cannot be human life without conception so it seems to me, and the Church, that that is the most legitimate answer. I also feel that not only is that the truth but, as a liberal and democrat(big and little D), that is the best and most valid liberal position.

                      But I thank you also for the give and take.

      •  The Republicans would be much smarter (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jqb, homo neurotic

        to choose an old guy who has served in the Senate a long time since they always do really well in the .  . .



        Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

        by johnny rotten on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:18:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think they both (0+ / 0-)

      would have their butts handed to them. They are both seriously flawed. The GOP has no momentum. The economy and oil/gas prices are pissing most Americans off. Change is in the air.

      The Bush Administration changed everything.

      by kitebro on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:11:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  huck scares the piss outta me (4+ / 0-)

      he puts a very affable face and warm persona onto a policy stance deeply steeped in hyper-religiosity. you could say he puts the fun back into fundamentalism.

      i suspect that the intramural cannibalism going on over on the gop side of things is just finishing up the amuse bouche, and that they're waiting for the next course to begin, which could very well be huck a l'orange.

      Time for Miles to soothe me again, because jazz is the antibush. --zic

      by homo neurotic on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:14:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Compare the two (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jqb, The Other Steve

      When you look at them side by side, most reasonable people will pick Obama.  Even in Kansas people have cooled off on Xtian nutcases.  Batshit crazy fundies in southern states might go for Huckabee, but in swing states?  In the Mountain West?  Republicans in much of the country would either stay home or cross over if Huckster were the nominee.  

      It's McCain who scares me.

      In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

      by ivorybill on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:14:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  actually . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jqb, PsychoSavannah, cybrestrike

      Assuming that Obama is the Democratic nominee, I think that Huckabee would be an easier opponent to defeat than McCain. It would be harder for Huckabee to play the "Obama's not experienced enough" card.

    •  on Huck: remember his 'fair tax' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We coukd run the shittiest campaign known to history and still win by simply exposing Gomer's cockamamie 'fair tax' plan ... a THIRTY PERCENT SALES TAX.

      Hillary: the GOP's Only Hope

      by Tuffie on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:25:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huckabee is the easiest R to beat. (0+ / 0-)

      That's why the R establishment is trashing him. Huckabee's honesty and civil manner is actually a liability; no honest R can win. Huckabee thinks the world is 6000 years old; he's a homophobic, misogynist, nativist, small-minded ignorant hick; Obama would wipe the floor with him.

  •  If you're in the mood (0+ / 0-)

    go to SFGate and vote for your fave candidate

    poll is in the lower left corner. . .

    go for it!

  •  What happened to the upstate voters? Are they (0+ / 0-)

    contrarians or something?

    I don't see how that could have happened given his other gains, but maybe they just vote against who has the momentum at the moment.

  •  So we have a new "inevitable" to watch? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight

    That seems to be a dangerous label to have pasted upon oneself.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:09:01 PM PST

  •  Sen Clinont should Skip SC (0+ / 0-)

    and start her big drive in Feb5th states and Nevada. Don't spend resources there IF the polls continue in this trend, which they likely will... Go right to Feb5th and try to get some delegate rich states...

  •  Interesting. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jj32, spencerh, Sharon Wraight

    This is actually ending up to be an interesting primary season. Who knew?

    Huckleberry is an amazing wild card. So bat-sh*t crazy at times, and yet fairly appealing at other times. Fascinating mix of honesty and bigotry.

    Then Obama, making everyone feel good about the country, just by virtue of voting for him! So Reaganesque (thankfully not in any other way as far as I know).

    You can't get away with the crunch, 'cuz the crunch always gives you away

    by dnamj on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM PST

  •  Will anyone else still be in the race (0+ / 0-)

    by Feb 5?

    The notion that not talking to people is somehow punishment to them is ridiculous. Barack Obama, July 23, 2007

    by litho on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:09:54 PM PST

  •  Now we understand the Clinton Cry. (6+ / 0-)

    They must have known these numbers. I actually feel for her.

    Don't Legitimize Fox News.
    "Democrats have the heart to care."

    by jeepdad on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:10:03 PM PST

  •  But, but, (0+ / 0-)

    I thought Mr. Straight-Talk express was going to steamroll the competition in the rest of the Republican primaries! Screw McCain.

