Poll: Hillary Could Potentially Win Kentucky — But Obama Not Running Well

Comments (94)

David wrote on November 24, 2007 9:54 AM:

Such polls are meaningless in states where none of the candidates have actually campaigned--all they reflect is name recognition. The only meaningful SurveyUSA GE poll thus far is the Iowa one, given that the respondents had actually seen all the candidates in action.

TedL wrote on November 24, 2007 10:03 AM:

What David said is clearly right - unless you think Giuliani would do better in KY than Romney or Huckabee.

That said, it's interesting and surprising that Hill comes out ahead in the battle of names that people do know -against McCain and Giuliani.

CalD wrote on November 24, 2007 10:23 AM:

Here we go again, poking another stick in the ant hill.

DRinOH wrote on November 24, 2007 10:24 AM:

Obama's name on this poll might as well read "generic democrat." No one even knows who he is there, he'll be fine.

Jane wrote on November 24, 2007 10:29 AM:

Indeed nobody knows who Obama is. Including his current supporters who think his voting record is to the left of Hillary when it is not.

wot wrote on November 24, 2007 10:35 AM:

After all that has been happening the past few years, it's actually almost shocking that "Generic Democrat" doesn't beat every "Generic Republican" everywhere. (Okay, you Ron Paul fans, he's definitely not generic.)

But it's all about marketing, at the end of the day...

benjoya wrote on November 24, 2007 11:03 AM:

Indeed nobody knows who Obama is. Including his current supporters who think his voting record is to the left of Hillary when it is not.

so you're saying obama is a stronger (more "centrist") candidate in the general election? hmmm...

stlounick wrote on November 24, 2007 11:05 AM:

Jane, was support for the Iraq War in 2002 a "left" position or a "centrist" position?

stlounick wrote on November 24, 2007 11:08 AM:

Another comment....a Democrat is so NOT going to win in Kentucky. No Democrat is centrist enough to win there.

Actually this is quite funny. I have relatives there and I lived in West Virginia from decades. There is simply no way, zero, nada, that a Democrat will win there. Hillary would be skewered.

whskyjack wrote on November 24, 2007 11:14 AM:

What it does is shoot a hole in the "Hillary will be a drag on the party because of her negatives" meme.

Jack

Daniel wrote on November 24, 2007 11:43 AM:

Come on David and sloutnick. There have been MANY polls showing Clinton leading in Kentucky (here is another one, to confirm this is not an error) and in places like Virginia (recent poll).

You can't possibly argue it's just name recognition. I thought Clinton was supposed to be HATED by everyone in those red states, and thus not have a chance. So now you're telling me she has GOOD name recognition? You can't keep arguing she will be crushed everywhere if polls CONSISTENTLY show her in the lead.

kanza wrote on November 24, 2007 12:00 PM:

For X sake. Is the level of honest discourse so lacking here?

You don't like Hillary; I didn't like Bill either. Yes we've got that. But she is doing better than the others nationally and has the best chance, at present, to win.

If you're going to play, try to play fair.

Jane wrote on November 24, 2007 12:01 PM:

On positions, Obama is more centrist which is why he does relatively well against Huckabee -- they are similar in their appeal and I suspect in positions.

Obama voted to involve the Federal government in the Schiavo case. We can do better.

He headlined Donnie McGlurkin. I can't see Hillary doing that.

Obama has coasted on criticizing a vote that Hillary made when he was not in the Senate. Counterpunch of November 2006 has an interesting description of his Iraq positions then.

Lieberman was his mentor when he joined the Senate. Lieberman boasted in the Hartford Courent that Obama chose him.

If you want to compare records visit Progressivepunch.org.

If you want to support Obama because he is a centrist who may be able to win, feel free but don't tell me that he is a liberal.

torna wrote on November 24, 2007 12:04 PM:

gsgwt245q cool site!!! [url=http://torna1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://torna2.com prtiuowe

arks wrote on November 24, 2007 12:13 PM:

It reflects more about the weak state of the Republican Party in red states right now than anything else. And it is way too early to be relevant as any indication of support for the Democratic candidates outside name recognition. We all know who Hillary is, but most still haven't heard of Obama or any of the other candidates unless they keep up with politics at this stage, which they don't. The poll, in that sense, means they aren't quite ready for a fill-in-the-blank Democratic candidate.

