Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: ABC/Post Texas and Ohio


ABC News/Washington Post
(ABC story, results; Post story, results)

Texas
Clinton 48, Obama 47

Ohio
Clinton 50, Obama 43

 

Comments
jr1886:

Hillary last stand looks ominous.

She's in deep trouble and she's almost certain to lose Texas now. This is great poll for Obama and Rasmussen shows a close race too.http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/texas_democratic_presidential_primary


This is do or die time for her and even Bill can't spin that anymore.

____________________

When does Don Meredith start singing, "Turn out the lights, the party's ooover ..."?

____________________

tony:

is it true that clinton wins among democrats to date in the primaries? odd. i thought he would have eclipsed that by now.

____________________

rowjimmy:

"is it true that clinton wins among democrats to date in the primaries? odd. i thought he would have eclipsed that by now"

Yes, she even fared well among Wisconsin Democrats, losing by 1-3 points in that group. It is independents and republicans that have sank her in the primaries.

It is a somewhat underreported story that if only Democrats voted (i.e. closed primaries), Hillary would have this thing just about wrapped up. But, independents and republicans have a say (as I think they should), and have put Obama over the top.

I've heard arguments back and forth about why primaries should be open or closed. Even though my candidate of choice (I am fine with either though, I guess) is sunk by the open primary, I still favor it philosophically, for many reasons. However, I wonder how many Obama supporters would be in favor of a closed primary if they saw those numbers?

____________________

Keith Pickering:

Just keep parsing it narrower and narrower until you find something, anything, that Clinton can win. Can't win overall? How about we ignore caucuses and look just at primaries? Can't win primaries either? Okay, look just at Democrats who vote in primaries. What, she's losing those too? How about Democratic lesbians over 65 who vote in primaries? There's a mandate for you.

____________________

tony:

Keith -- The great thing about this site is that people really focus on data. If you look at the voting data in this poll, it says that Clinton has won Dem voters and that Obama is only ahead (at least in terms of popular vote) due to non-Dems (independents and republicans). So your comment that she is losing among Dems is just false. I really do not care who wins at this point, but I do care about factual analysis.

____________________

Pragmatist:

Mr. Pickering trivializes an important point with his Rovian comment. Hillary gets the vote of the Democratic base. That won't win a general election but no Democrat can win without it. So the Obama team needs to understand that the time for grace has arrived. They need every voter who voted for Hillary - every one of them. Attitudes like Mr. Pickering's are the Ralph Nader of this election.

____________________

roy:

Just to be clear, there was until recently a hotly contested GOP race, so we're not talking about a bunch of crossover saboteurs...in fact, I doubt John McCain would be the Republican nominee if New Hampshire had had a closed primary. Both parties have chosen candidates who appeal to independents.

The demographics of the race are rather odd: Clinton leads among self-identified Democrats, yet Obama has dominated to a shocking degree in caucuses, which are usually packed not merely with Democrats but with the people most invested in the party. Likewise, he generally leads among liberals who form the ideological core of the party.

____________________

roy:

Pragmatist,

I can't speak for Keith P., but I will feel more inclined to be gracious when I stop receiving daily insults from the Clinton campaign, telling me I'm worthless because I went to a caucus instead of a primary, because I went to college, because I drink lattes, that I don't need a President, though I'm apparently less insignificant than black people in red states. The venom on the other side is, in my experience, mostly leveled at the Clinton campaign, not at ordinary voters.

The demographic that especially worries me is the Latino vote, which Clinton has succeeded in winning and also in drawing to the polls. Obama needs to do the same in November.

____________________

TLS:

I think this "leading among self-identified democrats" is an artifact. He leads among self-identified "liberals" and "progressives" (as well as those who caucus). What we are seeing with the "democrats" effect is likely due to the close association of the label with age. Younger people are less likely to self-identify with a party. Thus you get an incorrect picture of the "democrat" effect if you don't simultaneously look at age. It is entirely possible that Obama leads among self-identified democrats within each age groups, but not overall. This is "simpson's paradox."

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

@rowjimmy and tony: hang on, folks. Bear in mind that these stats refer to self-identification, not registration. That's a tricky business, because lots of self-identified independent Dem leaners are more reliably Democratic than many self-identified weak Democrats.

Since 1952, the National Election Studies have been asking, "Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?... (IF R/D) Would you call yourself a strong (REP/DEM) or a not very strong (REP/DEM)? [or] Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican or Democratic party?" Over that period, 22% of the independents closer to the Dems -- and 29% of the not-very-strong Dems -- have voted for Republican candidates.

I have no idea what proportion of those "Democratic leaners" are registered Democratic, but I think it's risky to make assumptions about what would happen if all primaries were closed. Obama's caucus bump has far exceeded his open-primary bump. (It's even possible to argue that Obama doesn't have an open-primary bump.)

____________________

tony:

Pragmatist: thanks for that. it's true.

Roy: No one is innocent. "Change," "hope" and "fresh face" are sanitized ways of saying that Clinton jaded, cynical, and old. Last time I checked, those were not compliments; they certainly are not compliments the way his team is using them. His side is also talking about her "poor uneducated" voters. The last time I checked, the Democrats were supposedly for the working Americans. Also, there are a lot of blacks in that number too.

Here are some other demographics to worry about in addition to Latinos:

1. White rural and poor folk -- very easy to see them voting for a Republican, especially in swing states. They did so in Ohio and Missouri the last few times.

2. White women -- while the headlines keep saying Obama is siphoning off this population, they still lean toward Clinton. The Dems cannot win without their gender gap, and many women view Clinton's treatment (I think rightfully so) in part as a product of sexsism. If they switch sides or simply stay home, Obama would be doomed.

3. Older people -- I find it hard to see older Dems voting for a Republican; they are the party loyals, who vote in every election -- whether it's sexy to do so or not. I am thinking of my parents. I imagine he will get them, but if they are more moderately inclined and would prefer someone with experience, Obama could lose some votes.

