Apparently people just haven't gotten the message.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

Hey where is the headline for Barack's big endorsement today from Patrick Daval.

That is certainly newsworthy.

I sent money to Obama, not because he is black, not because I feel guilty, but because I want to stop Hillary. My biggest reason is her relationship with Mark Penn, her refusal to take a position on fair trade and her health care policy, which is a sopping wet kiss for the insurance racket, financed with taxpayers money. She doesn't even pretend to care about the cost or quality of coverage provided! Barack Obama is much more intelligent than Hillary, and knows about poverty from his activist years. I think he is more likely to do the right thing by the people of this nation. And I like his constitutional law background. We need someone who will restore our legal system! I also think we can't afford any more "triangulation".

I just want him to win.
For all ya'lls sakes.

GORE/Obama is the winning ticket. Al Gore was the first political figure to oppose the Iraq war, and Obama was equally insightful early on concerning Iraq. Al Gore is also the lead champion in the fight against global warming, a passionate defender of our Constitution, and an unyielding voice against the Bush Administration's abuse of power.Gore is the leader this country needs to regain our democracy . Until someone of stature and integrity can stand up and tell the American people the truth, nothing will change. I believe that Al Gore has the stature and both Gore and Obama have the integrity sorely needed to restore this country’s health.

Dcshungu:

Probably the smart thing would have been to keep your inane, pseudo psychobabble thoughts to yourself. But no one ever accused you of being the brightest bulb in the bunch. Instead of allowing for the fact that the polls are inherently unreliable at this stage of the game, you proffer up this drivel. Never mind that he is a newcomer taken on a quasi-incumbent who has been on the national political scene for almost 17 years. Nope, you try for the two-fer, sound semi-intelligent and diss the man (and his supporters) in the same post. If you are representative of the typical HRC supporter, I'm proud to consider myself not among them.

Go masturbate to the latest poll, it will be a more productive use of your time and spare us any more of your dim-witted analysis.

I sent money to Obama, not because he is black, not because I feel guilty, but because I want to stop Hillary.

A distinction without a difference: Please support Obama because you like him and not because you're you looking for someone, anyone who can stop Hillary. No wonder her lead has held in the polls! Those who support Hillary do so with passion, which bodes well for chances to hold onto her support until the primaries and beyond, the usual caveat about the polls being meaningless this "early" notwithstanding. We have not had a campaign so well run in a while, and that includes the campaign of her husband, who has been the only Dem Prez since Carter!

My biggest reason is her relationship with Mark Penn, her refusal to take a position on fair trade and her health care policy, which is a sopping wet kiss for the insurance racket, financed with taxpayers money. She doesn't even pretend to care about the cost or quality of coverage provided!

Hillary has put out her health care plan out there, and it was generally well received. Moreover, those who have studied her plan and compared it to Edwards' and Obama's have found no whopping differences between them. So, therefore, you need a better reason to want so badly to stop Hillary than just unease with her health care plan. This is bogus. In fact, on issues, there are very few substantive differences between the Dem candidates. I would be able to live with the policies that most of them have enunciated, which leaves as key criteria "leadership", "experience", "character" and "dedication to hard work" and "toughness" to be able to pass those policies into law. That is why I am supporting Hillary. You need an excuse to stop? The mindless "Anybody But Clinton" (ABC) is just as good as any.

Barack Obama is much more intelligent than Hillary, and knows about poverty from his activist years. I think he is more likely to do the right thing by the people of this nation. And I like his constitutional law background. We need someone who will restore our legal system! I also think we can't afford any more "triangulation"

There is no evidence whatsoever to support any of this, especially the bit about "intelligence"... It is all conjecture. Something that has been emerging, the closer the voters have gotten to the candidates, is that Hillary seems to empathize and connect more with the voters than does Obama, who comes off as a bit standoffish, and cuts off people at his events when he feels that a question is too long, etc... (if you subscribe to "The New Republic", check out a piece by Mike Crowley on his close up coverage of the Obama Campaign.

Is Mrs Clinton the best American can offer for woman presidency? A mockery of the strength of self made women!!
I will wait for Samantha Powers,
Bush-Clinton should Give Americans a Break!

Ken P wrote on October 17, 2007 9:49 PM: Dcshungu's twisted logic clearly shows that racist comments can be found just as easily on progressive blogs as well as ones like Red State. So the black candidate is only raising all of that money because people feel sorry for him and not because they find him to be a compelling candidate with an appealing message?

