Who's Gonna Win?

[silverscreenselect]

McCain-Obama will be Bush-Dukakis II. It won't be a total disaster for the Dems along the lines of Mondale or McGovern, but it won't be like Kerry or Gore's defeat either.

Here's Kerry states that Obama won't hold: PA, MI, WI, NJ.

And if McCain is able to go after the Hispanic vote aggressively, CA could be back in play as well.

The Republicans have only begun to trot out the heavy artillery against Obama. With the exception of Wright, they've usually backed off instead of pressing the issue on a lot of points.

Wright will be an issue. Ayers and other sleazy connections will be an issue. Hamas will be an issue. Inexperience will be an issue. Elitism will be an issue. Blowback against false claims of racism will be an issue. Shifting positions on the issues (which the Repubs will claim hides a radical left agenda) will be an issue. Michelle Obama will be an issue.

And there will undoubtedly be other issues we don't even know about yet.

[Thousandaire]

McCain doesn't have a chance. He is old and people are sick of Bush and sick of Iraq.

Rather than Bush-Dukakis it will be more like LBJ-Goldwater. Then as now Republicans are dangerously mis-reading the mood of the country.

[TheCalvinator24]

4) Obama puts more Bush states in play than Clinton does. Obama is competitive in 13 Bush states (possibly 15 cuz MO and TX are on that barely/leaning borderline),

There is no way that Obama wins Texas. In fact, I don't believe he'll come within 8 points.

[JBillyGirl]

Here's Kerry states that Obama won't hold: PA, MI, WI, NJ.

As a New Jerseyan, I disagree with your assessment of my state. We've become a pretty progressive blue state in the last several years, so much so that Kerry didn't even bother coming to campaign in the state in 2004 and still won. Of course, nothing is a given, and the election is months away, but I think you may assume too much.

[hf_jai]

There are reputable polls showing Obama trailing McCain in Massachusetts fercrissesake. I think almost anything is possible in that regard.

The important point to remember, as sss has pointed out, is that the GOP and their 527s haven't even gotten a good start on him yet. Kerry and Gore gave them MUCH less to work with.

[Jeemie]

McCain doesn't have a chance. He is old and people are sick of Bush and sick of Iraq.

Rather than Bush-Dukakis it will be more like LBJ-Goldwater. Then as now Republicans are dangerously mis-reading the mood of the country.

It SHOULD be like that...but Obama is such a flawed candidate that it won't be.

Although who knows- with the sour economy and rising energy problems, I fear that socialism in America may be an idea whose time has come.

PS SSS- it won't be hard to prove that Obama has a radical left agenda. one just has to peruse Obama's website to KNOW he has a radical left agenda.

[Appa23]

4) Obama puts more Bush states in play than Clinton does. Obama is competitive in 13 Bush states (possibly 15 cuz MO and TX are on that barely/leaning borderline),

There is no way that Obama wins Texas. In fact, I don't believe he'll come within 8 points.

In the same vein, those people who look at one, very-old poll and think that Obama has any shot in Nebraska has just proven that they know nothing about politics.

Only if Jesus Christ himself came down to Earth, changed parties, and ran for President would a Democrat have a chance. If nothing drastic happens, McCain wins at least 60% of the vote in Nebraska all 5 electoral votes.

I also would not over-estimate Obama's wins in caucus states, like Iowa and Nebraska. He won the Nebraska caucus fairly handily, but he still nearly lost the "not for delegates" primary tonight. If the Nebraska Democratic PTB had not pushed up the date and held that silly caucus, Clinton would have flipped the win and tightened the delegate count. (IIRC, Nebraska was one of the states in the "winning streak" for Obama. If it had been a primary and not a caucus, suddenly that streak is less impressive and maybe this race is even tighter.)

As someone else noted, you have to look at the facts on which these "predictions" are based. In many cases, the polls used are very old, done before McCain was the Republican nominee, and are not from the major polling experts.

[mellytu74]

Too tired to sleep so I came over to browse.