4. Independents and Republicans -- yes, them. According to the ABC News data, Obama actually loses among the Democrats, but wins among Indies and Repubs. Those data do not show a state-by-state breakdown, but clearly this demographic has led to his success. This is potentially bad news, because it is unclear if they will vote for him against McCain. Many commentators believe that this group was voting against Clinton, rather than for Obama. Some Democrat conspiracy theorists have argued that Republicans are deliberately infiltrating the Democratic primary in order to skew the results. I was on redstate.com today, and there was a thread on strategic Republican voting in the Texas Democratic primary. This group could prove very volatile. He needs them.

5. Latinos. You already mentioned that, but to elaborate - Latinos are necessary in swing states. Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico could have given us victories in the past. Latinos in these states have been flexible in their voting patterns. If Obama does not "inspire" them, he will face a lot of trouble.

6. Florida and Michigan -- I wonder how these voters will feel. I read polling data from Florida which indicates that the sentiment is bad towards the DNC in Florida. Florida Dems have exhibited a lot of flexibility in the past, and could do so again. It is truly a purple state. It is not necessary to a Dem strategy, but why have a giveaway? Howard Dean is a pretty lousy manager of the DNC.

____________________

tony:

Mark - thanks. great analysis.
Roy - the caucuses are hard for working people - especially the "weekday" caucuses. They are also usually dominated by educated folk and relatively younger people. So, I think that fueled a lot of the support in that venue. Not sure though. Anyone see any polling data on those?

____________________

roy:

Tony,
What prominent member of the Obama campaign has insulted Clinton's supporters as poor and uneducated? I haven't even seen that on Daily Kos. To say that talking about hope is an insult to her supporters is just bizarre. Remember, I was talking about the difference between criticizing the candidate and trashing anyone who votes for them. The former is half of a campaign's job, the latter is bad manners and stupid strategy.

Wrt Florida and Michigan, people are going to vote for a Republican because they're miffed at the DNC? Most people I know don't know what the DNC is. If Obama wins Florida, it will be as part of a landslide.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Pragmatist says "Mr. Pickering trivializes an important point with his Rovian comment. Hillary gets the vote of the Democratic base. That won't win a general election but no Democrat can win without it. So the Obama team needs to understand that the time for grace has arrived. They need every voter who voted for Hillary - every one of them."

EVERY one of them? Given what I've seen of the primary turnouts Obama would do just fine without any of them, given that Democratic Primary turnouts (and his votes) have exceeded just about the gross total of the Republicans combined.

In addition, one has to assume that a) Hillary can win over (or turn out) the Obama Voter-Independent support whereas Obama couldn't win over the Democrats who support Hillary. Both of those are huge assumptions.

The Democratic base isn't simply going to stay home if their "preferred" candidate loses the Primary. It may have happened in 1968 (McCarthy-Bobby Kennedy vs. Humphrey) but in recent years it's been more likely people jumping across the aisle (which is a double whammy...a lost positive vote AND a vote for the opposition). That's a much worse situation than someone staying home and crying in their milk.

____________________

rowjimmy:

It seems like there were a lot of negative responses to my post attacking me for saying the factual obvious, that Clinton has won 50-44% among self-identified Democrats and that yes, I do support her, but no I do NOT support closed primaries in spite of it favoring my slightly preferred candidate. Then clowns like "Keith Pickering" come out of the blue acting like sophomoric and infantile, presumably because I had the nerve to point out a preference.

Jeez people. It's ok to be a self-identified latte-liberal and be in the target income and gender of Obama's core support and STILL support Clinton, as I have. Some of you guys parade around like this is a high school popularity contest with your ridiculous references to "Billary" or "Hussein Osama." Grow up and put a proud face on the Democratic party, regardless of who you support.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Just a bit on "Latinos". Don't think of this as a monolithic group. The Hispanics in Florida (principally Cuban Americans, though with some Venezuelans) are nothing like those in Southern California, and those in Texas (Tejanos) are not demographically like those on the West Coast. Puerto Ricans are unlike any of those above.

Clinton is bringing in a bunch of West Coast UFW supporters into Texas to try and win over Tejanos...that could backfire.

McCain is moving right in his positions on immigration and this could erode any support he might have built up with Hispanics in his own State and elsewhere over the years. I always thought that the reason he took those positions was to build a coalition of support for a Presidential run. But now he's playing to the Republican base when he's practically got the nomination locked up. This is the law of higgledy-piggledy here!

____________________

rowjimmy:

"Just a bit on "Latinos". Don't think of this as a monolithic group."

The same can be said of almost any group. If I look at myself and my colleagues, demographically, we should all be strongly Obama. But, of those I work with at the university in my department, the vast majority supported Hillary. Could be a California thing, or just we're anomalies given our gender and income.

But your point is well taken. Not all Latinos are the same in terms of voting patterns. A lot was made that Obama was winning the latino vote in Virginia. The talking heads wanted to extend that to the southwestern US, and it just doesn't work that way.

It is convenient and easy to think of groups as "blocks" but there is much within-group variability. This of course makes polling and projection somewhat tricky.

____________________

tony:

Roy -- Florida is a swing state. It is purple. Democrats vote for Republicans there. The legislature has a large Dem representation, but the governors have been Republican in recent years. And clearly the votes have been close there. I think it is odd that you say people do not know what the DNC is. They do know that the party stripped them of their vote. In fact, Obama's supporters have been making the argument that some of his supporters didnt vote because they thought their votes wouldnt count - or that if he could have campaigned there he might have/would have won. This suggests to me that even his camp believes that people are knowledgeable about the vote strip. The major papers in Florida have been drumming up this issue, and so have the local news stations. I am from Florida, so I am pretty familiar with this. The fact that Florida is purple means that we cannot lose Dems. Period. Michigan is bluer.

