Skip to main content

Rasmussen just posted its newest poll and Barack has opened up a wider lead. He has also opened up a larger lead in North Carolina 56% to 33%.

Rasmussen Poll

The North Carolina poll has trouble points where 56% of the Clinton Voters said they won't vote for Obama in the General election. What's up with that one?

North Carolina Poll

Originally posted to calalaila2008 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:03 AM PDT.

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

  •  What's 56% of 33%? (11+ / 0-)

    Color me not concerned.

    Another week ends in the Rezko trial. Still no mention of Obama.

    by Inland on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:08:06 AM PDT

    •  *sigh* (0+ / 0-)

      On a Saturday morning?  Oh, come on, enjoy this lovely weekend, and start that kind of thing again on a crappy Monday.

      •  it was put sarcastically (5+ / 0-)

        but I think the point may have been the math, if you have 25% of Hillary Clinton supporters saying that they won't vote for Obama when she's polling 50%, that's about 12.5% of democrats polled saying they won't vote for Barack Obama.  If her support has fallen to 33% and 56% say they won't vote for Obama,  17+% are now saying they won't vote for Obama, and given margin of error, etc. that may not even be a statistically significant difference.  

        As her support dips to her core supporters only, you would probably expect to see hardening of attitudes.  They are entrenched, angry and ready for war.  Many of them, not all, will take a longer view after she drops out.  But it is an argument for the party being better off if this doesn't go to the convention.  It would be best if Hillary was out after NC/Indiana.  A couple months to cool down and go to the convention prepared to do the 'support the democrat' thing.

        •  It's also a bargaining chip... (7+ / 0-)

          the Clinton's entire method of operation is based on revenge, vengence or avenging, thus the threat: "vote for MY candidate or I kill the dog!"

          It's meant to scare us into thinking Obama is unelectable ("I'll PROVE he's unelectable -- I won't vote for him!!!")

          Petulance, thy name is Hillary supporter.

          If it didn't piss you off, we wouldn't need the first amendment now, would we?

          by PBJ Diddy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:09:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  About time someone qualified (0+ / 0-)

          these statements based on polling a subset of the overall number. We have been hearing this stuff for weeks now about Clinton supporters daring us to nominate Obama at the risk of losing their vote. I guess its just too difficult for the MSM to put things in context nowadays.

          "The time is always right to do what is right." -- MLK

          by eclecticbrotha on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:26:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Come again? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not saying I'm voting against the nominee.  

        Another week ends in the Rezko trial. Still no mention of Obama.

        by Inland on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:04:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Who has the cult following? (11+ / 0-)

      Am I the only one confused?

      First Dead show: Felt Forum 12/7/71

      by jhecht on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:12:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As Democrats we should be concerned... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Because that 56% or 33% or about 1/2 of that 33% called themselves Democrats.   Barack and Hillary are running almost identical platforms.  McCain is 180 degree on issues we Democrats care about and when I see Democrats saying that they would not vote for Barack, my only conclusion is because he is black.  Now if they were to say they won't vote for Barack because he is not trustworthy then that would be different, but they are not saying that.

      •  It's too early (12+ / 0-)

        to worry about either Clinton or Obama supporters.  Wait till we have a nominee and see how it breaks then.

      •  Many of these voters (8+ / 0-)

        are voting "for" Clinton because they do not like the color of Obama's skin.

        They were true Jessecrats back in the day, they enthusiastically backed Jesse Helms.  They probably will vote for Clinton once, in May.  They probably will not vote for Clinton against McCain.

        "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

        by IhateBush on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:21:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Kitty, tmo, 45387

          Clinton has plenty of partisans who aren't voting for racists reasons. She even has some black partisans, who are as stubborn as her.  

          You'll be able to tell the racists from the partisans, when and if Clinton comes back into the fold and throws her support behind Obama.

          Most of her partisans would go along, just like most of us would go along with Clinton in the end, especially if Obama said 'It must be done.'

          Of course, the hard-core racists and Dittoheads won't. But only after that point will we have a true idea of what numbers they represent.