    Beltway Wisdom is an Oxymoron.

    by kefauver on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:10:32 PM PST

  •  hillary should skip it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Builderman, Sharon Wraight, rigso

    pull out, explain that she's taking a moment to regroup, and bet it all on california. she holds new york and wins california, she's right back in it.

    •  yep, I agree, just skip (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      it, people already expect her to lose there, try for Nevada first, then go on to a big Feb5th strategy, retooled, and strong again. I think she can do it... Barack by then will be the inevitable and the media may start to fall out of love with him, if the cards fall right, Hillary can still win this...

    •  Obama would shift his focus as well (0+ / 0-)

      one more win, such as in NH, that momentum will seriously start spilling into the 'big delegate' states. And remember, if Obama does well, not even winning, he still picks up delegates.

  •  Immigration is the top concern? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The great debate should be whether South Carolina Republicans are as dumb as they are bigoted.  What self-repecting immigrant would want to move in to South Carolina anyway?

  •  Enjoying the GOP fight (4+ / 0-)

    It's going to be quite entertaining watching Huckabee, Romney and McCain beating the shit out of each other for the next month. Huckabee winces, Romney sulks, and McCain's veins start dilating.  It's kind of fun to watch.

    In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

    by ivorybill on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:10:50 PM PST

    •  I Sort Of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Feel for McCain. For Christ's sake, he's 71 years old. This think might just kill him (and I'm only half joking). A modern primary campaign is brutal, physically.

      •  Personal responsibility (0+ / 0-)

        It is McCain's choice, after all.  And I think campaigning might actually keep him alive longer.  McCain is a very driven guy, the sort of man who does not deal well with retirement.  

        In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ...Thomas Jefferson

        by ivorybill on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:35:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Might be a mistake/typo (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kenboy, Prof Dave, Sharon Wraight

    "Upstate, Obama had been tied, now trails by 16."  Should that be leads instead of trails.

    "Constitutional Crisis Forthcoming"

    by egarratt on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:10:54 PM PST

  •  Why is Edwards not winning SC? (0+ / 0-)

    My ignorance, I confess I don't know SC politics at all, so that's just an innocent question.

    Edwards won there in 2004 (I think?).  He was even born there (if I remember correctly)!  He's from the South, he should have the campaign organization there, he understands voters there.  

    I don't get it.  Why is he coming in third?  I thought he'd win, as a "favorite son" candidate.  

    •  You are correct (0+ / 0-)

      Edwards was born in SC and won there in 2004.

      Why is he trailing this year? My take:

      1. Obama and Clinton are stronger candidates than Kerry, his main competition.
      1. I think Edwards has focused more on Iowa this year.  

      They said this day would never come - Barack Obama

      by jj32 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:32:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the House is Baracking Don't Come a Knockin" (0+ / 0-)

    Was this phrase coined by:

    a) Bill Clinton
    b) Hillary Clinton
    c) Monica Lewinsky
    d) all of the above?

  •  I'd bypass SC if I were Hillary... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Molee, Sharon Wraight

    of course, I'll be working in SC, for a weekend at least, for Obama.  Seriously, I think it's over for her but she must do something bold.  There are so many places to campaign before Feb. 5, I'd bypass it completely and hope for a miriacle on Feb. 5.  

    Ain't no time to hate.

    by howardpark on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM PST

    •  sadly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that may be her only choice..but then it would look like she is running from the South and can't win there..Imagine if she got the nomination--she would have no chance of winning there now or any southern state, especially after the MLK comment.  

      Her best chance is to save face and drop out completely  after SC! It seems that California is ready to poor out the $$ to Obama once he wins in NH, and the crowds he gets there are amazing..I don't see Obama's momentum stopping at all.

      The American people are not the problem in this country; they are the answer--Sen. Barack Obama

      by FuPrez on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed... (0+ / 0-)

        ...of course she should drop out.  Just look as the embarrassment she and Bill have suffered since Iowa and the whole awful "inevitable" campaign.  Obama vs. Edwards would be interesting in SC.