____________________

tony:

cinnamonape: clinton has a lot of latino individuals in texas helping her too.

____________________

LwPhD:

Is anyone picking up the KXAN polls? They just released one Thursday and will release another next week conducted entirely after the debate. This week's was in the field Sunday to Tuesday. Here's what they get:

Democrat
Clinton 46%
Obama 45%
Undecided 9%

Republican
McCain 52%
Huckabee 30%
Paul 9%
Undecided 9%

____________________

Robert:

I really do not like that Hitlery is outperforming Obama. I want Huckabee to win the general election, and He is further ahead of her than ahead of Obama... BUT I want Hillary's ideas to stop reaching the ears of people - it's like a virus. Most deadly places in America: the womb, when Demoncrats rule, doing business with Clintons, bodyguard for Clintons, Biologist in America (All the top biologists have died in recent years... same avenues to death as others in this list)

Huckabee is the ONLY real CHOICE in this election. The others are propped up by elements Americans do not fully understand.

____________________

Gavin Lynch:

""Roy: No one is innocent. "Change," "hope" and "fresh face" are sanitized ways of saying that Clinton jaded, cynical, and old. Last time I checked, those were not compliments; they certainly are not compliments the way his team is using them.""

Dude, Change was his campaign message when he started this election over a year ago. Hope was in the name of his 2006 book.

Fresh face? Come on, he's as fresh as the Fresh Prince.

____________________

As a under 50,000 50 year old part of the throw away class of women you are speaking of, let me just reassure you I am college educated and I can recognize a load of male bullcrap when I hear it I will not be voting dem if your dream guy get the nomination. Oh and by the way I have never voted for a rep before, but; I guess there is always a first time.

____________________

Ariel H.:

I would like to express my disappointment with CNN's post analysis of the Clinton - Obama debate. The debaters appeared to lean towards Clinton regardless of her failure to actually focus on the question at hand and providing actual solutions. For example her solution to our budget crisis was to ask for a solution from her cabinet members unlike Obama who had actual plans at hand to attempt to solve these issues. Clinton's answers we?re orientated toward her past history of attempts at changing political policy (which have not drastically changed our society)she fought for universal health care in the past and lost?.what I'd really like to know is why should I believe she can make it work now. If her "actions speak louder than words" she's telling me she can't bring the change needed. The use of condescending language and demeanor toward her opponent turned my stomach quite frankly. What ultimately bothered me the most was how blind-sighted people seemed to be by her "feel good statements" which in essence showed complete lack of empathy with the American people. Her most testing moment ultimately boils down to dealing with her husband having extramarital affairs ( which is not evidence of solving major crisis) as opposed to Obama discussing his plight in struggling to help those in need by obtaining jobs and fighting for their civil rights. Her final feel good statement's ultimate bottom line said I don?t need to worry about this election, my life is good either way, this is America's problem...not hers. How any one felt reassured by this statement makes me question whether her supporters will be the ones truly suspected of being "delusional".

____________________

Matt Weiss:

It's interesting to think about what might have happened so far in the Democratic race in a closed-primary situation (so many have been open). One variable that might make that speculation more difficult is that independents in states with open primaries might be more likely to register with a party if they knew failure to do so would shut them out of primary elections.

I wonder if good data exist regarding whether states with closed primaries (like my own, PA) have lower percentages of independents/no party voters.

____________________

TONY:

Ariel -- um, saying that I have been blessed is not saying this is America's problem. You are speaking Obamese. I read the transcript and she actually said that because she is blessed, she wants to spread it around. She wants to work hard so that others can achieve their dreams. This is not a selfish statement. Whether you believe it or not is one thing, but do not pretend that she just stood up and said that she's got the good life either way.

____________________

Tom Smith:

Jay Leno had a good line tonight, "Hillary Clinton is doing good in one state, the state of denial." As for the polling, it looks like Clinton will lose Texas, and probabily Ohio, too. She was up by around 15-20 points a week ago, and now I haven't seen a poll in Ohio this week that has her over 10 points ahead. At the rate this is going, Clinton and Obama should be tied by this time next week in Ohio.

____________________

tony:

leno is in denial that he's funny

____________________

No one has enough votes to get the Democratic nomination and no one will get enough votes, it will be decide at the convention. Leno Sucks.

____________________

michael:

the general - no one here is talking to the candidates.

____________________

Jeff Cox:

Ignored by almost everyone, including those who pore over the polls, is the certainty of a serious anti-war candidate in November if Clinton is the nominee, especially if she is named by a brokered convention. Clinton's solidly pro-war record will guarantee that the peace candidate, whoever it is, will do better than Ralph Nader did in 2000. If Obama is the candidate, the peace candidate will be electorally insignificant.

____________________

Anonymous:

@ Jeff Cox: Your comments demonstratively
indicate that we've officially bottomed out here. I think I've heard more meaningful analysis from Tony Blankley or Wolf Blitzer.

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

We are generally libertarian when it comes to the comments section, but the last two comments from "The General" crossed a line and were deleted. We will not hesitate to delete similarly offensive comments in the future. There is room here for heated debate, but if you cannot keep it civil, take it somewhere else.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

"No one has enough votes to get the Democratic nomination and no one will get enough votes, it will be decide at the convention."

If Obama wins Texas and Ohio, then I think Clinton will drop out.

____________________

Another Mike:

"Some Democrat conspiracy theorists have argued that Republicans are deliberately infiltrating the Democratic primary in order to skew the results. I was on redstate.com today, and there was a thread on strategic Republican voting in the Texas Democratic primary."

Tony, every single right wing blog advocating strategic voting in an open primary, such as Texas, advocate voting for Clinton because she is seen as much easier to beat in the general. Thus, to the extent Obama gets cross-over Republican votes, these are true cross-overs and not strategic voters trying to screw up the Democratic nomination. The ones trying to screw up the Democratic nomination are votion for Clinton, not Obama.

