Is the backlash beginning?

Barack Obama gave a speech after the Potomac Primaries in Wisconsin.  It is on the front page right now.  One of the significant changes of tone in that speech is he started to train his guns on McCain; Obama presuming that he was the now the front runner.  At the time, I wondered if that was a good idea with such big states as Texas and Ohio coming up.  Hillary's ploy has been to say that all the 'little states' don't count and only states like Texas and Ohio do.  This has the counter-weight of pumping up those two states - making them feel important.  I'm wondering if that has led to a back-lash.  Join me over the fold to find the bad news as to why I think so...

A Rasmussen poll just came out for Texas.  It shows Obama down to Hillary by  16!  Hilary 54% to Obama's 38%.  That is huge and just the kind of numbers Hillary will need to stage a comeback.  So stop thinking that Obama has this in the bag and get back to work.

Update:  I know there are no trend lines on the Rasmussen poll - so it is hard to say whether my hypothesis has any weight given this poll.  But I also want to dispel the whole 'Rasmussen is a Republican outfit' discredit.  They are very accurate in state polls and head-to-head.

Update 2: Rasmussen's daily tracking poll also has Obama up by 8 - 48-40.  This is down from yesterday's lead of 12.  So there is some big outlyer there in the last 3-4 days.  Obama barely beats McCain by 3 points, 46-43, while McCain clobbers Clinton by 8 - 49-41.

•  Sorry to put a damper on things...

  But this is FAR from over.

  by RichM on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:49:29 AM PDT

  •  just means that we need to work harder

    for which ever candidate we support. it is not over until probably mid-November anyway. :-)

    by LokiMom on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:51:54 AM PDT

  •  Backlash? No

    Obama has been behind in just about every state two weeks out from a contest.  For it to be a "backlash," he would had to have lost ground.  There's no evidence he has.

    by DHinMI on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:54:54 AM PDT

    •  BTW, Houston Chronicle Has it 49-41

      link.

      by DHinMI on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:57:08 AM PDT

  •  Hillary Believe in Hope!

    That is huge and just the kind of numbers Hillary will need to stage a comeback

    Hopefully, you won't be too hurt by reality.

    by Mr X on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:58:12 AM PDT

  •  You're right Hillary may do well

    in the remaining primaries and block Obama from getting to 2025.

    by Roger Fox on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:38:59 AM PDT

•  I haven't listened to his latest, but I hope he

  multi-tasks in these speeches.  Hits McCain, hits Clinton, policy, etc. AND keeps the hope=participation part.

  by ksh01 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:52:35 AM PDT

•  I think Obama's weaknesses are more obvious

  No matter who gets the nod, the republicans will use attack ads, this is what they have done for 40 years. And I think many folks have been a little naive about how Obama can be hurt by the likes of the republican party but they always find something. I do think his huge popularity is very important and helps. It is a big advantage for him in the race.

  But please Obama folks...remember this and be ready to counter. The republicans win by attacking. They do not win on the merits of their candidate. NEVER have.

  Carter,
  Dukakis
  Kerry,
  Gore,
  Clinton

  This is why I have strongly objected to the major attacks on the Clintons. Many of the perceptions about the Clintons have been exaggerated by the republican attack machine. I want ANY dem to win and will support Obama...but I do hope he will be ready for the onslaught. WE have to win and get the criminal element out of the whitehouse.

  by wavpeac on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:53:36 AM PDT

  •  The Clinton's have vetted as hard as anybody.

    I just can't swallow the notion that Obama has not been vetted.  Hillary's campaign dug up his KINDERGARTEN PAPERS.

    If there was a "there" there, you can bet damn sure they would have hung it out to dry by now.

    by Pragmatic Left on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:58:13 AM PDT

  •  McCain is just going to emphasize

    "War hero."  He can't win on policy.

    by Dartagnan on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:58:42 AM PDT

    •  Bush had NOTHING to offer.

      He won on attacks with a smile.

      Reagan had nothing but his governorship of CA. Nothing. He was too old and we paid for it, because he got altzheimers somewhere near the end.

