Articles and Analysis


POLL: Gallup Daily Tracking

Gallup Poll

Obama 49, Clinton 44

Clinton Supporters Favor Quick Creation of "Dream Ticket"
Video: Democrats Weigh In on "Dream Ticket"
Consumer Gloom Holding Steady



It's over for Billary! She needs to drop out now or ruin the party. Hell if she cares about that! ASk for your money back if you've given to Billary!




Well Breecer, I also support Obama but I have to say that these kinds of harsh comments are not appropriate if you want to help our candidate become successful in his bid.

Hillary is going to be part of the winning coalition in November, though it is more and more apparent that her role will not be as part of the winning ticket. Let's not alienate her supporters especially on a site which is primarily for the purpose of analyzing polls and pollsters (rather than negative opinions on one candidate or another).

Clinton supporters, I appreciate your candidate and the democratic party - any other year or against any other candidate I'd be supporting her; but I support Sen. Obama today and hope you will too if he becomes our party's nominee (as I will is Hillary does).


Adam G:

As an Obama supporter, here are my thoughts on Hillary's candidacy, as expressed in an email to a friend:

I think the time has come for Clinton to either drop out of the race, or severely tone down the rhetoric. I understand she won't drop out given the slight wins in Ohio and Texas, but at the very least, if she is going to stay in the race, she needs to tone down the rhetoric substantially. I believe she if she continues on this path she will ultimately tear the democratic party into two factions, and McCain will win as a result. This doesn't surprise me a lot, though; she has always struck me as someone who will do anything to win, even if it means destroying her own party in the interim.

One thing is certainly clear, however: she cannot win. She is down by about 160 pledged delegates, an insurmountable sum. See the following for details:


She needed landslide victories in OH and TX, and she did not get them; she gained 6 delegates total as a result of Tuesday's contests. Including Wyoming, she has netted 4 delegates. After tomorrow, in all likelihood Obama will have won more delegates this month than she has. Give her a 60-40 win in PA, and count the 55-33 wins in FL and 55-40 in MI (I'm assuming uncommitted goes for Obama), and she still will be behind by about 70 pledged delegates. To play with the numbers yourself, see:


In all cases, it is quite likely that she will be behind in the popular vote. Her only chance is for the superdelegates to overturn the will of the Democratic voters, something that they won't do. If they do, however, that will pretty much end any association I have with the Democratic party.

In all likelihood, Clinton will argue that winning big states somehow makes her more electable (as if any Democrat not named Hitler could actually lose states such as California and New York), but that doesn't add up, either; SurveyUSA (the most accurate pollster of this season) has done potential matchup surveys in all of the states, from which pollster.com did an analysis. The gist of it is that Obama's name nets 60 more electoral votes than Clinton in a potential match up with McCain. See the following for details:


I would say that I am pretty disappointed with camp Obama lately. The press has been fairly biased towards Clinton of late, and they need to start pointing it out. Don't believe me? How many times a day have you heard something about Rezko mentioned? Compare that with the number of times you hear something about Norman Hsu. Or International Profit Associates.

You probably don't know who the last one is. Clinton accepted 170,000 dollars in campaign contributions from a company who is under federal prosecution for 100+ cases of sexual harassment. For details:


Clinton would not return/donate the contributions. Keep in mind that Obama donated Rezko's contributions. Further, could you imagine the field day the press would have if Obama had kept 170,000 from a company accused of 100+ cases of hate crimes or racism? Or what the Clinton camp would say if he had kept 170,000 from a firm accused of sexual harassment? That the press isn't jumping all over this, or that Obama's surrogates aren't pointing it out, is just infuriating.

I actually did a Google News search for entries containing "Obama" and "Rezko" -- nearly 4,000 hits in the last month. "Hsu" and "Clinton" -- about 50 hits. "International Profit Associates" and "Clinton" -- 1 hit. If somehow the press covering 2-3 orders of magnitude more coverage of a damaging story to Obama instead of equally damaging stories to Clinton isn't bias, I don't know what is.



This tracking poll might figure-8 around the margin of error for a while.

Unless you're working for the campaign, or live in PA, this seems like a good time to take a month off.



Apologies for the double post =(



Your post was a waste of space Adam G. This isn't mydd or daily kos.


Henry B. (in Cali):

Adam G,

Please ignore the above shamelessly unnamed post. Apparently this person prefers there these forums to be filled with ignorance one-liners. I know myself and I'm sure a lot of others appreciate your thoughtful, insightful post.




I think Abe makes a very good point. If we are really for change we as well as the candidates are going to have to be a part of it. Alot of these messages sound like the same old politics to me.



Not sure what the national polls indicate in terms of winning the election. But it does show that the majority (or almost) of people think that Obama is quite viable as a President. I think if you compare what the results are here, vs. before the "It's 3 AM ad" started running there will be almost no difference.

People don't believe that "judgement" in crises is related to the length of experience in the Senate (or in the WH) apparently. Or at least those that aren't already going to vote for McCain, that is.

Many people remember that John Kennedy, a first term Senator, handled crises pretty well. Lincoln had only one term as a Representative from Indiana...and was also admonished for only giving a good speech by his more experienced rival (Stephan Douglas). Reagan had no political experience when he became Governor, and less than one term there when he was elected President.

And look where 7 years of experience has gotten us now.



It will politic as usual if Obama is elected because of his inexperience, not to mention a a couple of flip flop on NAFTA and Iraq withrawal). He will have to take advise from others (likely Washington Insiders and generals). And it will be very hard to pick out the right advise and to deal with congress when he lacks to working experience with them. GOOD JUDGMENT IS BASED ON EXPERIENCE, even better with experience in failure.




You can tell yourself what you want. Neither Clinton nor Obama have very much experience. You can tell more about their judgment by looking at their policy platforms and behavior instead of making silly abstract arguments like you have. Ultimately, I'm sure it comes down to a difference of opinion, though that doesn't stop candidate partisans from making incredibly stupid arguments in ridiculous attempts to prove things they evidently have no knowledge of.



Obama was involved in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain(interesting right). I'm just starting, he was also involved in adding three amendments to Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act in 2006.
There was "Lugar-Obama" which expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. There was the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" which provided oversight for our government website and where funds were being allocated(keeping them honest).
He is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which focused on trying to curb wmd's. Obama worked with Russ Feingold to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act". Sounds like he is just talking about fighting lobbyist.
He also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act" to put a cap on our troops. He sponsored 2008 Defense Authorization Act which provided safeguards for our disabled veterans(he cares about our troops). So I think we can stop talking about his experience now. Seems like he did a lot in Congress"
Still ignorant? If so, please go the Obama's webpage. With all her years in the Senate, Hillary has not had a single solution to any real needs of this nation.


John - Spokane, WA:

Hey Ron,

You mean like that Committee he chaired on Afgahnistan & never had a meeting ? and the 135 times he voted present ?



Yes, I'll take the bad with the good.
Exactly right. His words were that he was busy running for president. But the same excuse was used by Clinton for her answer to why her tax returns and White House papers were never released. No politician is a saint. But I'll take the lesser of the two evils.


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.