____________________

Bree:

Whoever said it will be decided at the convention is DEAD WRONG.

Clinton will concede March 5th. Say want you want about her, but she is smart and decent and know it will be the right thing to do. There is no doubt that it will be over after March 4th. Well, maybe 0.000000001%.

The only chance Hillary has is if Obama is caught on one of Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" shows. And even then....


As far as November goes, Obama will pick Virginia governor Tim Caine as VP. One, he speaks fluent Spanish, and can campaign effectively in New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Florida. And two, he is a white male. That'll help in the southern states as well as his home state of Virginia. And third, he is feisty - a nice contrast to Obama's calm & cool demeanor.

Done and done. OBAMA/KAINE 08 !!

I see 16 years of Democratic rule coming up.


____________________

Certh:

Mark,

I was wondering when you were going to ban "the general". That guy was an obvious racist. If you are going to be a racist, ranting republican, fine, but at least make some sense. Geez, I guess that was too much to ask from the "general". Oh, well, I'm sure he'll have fun at his daily KKK meeting. Adios dummy!

____________________

Independent Voice:

CS,

It is Texas OR Ohio at this point, as Bill Clinton said himself. Either state goes to Obama, and this puppy is over.

Even slim wins by Clinton in both states will still mean the end of her candidacy.

She needs to trounce Obama 60-40 in both states to have a chance later. And as someone said earlier, unless Obama ends up on "To catch a Predator", that just is not going to happen.

Clinton will not waste Democratic funds on a lost campaign. She does not have the ego of a Huckabee.

____________________

B-DIDDLES:

Just think about this-- IF Clinton is elected as our Pres. then this would be the outcome:
Bush 1988-92, Clinton 1992-96, Clinton 1996-2000, Bush 2000-04, Bush 2004-08, Clinton 2008-2012. Do you see a trend of names? This would be 24 YEARS of a BUSH or a CLINTON in office!!!!! Over 300,000,000 people in the U.S. and we are limited to two families for a quarter of a century!!! IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE!!!!!!

____________________

I just want to express my appreciation to Vera T for her comment about being "part of the throw away class of women" in this election. That is EXACTLY how I feel.

I noticed last night that once again, Obama mentioned the need to inspire the American people to "go beyond the racial divisions and the religious divisions and the regional divisions" etc. He seemed to go out of his way not to mention gender (just like, for example, in his MLK day speech when he mentioned racism, "occasional" anti-semitism, homophobia but not misogyny or sexism).

Now the party line from Obama supporters is that Hillary should drop out, despite the fact that the two candidates are running neck-and-neck.

Clearly, the votes, values and interests of people like myself (and Vera T) do not matter to the Obama campaign, nor to the most outspoken Obama supporters. This has been demonstrated in a number of ways, from the content (or lack thereof) of his speeches, to the content (or lack thereof) of his website, and in the strategy that says the votes of my cohort basically don't exist or don't count.

I have been involved in Democratic politics for my entire career, working exclusively as paid staff for progressive interest groups and Democratic candidates. And I say this now from my heart, not as some sort of veiled threat, but absolutely from my heart - I honestly think that if Obama is the nominee my protest will be to not vote in the general.

Over the course of this campaign, I've heard Hillary's experience minimized and ridiculed, heard every comment parsed for even a hint of exaggeration, I've seen her denigrated for her clothes and her laugh, I've seen her accused of using "feminine wiles" by "turning on the water works" when the fact is she never shed a tear on the campaign trail, I've seen her called "cold" and "castrating" in major newspapers, I've heard my own vote denigrated as mere sympathy rather than fact- and value-based, I've heard Hillary's daughter called a whore by a prominent newscaster for campaigning with her mother (but nary a word about Mitt's boys) (believe me, if that newscaster had said Barack was "pimping out" Michelle, he'd be fired and NO ONE would be coming to his defense). I've heard Hillary called "ambitious" as if there is something wrong with that, while the obviously equally ambitious male candidates are not criticized. And I could go on and on.

And who raises a protest? No one outside of the Clinton campaign. Does Obama say one word about fair play? Never. Is he the beneficiary and sometimes the instigator of this unequal treatment? Obviously.

I'm not going to go into the ways misogyny permeates our culture. I've traveled and lived outside of the United States and I've observed overseas development programs that address gender inequality, so I know whereof I speak. Many countries have national programs that address, for example, violence and discrimination against women and make it easier for women (and men) to accommodate work and family. Not here. Here, apparently, no one beyond Hillary and her supporters think this is a problem. And no one, outside of Hillary and her supporters, thinks this is worth addressing.

Call my opinion irrelevant, or see me (and Vera T) as canaries in the coal mine. Not only do I not have any enthusiasm for Obama, but I've actually come to see his campaign as part of the problem, not the solution. I hate to say it, but as for this longtime Dem activist and one of the "throwaway women," if Obama is the nominee, you boys are on your own.

____________________

Bree:

Ciccina,

That's fine Ciccina. Apparently, we don't need you!

You obviously haven't been following Senator Obama at all, because almost at every campaign stop, he mentions the heroic accomplishments of those women who organized and got the right to vote. EVERY ONE.

You are obviously a Hillary mouthpiece who is disappointed in her poor showing and are now taking it out on Obama.

If there is anything Michelle Obama has preached more about than misogny in our culture, well then, I don't know what it is.


Obama will unite this nation and maybe even this world. That is the power of OUR movement.

Notice that Obama always calls this "our movement" or uses the word "we", whereas Hillary refers to herself just a bit too much.

It is okay if you want to sit on the sidelines, but don't you DARE accuse us of being part of the problem since you are disappointed in your candidate's showing. You know in your heart of hearts, it is not true.

____________________

tom:

What are yall obamites gonna be saying when March is Clintons month, I can see her winning at least 6 states in a row...if not more, and now that the press has crowned King Obama, and if he struggles in March(big states arent kind to the King) it will be a whole new ballgame...dont count the Clinton Machine out...people have done that in the past and...oh well!

