I don't like all the rumors I am hearing today about Ms. Clinton...but what ever! On one hand I would have liked her to move quicker but I am glad that she took the time she needed. I am just glad that she is moving to unite the party now. I am sure that some of her supporters will never vote for Obama no matter what for whatever reason. However, I am sure that he will need hers and Bills help to win the White House.
Posted by angryman at June 5, 2008 02:38 PMI had a stunning talk with my step-father today. An admitted racist and lifetime NRA member, he has refused to vote for a Democrat since forever. His vision of Democrats is dominated by the dirty big city politics he's seen practiced over the years.
In recent years I've tried to convince him that the Democrats have dropped the gun control issue, except for a few outliers, and that the emerging party is more represented by the westerners like Jon Tester than the Barbara Boxers.
Well, apparently he's thought about it. Like Goldwater, his conservative views also include a strong dedication to conservation, and an intense distrust of big business and big religion as well as government. He knows he's been lied to constantly by his party since Bush got into power (and before), and has been very very unhappy with them. But he couldn't pull the lever for a Democrat.
Until now. He voted for Obama in the primary and is voting for him in the general election.
He said that, in addition to Obama taking the high road and sounding like he works with all sides, he also likes that Obama doesn't have a ton of commitments he's made to Washington insiders (versus McCain and Clinton).
Oh -- and and my step-father lives in Illinois -- he knows Obama better than most Americans.
Just one voter, I know. But in the past he's been a pretty reliable indicator of where his demographic is going.
Posted by Anonny at June 5, 2008 04:20 PMthe nra will give obama a hard time, because they really are purely partisan on the national level, but obama shouldn't scare gun lovers. gun control advocates such as myself won't likely be thrilled, but gun lovers won't have anything to worry about. the obama-as-radical-leftie image just isn't valid.
Posted by Turkana at June 5, 2008 04:27 PMKos has a new poll up for the general election in MO -- dated 6/3 is precedes the Obama official victory slightly. It is only one state, but a it is a swing state, and it shows several trends from the previous (5/6) poll that we should anticipate across the board.
First, McCain's support among Republicans has intensified from 81-14 to 88-8. Remember all those right wingers who threatened never to vote for McCain back in February and March? As expected, they've thought better of it.
Similarly, Obama's lead among Democrats has grown from 69-21 to 73-13. There are still a lot of "undecided" and "other" in that group, and we can expect his lead to grow in that category over the next few months.
Finally, Obama has taken the lead among independents, from a 34-44 deficit to a 41-34 lead. As the Democratic party unifies, and as the focus on McCain increases, this lead too should grow. McCain's appeal to independents is based largely on his Maverick/StraightTalk(tm) reputation, and as his lobbyist ties and constant positions reversals ("No one has supported President Bush more than I on the Iraq War"/"I have had substantial difference with President Bush on Iraq") become more apparent, independents will find him less attractive.
Overall, Obama has gone from 41-47 down to a very slight 43-42 lead. (He was down 52-38 in the same state on 3/24 in the midst of the 24x7 Wright coverage.)
Lessons: 1) The electability arguments we've heard recently have been based on data that were taken too early and in the wrong context (primary elections -- one party complete, the other still competing). 2) Scandals, if weathered, tend to be forgotten and the candidate can emerge stronger as a results.
It's still too early for final numbers-- but now that the nomination is set we should watch for trends.
Posted by Anonny at June 5, 2008 04:43 PMkos, of course, being the reality-based guy that he is, cherry-picks polls. but you're right that it's too early to know which polls to believe. the gop 527s won't ramp up until after the convention, and that's when the real numbers will start to appear. obama's also been getting some very favorable media, in the past week or so, and that's also likely to change. of course, it's always possible that mccain will simply implode, and that will be a bit of a high wire act- watching if he can make it to november without a public meltdown. but he's going to have a lot more help than has yet become apparent. i've said it many times- this is going to be a very tight race.
Posted by Turkana at June 5, 2008 05:28 PMAs was said by only a few, on Tuesday evening and
Wednesday, Sen. Clinton needed time to "decomp-
press". She gave him validation at AIPAC, where he
needed it. Those MSM, who insist to engage in what
the "candidates should do", what it means and the
"rest of the motive ascribing psychoanylyzing" that goes on, are responsible for alot of the feelings felt on either side, toward these historic figures, both Clinton and Obama.
Rather than allow her any time or recognition for
what she has accomplished in our political history
it was seen fit, by some, to continue to ridicule
and downplay her remarkable achievement. Young
women have another great leader to look to, as a
role model for commitment, perserverance and un-
wavering determination. She knew how to overcome
the odds when being out spent, sometimes 3-1.
She's won the admiration of many, who thought that
they would never have a kind word to say about
her. She touched people, who'd been told she was
cold. We know you care about us Hillary and we
Thank You! She will do what she gave her word to
do, see that we have a Democrat in the White House. She will always go on to champion those is-
sues that are important to her and us. It is
a comfort to know that she is there...for us.
We look to Saturday, when she will "rise" to con-
gratulate the "presumptive nominee" and suspend
her campaign while urging party unity.