Some ramblings - somewhat loose-limbed.

A Democrat won in Misssissippi tonight. The third straight Democratic takeover of a previously longtime Republican Congressional seat.

AND the second in a row in the South where the NRCC has tried to tie the candidate to Barack Obama.

It hasn't worked.

sss says the RNC will pile on Obama.

Well, I think the Republicans would have a pretty easy time picking apart Hillary Clinton with nary a word about Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm, cattle futures, Monica Lewinsky or the Board of WalMart.

She's given them all the ammunition they need this primary season.

Say Hillary Clinton IS the Democratic nominee.

You think the Republicans won't harp on the fact that, as we speak, her campaign is $20 million in debt?

That she has to constantly borrow from her own pocket to run her campaign?

That small vendors who stage the rallies/meetings/campaign stops aren't being paid or have waited months to get paid?

Stiffing small businesses? My mother ran a little card and gift shop for years. I can't think of anything cheesier than stiffing a mom-and-pop business. It's un-American.

Is this campaign an example of how you'll run the economy, Junior Senator from New York?

OR that she's done a crummy job of picking senior staff?

How does reflect on her leadership?

What does it say about her that senior staff (or the candidate herself) had no good read on the mood of the country going into this?

That there was NO Plan B in case she didn't win by Super Tuesday?

The Republicans can go into Minnesota, say, and say that Hillary Clinton blew you off because you don't matter, you caucus state, you.

(And, for the record, Obama did quite well in Duluth, home of the Iron Range and lots of hard-working white working class people).

We may think that's inside baseball but I guarantee the Republicans can turn it into campaign gold.

With the exception of tonight and Arkansas (and probably Kentucky next week), she has had some trouble holding onto big leads in the polls throughout this primary season.

Even in states where she won decisively, she lost chunks of those leads in the days leading to those primaries.

She won Ohio by 10 -- six weeks before that primary, she led by 27 points. Same with California, Massachusetts, New Jersey (once a 32-point lead). She had a 22-point lead in PA six weeks before the primary, won by 9.5

You have to ask yourself, why is that?

A year ago, she had name recognition and tons of money. Today, even James Carville admitted that a guy who virtually no one heard of 18 months ago, unless you saw the 2004 Democratic convention keynote address, is going to be the nominee.

Although I understand that she can be witty and charming in person, on the stump she doesn't have Bill Clinton's charm, the charm that allowed people to forgive much. If she lapses into the schoolmarm-ish Hillary "I went to Wellesley, you know" Clinton demeanor from earlier in the campaign, it won't hold her in good stead.

People don't like to be lectured to.

To be fair, she's doin' much better with the Hillary-Rodham-as-Will-Rogers persona lately.

And, if that's closer to who she really is, if she really is the champion of the working class and it was the guidance of Mark Penn that led her down several blind alleys before she found her "real" voice, then that's too bad.

On his website, Penn bragged about the good business his union avoidance seminars do. That's not the guy I'd hire to craft my populist economic message if I wanted to appeal to the voter who's been hit hard economically.

But, maybe she just has herself to blame for picking him to run her campaign in the first place.

Because, if you don't know what your voice is from day one of your campaign (after six years in the US Senate and 36 years of experience), then maybe you aren't Ready from Day One after all.

And, there's Bob Barr.

If McCain can't crack 80 percent of the vote in the Republican primaries in PA, IND, and NC as the presumptive nominee, who can say how many dissatisifed Republicans will head to Bob Barr?

Is he John McCain's Ross Perot?? And what will that mean for (presumably) Obama?

We don't know. We don't know anything right now.

I mean, at this point, numbers are just that.

jai cited a poll where McCain leads Obama in Massachusetts.

I just saw something in the Philly Daily News where, as of May 6, Rasmussen and another poll have Obama beating McCain in PA by between 5 and 8 points.

Obama beats McCain in Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington and Colorado right now, according to the New Republic's polls. Clinton is losing those states to McCain in that polling.

We just don't know.

But, in an election year where a Democrat has taken an open GOP Congressional seat three times running, anything can happen.