Yes, it does help counter the idea that she's unelectable, but her negatives still make her a high risk, and as the other candidates become more known her numbers will likely go down.

Things won't ratchet up until after Jan 3 for the rest of the states. Then it will be all about momentum and the name recognition will be there for whoever's still in the running come Feb. 5.

DTM wrote on November 24, 2007 12:39 PM:

Of course, these head-to-head polls are not strongly predictive of the final outcome and so do not directly address the "electability" issue. They can, however, give a sense of what people are thinking now and the different challenges the various candidates face.

For example, Obama's biggest problem in these head-to-head polls where there is no ongoing primary campaign has been that he doesn't do as well among Democrats. That is also why Iowa looked so different--he actually did better among Democrats in the Iowa version of this poll than Clinton.

So the most important question for Obama is whether Democrats would rally to him in the event he is the nominee. I have my guess on that, but the polls at this point can't answer that question.

pacc wrote on November 24, 2007 12:46 PM:

It looks like Senator Clinton is still the one to beat!

DTM wrote on November 24, 2007 12:49 PM:

By the way, I note that SurveyUSA recently had an Oregon version of this poll out in which Obama outperformed Clinton:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=02e7b727-6605-4337-a5dd-6fd48a5ce48c

As far as I can tell, however, Eric did not see fit to comment on it. Curious.

chigger wrote on November 24, 2007 1:22 PM:

I see that SurveyUSA has stopped including Edwards. Funny, when they DID include him, he almost always did better than Clinton or Obama in the head-to-heads.

Daniel wrote on November 24, 2007 1:29 PM:

DTM,

The Oregon poll was out 4 days ago, and Eric posted it then. Stop seeing conspiracy theories everywhere, and go check past posts from the beginning of the week.

Also, there is a lot of evidence to point out that Obama outperforms Clinton in the Southwest, and Clinton outperforms Obama in the South.

Nick Kaufman wrote on November 24, 2007 1:34 PM:

So Hillary wins all 4 Republican candidates including a 48-47 matchup against McCain, but Obama's winning over Huckabee 44-42 is statistically insignificant?

Presumably Romney beating Obama 44-43 is rock solid as well...

RWN wrote on November 24, 2007 2:44 PM:

The only polls that have any legitimacy is where campaigns are active right now, Iowa & NH, then the following states of SC, NV, and now MI; here in CO where we have campaigning beginning any polling is still premature for anything that happens here will be a result of what happened in those earlier states.

I find it interesting how Clinton's campaign continually tries to bring the narrative back to inevitability and presumed electability where when the campaigning engages both the perception and reality of inevitability and electability goes south. It still brings me back to the dotcom bubble, "dotcom firms need not have to show profits, only eyeballs to show valuations."---Clinton campaign does not have to show actual voter support they only need to show the press clippings of presumed poll numbers.

Jeremy wrote on November 24, 2007 3:09 PM:

Regarding voting records. Aside from her not-quite-renounced track record of hawkish poor judgment, Hillary does NOT have a progressive track record on fundamental issues like making government more open and democratic:

She advocated weakening the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, telling Feingold to "live in the real world." Unlike Edwards and Obama, she accepts campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate PACs. "Ask them why they don't take money from lobbyists," Wolfson retorts. "We're proud of our support."

Furthermore, Hillary's track record includes the closed process failure at health care reform. While we may agree that scorecards like progressivepunch's show that Hillary shares some goals with progressives on domestic ends, her means have more in common with Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney. Indeed, Hillary's health care task force was a model for the infamous secret energy task force.

If we are governed by a more progressive process--i.e., more open and democratic--we will actually achieve more progressive goals over the long term. If we fail to reform the process, we make a few gains and then the corporate lobbyists who currently own our governing process will slowly roll them back with insider defined, back-room loopholes. The opportunity to elect a reformer who has built a legislative career around delivering concrete results is something we shouldn't pass on.

Mary wrote on November 24, 2007 3:09 PM:

Well, I live in KY, as does a lot of my family, and I work in IN, as does a chunk of the rest of my family.