____________________

Bob Evans:

Ciccina,

The two candidates are not running "neck and neck". Obama has a significant pledged delegate lead, and that's all that matters, no matter what propaganda Hillary's team has fed you. Whoever has the pledged delegate lead at the end will be the candidate nearly ALL the super delegates will back (that is, unless they want to get voted out of office the next election cycle).

Obama has won nearly 25 states already, and would likely end up with 36 or more wins total. Well, that says something powerful right there.

She will concede gracefully March 5th.

By the way, please don't foul this board with false accusations of gender bias by the Obama campaign. As an independent observer, I have seen Obama speak many times on women's rights.


____________________

tom:

oh yeah, Michelle Obama needs to do like McCain's wife and just stand and smile(and not talk, foot in mouth problem she has)....i somehow she becomes First Lady, she will make Hillary's time in the white house look like Laura Bushes....

____________________

David :

Tom,

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? How about a friendly wager?


Clinton concedes on March 5th, 6th or 7th.


If this turns out to be true, you donate the maximum to Obama's campaign. Otherwise, you donate the max to Hillary's.


DEEEAL or NOOO DEEEAL?

____________________

Kaitlyn:

Tom,

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? How about a friendly wager?


Clinton concedes on March 5th, 6th or 7th.


If this turns out to be true, you donate the maximum to Obama's campaign. Otherwise, you donate the max to Hillary's.


DEEEAL or NOOO DEEEAL?

____________________

Donkey Voter:

I think the DNC really screwed up. Florida and Michigan should not be seated but can the party afford to disenfranchise and alienate voters in those 2 states? Wow.

On a numbers basis, Obama is certainly ahead and fairly ahead. But let's recognize that even among pledged delegates, he's only ahead by around 0.7%. Good for him but it's been an extremely close election.

____________________

Bob Evans,

I refer you to Donkey Voter's comment above. After all, I thought it was the delegates that mattered, not the popular vote... wasn't that what Obama's campaign said after New Hampshire, Nevada and Florida?

As for these instances of Obama talking about women's rights - I'd love to see examples (beyond the perfunctory references on the website). Got any links?

It is not "befouling" anything to bring up gender bias.

____________________

Skipaway:

So some people believed that since Clinton was treated unfairly by the media, people should vote for her? Strange logic.

Presidency isn't about compensating women for sexism or minorities for racism.

____________________

Skipaway, you really don't get it. I mean REALLY don't get it. Its not about the president "compensating" for sexism. Its about establishing policies and programs that address the problem. There are many problems with regard to women issues, and many things that can be done about them. Some of them Hillary has already worked on, some of them she is in the process of working on. Obama has worked on none of them, nor has he shown any interest (though he has voted appropriately along with the bulk of the Democratic Senators). I could, but won't, bore you with the specifics.

____________________

Skipaway, you really don't get it. I mean REALLY don't get it. Its not about the president "compensating" for sexism. Its about establishing policies and programs that address the problem. There are many problems with regard to women issues, and many things that can be done about them. Some of them Hillary has already worked on, some of them she is in the process of working on. Obama has worked on none of them, nor has he shown any interest (though he has voted appropriately along with the bulk of the Democratic Senators). I could, but won't, bore you with the specifics.

After all, I wouldn't want to disrupt all the salivating over Hillary finally being burned at the stake.

____________________

tom:

If Bill(the KING OF HOPE) couldnt get anything acomplished in Washington...a rookie politician isnt either.....he is going to need 60 Dems in the Senate to get anything in wants through, and if it is anything that the Congress needs to say yes to in regards to Iraq, there are at least 3 or 4 Dems that will vote with the GOP.

Neither Hillary or Obama will have enough Dems in the Congress to get anything done. If, for some reason, Obama becomes President, expect him to get nothing accomplished and in 2012 "I told you so" will be Hillary's calling card..basically Obama was in way over his head...all talk, no action, already can hear the 2012 attacks if he wins.

____________________

tom:

If Bill(the KING OF HOPE) couldnt get anything acomplished in Washington...a rookie politician isnt either.....he is going to need 60 Dems in the Senate to get anything in wants through, and if it is anything that the Congress needs to say yes to in regards to Iraq, there are at least 3 or 4 Dems that will vote with the GOP.

Neither Hillary or Obama will have enough Dems in the Congress to get anything done. If, for some reason, Obama becomes President, expect him to get nothing accomplished and in 2012 "I told you so" will be Hillary's calling card..basically Obama was in way over his head...all talk, no action, already can hear the 2012 attacks if he wins.

____________________

Jerry:

There's a lot of stuff here Ciccina, about Obama's support from women and his views on gender equality. By the way, he was raised by a single mom and his grandparents, so he knows a little something about how hard it is for women out there.


A man who doesn't know the struggles of women CERTAINLY doesn't marry a STRONG, OPINIONATED woman like Michelle Obama.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/sarahramey/C4fg

C'mon board Clinton supporters, The OBAMA Express is picking up speed! Next stop - WHITE HOUSE!

____________________

Steve:

Ciccina, the fact that your post was well written does not conceal the fact that it is rubbish. It is apparent you have a big chip on your shoulder and/or you have not really listened to many of Obama's speeches.

No, most reasonable people would not mourn the loss of your vote, because you seem to be... unreasonable.

____________________

Certh:

Ciccina,

Obama's a smart man - he was right about a lot of things Clinton was wrong about. The Iraq war, backing musharraf, talking with enemies, etc.


I doubt he will abandon Senator Clinton's good work and issues when he gets into office. I'm sure he'll ask her for guidance and input from time to time, as this is what all smart men do: ask others they know to be as smart or smarter than them for advice (from both genders).

To see how Obama feels about women, see Michelle Obama's interview with Larry King. Real insight into Obama the Husband. No misognistic man marries some one like Michelle.