[takinover]

And can't we wait until VP's are formally announced, as I think it will have a great impact on how each candidate is viewed.

Oh, and please make sure you register for the proper voting district this time, SSS.

[NellyLunatic1980]

Here's Kerry states that Obama won't hold: PA, MI, WI, NJ.

Respectfully, SSS, you're talking through your hat on this one. Michigan and Wisconsin are indeed possibles, though Michigan is the one that really boggles my mind. The economy of Michigan has been in the s**tter for 30-some years and I really don't want to believe that state would actually vote for a Republican presidential nominee who has admitted publicly that he don't know dick about the economy.

But New Jersey? NEW?! FREAKIN'?! JERSEY?! Ha! Republicans couldn't even hold on to a blood-red House district in Mississippi last night!

Mark this comment: I absolutely 100% guarantee that New Jersey and Pennsylvania will not flip to McCain in 2008.

[Jeemie]

Mark this comment: I absolutely 100% guarantee that New Jersey and Pennsylvania will not flip to McCain in 2008.

You're right- because all those friggin' upper middle class socialists in the counties north and west of Philly who have been seeing their incomes evaporate will flock to the Dem nominee.

I should know- I live amongst them.

Although who knows? My wife is a lifelong fairly liberal Democrat...and she's not sure she can vote for Obama- he's way too liberal even for her.

[mellytu74]

And one more thing before I bury myself in work (the movers were at TLAF's yesterday and I took the day off to rearrange things at the house)....

Hillary Clinton is running on her 36 years of experience, including eight years as trusted economic advisor to the President of the United States.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, won't the Republicans be able to attack her on five members of Bill Clinton's cabinet endorsing Barack Obama -- some of them fairly early?

And that's not counting Daley.

What does that say? That Bill Clinton's cabinet didn't have enough faith in her in her abilities to endorse her?

It's not everyone but it's enough to sow doubt.

And can she say it doesn't matter without diminishing her role in the administration?

I don't know.

[NellyLunatic1980]

By the way, anybody who tells you that Obama is the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate is talking out of his ass. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) is the most liberal senator, at 98.49%. Obama's liberal percentage is 88.92%, which ranks him only 24th. Clinton ranks higher, 18th with 91.29%

[silverscreenselect]

Four years ago, no one would ever have guessed that John Kerry's Vietnam war service would be a key weapon used by the Republicans against him. The Swift Boat information was buried extremely deep, but they found it.

They've been digging up dirt on Hillary for sixteen years now, Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, you name it. The dirt that's out there is known, and she is beginning to win some grudging respect among Republicans, and there are a lot of Walmart women who are willing to vote for Hillary in tough economic times, who voted for Bush the last two elections, but won't under any circumstances vote for Obama.

I actually remember when Saturday Night Live was going back on the air after the writers' strike and they were talking about who would play Obama on the show and someone made the comment, and this was a serious comment, that it was very hard to poke fun at someone who had a spotless reputation. That sure has changed in two months.

There's plenty more dirt about Obama that hasn't been aired too much. The Palestinian connection (let alone the Hamas "endorsement"), his Kenyan relatives, some of his other Chicago pals, and even good old Tony Rezko if he's convicted and decides to talk. What the Republicans will be able to do is pull all these pieces together in one continuing, coherent narrative, a picture of a guy who pals around with some of the sleaziest, un-American sorts imaginable.

I don't think Obama is a Marxist. I think he's an opportunist with a very shallow belief structure and an unwillingness to be tied down to a position that could actually cost him votes (ie, the present votes). This allows the Republicans to claim, with considerable plausibility among the voters Obama needs to reach, that he is a wild eyed radical himself. Add to that his air of elitism, which shows up far more often than it should, and good old Michelle Obama, and he has a big problem.