        Ain't no time to hate.

        by howardpark on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:30:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  SC is already (0+ / 0-)

          Obama's..the Edward's campaign has already conceded they are going to lose in SC.

          So there is really no competition there.  Edwards really has no place to go..he has no organization anywhere outside of Iowa and has just enough in NH.

          Hillary will not drop out before Edwards does..They have the money and resources to continue, even if they go 0-30.

          The American people are not the problem in this country; they are the answer--Sen. Barack Obama

          by FuPrez on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:35:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  What if Edwards beats her (barely) in NH and SC? (0+ / 0-)

    As in:

    Obama 49
    Edwards 25.003
    Clinton 25

    I think Edwards can pull a last minute surge in both states, just like he did in Iowa.  Third place x 3... can she possibly stay in if that happens?

    Faking it so well just makes her all the more chilling an ice queen.

    by Dopeman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:12:27 PM PST

    •  She's got the money to stay in until the bitter (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pletzs, jj32, Sharon Wraight

      end...which, given her public appearances the last few days, promises to be quite bitter indeed.

      Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

      by darthstar on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But if what's happening now continues, (0+ / 0-)

        why would she?

        I think if she loses the first 3 states by ever-increasing margins, she should politely bow out and trust that her and Bill will have roles in either the Obama or Edwards administrations.

        Faking it so well just makes her all the more chilling an ice queen.

        by Dopeman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let me qualify a bit.. (0+ / 0-)

          If her side knows that their only option is to go very  negative and even then it will only increase her chances from none to slim, why beat our guy (and her and Bill's guy) up for three months and give the other side a head start?

          Faking it so well just makes her all the more chilling an ice queen.

          by Dopeman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  stubbornness, I suppose. (0+ / 0-)

            She still feels like she's entitled to the nomination right now, so she'll continue to go negative as long as she believes that.

            Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

            by darthstar on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's crap. Only Karl Rove would be (0+ / 0-)

          pleased by Senator Clinton leaving the race.

  •  I'm more pissed off at the media than ever (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Molee, buckeyedem08, darthstar, Dopeman

    They've been treating the Democratic primary like a two person race since the beginning, even when Edwards was running neck in neck with Obama and Clinton. I hoped that Edwards' showing in Iowa would make a difference, but they universally decided to keep the headlines focused on Clinton and Obama. Edwards never had a chance. How can you win an election when nobody knows you are running? I don't expect the media to cover every candidate as if they are a front runner - but it would be nice if they covered the front runners instead of focusing on their annointed candidate.

    I only hope that the media will continue to be as enthusiastic about Obama after he wins the nomination. I suspect, however, based on previous experience, that the story will change. And not in our favor. I fore see NYT headlines reporting on the rumors about Obama being Muslim and talking about how "critics" don't like his (fill in blank here).

    You vote independent... I'll stick with the party that brought us social security, civil rights, and environmental protection.

    by dianem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:13:32 PM PST

  •  We'll see... (0+ / 0-)

    if Huckabee can continue/maintain whatever it is that he has. NH is probably out, but can he deliver elsewhere?

    Also interesting if HRC writes off SC and heads West.

    The plot thickens, kids.

    Your world, upside-down! Visit Sydneysided, my view of the world as a Texan, Aggie and Democrat living Down Under.

    by AggieDemocrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:13:43 PM PST

    •  I think Huckabee will do well in the south (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AggieDemocrat, johninPortland

      In addition to SC, probably Florida, Georgia and of course Arkansas would go his way. They've been searching for a "real" social conservative this whole race in the south. Thompson seemed like he was it, but he has fizzled. Huckabee seems to be that candidate.

      They said this day would never come - Barack Obama

      by jj32 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You talk about people voting against (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    their best interests.

    Huckabee wants a 24% sales tax. It would kill the poor, literally, at least some. And the rich would pay no taxes at all, except when they eat out.

    Remember with The Huckster, it's ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about the money, for him. ALWAYS. God and the fetus and the gay are just ways to get to the MONEY, and MORE MONEY.

    •  what's so sad (0+ / 0-)

      is he's still to liberal for the Republican moneid class.

      The world will end not with a bang, but with a "Do'oh!"

      by Love and Death on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  God and the fetus and the gay (0+ / 0-)

      are just ways to get to the MONEY, and MORE MONEY.