      Bush senior...his cia affiliations should have clued us in to the evil beneath...nothing to offer of any substance.

      by wavpeac on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:07:25 AM PDT

  •  Obama knows how the game is played

    and he's changing the rules.  The Rethug attack worked because people weren't paying attention, and supposed that 'if there's smoke there must be fire'.  The Dems catered to that strategy by focusing on just a few states to get them over the top, which meant that PA, OH, MO and FL were always key.  These states have a lot of low-information socially conservative voters, who were tailor-made to Rove's strategy.  Rove's strategy also depended on depressing total turnout, which always worked to the advantage of the Thugs.

    The playing field has changed, though Mrs. Clinton doesn't seem to realize it and is playing the game plan that has lost the Dems the last two elections and would have beat them in 1992 had Perot not divided the thug vote.  Obama's rhetoric is the key here, because we are talking perception and voter turnout.  He plays the perception game better than anyone since Reagan, and the turnouts speak for themselves.  He can give it out as well as take the hits, as he's shown recently on the campaign trail.

    By making other players play his game, he is winning.  He will cream the thugs in November if they try to play the Rove strategy one more time.  That game is over.  We are in a new one.

    by Knut Wicksell on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:14:20 AM PDT

    •  My husband and his dad.

      I just heard them both pledge to leave the country rather than vote for Obama. On the phone with each other as I type. I am shocked. I didn't know my husband felt like that, maybe he didn't until he heard his dad. They are both blue collar and union guys.

      They believe Obama is a muslim and use racial terms. They love Hillary. I worry about how many of them are out there. I have argued with my husband about this till I am blue in the face. (Obama's muslim crap) I don't like any generalizations, not about the Clintons OR Obama. But I fear that this element of society will quietly vote McCain.

      I know his dad will NOT vote Obama. This idea that Hillary's votes will all come his way, might be a little naive.

      by wavpeac on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:23:03 AM PDT

      •  Yup...

        I've read that is several places here.  There is a rumor in the Texas Latino community that Obama is a Muslim.  He really needs to do Spanish outreach to dispel it or he may be in big trouble.

        by RichM on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:27:15 AM PDT

        •  I totally agree. It makes me sick.

          I am a Hillary fan, but I am a democrat that wants a dem and I do not want Obama hurt in any way by this kind of crap. I HATE the republican attack machine that has robbed the American people of heroic dems who deserved much better than the thrashing they got.

          Carter,
          dukakis
          Gore,
          Kerry,
          Clinton

          by wavpeac on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:37:37 AM PDT

      •  Maybe you should

        make it clearer to your husband and father in law that the fact is that Obama is not a muslim, never was a muslim and has attended his christian church for over 20 years.

        If they refuse to accept the facts, not sure what you can do. If they refuse to accept facts, on what basis do they vote?  Obviously, they could have many factual reasons to vote for HRC but to not vote for Obama due to a lie would not be very well-reasoned. I guess McCain will get these votes.

        by Hawkjt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:40:06 AM PDT

        •  I am hoping they won't vote at all.

          by wavpeac on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:44:35 AM PDT

•  Umm... McCain IS the front-runner.

  One of the significant changes of tone in that speech is he started to train his guns on McCain, presuming he was the front runner.

  You might want to rephrase that sentence. :-)

  /yes, I'm the grammar stazi

  by pontechango on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:54:14 AM PDT

  •  I will...

    Thanks...

    by RichM on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:59:27 AM PDT

•  He needs to gag

  Jesse Jackson Jr.The rumors about his intimidation of AA Hillary supporters are ugly.But I guess you dont need to worry.The press will ignore it.

  by kayfromsouth on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:55:30 AM PDT

  •  Hillary'

    by nevadadem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:22:18 AM PDT

  •  Hillary just needs Obama

    to keep ghetting non "quality" wins!

    by nevadadem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:22:56 AM PDT

  •  Thanks to Josh

    on TPM.He is running the story.

    by kayfromsouth on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:36:23 AM PDT

•  Rasmussen is a Fox Noise Channel friend

  I have NEVER believe his numbers.  NEVER.  I will look at numbers from the State poll then by local news channels and local newspapers.

  by Lady Bird Johnson on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:55:43 AM PDT

  •  Rasmussen...

    Is accurate.  Ask Kos.

    by RichM on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:03:39 AM PDT

    •  Only

      if you take their internals as an article of faith since they hide them behind a premium subscription.

      by Daaaaave on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:13:32 AM PDT

      •  Rass state polls were very decent in '06

        IIRC Rass was off one seat in predicting the US Senate, and quite close in the house.