Another issue that will get press is the antics of some of Obama's young supporters. One thing that killed McGovern in 1972 was the disgusting behavior of some of his supporters. Obama has a lot of people who seem to be the children (perhaps literally) of the rabid McGovern crowd. Incidents of shouting down and booing political opponents, hacking web sites, and intimidation at caucuses and other events have been documented but haven't gotten a lot of publicity. You can count on Fox News to bring all that out in the open.

Fox News forces the mainstream press to cover certain topics that might otherwise be glossed over, and people like Hannity and Limbaugh can influence Fox News and the mainstream press. Limbaugh trots out a silly self-promoting "Operation Chaos," which is funny since a lot of Republicans have been crossing over to Obama just because he is easier to beat, but no one ever mentioned this until Limbaugh started shooting his mouth off. Now, Limbaugh becomes an issue.

People like Wright and Ayers are way beyond the mainstream and are definitely a turnoff to a lot of voters. The next six months, the Republicans will be showing over and over again, that these guys are part of a pattern, not isolated acquaintances in Obama's career.

Obama might be able to deflect the attacks on him if he had a solid platform on which to stand. Contrary to what a lot of conservatives hope, most Americans stand with the Democrats on the issues this year. But in a year in which Democratic partisan politics is a winning issue, Obama is trying to present himself as post-partisan, talking about nonsense about hope and change and unity (a tough sell since he sure isn't even trying to unify the Democratic party), and substituting buzzwords and hype instead of a cohesive platform on which to run.

[Jeemie]

By the way, anybody who tells you that Obama is the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate is talking out of his ass. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) is the most liberal senator, at 98.49%. Obama's liberal percentage is 88.92%, which ranks him only 24th. Clinton ranks higher, 18th with 91.29%

Who gives a flying fig about these ratings?

I'm basing ny opinion on Obama based on what I see from his website...from what he says himself that he wants to do.

[mellytu74]

. But in a year in which Democratic partisan politics is a winning issue, Obama is trying to present himself as post-partisan, talking about nonsense about hope and change and unity (a tough sell since he sure isn't even trying to unify the Democratic party), and substituting buzzwords and hype instead of a cohesive platform on which to run.

I was just going to write some semi-snarky about Hillary's doing nothing to pull people apart but, never mind.

I just don't see Obama as the anti-Christ.

Or McCain or Hillary Clinton, for that matter.

I just find it hard to believe that her above-60-percent negatives make Hillary Clinton an more electable candidate than anyone else. Especially when so many people have voted against her because she IS her.

sss -- you and I will agree to disagree on Obama.

I just don't feel like expending the energy to argue when there are too many other things going on in my life.

So, to that effect, as of this moment, I quit writing/answering political posts on the Bored.

But one more thing....

sss, please don't take this the wrong way but, as the middle-aged janitor's daughter who has been white her entire life, I find your constant criticism of Obama's voters as nothing but as stupid sheep beyond insulting.

[5LD]

Uncomfortable article from Dana Millbank today....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 62_pf.html

[starfish1113]

Uncomfortable article from Dana Millbank today....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 62_pf.html

In a story that seems perfectly plausible, one line stands out:

Clinton has crossed the Blue Ridge and is over the green hills of West Virginia, home of what she calls the "hardworking Americans, white Americans." This is Clinton Country.

To put this in quotes is (unless of course it was said) irresponsible at the very least.

[silverscreenselect]

I just find it hard to believe that her above-60-percent negatives make Hillary Clinton an more electable candidate than anyone else. Especially when so many people have voted against her because she IS her.

At one time, I felt a very strong argument in favor of another Democratic candidate instead of Hillary was the fact that so many people hated her. Nobody really hated Kerry (poking fun at someone is not the same as hatred). Republicans would get worked up about Hillary and actively campaign against her when they wouldn't against an Edwards or a Biden.

However, Obama has managed to ratchet the negatives about him, as a result of Wright and his elitist talk and his questionable connections, so that a lot of Republicans and a fair number of independents (not to mention a number of Hillary Democrats) cannot stand him. So they will be motivated to show up and to donate and to make an effort to GOTV against Obama even in a down year for Republicans.