      Says it all.  

      and more and more money, and more money.

      Faking it so well just makes her all the more chilling an ice queen.

      by Dopeman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see it this way (0+ / 0-)

      Personally, I like Huck's sales tax idea.

      The rich buy more big ticket items, thus would pay more. They'd be paying a shitload higher taxes on those BMW's than a low income person's 12 year old Toyota Corolla purchase for getting back and forth to work.

      Plus, there's no reason basic foodstuffs couldn't be exempted, thus providing relief to low income earners.

      Everyone pays a sales tax - everyone. Low or high income, documented or undocumented, citizens and foreign tourists. And they pay in proportion to what they spend.

      The Republican Creed: Pray and Pass the Ammunition

      by johninPortland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:13:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Steve Forbes wasn't pushing it b/c its fair (0+ / 0-)

        to the middle-class. Its a big giveaway to high wager earners. Huge, in fact. And its a tax hike on the lower and middle wage earners.

        No freakin' way.

        •  Even a stopped clock (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          is right twice a day.

          With targeted exemptions for basics, I still see this as the most fair method of taxation.

          Keep in mind, you're collecting income from many who currently aren't paying squat - undocumented, as well those earning money in the black market economy, such as drugs.

          I'm not ready to toss a good idea out just because of who it's coming from. I think this is an idea that can be tweaked and crafted for fairness.

          The Republican Creed: Pray and Pass the Ammunition

          by johninPortland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:40:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you want the rich to keep getting richer (0+ / 0-)

            Then, yes, it's the fairest tax out there.  Taxes aren't meant to be fair.  The rich are meant to shoulder more of the burden since they owe more to the country, for one thing in order to maintain the rule of law, which keeps people from just stealing all their money.  

            If you think that everyone should just be charged based on what they buy then it's 'fair'.  But the reality is a huge tax hike on the poor, and a huge tax cut for the wealthy.  That is the reality, it doesn't matter how you'd like to see it.  The wealthy would be paying even less than they are now, and they already pay less than those who are middle class.  

            Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

            by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:56:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  John - Listen to me. (0+ / 0-)

        THE rich do not pay sales taxes. WHY?

        Because they have so many houses, they bill whatever they buy to an out of state address. No tax due. The only sales taxes they HAVE to pay is in restaurants, as they did eat the food.

        Say that 120 times.

        The only tax most rich pay is 15% on dividends. That would be abolished.

        Unless you are a Walton, you don't like this.

        •  I'm listening, but not convinced. Convince me. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Because right now, I'm not following your argument.

          If a buy a vehicle, how do I bill that to an out of state address? I pay the tax depending on where the puchase was made.

          If a buy expensive furniture, how do I bill that to an out of state address?

          And most importantly, if it's a national sales tax, how is the state it's billed to even relevant? Unless you're buying everything overseas, it wouldn't matter. It would be across the board in all 50 states.

          It would also make it easier to apply this tax to internet sales, as any sales conducted in the domestic US would be eligible.

          The only relevant argument I've seen against it is that it could put a damper on the consumer economy, however I think if the sales tax were balanced out with a corresponding elimination of the income tax, people would have more $ available for retail purchases anyway.

          An argument can even be made that it's easier to avoid taxation with the income tax, as it's easier to hide the source and quantity of your income than it is your retail purchases.

          Believe me, I'm not prepared to vote for Huckabee, but I think this idea merit's discussion.

          The Republican Creed: Pray and Pass the Ammunition

          by johninPortland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:59:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No-You do NOT pay sales taxes by where you buy it (0+ / 0-)

            You pay sales taxes on where it is shipped. The paperwork is forged. The rich buy the items, and have them billed to an out of state address. No tax. All merchants who sell to the rich on in on this. As far as the sellers are concerned, the rich were never in the store. The fact that the rich leave the stores with the items is of no interest to the merchant. With the paper work billed to an out of state address, this fulfills another desire of the rich; to put off paying for whatever they acquired for as long as possible.