If you think that Barack won't pay attention to women's issues, well, you are just plain wrong. Michelle will beat him if he doesn't address women's issues. I'm still unsure who wears the pants in that relationship.

____________________

Doug:

To my mind the attacks on Ciccina's comments are a symptom of a larger problem with Obama supporters (and therefore with the D nominating process).

After reading thousands of reader comments on numerous websites over the past several weeks, I've come to the conclusion that, whatever else they are, Obama supporters are more likely to be uninformed, plain and simple. Their view of the political process, and particularly of what wins elections, is simplistic. ("We need someone not named Bush or Clinton!") The fact that someone named Bush or Clinton has occupied the WH for the past 20 years is evidence that hope alone is not enough to win the presidency.

I'm with Ciccina: As a lifelong Dem I won't vote Republican, but I'm seriously considering staying home, in order to send a message to Howard Dean and the "Obama" wing of the party. In the long run, it may be better to blow up the party and start from scratch than to see the vacuous Obama "movement" take the party reins.

____________________

Donkey Voter:

I think the DNC really screwed up. Florida and Michigan should not be seated but can the party afford to disenfranchise and alienate voters in those 2 states? Wow.

On a numbers basis, Obama is certainly ahead and fairly ahead. But let's recognize that even among pledged delegates, he's only ahead by around 0.7%. Good for him but it's been an extremely close election.

____________________

Mike:

I just do not understand the logic of someone like Ciccina, who, in her own words has "been involved in Democratic politics for my entire career, working exclusively as paid staff for progressive interest groups and Democratic candidates," would sit on the sidelines and pout in November if her candidate doesn't win the primary.

I think sometimes the heat of the moment during the primaries gets the best of people. They say things they don't really mean. Is Ciccina really saying that, during this, the most important election for progressives in over a decade, she will just SIT ON THE SIDELINES and watch McCrazy get elected? It's alright to be supportive of a candidate now, but for someone who has truly devoted her life to Democratic politics, I find it hard to believe that she would just sit by idly. It's not like Obama isn't a progressive. In fact, he is widely regarded as MORE PROGRESSIVE than Hillary.

People, we all need to realize that it's February. November is a long time away. I will call the bluff of a lot of Hillary supporters (should she lose) who say they will either sit out or *gasp* vote for the enemy in November. Just not going to happen. As Democrats, we will rally together. This election is just too important.

____________________

Bob, I appreciate the effort you made to provide those links (seriously). I listened to the first one (twice); I couldn't get the second one to load.

I don't know if the "Women for Obama" clip was the whole speech, or if it was representative of the whole, but taking it at face value he never mentions women's rights, sexism, misogyny or, frankly, any classic "women's issue." What he does do is use ovarian cancer as the cause-of-death in his anecdote about the need for health care reform. But that's it. He says he won't let insurance companies exclude treatment for ovarian cancer from coverage. I wasn't aware ovarian cancer was singled out in any way by insurers, or that ovarian cancer presented any particular problem with regard to coverage.

What jumped out at me was that here he was speaking at a "women for" event, and he didn't bring up what will definitely be a women's rights issue with health care reform - whether reproductive health care, including abortion, will be included in a "basic benefits" package and/or will insurance companies be obligated to pay for repro health care (including abortion). This was an issue in 1994 and it will be again (if we get to that point).

Beyond that, it was same old, same old - he promised universal health care by the close of his first term (even though his plan doesn't propose this) - and one I hadn't heard before - he's going to prevent insurance companies from spending millions to oppose reform. I'd love to hear the plan of action behind that.

Jerry, I read the post on the website. Do you realize that not a single women's issue is brought up? Its all "I'm a woman / feminist and I'm voting for Obama." But the reasons why they are voting for Obama have nothing to do with women's issues. Beyond that, my point is that *he* never mentions these issues. I don't really care what the surrogates say (in any campaign).

And with regard to Kate Michelman - she is capping off her career by telling us that the principles she fought for aren't that important after all. Good job, Kate.

As for the opinions of Michelle Obama - I'll say that they matter when you say that the first lady can have a significant, even decisive role in creating national policy (something Obama and his campaign have argued against, in very derisive ways - the "tea party" comments and so on).

Steve - you made me laugh (I assume that was parody).

____________________

Mike, I know exactly what is at stake. I also know that Barack is not more progressive than Hillary.

But this time, I've had it. I'm not participating in something that goes so directly against my principles. Disagree with Hillary on issue positions or actions she's taken in the past, fine, but the sexism and outright misogyny that's been heaped on her is beyond the pale. And Barack has (a) profited from it (b) not spoken out against it and (c) in some instances, with some of his statements, promoted it.

Here's a thought experiment. Let's imagine that racism had been heaped on Barack to an equivalent degree. He is mocked in the major media for his "african" features, he's tarred as ambitious / uppity, etc. Major media figures spout the kind of racist crap about him that you see right now only on conservative websites. Famous comedians make jokes about Barack missing out because there's no "racial epitath History Month." Instead of Hillary nutcrackers, there are Barack nutcrackers with grotesquely exagerrated african features. Major media figures blame Barack for being too divisive / polarizing and talk about the problem *he* has with whites (and not the other way around). Imagine there's a groundswell of racism, and no one outside of Barack's campaign/supporters cares. And imagine white voters trying to explain away their vehement opposition to Barack by saying that while they agree with him on the issues, and know he has more experience / is more qualified, they just don't "like" him.

Now imagine the white Democratic candidate (a) profits extensively from it, opening up a huge lead among whites (b) never speaks out against it, and makes no effort to address issues that particularly and specificly affect african americans although he does address divisions based on religion, region, sexual orientation, and gender (c) in certain instances, promotes it himself.

Now, imagine you care deeply about racism. Would you feel comfortable voting for the white candidate come November, despite what you've seen?

The more I think about this, the more sure I am.

Screw you guys - I'm staying home.