          I don't believe the 40% of democrats supporting her are just racists though. That's way too extreme. Relentless, unforgiving, misguided, rabid wolvarines, maybe. Racists, nah.

          •  I didn't say all (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I said many of her NC supporters are Jessecrats.

            "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

            by IhateBush on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:58:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I think if the decision is percieved (0+ / 0-)

            to be fair, then most supporters will accept the decision. If however, it is deemed to be unfair then we have a problem. I think Obama's point though subtely made is clear. If he has earned the nomination, played by the rules, and comes out ahead, then the supers should support him as the nominee. We will not with bowed heads go back into the community and explain that no matter what we do, work hard, play by the rules, run a better, cleaner, smarter race that in the end, someone can decide it is not your turn and take it away from you. That would be a message we will reject and our rejection will be demonstrated in large numbers. So to me it is not a matter of spoiled obstinance, it is a matter of dignity and self respect. She can not be allowed to win unless she beats him. And to me spinning, bullying, and bribing are not legitimate ways to beat him.

      •  I disagree, because... (0+ / 0-)

        ....when you break it down it pretty much lines up with the Rush Limbaugh factor of 10-12% of Hillary supporters in other states heeding the advice of Limbaugh to help Clinton. Regardless, it fascinates me how somehow even Obama supporters want to suggest that should Obama not be highly favored by 100% of Democratic voters he must be unelectable.

        "The time is always right to do what is right." -- MLK

        by eclecticbrotha on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:30:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hardcore supporters say they won't support the (7+ / 0-)

      other candidate, because they think it makes the other candidate look bad and therefore increases the chances that their candidate wins, but they don't really mean it.

      Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

      by Joe B on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:29:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You don't want to push them on it because then they just become more entrenched in that position.  But right now, people still think she could get the nomination.  They feel that it helps her chances to say Hilllary's way or the highway.  

        If it was Hillary in command of the nomination, I suspect the numbers would be reversed.  Her supporters generally liked Obama until he started beating her all over the place.  And the hostility towards Hillary is generally proportional to how much of a threat she is perceived to Obama's nomination.  

      •  That's the point. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's a bluff, or a snit, and I don't think there's anything that can be done about it until the respondent's think the race is over.

        Another week ends in the Rezko trial. Still no mention of Obama.

        by Inland on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:02:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Racism.......?????? (0+ / 0-)

      56% of the Clinton Voters said they won't vote for Obama in the General election. What's up with that one?

  •  People's Judean Liberation Front Announcement: (12+ / 0-)

    Polarization of the electorate is sweet. Come on, say it with me people:

    "We're the People's Judean Liberation Front! And the only people we hate more than the Romans is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea!"

  •  Take that Jesse Helms! And, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hope Monger, calalaila2008

    that, and that and that!

  •  Well... (6+ / 0-)

    I support HIllary, but I'm a Democrat.  If our party nominates Obama, I'll hold my nose and vote for him--though I think its a sinking ship.

    With that said, I think there is a lot Obama can do to lower than 56% to something like 5-10%.  There is a portion of the Democratic party that will never vote for a candidate this inexperienced and a portion that will never vote for an African-American guy--the rest of the party is ripe for the picking if he makes the right moves.  I posted a diary on this back when I was ready to flip my support from Hillary.  It was fairly well received--take a look.

    •  Experience counts (5+ / 0-)

      ...err, not so fast.

      Read this:

      Scroll down to this:


      s an Experienced President a Good President?
      How good Are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President? If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln. Your pick disagrees with that of most historians, who see Lincoln as the greatest President ever and Buchanan as the second worst ever, better only than Warren "Teapot Dome" Harding. Both served in what was probably the most difficult period in American history, where slavery and secession tore the nation asunder.

      Before becoming President, Buchanan had served 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Talk about experience, Buchanan did just about everything except serve on the Supreme Court, a job he was offered by President Polk and refused. Yet by any measure, he wasn't up to the job as President. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois legislature and one term in the U.S. House (1847-1849), a decade before becoming President. The rest of the time he was a lawyer in private practice, a bit thin one might say.