            In Florida, there is no sales tax on boats, cars, motorhomes. In Cali, there is a yacht exception. No taxes on yachts. The rich carefully buy in a way to pay NO sales taxes, expect on food eaten in restaurants, Even grocery store deliveries can be figured to avoid tax. (PS After the rich buy that SUV without paying sales tax, if it cost enough, and it always does, they get to deduct the cost of the SUV from their income taxes.)

            Pass it on.

            •  If we accept this argument (0+ / 0-)

              as evidence that the rich don't pay state sales taxes, are you by extension saying that they would bill purchases susceptible to a national sales tax to a foreign address to avoid paying?

              Because whether purchased or shipped, it wouldn't matter otherwise.

              Just trying to understand your logic here.

              The Republican Creed: Pray and Pass the Ammunition

              by johninPortland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:34:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                The rich don't pay taxes. How do you think they got so rich?

                What makes you think the shipping state exception will not be included?

                Hedge funds pay 15% BEFORE taxes.

                You don't understand. The rich employ an industry of people who design and interpret the laws in such a way the rich pay as little as possible.

                It's a straight up concept.

                •  Well, this is not exactly true (0+ / 0-)

                  Just not paying much in taxes doesn't alone make someone rich.  

                  By the way, you're actually supposed to pay sales tax on out of state items.  You're supposed to report it, it's just no one does and it is not enforced.  If someone bought a huge ticket item from out of state I suspect it is much more likely to get caught.  

                  Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

                  by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:58:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Easy math (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Someone who makes $20,000 a year spends every dime of it...and often spends more on credit. So under the FairTax, they would pay the full 23% in taxes if they live by their budget...but if they finance $10,000 per year on credit (not unheard of for young people) or supplement pension/SSecurity by drawing down savings of $10,000 per year (not unheard of for retirees), then they would pay a whopping 34.5% of income in taxes.

            Someone who makes $50,000 a year spends most of it but manages to save don't pay taxes on money you save, only money you spend, so they would pay something under 23% in total taxes. Suppose they spend $45,000 and save $5,000 (10%). They have a total tax rate of 20% and a fraction.

            Someone who makes $250,000 a year spends a lot of it, but saves or invests a sizeable percentage. Say they spend 80% and save or invest the other 20%. Total tax rate of 18.4%.

            Someone who makes $1,000,000 per year would likewise spend much but save/invest much. Maybe they spend 60% and save or invest 40%. Tax rate of 13.8%.

            The flat tax as proposed is one of the most regressive taxes imaginable. It puts the largest burden (as a percentage of income) on those least able to pay. And how fair is it to retirees to hit them with a high consumption tax when they already paid income tax on their savings when they originally earned the income?

            And long may the Sons Of Anacreon intwine the Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine

            by harrije on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:35:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, I see this. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              This certainly makes sense. I can see how it would be regressive, at least as a percentage of income. It's why I would want at least some exemptions for essential foodstuffs.

              I'll be listening carefully to both sides on the argument on this issue - I'd really like to weigh the pros and cons a bit more.

              The Republican Creed: Pray and Pass the Ammunition

              by johninPortland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:49:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Suggested reading (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Conservative thinker (honestly...not an oxymoron in this case) Bruce Bartlett spells it all out here. His numbers are way better in mind, being as they are based on actual income quintiles and more reasonable spending patterns. He does address the issue of basic standard of living rebates.

                Why the Fair Tax Won't Work (PDF)

                And long may the Sons Of Anacreon intwine the Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's Vine

                by harrije on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  John (0+ / 0-)

                Forget about the rich. This is about the poor. They are broke already. Living paycheck to paycheck, without health care.  We are going to add 24% to groceries? 24% to utilities? 24% to fuel? 24% to medicine?

                This type of tax is the MOST REGRESSIVE TAX there is.

                We need the rich to pay taxes. On income. Bill Clinton figured out the level that did not suppress industry, but got the money coming in.

                A regressive tax is one that hurts the poor, and a progressive tax is one that forces the rich to pay their fair share. And we are progressives.

                HINT-If the rich are proposing a tax, it is REGRESSIVE. Trust me on this.

              •  and you believe (0+ / 0-)

                that the rich won't figure out how to work the exemptions to their favor, just like they do the sales tax now?  Repeat this:  the rich don't pay taxes.