____________________

MSS:

I know talking about aggregate popular vote totals in a nation that does not elect its president by popular vote is perhaps crazy, but...

Obama's lead stands at over 900,000 votes now. And given the use of proportional representation (sort of) in the Democratic Party, that actually does matter in the delegate count.

I don't see a scenario in which Clinton can overcome that. Not counting Illinois, in no state has the margin for either candidate reached 400,000 votes. Not even in California, which is a lot bigger than Texas or Ohio.

So, B. Clinton is right. H. needs both states. But she needs them by huge margins that are looking increasingly out of reach.

Or she needs the bionic delegates to overturn Obama's lead.

It just is not a close race anymore. Things can happen, but in this case it would really have to be something.

____________________

Rasmus:

DonkeyKing,
what numbers do you use to get a 0.7% pledged delegate lead for Obama?
Referring to CNN, Obama has 1157 pledged delegates on his side right now, I think its a little bit more because Colorado has not finished their delegate distribution- and Obama won this state 2:1.
Clinton has got 1016 pledged delegates, with Colorado maybe 1165-1020.
So there are 1165+1020=2185 delegates , and Obama got 1165/21,85= 53,32% of the delegates.
Clinton got 1020/21,85= 46,68%.

So Obama is ahead with 53,32-46,68= 6,64% of the Pledged Delegates.


[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_%28mathematics%29[/url]

PS: Do not pay attention to that, I�m just testing if HTML table tags work in this forum.
That would be perfect for all predictions etc.




Obama- Rasmussen TX Poll result
Clinton- Rasmussen TX Poll result


44%
47%


Hm, if all HTML tags work and not just the , and tags, it should work..
In the preview it does, but not the way I want it. Probably the row for the comments is too small...

____________________

The General, Redux:

I see the Democrats are unified this morning.

LMFAO

____________________

Cade:

GENERAL- Was your KKK meeting cancelled this evening? Go away (perhaps to the nearest neo-nazi board) - no one wants your hate speech here.


Ciccina,

Have fun staying home this November. While you're there can you make me some guac and chips? Thanks. J/K!


All polls show we don't need you anyway. The movement is only beginning folks. Hold on, it is going to be a fun ride.


____________________

Anonymous:

"The ovement is only beginning folks."

The revolution will not be televised.

____________________

Anonymous:

"The ovement is only beginning folks."

The revolution will not be televised.

____________________

Sure thing, Cade. Would like me to iron your shirt, too, while I'm at it?

Nice.

____________________

Beth:

Dear Ciccina,

While I appreciate your passion and I respect that you support Hillary Clinton, if Obama does win the nomination I implore you to think very carefully about your actions. As a fellow feminist and progressive, I am truly and deeply dismayed that you would even consider staying home and taking a chance that we would get another Republican president. The damage that could be done re: judicial appointments could well last for decades, and would make your current objections ring sadly hollow. I beg you to reconsider.

____________________

Anonymous:

It sure doesn't look good for Clinton! Obama is closing in fast. Expect a 10-14 lead for him in the next poll. Billary should get a fat lady on tap to start singing!

____________________

NorCalDem:

Can the DNC ask Florida and/or Michigan to hold a second primary? This would seem to be an appropriate way of including the electorate of these states without encouraging states to jump to the front of the line. I personally favor random assignment of states in blocks of 5 to a succession of weeks. The lottery could be held 2 years in advance. I have always been jealous of my aunt & uncle in Iowa for their relative importance in the political world. This year all Democrats are important in the process. In the spirit of inclusion I think an effort to include Michigan and Florida should be devised. If they are on the back of the bus at least they would be on the bus. In this campaign the last state to hold it's primary may be of paramount importance. My thanks to all of the candidates for running a very exciting campaign (at least on the Democratic side.

____________________

Cade:

Yes, Iron my shirt and pants. Thanks.

Why would a feminist want a woman who cries on the campaign trail in office?

You think it is hard now?? What about when Iran starts threatening us again? What is she going to do,...cry again? Please.

____________________

Susan:

I'm a native of Illinois and I've never heard of Obama until this election. He wrote a book and immediately started on the trail to make money off of it, NOT help the state of Illinois. Take the blinders off people he's ALL talk.

____________________

Henry:

Susan,

Another typical Clinton supporter, apparently. You're admitting you are so out of things politically, that you are not only (apparently) supporting the worse candidate with the worse campaign and the worst chance in November vs McCain, but also that you're from Illinois and had never heard of Obama before this election.

Funny.

I'm from California and I first heard of Obama after he gave his famous rousing "The Audacity of Hope" speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

Oh but that was probably just to help sell books, in your mind.

Obama is all talk? While H.Clinton, in typical Clintonian fashion, changes her talk from day to day according to the political winds of the minute, Obama has had the same basic message throughout this campaign, for well over a year now, when he was down, as well as now what he's up.

All talk? What about the work he did in the Senate with Russ Feingold to pass the toughest ethics and lobbyist reform ever (the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act)?

Also see The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act.

And what about his efforts working with a conservative Republican to pass legislation to open up government so people can better see exactly what our taxes are being spent on?

He's also for broadcasting on C-SPAN government meetings, not hiding behind closed doors with lobbyists, as [your] candidate Hillary Clinton has been known for and unapologetic about.

These are just a couple examples... The information is out there if you want to look for it, but you seem, in desperation, more interested in spreading misinformation than providing people with facts so they can make educated judgements.

Peace
Henry

____________________

Bree:

Nice response Henry. Don't forget Hillary's inabilty to pass Universal Health Care when hubby Bill was in office with a Democratic Congress. She couldn't do it then, what makes you think she'll do it now? And the fact that she voted for the Iraq War since it was politically convenient to do so, while Obama had a prophetic speech about the war back in 2002. That is why Obama has won nearly 30 out of 38 contests thus far. People know the truth.