      Of course, these are only two data points. What about all the other Presidents? Weren't the experienced ones the better Presidents? Fortunately, there have been a number of surveys of presidential greatness, some by professional historians and some by the general public. Many of these are given in the Wikipedia page on Historical rankings of U.S. Presidents. The amount of experience each President had before taking office is well known since the lives of all Presidents have been extremely well documented. Thus the basic data--years of experience and ranking--are available making a statistical analysis of experience vs. greatness possible.

    •  Experience Counts, Only When It Doesn't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cowboy Borat

      Which is why, if you look at our present military situation in Iraq - or the history of that most bullsh*it exposing endeavor known to man, warfare, in general - you see how quickly and often the brass and officers with the most 'experience' at working the system get replaced by perhaps lesser known people who actually get the job done.

      The question for Hillary (and Obama) is:

      Which one is the political general, and which one is the battlefield promotion?

      Obviously in my opinion, Hillary may have been the officer who rubbed all the right elbows. But when the firing started, Barack was the office who got his force into place.

    •  This is a much larger of the party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      a portion that will never vote for an African-American guy

      than I ever expected.  I really believed that all the racists had already migrated to the Rethug Party.  But I'm shocked to find out this year how much that is not true.

      "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

      by IhateBush on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:04:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

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

        To be fair, a portion of the party will never vote for a woman either.  My guess is that's like 2-3% though... A portion of the party won't vote for a Jew, Catholic, etc. too.  That's just human nature whether people admit it or not.  I'll vote for a Black guy--as long as he's not Clarence Thomas and a woman--as long as she's not Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

        •  Well 20% of Ohio Dem voters (0+ / 0-)

          said that race played a role in their vote.  Even if you take away those in this category who voted for Obama (either blacks or whites who thought it would be good to elect a black), and the Limbaugh "Democrats", it is still more than 10%.  That is outright scary.

          And yes I know that a portion of the party would not vote for a woman, either.  I suspect there is substantial overlap between the racists and sexists in the party on this matter.

          "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

          by IhateBush on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:19:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  That trouble point is consistent (8+ / 0-)

    56% of 33% is roughly 18% of the total Democratic electorate who have said that they wouldn't vote for Obama in the general. That's consistent with various national polls that have seen that number in the 10-20 percent range.

    I suspect it will go way down once we actually have a nominee.


    Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.

    by dmsilev on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:09:38 AM PDT

  •  jeepdad's diary about this is a few down the list (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Empower Ink, MAORCA

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:09:46 AM PDT

  •  About that 56 per cent figure. (5+ / 0-)

    The North Carolina poll has trouble points where 56% of the Clinton Voters said they won't vote for Obama in the General election. What's up with that one?

    I think these are Dixiecrats and Rush Limbaugh inspired gate crashers. Mathematically they amount to 0.56 * 0.33 = 0.1848, or about 18-19 per cent of the electoral.

    I would give McCain a slight edge in NC at the moment, not nearly as big as what he's likely to get in GA-AL-MS-LA, though. Obama's got an outside shot at NC in the General. I would estimate his chances as about 1 in 3. We'll know more later.

    I was a Republican until they lost their minds, The word 'conservative' means 'discriminatory,' ... It's a form of political discrimination. --- Charles Barkley

    by Kimball Cross on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:10:38 AM PDT

    •  Virginia will be the big show (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  The #1 problem for the Democratic Party... (4+ / 0-) its weakness in the South, in state-wide races. This doesn't get nearly as much coverage as it should; and when I say coverage, I mean, a discussion of this issue and how to constructively address it.

      I cannot see Obama winning NC in the general election under any circumstances. So talk of some NC voters not supporting him in the GE is ultimately not a productive use of time... IMO.

      Regarding the general idea of Democratic voters not supporting Barack: This is a test of Clinton's leadership. While Obama has said numerous times that HRC would make a good presidential candidate, HRC has been very critical of BHO, even to the point of mocking him openly ("I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.")

      That kind of scorch-the-earth-Obama-stands-on approach has hardened many of her supporters against Barack. After all of that, can she now credibly make the case to her supporters that Obama should be POTUS? Myself... I worry A LOT about that... A LOT.