Is it the same level as the Hillary hate? Not quite, but they've got a few more months to work on it.

And I personally resent being labelled an ignorant racist redneck for not worshipping the ground Obama walks on.

[mellytu74]

[/quote] And I personally resent being labelled an ignorant racist redneck for not worshipping the ground Obama walks on.[/quote]

sss --

I was merely pointing out that I am a middle-aged white woman whose very large and largely blue-collar family leans very heavily to Obama.

As does my most of circle of friends -- administrative assistants, bus drivers, electricians, contractors, steamfitters.

We are the people who are not supposed to be voting for him. But we did and will again.

I've also stated several times here that I would have voted for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

I certainly did not mean to suggest in any way, shape or form that I thought you were racist redneck because you are an ardent Clinton supporter.

If you read that into my statement, my sincere apologies.

But, in your ardent support, you have characterized those of us who support Obama as stupid vacious ninnies following some charlatan.

And I do resent that. And will not apologize for those feelings.

[trevor_macfee]

Uncomfortable article from Dana Millbank today....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 62_pf.html

In a story that seems perfectly plausible, one line stands out:

Clinton has crossed the Blue Ridge and is over the green hills of West Virginia, home of what she calls the "hardworking Americans, white Americans." This is Clinton Country.

To put this in quotes is (unless of course it was said) irresponsible at the very least.

She said it (to be fair, not explicitly about West Virginia). Among many sources,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/e ... titialskip.

I'm sure it wasn't what she was trying to say, but the quote is insulting on two levels:

1. It portrays white Americans as racists who are looking for a white candidate to support and,
2. It implies that African Americans are not hard-working.

[hf_jai]

Melly, you got a link for "her above-60-percent negatives"?

If you look at Rasmussen, Hillary's negatives aren't anywhere near that high. They run right around 50%, only a few points away from Obama (usually not statistically different) and on some days she even beats him.
HERE
Note that McCain's numbers are frequently better than both.

[silverscreenselect]

I'm sure it wasn't what she was trying to say, but the quote is insulting on two levels:

1. It portrays white Americans as racists who are looking for a white candidate to support and,
2. It implies that African Americans are not hard-working.

That quote is another case of playing gotcha with an attempt during off-the-cuff remarks to change something on the fly and have it not come out right.

Hillary began by saying that she had a decided edge in appeal to working class voters, then caught herself and tried to qualify it (since obviously she hasn't done well with black voters, working class or otherwise). It didn't come out well.

For those looking for reasons to flay the Clintons as racists, it's more fuel to add to the fire, but a realistic look at the statement is the type of tongue tangling that oftens strikes candidates of all sorts (like Obama's 57 states comment).

And Hillary hasn't just done well with white working class voters; she's cleaned up with Hispanics as well. In fact, the only ethnic demographic where Obama does well is black voters (latte liberals are not an ethnic demographic).

[mellytu74]

Melly, you got a link for "her above-60-percent negatives"?

If you look at Rasmussen, Hillary's negatives aren't anywhere near that high. They run right around 50%, only a few points away from Obama (usually not statistically different) and on some days she even beats him.
HERE
Note that McCain's numbers are frequently better than both.

jai -

Not at hand but it was either Time or Newsweek, maybe two weeks ago.

The article cited the 58 percent "dishonest and untrustworthy" numbers from the end of April after the Pennsylvania primary and said it spiked to over 60 for certain questions.

What, I cannot remember. the reasons it struck me was that it WAS so close to 60 percent.

It was definitely NOT a blogger's reponse to an article. That much I know.

Sorry I can't be more specific but between working to get TLAF's house ready for sale and settlement, moving myself, getting TLAF settled, and running back and forth to doctors and theapists for Boonie, plus work, things kind of blend together.

[TheConfessor]

And I personally resent being labelled an ignorant racist redneck for not worshipping the ground Obama walks on.

Too bad you're not an Obama fan. Your enlightened neighbors in Marietta would be pleased to sell you a T-shirt.
http://www.ajc.com/wireless/content/met ... _0514.html