Then, I hope that she takes a well-deserved
vacation!
Anonny,
Wow great story! Thanks for sharing that. I think that more people will feel that way when the party is united and Hillary and Bill are on teh campaign trail.
Anonny,
Wow great story! Thanks for sharing that. I think that more people will feel that way when the party is united and Hillary and Bill are on the campaign trail.
....[i]t's always possible that mccain will simply implode, and that will be a bit of a high wire act- watching if he can make it to november without a public meltdown. but he's going to have a lot more help than has yet become apparent...
Posted by Turkana at June 5, 2008 05:28 PM
Very interesting points....I think his out of the gate performance tells me he'll blow a tire during the hot summer.....he appears to have some memory problems....ah yes, the Mighty Wurlitzer and the 527s will pour the hate from Labor Day on....I think Turkana that lack of funds, failure to inspire the Stepfords and the fact that the faux news creeps seem to be embarassed about him, will be the downfall of McC...too much like Bob Dole ....can't even go three rounds anymore....BO looks like a 15 round champion...walks tall and straight....no contest.....TKO before the election...imho
Posted by Goyo at June 5, 2008 08:28 PMah yes, the Mighty Wurlitzer and the 527s will pour the hate from Labor Day on
Which is why we were soooo disappointed in Kerry, as he was totally unprepared for it. I mean, in the Swift Boat instance there was an article in the NYT in December, 2003, which said that if Kerry won the nomination that's where'd they hit him. And yet, he was surprised when it happened.
Incidentally Kerry was also totally unprepared for the rampant vote-supressing, let alone any dirty tricks with the unauditable electronic vote machines. I mean, WTF? They couldn't see that coming after 2000 and 2002?
Fortunately, Obama and Dean have both demonstrated the ability to plan ahead, unlike the Gore and Kerry campaigns.
Also, I sense that the US public is more prepared this time around. You've seen the dismal right track/wrong track poll numbers? I think part of the reason they are so bad is that people simply don't trust anybody -- big oil, big media, big religion, big business, and certainly not politicians. You should hear my staunch, lifelong Republican neighbors -- they feel completely betrayed and are at a loss to find anyone to trust. This country has become very cynical in the past few years. And that will help counter the 527s and the swift boating.
Posted by Anonny at June 5, 2008 08:49 PMI thought Hillary's concession speech was great. For those who haven't heard, excerpt:
“No matter the outcome of the presidential race this November, the year 2008 is a watershed for Democrats. For the first time in the history of either party, a woman selflessly withdrew from a race she was winning to lend a merciful, helping hand to a young African-American in his time of need.”
Posted by Muck at June 5, 2008 09:49 PManonny,
from what i read, it was bob shrum- mister 0 for 7- who thought kerry should ignore the swift boaters, and that the media and the public would see through it. obama doesn't have bob shrum working for him, so i have a hunch he'll respond, when it begins...
Posted by Turkana at June 5, 2008 11:52 PMIf there is public pressure on Obama to pick her which is ultimately successful, he will appear weak and provide grist for Maureen Dowd columns claiming he is "hen-pecked".
Posted by bob h at June 6, 2008 03:26 AMThe wingnuts are saying Barack can't pick Hillary because it will show his weakness means.....the goopers are scared to death of a Obama/Clinton unity ticket IMHO. A lot of Hillary supporters will stay home if she's not on the ticket. I'm an Obama supporter but Hillary has earned her spot on the ticket after this close primary fight. Turkana is right in thinking McSame might implode, he is a terrible candidate. I had to mute his speech Tuesday nite, it was to painful to listen to.
Posted by Joe at June 6, 2008 04:13 AMYou should hear my staunch, lifelong Republican neighbors -- they feel completely betrayed and are at a loss to find anyone to trust.
Gee, maybe 'unity' worked after all since as a lifelong Democrat, I feel the same way!
Posted by Sharon at June 6, 2008 05:33 AMKos has the May summary Gallup polls up. Not a lot of surprises -- the two candidates were virtually tied -- but one element stood out: Obama leads 18-29 yr olds 59-36, is tied or slightly behind in the 30-64 yr groups, and is losing the 65+ group 50-38.
In the older segments, the numbers may change in Obama's favor as the Democratic party unifies. A lot of Hillary's support came from the older demographics, in large part due to her strong social security stand (while McCain's social security position is very suspect).
But the youth numbers are extremely encouraging. I remember reading similar numbers in the mid-1980s and they were all Republican (but not as strong as these are for the Democrats), and that continued into the mid-1990s.
Each generation's views are shaped by the issues that they experience as they come of age. The long Democratic majority of the mid-20th century came about as a result of the Great Depression, and was cemented during WW2. The Republican revival of the 1980s and 1990s was in large part a response to America's experiences in the last half of the 1970s. If you didn't live through that time you probably don't understand just how pessimistic the country was during that time, espeically during the years of 1979-80.
Well, after the past 14 years of the Gingrich Congress overlapping with the Bush White House, it is clear that the younger generation is turning away from Republicans. If the Democrats can accomplish anything at all in the next few years they will be in good shape for quite some time to come.