    •  the dems won`t win north carolina (0+ / 0-)

      So as long as this doesn`t happen in blue states i wouldn`t worry.

  •  This is huge. (And astonishing.) (9+ / 0-)

    Biggest lead he's ever had over her in Rasmussen's national poll.

    It's happening, folks.

    Yes We Can! Because this time MUST be different.

    by NWTerriD on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:14:14 AM PDT

  •  Wow, those are huge margins (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kitty, ahania, Hope Monger, calalaila2008

    I figured that the death spiral had been averted.  Maybe not.

  •  This is amazing, really AWESOME for Barack! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kitty, itskevin, applegal, calalaila2008
  •  56% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cas2, MAORCA

    Apparently, people who prefer war with Iran and having Justices Stevens and/or Ginsburg replaced with Scalia clones to actually having a Democrat in the White House.

    Their priorities and my priorities certainly do differ.

    •  Much of this group (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cowboy Borat, NWTerriD, MAORCA

      have one main priority, in blunt terms, they don't want their granddaughter to make love with a black guy.

      "The era of Scooter Libby justice, Brownie incompetence and Karl Rove politics will finally be over this year" Reject Marc Rich justice and Mark Penn politics.

      by IhateBush on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:25:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  same happened in Ohio (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lesser Dane, MAORCA

        I was STUNNED when I read that 20% of Dem primary voters ADMITTED to voting based on race. But even Rendell has made the straight-forward claim that we have racists in our party who won't vote for Obama, period.

        Of course, if WE say it, we're disrespectful of the working class, or southerners, or playing the race card.  Or something.

        "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." --Dan Quayle

        by jakester on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:31:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Anti Obama voters... (6+ / 0-)

      Early on in the campaign, I felt constantly under siege by Clinton supporters for being a woman unwilling to support the first woman candidate.  Therefore, I am reluctant now to label others who won't vote for Obama as racist, or incapable of reasoned decisions. This is a democracy; people are free to choose. However, there are people who will never, ever vote for a mixed race man with exotic history and I suspect a larger than average proportion of them live in NC. Then, of course, there are the dumbshits who still think Bush is doing a helluva job, Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent, and Sadam Hussein was behind 9/11. Obama won't win these people over.  I say: Go for the other 80% and write off the dumb shits.

  •  Not worried (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joe B, KyleDS, kingfishstew

    In the middle of primary season, passions are high, and these types of numbers are ALWAYS high.  Yglesias had a link last week to polling done in spring of 2000. Where 50% of McCain voters said they would go for Gore or sit out, and over 30% of Bradley voters said they wouldn't support Gore.

    Obama needs to keep his pledged delegate margin above the gains HRC would have gotten from FLA and MI.  Yes, those were completely flawed elections and real elections would yield a much smaller margin for Clinton, but I think it would help party unity for Clinton supporters to see that even under the most generous circumstances (seating FLA and MI as is), she would still be behind.

  •  I am beginning to wonder if Rush (0+ / 0-)

    dittoheads are trying to manipulate the polls as well.

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    There's a lot of bad feelings right now, so people are bitter about the other candidate.  It'll go away - there is no good reason to vote for Clinton over McCain but not Obama.

    Right on, Dr. Dean.

    by Mikey on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:26:31 AM PDT

  •  He's up on her by 5 in Gallup. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    Yes We Can! Because this time MUST be different.

    by NWTerriD on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:27:00 AM PDT

  •  it's the weekend...he tends to have big (0+ / 0-)

    weekend numbers that come down Sun,MON,Tues and then expand again

  •  not really... (0+ / 0-)

    ...unless you are just basing this on last week alone.  Prior to last week it was just the opposite.  No?

    •  i don't think so...I think he does well in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Mon/Tues/Wed/Thur polling but then she picks up steam in Fri/Sat/Sun polling because demographics have less younger voters home on those is a four day rolling average so it takes time for those results to show in the poll...but I could be wrong

      •  Interesting theory (0+ / 0-)

        about the younger voters being away from home on weekend nights.  Doesn't Rasmussen try to get a consistent demographic cross-section?  Which is to say, do we have evidence that the weekend numbers are drawn from samples having different age characteristics than the weekday numbers?