                •  I made that point earlier. (0+ / 0-)

                  Bill Clinton found a way to tax them. (And they impeached him for it.) We have to tax income progressively, stepped up rates, the more they make, the more they pay. That is why it is called a progressive tax. And the rich HATE it. If they hate it, you know it is a actually taxing them, and we like that.

                  •  To address your question about the rich (0+ / 0-)

                    continuing to avoid sales taxes. It will continue. But for once, the rest of us are in on it too.

                    Ebay. Billions of out of state sales are not being taxed. The reason this hasn't been corrected is because it would affect the rich as well, and eliminate a favorite loophole. Can't have that.

                •  Nonsense (0+ / 0-)

                  If rich really didn't pay taxes then why even bother to tax them?  They do pay tax, stop spreading nonsense.  

                  Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

                  by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:01:24 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  It gets worse (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                The more money the person makes, the less they pay in tax.  It's the most flawed taxation system ever devised.  The trick is it seems 'fair' on the face of it, so it can fool a lot of people into supporting it, even though the vast majority in this country would be worse off.  

                Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

                by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:00:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I'm waiting for the 24% tax on houses (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That's going to be so awesome!  It'll create a whole new product for the subprime mortgage industry.

        And just think of how awesome that'll be, to pay interest on your sales tax for the next 30 years.

        Think about it... $300k home, 24% is $72k which adds $479/month to your mortgage payment on a 30 year fixed at 7%, and over the course of 30 years adds another $100k to the cost of the house in interest.

        This is awesome!  I'm going to get in on the ground floor of this new industry boom!

        •  And the 24% on BMWs and Mercedes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I'm going to start my new import car business in Mexico.  We buy the BMWs brand new from Germany, drive them around the block and sell them as used vehicles to you at only a 4% markup over the sticker price.

          You save 20%!

          Wouldn't you want to save 20% on your new luxury car, and stick it to the man!?

        •  Yeah, this would be problematic. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Sounds like the a student loan type of problem to me. I'm still paying interest on loans made 12 years ago when I was in grad school. That interest is tax deductible however. Taking a tax deduction on a tax is, well, just plain silly.

          Alright - you all have convinced me - sort of. I'm staying open to the argument, but am not fully sold either way. Clearly, I'm not the smartest person out here on tax issues - but I'm open to the arguments.

          Keep in mind, I'm a Democrat and I'm at least partially open to the idea, so if I'm being tempted by this, I'm sure others who are considerably less socially inclined are as well. Consider the exercise of convincing me practice for getting others on board with your argument.

          The Republican Creed: Pray and Pass the Ammunition

          by johninPortland on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:56:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's proponents play loose with the facts (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Asak, PsychoSavannah

            That's my main problem.

            The IRS would be replaced with a Bureau of Sales Tax enforcement.  It would spawn an entire underground economy.  Everybody and their neighbor would suddenly start working as an Independent Contractor on a 1099, just to be able to buy their house and car as a business expense.

            It just replace ones set of problems with another set.  It doesn't actually solve anything.

            The main reason it's being proposed, is because of the old Adam Smith commentary, that a tax on income is less onerous and noticeable than one to be paid at time of purchase.  They want the tax to be annoying, in the hopes that everybody will rebell against taxes.

            It's a modern day version of the Stamp Tax, essentially.

      •  The people you're talking about aren't rich (0+ / 0-)

        A rich person doesn't buy BMWs, those are purchased by middle class, maybe barely upper middle class individuals, who mistakenly think they are rich.  

        No offense, but your opinion shows you are highly uninformed on this issue.  A rich person spends a much smaller percentage of his income than a poor person, even if you remove basic food stuffs.  That is why they benefit under this scheme.  They pay much less in tax overall because they spend much less than their income.  

        Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

        by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:53:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Iowa effect kinda scary (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Asak, Molee, egarratt, Builderman, ivorybill

    One state's effect on the polls is a wee bit frightening. Makes we wonder at how easily some folks are led...but I would hope it's because they saw his speech after the caucus and said, "I agree with that," rather than just hearing that he won and then jumping on a bandwagon.

    I don't like to think of us as sheep. Baaa.