Posted by Anonny at June 6, 2008 06:17 AMI think the DNC and Democratic Party leaders ought to read the following New York Times op-ed piece.
And think real hard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06tyson.html?tntemail0=y&_r=2&oref=slogin&emc=tnt&pagewanted=print
(I will post it here in its entirety.)
"....
June 6, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Vote by Numbers
By NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON
IT appears that Hillary Clinton is going to suspend her presidential campaign this weekend, at the urging of Democratic Party leaders and superdelegates. Before that happens, Mrs. Clinton and the superdelegates might want to know this: if the general election were held today, Barack Obama would lose to John McCain, while Mr. McCain would lose to Mrs. Clinton.
This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.
Here’s what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election — even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.
This method provides a far more accurate assessment of public opinion than most people’s politically informed commentary. In the 2004 presidential election between John Kerry and George W. Bush, many political analysts said the race was too close to call. But when Professor Gott and Dr. Colley applied the median method in 2004, they correctly predicted the winner in 49 states, missing only Hawaii.
That remarkable success left me wondering what result this method would give if I applied it to the 2008 presidential race. So I examined the past six weeks of polls, taken in 19 important states, that separately pitted Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama against Mr. McCain. The polls were compiled by realclearpolitics.com and include states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
I followed the simple rules established by Professor Gott and Dr. Colley: in states in which a poll has not been taken, you give that state to the party that won it in 2004. You do the same for states where the median poll is a tie.
In 2004, Mr. Kerry won 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of the 270 that would have won him the election. Which states among those that had gone to President Bush would today swing only to Mr. Obama, or only to Mrs. Clinton? And which of Mr. Kerry’s states would swing away from only Mr. Obama or only Mrs. Clinton? All this, of course, is based on current polls.
In Ohio, for example, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. Clinton’s column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.
In Florida, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But Mrs. Clinton shuts out Mr. McCain two to zero. Because Florida went to President Bush four years ago, Mrs. Clinton grabs 27 more electoral votes.
In Michigan, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loses its 17 electoral votes.
When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.
If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.
This analysis does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does.
Poll results can shift, as Mrs. Clinton learned over the past year. The conventions held by both parties usually give candidates a bounce in the polls. Heavy campaigning in close states can swing the sentiments of undecided people. And political gaffes can turn voters away from one candidate and toward another. But these effects would show up monthly in the polls and be duly tracked by this method. The important point is that right now, Mrs. Clinton is ahead of Mr. McCain, and Mr. Obama is behind him.
Two questions arise in the face of this result. Whom should the Republican candidate prefer to run against to maximize his party’s chances of retaining the White House? And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?
The median method has gotten us this far. The political analysts need to take it from here.
_____
Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist and the author of “Death by Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries,” is the host of “Nova scienceNOW.”
..."
Posted by Troubled American at June 6, 2008 07:55 AMThe Democratic party swallowed the media hype. They completely covered their eyes to exit polling since March (except to strip delegates based on exit polling in Michigan).
They think they will have a cash cow and massive youth turnout. They seem to think middle america died or is irrelevant. They are also playing heavily on the assumption that the American people will think McCain is Bush.
I came into the party with Clinton. I'll leave with Clinton.
So far it's just leaders talking. Obama controls a new and prodigious money spigot, so all Democratic politicians must kiss his ring, at least publicly.
It remains to be seen whether Obama is interested in following through on anything substantive. My guess is that he isn't. He may be Elvis to Axelrod's Colonel Parker.
Posted by cygnus at June 6, 2008 08:51 AMNice reprinting an entire NYT editorial. But I don't see the point of any study that tells me "if the election were being held today". The election ISN'T being held today. You could have sold me the same opinion piece from October 2007 and just changed the names around a bit such that Hillary Clinton would definitely win the Democratic primary---if the election were held that day.
So what good does this information do me?
Posted by Bailey at June 6, 2008 09:22 AMSwing states swing states blah blah blah. Since when have "swing states" had this status set in stone?
Obama is attempting to expand the map of so-called swing states, in case nobody noticed. Perhaps Hillary Clinton would be the nominee now if she had tried to do the same thing. We'll never know.
Thank Howard Dean for flogging the 50-state strategy. It's the best idea for reviving the Democratic Party to come along in decades.
Posted by joel dan walls at June 6, 2008 10:07 AMI cannot stand Hillary. This is all a dog and pony show. She is so disengenuous and such a liar, I would not be surprised to see her try to be McCain's VP.
Posted by the big house at June 6, 2008 12:01 PMHey Turkana -
I would vote for Obama if he asks Clinton and she said yes. To me it is a no-brainer. i would have preferred it the other way around for many many reasons I havent the time nor the inclination to go into - but a HUGE percentage of Democrats want this so Obama should be wise and do it. BTD on Talkleft has been right to push this.
I cant threaten to vote Mccain - I dont have the heart for that - but I could very well stay home and just let it ride without me - cause I dont have the heart to vote for the guy whose campaign was so offensive to me personally without Clinton being part of the deal.
Please refrain from attacking me folks - it is an honest statement.
Posted by the young judith at June 8, 2008 06:10 PM