(1)What you call "twisted racist logic" is really quite close to the unspeakable truth in '08 America, that is on a lot of Dem voters' minds. How many southern states to do you think Obama would carry? How many purple states? Despite out-raising HRC in 2 quarters, he is barely ahead of Giuliani in CA and NY without which no Dem can win the presidency (Edwards just does not have much support, as is evidence by his struggle to make ends meet and his being stuck in third position forever). Really, something does not jive, my friend. Obama out-raised Clinton two consecutive quarters, raking in millions, and guess what? His support, as judged by the polls, any poll, either did not budge or actually went down since he declared. It tells me that people genuinely like Obama but they do not like his chances for the general election. I do not like his chances either... but I would support him should he be the nominee. The concern is that his ratio of support in the polls per dollar raised is abysmal. Why is that? Inquiring minds wanna know...Please reconcile these facts, and do not just say that the polls are meaningless this "early." They ARE meaningful. HRC raised more funds in Q03 because people began to perceive her, as judged by the polls, as the candidate to beat. Edwards had to go pan in hand to the public trough because he was perceived as a sure loser. Obama's fund-raising prowess and anemic support in the polls and a contradiction...

(3) The notion that there are no bigots among the progressives is naive, at best. And what do you think people are going to do? Openly discuss Obama's race, and how they feel about it? The polls are where they express that and it shows: He had been raising tons of money but getting no support in the polls, where people can talk to anonymous pollsters on the phone and give their honest views.

yet his detractors always feel compelled to insinuate that that is the only reason people support him. It is patronizing,insulting and racist.

This is the true irony: On one hand, people do genuinely like Obama, not because he is black, but because of what he stands for; on the other hand, they do not think that his electable! Give him money but support Clinton, who can win; that is how they are splitting the difference...at least so far. Obama must make the electability argument if he wants to win this thing. Talking about how he had good judgment on Iraq and how he is a new kind of politician makes people like him, but it does not address the electability issue.

I will support Obama in 2012 because even if he loses this time, he would have prepared America to accept the possibility of a black POTUS (just as electing HRC would break yet one more taboo...) and he would be more formidable after acquiring the "experience" and "leadership" qualities that he needs to make the electability argument.

Should he win the nomination in '08 America, I will support him wholeheartedly in the general election.

Cheers, mate!

Deshungu asks: How many Southern States would Obama carry? At least two: Mississippi and Georgia. He also makes South Carolina competitive, and Virginia is already in play.

Why? Because of the AA vote. There are enough AA in Mississippi and Georgia to flip the states, but they don't normally vote in proportion to their population. With Obama as the nominee, be sure they will. And that's enough to turn at least those two, and possibly more, Southern states blue.

Plus, his crossover appeal to Independents and more than a few disgruntled Republicans is exactly what the Dems need to win nationwide, and that's something Hillary can't get with her negatives. She'll even lose plenty of Democrats.

I'm not saying that Hillary's negatives are her fault. But there they are.

It's all so simple folks.
Obama and Edwards are as far behind as they are because they're in the grasp of handlers and consultants. They're not showing true leadership and are simply playing it safe. If people want safe, they'll go with Clinton, until either Obama or Edwards get rid of the consultants, take aim at Bush and start acting like they've got testicles. Yes folks, it's the John Wayne factor of American politics, drawing a line in the sand and what greater opportunity to do this has there ever been in our lifetimes? These two men have got to show that they want it and despite all the positions and the high flown rhetoric, they have not done so. Again,
Hillary is safe and who want's that?
Pillsbury America, thats who. GEORGE BUSH IS THE OPPONENT!

O-Bomb-A has raised and spent an awful lot of money with little to show by way of results. This is just more good money after bad.

So in your mind the only way to explain the disconnect between the polls and the actual and verifiable donors and dollars is to conclude that the donors are donating to Obama out of pity? They can't actually intend to vote for him. Why? Look at the polls. No way the polls could be inaccurate? So what that polls are notoriously inaccurate at this stage of a presidential primary. Couldn't have anything to do with her being on the national public scene for 17 years? Nor that her husband was (and still is) a wildly popular president? Nope, not Hungu-World. The donors are lying bigots, in a good way.