    All you need is love. And a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.

    by Finn MacCool on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:16:46 PM PST

    •  It's waaay too frontloaded (0+ / 0-)

      There should be about 3 weeks between Iowa and NH.  The way it's setup Obama's post-Iowa bounce is going to peak tomorrow.

    •  you have to understand, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, spencerh

      The vast majority of people don't pay attention to it like the people who come to dKos several times a day do.  There is a big bandwagon effect.  You see the news, Obama won.  You see a couple of his ads, decide he's OK, and you vote.  

      Or you're for Hillary you guess, but you hear on the news that she is going down in flames.  So you jump.

      Enterpriser; Hard core Libertarian: +6.63 / -4.41

      by jimsaco on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:41:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Garrr (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That's what I'm afraid of. Sheep. That kind of thinking (or lack of thinking) got us Bush. It might get us Obama and that would be vastly preferable, but it might also get us a McCain or Huckabee or pick your flavor of evil.

        All you need is love. And a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster.

        by Finn MacCool on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Clearly the people who gave Obama $100 million (0+ / 0-)

      are all sheep.  Every one of them.


      •  That is probably 1% of the electorate at best (0+ / 0-)

        So highly irrelevant to this discussion.  

        Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

        by Asak on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:03:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm astounded at the vitriol against HRC (0+ / 0-)

    on this site today.  This post is a refreshing exception - presenting facts without anger and hyperbole - although one can already seem some of the comments trying to stir the pot.   With the numerous diaries going up slashing Hillary - one might ask who needs Red State or Drudge when we have the dailykos?  Lately, I don't recognize this site anymore - it seems like a loud-mouthed part of the community is dedicated to tearing apart one of our candidates, pure and simple, who may in the end persevere.  

    Once upon a time this site was dedicated to electing democrats.

    •  Well (2+ / 0-)

      If her supporters hereabouts hadn't engaged in the most abrasively contemptuous condescension toward everyone else hre, reinforcing the most prevalent expectations of what a Hillary campaign and organization wold be like, it might be a bit different.  But after a year of being treated with scrornful dismissal by the Hillarians, being informed that the rest of us knew absolutely nothing about politics, it's more than a bit refreshing to see the high-handed and arrogant Hillarians get their comeuppance.  Bottom line to the Hillary supporters:  shouldn't have let your mouths write checks your ass couldn't cash.

  •  How much immigration is going to SC? (0+ / 0-)

    I have a theory that only states that only have very small non-white immigrant communities or are dealing with non-white immigrants for the first time in a long time are really on fire about immigration.

    There's something attractive about invincible ignorance... for the first 5 seconds.

    by MNPundit on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:27:25 PM PST

  •  I would love (0+ / 0-)

    to see a racial breakdown on the numbers.

    I suspect that there is a huge upswing in support for Obama from African-Americans who have been scared to support Obama, out of fear of disappointment, assassination, or not believing he could get white people to vote for him.  The latter obviously is the one more likely to be erased now.

  •  New poll: Edwards stronger than Obama in general (0+ / 0-)

    Why do you folks keep ignoring polling data that favors Edwards?

    As Ken Silverstein learned from an anonymous Washington lobbyist last year," big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn't see him as a 'player.'"

    by formernadervoter on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:52:23 PM PST

  •  NV numbers? (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone know when we can expect some new NV numbers?

    Is NV a big deal or not?  Most people are talking about SC and glossing right over NV.

  •  I love him...but he is toast... (0+ / 0-)

    John Edwards.  He can't keep coming in as an also ran and keep up a viable Campaign.  Where will he win?  I don't see where...

  •  Two former students of mine... (0+ / 0-)

    Are likely going to S.C. to work for Huckabee.

    I know, I know, but they weren't the type one could readily swing over to Edwards or Obama!

    I do think some students in the UNCW College Democrats are headed there to work for Edwards, as well as some to help out Obama. I'm not sure exactly how many for either one, though. I'm hoping at least a couple in my class this coming semester will do that.

    Looks as though the wave is continuing.