        That said, HRC needs to win 55% , 56% of all remaining delegates.

        by Roger Fox on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:37:35 AM PDT

  •  I'd rather be down

    by a few points and gaining than have a double digit lead.  And I think once Obama makes a few appearances in Dallas, Houston, and Austin (he could probably fill the U of T stadium there), I think you'll see a leap in the polls.

    In the meantime, there's Wisconsin, which is still a too close for my tastes.  And the guy deserves a day in Hawaii after the kind of winter we've had in the midwest.

    by Pangloss on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:25:33 AM PDT

•  I don't see a "backlash."

  If Hillary were an inspirational candidate, then I could see a backlash among undecideds. But she's not. Her support throught the campaign (and in polls) is based to a significant extent on name recognition.  Her differences with Obama on policy are not substantial. So there's really no rationale for a "backlash" to occur, unless it's based on some sort of antipathy towards Obama that grew out of his recent momentum. But there's no basis --nothing he has done--which would create that type of antipathy.

  by Dartagnan on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:57:12 AM PDT

•  popular vote in texas is worthless

  it's 31 seperate races and on that front, obama is winning

  by kubla000 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:00:37 AM PDT

•  Actually

  according to Countdown last night these numbers are a great improvement for Obama over earlier margins.

  by Whitefish on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:08:43 AM PDT

  •  shhh!

    Let them get comfortable.  Please, keep watching the poll numbers.  Pay no attention to the ground game.  It's been a winning strategy so far!

    by zenbowl on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:09:55 AM PDT

•  Not fussed

  Obama has 40% support before he's even had a chance to really campaign there.

  No problem.

  by Daaaaave on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:12:54 AM PDT

•  one step at a time Wisconson and Hawii

  are next. Then we have two weeks to try and end this thing.

  by nevadadem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:18:30 AM PDT

•  Here's the backlash we all had better...

  ...worry about, assuming Obama's our nominee.  From Bloomberg...

  http://www.bloomberg.com/...

  by Larry Bailey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:20:09 AM PDT

  •  and they have nothing to work with against

    Hillary?

    by nevadadem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:21:49 AM PDT

    •  This is what they call "fresh", "unvetted"...

      ...stuff that the GOP attack machine does wonders with.  Say, how did you read that article so fast?

      by Larry Bailey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:23:23 AM PDT

  •  LOL!

    Hillary Clinton questions whether Barack Obama would be able to withstand what she calls the "Republican attack machine."

    by Mr X on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:22:43 AM PDT

    •  You don't believe there's a GOP attack machine?

      by Larry Bailey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:24:04 AM PDT

      •  Of course there is a GOP...

        attack machine, I've seen it tear Hillary Clinton to shreds.  That's one of the reasons I think she is the more vulnerable candidate.

        by Tonedevil on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:42:58 AM PDT

        •  She's experienced it. Obama has not...

          ...in fact, not even sites like this, which should have his best interests at heart, vet his record or experience.  GOP will NOT be so kind, and won't be cowed by Democrats rushing in and shouting shame.

          by Larry Bailey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:46:17 AM PDT

    •  This is an old argument...

      Which has yielded little fruit in the past.

      by RichM on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:29:22 AM PDT

  •  Oh, ok. he has ties to someone with ties

    to someone who is icky. Duly noted.

    They are going to shred our nominee anyway. and no, I don't believe Hillary Clinton has 'experienced' being shredded in an election, because she has never had a tough election, either. That's something people tend to forget. All those years she was under the Republican hate machine she was an unelected first lady.

    by terra on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:19:49 AM PDT

    •  Try the 2000 NY Senate Campaign. (eom)

      by Larry Bailey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM PDT

      •  nope, it was widely considered a cakewalk. nt

        by terra on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:36:54 AM PDT

        •  yep, let's denigrate even her victories.

          by Larry Bailey on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:19:27 AM PDT

•  Hard to tell... we need to just rally and work

  and donate at this point.  Too much obsession on polls can be a distraction...

  by Torta on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:34:43 AM PDT

•  Hillary will need a lot more than that

  That is huge and just the kind of numbers Hillary will need to stage a comeback.

  She will need a minimum of 56% of all delegates. more likely 60%.

  by Roger Fox on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:35:10 AM PDT