____________________

Anonymous:

Cade: you've made my point. Obama has gained support from people like you who are steeped in sexist stereotypes. Obama hasn't done a single thing to repudiate this. Why would he, when his base is larded with people who overlook his basic flaws (no experience whatsoever in foreign policy, no experience whatsoever with the economy, a lousy position on health care) because he's the man to beat Hillary (and satisfy their prejudices).

I'll have nothing to do with it.

As it happens, Mama Ciccina just called me to say she was watching Bill Maher's show (god only knows why) and they were ripping Obama to shreds. He'll be turned into an effete, vaguely foreign ivy league kid (who can wait to get us into another Bay of Pigs fiasco) so fast it'll make your head spin. Ted Kennedy will be hung around Obama's neck like an obese, alcoholic albatross. And those same independent white male voters who preferred the "manly" George Bush over the wonky, effete Al Gore will scurry over to McCain.

One more prediction - these same voters will excuse their McCain choice by blaming Obama for "blowing it."

____________________

The above post was from me. Also, this sentence should have read "He'll be turned into an effete, vaguely foreign ivy league kid (who CAN'T wait to get us into another Bay of Pigs fiasco) so fast it'll make your head spin.

What the heck, it was worth saying twice.

And Henry - lobbying reform? Seriously? "No more chicken fingers for you, Senator!" I'm sure that will be about as effective as.... wait for it.... McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. It rocked our political system, that did. Things will never be the same. Well, lets hope lobbying reform is just as potent.

Maybe Barack can bring those powerful lobby reform skills to bear on our economic, foreign policy, environmental and civil liberty crises (had to leave out health care, since he's already ceded that). After all, they are so very relevant. Then again, he won't have Feingold to lead him by the nose.

And as for the ridiculous C-Span thing - reporters can't even be bothered to figure out issues and report on them accurately. Do you really think the average American wants to watch days and days of policy hearings on C-Span to try to figure out what's happening? The bottom line is, the media will report what it wants to report, and people will get their information that way - filtered, slotted between celebrity gossip, sports and the weather (and bumped off the air entirely if they get good video of a pony being rescued from a well, or something).

I swear, its like you Obama supporters are in a some kind of dream world.

____________________

obamanite to obamanation:

I attended an Obama rally several days ago and discovered something electrifyingly creepy -- a hypnotized crowd swept up in a collective orgy of love that defied all logic.

Front and center was Obama, preaching to his adoring unquestioning crowd his recurring speech of hope and change we can believe in. And there was the crowd, lapping it up like a starving puppy lapping up a vatt of rancid milk, with no clue as to the forthcoming consequences.

Now I personally have never been able to be hypnotized, and I used to think hypnosis was a sham -- until Barack's tent revival rally that is. Honestly, it would not have come as much of a surprise if the Obamanites had started talking in tongues (whatever that is) and spontaneously healing only god-knows- what.

Suddenly the following questions popped into my mind. "How do we actually know this is change we can believe in?" "Where's the evidence (frankly, it's easier to find evidence that Noah built an ark than finding evidence that Obama has accomplised much of anything) "Do his accomplishments back up his claims?" "What in the heck are lemmings and why are we acting like them?"

Like most cult followers, only a deprogramming will save them. Obamanites -- quick, on three you will wake up. One, two, THREE. You will then educate yourselves of truths that should be self-evident, by actually researching the facts, and the facts will show that Obama has accomplished very very little indeed. And you will then give Hillary a fair shot and research her record, you will then discover that by her actions, she is the real hope you're looking for.

People, are we really this starved for rancid milk? I for one don't want to end up sick to my stomach for four long years.

And to Ciccina, I'm with you - if he wins, I'll likely stay home or worse, I just might vote for McCain, at least I actually know what McCain stands for by the actions he's taken.

____________________

obamanite to obamanation:

I attended an Obama rally several days ago and discovered something electrifyingly creepy -- a hypnotized crowd swept up in a collective orgy of love that defied all logic.

Front and center was Obama, preaching to his adoring unquestioning crowd his recurring speech of hope and change we can believe in. And there was the crowd, lapping it up like a starving puppy lapping up a vatt of rancid milk, with no clue as to the forthcoming consequences.

Now I personally have never been able to be hypnotized, and I used to think hypnosis was a sham -- until Barack's tent revival rally that is. Honestly, it would not have come as much of a surprise if the Obamanites had started talking in tongues (whatever that is) and spontaneously healing only god-knows- what.

Suddenly the following questions popped into my mind. "How do we actually know this is change we can believe in?" "Where's the evidence (frankly, it's easier to find evidence that Noah built an ark than finding evidence that Obama has accomplised much of anything) "Do his accomplishments back up his claims?" "What in the heck are lemmings and why are we acting like them?"

Like most cult followers, only a deprogramming will save them. Obamanites -- quick, on three you will wake up. One, two, THREE. You will then educate yourselves of truths that should be self-evident, by actually researching the facts, and the facts will show that Obama has accomplished very very little indeed. And you will then give Hillary a fair shot and research her record, you will then discover that by her actions, she is the real hope you're looking for.

People, are we really this starved for rancid milk? I for one don't want to end up sick to my stomach for four long years.

And to Ciccina, I'm with you - if he wins, I'll likely stay home or worse, I just might vote for McCain, at least I actually know what McCain stands for by the actions he's taken.

____________________

Rachel:

I think it's lame of anyone supporting either Dem. candidate to hate the other so much that they would rather vote for McCain if their favorable candidate isn't the nominee. I don't see that extreme as a reasonable choice over your pride. 100 yrs in Iraq? Aren't both Dem. candidates against the war? Your willing to go from a fixed foreign relations to a continuation of the Bush administration? C'mon people. We're smarter than that....right?
Rachel/ 21/ MI

____________________

Jonny V. Smith:

That is so true Barack Obama

____________________

Jonny V. Smith:

That is so true Barack Obama

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR