Obama 47, McCain 38
McCain 41, Obama 37
McCain 49, Obama 39
let's get ready to rumble.
Posted on May 29, 2008 2:30 PM
@boskop: Appropriate choice of words for an Obama supporter.
Michigan results are interesting, especially with large AA population, the Michael Moore endorsement, etc. Didn't figure this for a McCain victory.
Posted on May 29, 2008 2:41 PM
Umm, I'll SurveyUSA anything that John McCain will not get 26% of the African American vote in Michigan. I'd also wager that he won't even come close to winning the youth vote. What is with the high undecideds in Michigan (most of which seem to be in Obama demographics)?
Not quite yet but she will become irrelevant as of next week and the media will stop covering her even if she does not drop out. Maybe then we can start focusing on major issues.
Posted on May 29, 2008 2:42 PM
uri - get with it , boskop is for hillary
By the way, no way mccain wins MI. they have aa turnout at 13%. the aa pop is 14%. they will turnout at 20%, and go 95-5. so good night john. but by all means, please waste your money there.
if he picks sabelius, he wins kansas.
Posted on May 29, 2008 3:12 PM
actually, y'all read it wrong. kinda like a Rorschach ink blot. i didn't say hillary died!!! i said 'hillary DIED?????? i am questioning her
Posted on May 29, 2008 3:16 PM
tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.......
Posted on May 29, 2008 3:40 PM
how about the fact that adding sebelius to the tix does nothing to improve obama over mccain in Kansas..
Posted on May 29, 2008 4:12 PM
obama will win, you needn't go tick tock. but he will win a cowardly victory and take down the party doing it. look out in front of you, not at your feet. there are warning signs all around.
for now you win, later you lose, we lose.
Posted on May 29, 2008 5:08 PM
We are seeing the reverse impact of the Bradley Affect.
Let's face it....
Obama will garner atleast 90% of the AA vote in every state for the general election. This fact translates into atleast 9 out of every 10 AA voters.
Posted on May 29, 2008 5:13 PM
A lot of nasty spin spilling out from the Clinton Campaign and supporters about how Obama blocked the revote in Michigan. For the obvious reasons this would hurt Obama's support among Democrats in Michigan.
My understanding is that both campaigns supported the revote. The Obama camp, and his supporters in the legislature, wanted the rules under which Michigan conducts its primary to remain intact. The Clinton campaign, and her supporters in the legislature wanted to change the rules, making it a closed primary and adding additional restrictions that presumably would've favored their candidate. So the two sides could not agree, and the attempt to get the revote enacted failed.
I'm sure this could be spun another way. Still, trying to finger Obama on this is extremely destructive, given that he is very likely to be the nominee. Now he will have to overcome what appears to be the popular perception that he personally stole the Michigan voters chance for a revote.
Posted on May 29, 2008 5:24 PM
I believe the "bradley effect" refers to a "social desirability" factor that influences the way some voters respond to certain poll questions that involve race, resulting in findings that don't reflect the voter's true opinion. If perhaps you mean AA voters will support Obama because he's black - I'm not sure that's what you mean, but if it is... so not true; witness Alan Keyes.
Given that AA support for Dem candidates is routinely +80%, positing 90% seems quite reasonable. I think the real question is this: given that we can practically count on 90% AA support, and that most AA's are Democrats, and that many of the primaries saw greatly increased AA turnout, and considering the total number of AA voters in a given state - how much higher can one realistically expect AA turnout to go in the general? I would think that in all the primary states, except MI and perhaps FL, we've already seen the AA vote turn out at or near capacity. That's just a hunch, of course.
Posted on May 29, 2008 6:45 PM
Damn. That Kansas poll is old: conducted 10-12 days ago, as opposed to the Michigan one conducted two days ago.
Posted on May 29, 2008 9:28 PM
BHO blocked the FL & MI revote. He could have instructed his supporters in the state legislature to support the revote. They made every excuse they could think of to prevent "true" will of the people. They are blocking the seating of the delegates based on the actual votes in this weekends meeting. He is just like Bush in 2000. Win by disenfranchising voters.
Posted on May 30, 2008 9:34 AM
marctx above demonstrates source of the problem Obama may have in places like Michigan, or Florida. Its a distorted, simplistic interpretation, and one that especially beneficial to McCain, (without being much help to Clinton who is too far behind at this point), but it seems to have legs. And so it weakens Obama's support in Michigan and Florida, which is reflected in the polling.
It could be argued that Clinton's supporters insisted on trying to game the process with these rule changes but ended up, inadvertently perhaps, sabotaging the revote opportunity. But its easier to repeat "Obama blocked the revote."
Posted on May 30, 2008 10:53 AM
I do not understand where Clinton supporters "gamed the process" and how anything that Clinton supporters did "sabotaged the revote opportunity."
Posted on May 30, 2008 11:39 AM
I've never heard a logic explanation of exactly how BO is supposed to have blocked the revote? so marctx suggests that BO is in control of legislative members of florida's and michigans legislature and therefore, the legislature's failure is now BO's fault.
Posted on May 30, 2008 11:45 AM
wow my punctuation was random on that last post.
Posted on May 30, 2008 11:47 AM
Obama "blocked" the vote by mainly not responding in a timely manner to each state's request for input from him... because they were not going to go ahead without a commitment from Obama. (Additionally, Obama surrogates in each state worked to obstruct progress toward a resolution.) The Obama campaign basically said rules are rules and he did not want to interfere with the DNC, whereas the DNC kept saying it was up to the candidates. Clinton said OK... Obama kept "deflecting" until the deadlines passed for feasibly holding a revote.
Posted on May 30, 2008 12:05 PM
It really amazes me how everything is Obama's fault I really wish he had that kind of control over the florida legislature, would make for an walk-in-the park election. Would have been nice if he could have "speeched-up" the democrats in the florida legislature who voted to move up the primary, knowing that ultimately he would be blamed for their error in judgement. The disenfranchising took place on the house floor when the democratic legislature voted affirmative to the measure. Where was the outrage from those who are now outraged by the dienfranchisement. First it was the republicans fault, after all Florida has a republican governor but now its Obama's fault....Funny that I have not heard anything from the democratic governor of Michigan.
The DNC should be adjudicating and interpreting its own rules, not the candidates, thats what the party is for. I wished they would have "grown a pair" when Hillary first made this "news" and showed her the pledge she signed that Florida and Michigan would not count, now we have a party pandering to the legacy of a candidate. As much as I would like to "consider" being a democrat... this is pretty pathetic
Posted on May 30, 2008 12:36 PM
Michigan normally holds an open primary and does not require party affiliation. The revote plan would close the primary and limit it to persons who must identify themselves as Democrats, and certify they did not vote in the republican primary (source CNN). Independents and unaffiliated, as well as crossover republicans would not be able to participate; groups from which Obama draws strong support. Also, Democrats, who took a Republican ballot since their preferred candidate was not on the Democratic ballot, would be disqualified as well. There were actually many problems that sunk the revote legislation, and it died because of a major lack of support in the Michigan legislature. To blame this on concerns and ambivalence by the Obama campaign is a disservice to the truth. I pointed out that you could spin it both ways. Anyways, the larger point is the widely held belief that Obama thwarted the revote, which is an unfortunate mistruth for Clinton and her surrogates to be selling since it serious damages Obama's credibility in these key states in a way that could harm Democratic chances in the general. All you have to do is look at the top of this page to see that. Have Obama's numbers been rising in MI (or Florida)? would it be suggested that MI voters are suddenly beginning to think like KY and WV voters, a quarter of whom voted for Clinton based on race. Odds are he is he now so radioactive as a result of the rhetoric used by Clinton to support this gambit (how he cheated MI voters out of their vote, etc) that the state will go red this November.
Posted on May 30, 2008 1:21 PM
Please get it right... illinoisindie.... Obama and Hillary pledged only "not to campaign" in Florida and Michigan. There was NO pledge by any candidate that the primaries would not count.
Posted on May 30, 2008 3:20 PM
Oh I have it right Hillary agreed that the FL and MI primaries "would not count"? Otherwise she would have been a fool not to campaign there...so what was the point of signing the pledged. Look intelligent people know what this is...the hail mary pass that gets clinton the popular vote and a new argument... if it works for her...so be it, but get off the disenfranchising podium, because millions of Floridians who did not bother to vote in a primary, that wasnt going to count, are being disenfranchised and who's standing up for them... as I said pretty pathetic... forget it Im back to partisanship and voting McCain in the event of a Clinton Nomination
Posted on May 31, 2008 5:34 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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