        “Hillary: Get Elected or Lie Tryin’.” -- Bill Maher

        by winsock on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:58:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  my above comment... (0+ / 0-)

    was meant as a response to Cronk.  

  •  obama in a landslide (5+ / 0-)

    when the general election starts, obama will tie
    the iraq war and the economy to mccain and he will
    sink like the titanic.

  •  Regarding that 56% of the 33% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The longer this primary goes on, and the longer the Clinton machine wages negative attacks against her fellow Democrat, the more anger there will be lingering from the primary as we head into the general election.

    I remember that feeling in 1980. The Kennedy supporters (including me) were angry over Carter's unwillingness to take bolder progressive stands on healthcare, women's rights, and other issues. The Democrats were anything but united coming out of the convention. The feeling after the convention was one of disappointment of losing an opportunity.  As a result, I watched with amazing disappointment as far too many Democrats either stayed home, voted for John Anderson, or even pulled the lever for Reagan.

    I can understand the reluctance of the "party elders" to step in and effectively end the contest. However, what they should be doing is stepping in and demanding that the time has come for the primary campaign to cease its focus on negative attacks against fellow Dems, and focus more on the need for Democratic unity and the terrible status quo that will result from electing Senator McSame.

  •  That 56% was in the summary, right? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Because if you actually look at the crosstabs, more people say they would vote for Obama against McCain than say they would vote for Clinton against McCain.

    Vote for Obama:  VL (66%) SL (8%), so 74% are either very or somewhat likely to support him against McCain.

    Vote for Clinton: VL (59%) SL (11%), so 70% are either very or somewhat likely to support her against McCain.  

    Take home message is that this problem is similar for both of them. Rasmussen is being sneaky, or wanting to stick to their narrative, or just thinks Obama will be the nominee so didn't worry about the other direction.

    In the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.

    by brklyngrl on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:49:17 AM PDT

  •  its not obama's fault (0+ / 0-)

    I hold Hillary responsibl

    But give obama 6 months and a convention speech, besides its a growing part of a shrinking group, 56% of 33% ain't that much in real votes anyhow!

  •  Obama leading in PA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Davidsfr, Hope Monger

    Did anyone see the poll showing Obama with a lead in PA?  I suppose this was an exception but it looks like polls are trending Obama's way.

    •  That Was a PPP poll (0+ / 0-)

      Kos scorned it on the front page, and the polls director posted a response on the polling organization's blog. It set off quite a stir.

      But in fact the poll ended up being at least on the outer edge of the MOE with some other polls that were conducted at about the same time. I am very interested in seeing the next batch of polls from PA.

  •  That's a significant jump in a Rass poll (0+ / 0-)

    I hope it's not an outlier...  All by itself it doubles the average that Obama has been ahead recently.  Moreover, it's the first time Obama's numbers have moved in either direction by more than two since January (Excluding the four point drop during the Wright kerfloffle)  Since this is a four day rolling average that tells me that there are more days coming that were influenced by some big numbers yesterday...  If it's not an outlier that could show some significant movement finally.

  •  Dittoheads and other troublemakers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hope Monger

    Perhaps a NC insider can find out just where the crossover registration has occured: progressive counties or Foxx/McHenry/Shuler (Asheville aside) ones? I think that would be a good indicator of possible effect.

  •  The means nothing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    at this point if Clinton or Obama supporters say they will not vote for the other candidate. Once Clinton is mathematically beaten she WILL withdraw. She is only saying that this is going to the convention because she pretty much has to. She has to make her supporters feel that she can still win. Once the math shows her having a 0.0% chance of winning she will give a strong speech encouraging her supporters to unite and support Obama and MOST will. There will always be a small percentage that defect, but I expect a small amount of repub's to defect as well. I have NO doubt that this election is going to be at least a 10% win for Obama in November. The head to head polls will change dramatically once the dems finally get down to one candidate.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site