    "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."--Miguel De Santa Anna

    by GainesT1958 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:04:18 PM PST

  •  Edwards can win. The race has just begun. (0+ / 0-)

    First, Edwards has the fight.  He has the policies that will help the middle class.  He's been steadfast, and on one message of fighting the lobbyists to create an environment suited for change.  Yet, if he was to say one thing, and do another, his case for the vote should fail.

  •  I guess this could be the shot that began the war (0+ / 0-)

    1860 was a presidential election year. Abraham Lincoln, of Springfiield, Illinois, Republican, was elected president on November 6th, 1860 in a 4 way race.  On February 8th, 1861, seven  Southern states set up the Confederate States of America and seceded from the Union. The fratricdal, matricidal, patricidal conflict named by America as The Civil War, proved to be most un-civil. Civil war began as Confederates fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina on April 12th, 1861. More than one million American dead and wounded resulted from this conflict which  is still being fought to this day.

    It will be interesting indeed to see how this battle for the soul of America ends, as we watch it being born.  Maybe finally the nation can heal itself and move forward unified.

    We can certainly hope.

  •  South Carolina goes DEMOCRAT --- WHEN???? (0+ / 0-)

    South Carolina goes DEMOCRAT --- WHEN????

    NH goes democrat??? When??? For the left of the party??? Never happend.

    Obama beat who???? I’m a center democrat – alienate my part of the party and we will walk – loose the center and you loose the battle.

    Do you really think that Obama will take Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, Alabama, Kansas, Florida, or California?

    Do you see any black governors or senators? What about in South Carolina? Yes America has come a long way – but we are not there yet.


  •  I think the GOPsters (0+ / 0-)

    are starting to get that feeling you get when the girl you've kept around for years in order for a quick score suddenly believes all the romantic nonsense you've fed her and begins to demand marriage.  Yikes!

  •  wOOt! (0+ / 0-)

    That's my state, yup.

    Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes.

    by Drewid on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:23:29 PM PST

  •  I think we'd best hope Obamas Fame Doesn't Burst (0+ / 0-)

    I'm praying that Obama doesn't let this sudden fame go to his head, the Michelle will keep him grounded.

    I also think we're wrong about Hillary in New Hampshire.  She will get 2nd place by 5-6 pts.

    I also think Huckabee will get a nice third place and Romney will win in New Hampshire.

    Coonsey's View

    All my predictions, percentages on my site.

    Coonsey's View

    by cscmm on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 06:26:08 PM PST

    •  If you are right, the beer is on me! (0+ / 0-)

      I never got the pleasure of getting tlo watch the adolecent Bush give a concession speech.  Getting to see that tub of manure, self-promoting, narsisitic, brggart McCain give one would make me feel good.  Karma!

  •  What does the public see in this ass (McCain)?? (0+ / 0-)

    If we could get the media to actually report on the real McCain, not the caricature they have created, he would be despised across the board.  He is not a good person, and I know people, as a former Az. resident, who know him. He is maniacal and mean-spirited.   His whole campaign, from "Mac is back" to "Straight talk express" is built on narcissism.  He is a sick bully raging beneath that very thin veil of diplomacy.  It infuriates me when he is depcited as such a principled man.  Tell that to his ex-wife --MANy MANY mistresses.  I despise this SOB more than Bush, whom McCain makes look like Mother Theresa.  Seriously.  He now has taken over $60,000 from the same Swift Boaters whom he condemned.  He graveled to Falwell.  He ate the cake while thousands died in New Orleans.  He is such an attention craving narsisist.  Why does not the public not see this? It is so reasily transparrent.    

  •  My nightmare (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Obama wins Dem nomination.  Huckabee wins Rep nomination.  Huckabee supporters go for the throat with a combination "Hussein/Muslim" smear and "Fancy Ford"-style attack.  Obama responds inadequately.  Smear and attack are ultimately successful in peeling away support from Obama in early fall.

    President Huckabee is sworn in.

    I spend the next 4 years trying to wake up, imagining what a good president would have been like.

  •  Amazing (0+ / 0-)

    two candidates win in one small state, and the public changes their entire direction.  People REALLY don't think for themselves, in either party.

  •  Obama is way too Republican for this female. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Sometimes you need to look past gender, and look to people's actual politics.

    Obama is way too "oo bring us together" Nixonesque.

    I want a real Democrat.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site