Provocative

In fact, you are extrapolating wildly. In reality, the people donating to Obama are Dems and independents, who genuinely like him and are no bigots..for the most. Their fear is that America in 2007-2008, especially in the South, is not likely to vote for Obama because he is black and a relative novice. So, they'll split the difference: Give money to Obama and vote for Clinton. Why is this so far-fetched? You still have not reconciled Obama's tons of money and his anemic support in the polls. And, polls this "early" do matter because they shape perceptions and expectations, which are determinants of fund-raising (ask Edwards), and winners and losers. When HRC was trailing Rudy and McCain, the argument was that she would be a bad nominee because polls show that she was unelectable; then she obliterated that argument by overtaking everybody almost everywhere where Dems are expected to win. She did that by running a great campaign, blunting the attacks by exposing herself to the voters, unfiltered. Then polls in the early states were cited ad nauseam as evidence that Clinton is not that strong because she was in a dead heat with Edwards and Obama in those states. Now she is clearly leading in SC and NH, and it looks like she might be pulling away in IA, polls are all of sudden meaningless this "early." The direction of the polls is clear, and to keep saying that they are irrelevant this "early", when HRC shows now signs of weakening is just denial. You might not want to see the next wave of polls. They will shatter that notion. Obama and Edwards know this, which is why they decided to go on the offensive before the opinions, as reflected in the polls solidify. Modern polling is very good at capturing prevailing opinions at the time that they are taken. But those a real opinions, so unless someone stumbles (HRC won't) or can do something (like Dean's infamous "scream") to shake up the race, what we are seeing now in the polls is what will come to pass.

Please reconcile Obama's fund-raising prowess with his anemic poll numbers. Do not tell me what it does NOT mean. Tell me what it does mean... I submitted to you that this is a reflection of the lingering ante bellum mentality in 2007-2008 America, and I stand by that. Clinton will have to self-destruct in order for her to lose this thing, but she won't self-destruct. And Obama must make a case for his electability and not a case against Clinton's. He's tried that already with the AUMF vote and it has not worked, and won't work because people (many of whom had supported the invasion in 2002-2003) are not that bothered by it.

Dcshungu:

Cute. Let's see if I follow this: 1. You post some drivel you call provocative. 2 I expose it as little more than your unsupported supposition. 3. And now you accuse me of extrapolating wildly? I merely spelled out your argument, you actually made it. So if there's wild extrapolation, I suggest you look to yourself as the cause.

As for your poll: It's early; you know, I know it; everyone knows it. You have people reporting on what they think today about a decision they will or will not do 80+ days from now. No qualification or consideration of intervening events. Just what they think they will do almost three months from now. Maybe they will. Who knows. 80+ days is a long time from now.

Compare that with actual donors and dollars donated. Those are present commitments. Not a sample. No MOE. Not contingent. Just count the bodies and dollars. It may or may not translate into votes in 80 days, but it's a helluva lot more certain than asking them what they THINK they'll do in 80+ days.

So you have speculation/projection v. reality/known quantity. I'll place more value on the known vs the speculative. Neither is perfect, but one is a little better indicator of a candidate's support today. But that's me....

Dschungu your posts reflect small minded intelligence and they arr a repetitious bore. Geez, give us all a break.

Obama has over 300,000 donors, which is historic. But of course that is entirely consistent with his national poll numbers, because 20% of the target populations in these polls (e.g., Democrats and independents who lean Democratic) is actually going to be millions of people.

So, no, people are not giving money to Obama's campaign and then immediately telling the pollsters that they support someone else. Rather, what appears to be happening is that people who currently prefer Obama are more likely to actually support his campaign with money, as opposed to just naming him when called and asked by a pollster to express a preference. I will leave it to others to speculate about what that might mean when it comes to, say, whose support in the polls is more likely to translate into actual participation in the caucuses and primaries.

By the way, Americans are not as racist as some people would like you to believe. Indeed, I would note that for a Democrat, Obama has been very popular among white, conservative, and downstate voters in Illinois (more popular, for example, than his fellow Senator Dick Durbin, who himself is a pretty popular Senator by ordinary standards). See here:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9acde2f2-da64-4175-bb54-121eaf30bb18

If you know anything about Illinois outside of Chicago, I think those facts supports some pretty strong conclusions about whether or not Americans in general are ready to support a politician like Obama (hint: the answer is yes).

Thanks for saying that, feathered_head. I have been watching this behavior, too, of those 'permanently parked' here who monopolize and hijack to reduce the threads into a volley/attack scene instead of a discussion.

One would think that the staff of EC would recognize that this site, since its adoption of an unregulated format, has failed to measure up to TPM's usual excellence on the web. In reality, EC has become a hit and run 'stupid site' just like so many other originally good discussion sites that have become little more than an outlet for the obsessives.

What you term 'utter paranoia' of the persons 'protecting the Queen' I see as the nagging mother syndrome. Ever meet one of those mothers so insecure and obsessive that they get their noses into every aspect of the lives of their kids? At the slightest indication of 'waywardness', one of those nagging mothers wil begin applying constant verbal nit-picking and 'withholding love' and judgmental pressure. It is a form of psychological bullying intended to erase all individuality and/or free wil in another. It cannot work, of course, with adults who can think for themselves, but the nagging mothers are too much into their patterns to realize how tiresome and off-putting they are.

Dschungu/Douglas:

Here's what I think is going on with the polls. Name recognition--she's been on the national scene 17 years to his, what 3? There are exactly three states where all of the candidates are actively campaigning: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. These states have a collective population of: 8.56MM (2.83% of the population). The rest of the country is essentially DARK. No ads, no real campaigning, at least compared to IA, NH and SC. And throw in the media's pushing of this inevitability meme, is there any question why she's polling so high outside of the first three? Who do you choose: a unknown man with a funny name or the wife of one of the most popular president's in the last 40 years and who's been on your tv for the last 17 years? It's amazing that he's polling at 20% against a quasi-imcumbent.

And before you go there: In the three primary states, the poll numbers reflect a tight race--yep, even NH. The story about NH is that over half of the Democratic base is undecided (even though 40% of them expressed support for HRC) and 45% of the registered voters in NH are independent--and therefore not represented in those polls. And independents like what they hear from Obama. At least that's what the NY Times thinks.

The other point is that traditionally the young don't vote, which is where he is strong. The recent IA Rasmussen poll only contemplated 8% turnout amongst those 30 and under (weighted 50 and over at 68%); and didn't include anyone that hadn't participated in a causcus before (no matter if they say definitely would)--so no one who was under 18 in 2004. Obviously this makes sense at this point, but again it cuts out a great deal of his support in these early states. Will this support show up in January? That's that $1MM question.

Here's what I think is going on with Obama's donors. He's drawing support not just from Democrats, but independents and Republicans. It's called a broad base of support. So a self-identifying Republican will be asked to choose between the Republican field, even though he may prefer and support Obama through donations (because he can't vote in the Dem primary). Or his supporters may not have voted in the last Democratic primary (i.e., independents, green party, under 18 in 2004, didn't vote because it didn't matter at that point) and therefore are not considered likely voters. Obviously this is all speculation on my point. No one really knows at this point; that's the point about polls at this point--they are inherently flawed at this point.

So in a nutshell: National polling, at this point, is more about name recognition and the media--people just aren't focused enough to distinguish between the candidates beyond the sound bites being pumped out. Obama's support is broader than the Democratic base and his support is not fully reflected in the polling (for the reasons stated above).

But that's just what I think. It could be that his donors are bigots, in a good way, who don't mind deluding him.

Worse, if they're really smart and are watching the more or less realtime Rasmussen daily numbers, they've also noticed that in Hillary's Surgelette of October 10-12 (i.e. when all these other polls they've been waving around were taken) appears to have evaporated and they're now very afraid of what the MSM will say when this shows up in the next round of periodic polls.

If 19 points can be termed "evaporated"...

A poster named "Reference Librarian" had correctly, I think, pointed out that the daily fluctuations in the Rasmussen poll are to be expected, especially with a MOE of ~4.5%. However, it is the trend over a period of time that should be more informative, and that is clear when you look at the poll at monthly intervals (from the Reference Librarian):

10/17 Clinton 43 Obama 24 Edwards 11
09/17 Clinton 40 Obama 23 Edwards 13
08/17 Clinton 38 Obama 24 Edwards 12
17/17 Clinton 37 Obama 25 Edwards 13

Obama's and Edwards' numbers have not budged in three months, whereas Clinton's have clearly been on the rise. If you do not like the Rasmussen poll, it'd be a lot more depressing, since the recent "surge" in the other - presumably more reliable - polls puts Clinton's lead at ~30% nationwide.

Keith wrote on October 18, 2007 11:46 AM:

Dschungu/Douglas:

Here's what I think is going on with the polls. Name recognition--she's been on the national scene 17 years to his, what 3? There are exactly three states where all of the candidates are actively campaigning: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. These states have a collective population of: 8.56MM (2.83% of the population). The rest of the country is essentially DARK. No ads, no real campaigning, at least compared to IA, NH and SC. And throw in the media's pushing of this inevitability meme, is there any question why she's polling so high outside of the first three? Who do you choose: a unknown man with a funny name or the wife of one of the most popular president's in the last 40 years and who's been on your tv for the last 17 years? It's amazing that he's polling at 20% against a quasi-imcumbent.

Keith:

First, thank you for not engaging, for most part, some of the vile ad hominem attacks and trying to address what I had posed to you.

Second, I think that it is too late in the game for the argument about "name recognition" to account for the incongruity between Obama's truly astounding fund-raising prowess and his relatively low poll numbers. Few people out there can claim not to have heard of "Obama Mania", and Edwards, who has been running since losing the last election as the VP nominee should be a household name (those who have not heard of him probably have never been to the polls their entire lives.) To buy the "name recognition" argument would also require that we believe that people have been giving loads of cash to someone (Obama) they've never heard of or about, and then picking someone else (HRC) in the polls, which would be s stretch...

Here's what I think is going on with Obama's donors. He's drawing support not just from Democrats, but independents and Republicans. It's called a broad base of support. So a self-identifying Republican will be asked to choose between the Republican field, even though he may prefer and support Obama through donations (because he can't vote in the Dem primary).

The support is broad-based but low in numbers? Hmmm...What you just said raises another possibility: Republicans, who do not intended to support Obama and cannot participate in polls of Dem primary voters but want to stop Hillary because they are terrified of her, have been donating in large numbers to Obama! That would also explain his loads of cash relative to his low poll numbers! Do we access to numbers on the party affiliations of those who contribute to the candidates?...LOL.

dcshungu,

Again, there is no inconsistency between his financial support and the polls, because his national polling levels actually suggest that he is the preferred choice of millions of people. 300,000 financial supporters is obviously consistent with the polls showing that he is the preferred choice of millions. So, there really is no basis for your argument.

To put the same thought another way, in a typical national poll of hundreds of Democrats and Democratic leaners, out of the people they called maybe around one or two would actually have given to the Obama campaign (feel free to do the math yourself if you do not believe me). But given the current polls, something like around 100 of those people will list him as their first choice. So somewhat obviously, that one or two contributors could easily be within those 100 people.

Obama is well over $1.5M now. He'll catch Hillary by the weekend. So much for the big cash on hand advantage she was supposedly going to have.

Strong move by Obama's campaign. It also dares Hillary to match them, but she apparently doesn't have enough confidence in her small donor base to reach out to them again like Obama did, or else she would do the same thing.

dcshungu:

This goes back to my original post on your theory. To the extent something doesn't comport with your underlying belief, you dismiss it. Name recognition is the name of the game right now. I didn't say that Obama is unknown. I'm saying that, relatively to Senator Clinton (and John Edwards, to a lesser extent) he's a relative unknown. And what is known by most outside of the the three primary states is driven by media headlines and sound bites. You seem sufficiently plugged into things and you'd have to agree the last 3 months have all been about his inexperience and her inevitability. Not judging the accuracy of the reporting, just pointing to the reality.

And that wasn't the only point I provide to support this notion. The three early primary states polls all show a substantially tighter race than the national polls. We obviously will differ on WHY those polls are disconnected from the national polls, but the biggest difference is access to the candidates in the three primary states versus the rest of the nation.

My point about his broad base of support, which apparently was lost on you, is that polling at this point is very rigid. They don't ask people, political affiliation aside, who would you support in the general. They ask Republicans which Republican candidate they support. They don't ask them if they plan to change party affiliations to vote in the Democratic primary. They automatically presume the person will vote his current party affiliation. I'm not say that this explanation is 100% accurate, but it is certainly more plausible, in part, than your supposition that it's because his supporters feel pity for him or that they are anti-HRC. It's insulting to Senator Obama and his supporters.

And as to your point about Republicans supporting Obama to stop HRC: If you believe that's true, it just underscores (1) how cynical politics has gotten and (2) how polarizing this woman truly is. I mean, a Republican financially supporting a black man with a funny name just to prevent her from winning the primary? If that's not polarizing, then I don't know what is.

DTM wrote on October 18, 2007 12:41 PM:

dcshungu,

Again, there is no inconsistency between his financial support and the polls, because his national polling levels actually suggest that he is the preferred choice of millions of people. 300,000 financial supporters is obviously consistent with the polls showing that he is the preferred choice of millions. So, there really is no basis for your argument.

Relatively speaking, his ratio of support in the polls to dollars raised is abysmal, compared to Clinton, who has raised and spent almost as much as Obama but leads her by 2:1 in most polls. That is what I am talking about. Support in the abstract is not what wins you elections. Got translate cash to votes!

This goes back to my original post on your theory. To the extent something doesn't comport with your underlying belief, you dismiss it. Name recognition is the name of the game right now. I didn't say that Obama is unknown. I'm saying that, relatively to Senator Clinton (and John Edwards, to a lesser extent) he's a relative unknown.

I beg to disagree...

With the argument that "name recognition" is a factor for Obama, you are, in fact, claiming that people who have never heard of him are giving him loads of money and supporting HRC in the polls because they have heard of her, which is a huge non sequitur...