I think the polls are a bit unreliable and name recognition oriented here, bc there has been ZERO campaigning done that is getting any attention and Hillary hasn't been getting heavy Republican attacks in general lately.

That said, once the campaigning gets going, Romney would be the Republican's gift to Hillar in KY and IN. It may not be right or fair, but those are states where a Mormon, in particular a Mormon running on a "let's bring Church into State" platform that the Republicans need for their base.

Giuliani is pretty much a statistical dead heat with her and that is still a name recognition thing - once the mud starts slinging on those two candidates, it's a Kentucky kind of race and, depending on the success of the mudslinging by either camp, it could go either way.

KY and IN both have strong pro-life groups, but Giuliani isn't going to super motivate them. And KY wants troops home. Clinton's message isn't nearly as strong and as differentiated from Giulianis on that front yet - that may change over time though. This is also why McCain isn't doing better against Hillary, plus his age. MOstly, right now Clinton, as the most recognized Dem name, is getting a bump from some of the McConnell attack ads and the recent Beshears thumping of Fletcher.

Despite the numbers on that poll, if Huckabee wins any primaries and gets any party steam behind him for campaigning, he's Hillary's worst nightmare in IN and KY and he'll end up doing much better than the numbers show above.

I don't know why Edwards isn't being polled, even though McCain is, but with some party punch behind him, Edwards could do really well in both KY and IN and even help down ticket.

Obama has plenty of room for upside too. People in both KY and IN need time and exposure to get comfortable with him and his experience level and his name. The places where his race will be a strong issue are the same places where Hillary wont do well either, so don't count out how much upside Obama has in KY.

Jeremy wrote on November 24, 2007 3:18 PM:

Link for the blockquote in my previous post:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070604&s=berman

demwinger wrote on November 24, 2007 3:36 PM:

bill won kentucky twice so why cant hillary?

she polls well there.. they seem to like the clintons a lot.

CalD wrote on November 24, 2007 4:32 PM:

Speaking of Indiana, I just tracked down results of a really interesting poll I heard about on the radio the other day.

Link.

Indiana only went Democratic in three presidential elections in the entire 20th century, all of which were 40-state+ blowouts. Republicans would have to screw up really badly to find themselves defending Indiana -- of course they have, but still... Anyway, that's one to watch.

Blue Skies In The South wrote on November 24, 2007 4:33 PM:

For the ones that says Hillary can't win some of the southern states, then explain how a man named Bill Clinton won KY and TN? Some say Hillary can't be elected in VA? Then why was a Democrat in James Webb just elected when the Republican was already touted to be president(Allen) someday? Hillary is going to win in KY and other southern red states. Rudy is the last person the southern states would like to see as their nominee. Why do you think the south begged Fred to run? Even icon Mitch McConnell isn't comphy in KY anymore.

Anonymous wrote on November 24, 2007 4:33 PM:

Oh good, Eric Kleefeld is back to offer some cheerleading for Hillary.

Simple analysis: Mrs. Bill Clinton has name recognition in a state where voters have not really focused on the presidential election. As voters focus, like they are in Iowa and New Hampshire, and become more familiar with Hillary's lack of substance, qualifications, good judgment, and integrity, other candidates -- Republicans and Democrats --- pick up support.

Eric, any chance Election Central will report on the SEC investigation and shareholder lawsuit shareholder lawsuit involving InfoUSA Inc. and allegations that its founder Vin Gupta, a MAJOR Clinton supporter, has used corporate resources improperly and perhaps illegally to give MILLIONS in benefits to Bill and Hillary?

Any chance Election Central will link to some of the recent articles examining Hillary's efforts to dodge legitimate press coverage, intemidate debate moderators, and avoid real questions from real voters? I don't guess Hillary's campaign staff would like that though. Can't make them angry.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on November 24, 2007 4:38 PM:

Jane likes to promote Hillary's voting record, which is really meaningless. Congress isn't doing anything: the votes are a meanoingless charade.

We all know that in the most imporant votes of her lackluster career, Hillary gave George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq and now attack Iran. What a horrible lack of good judgment from someone who wants to be president.

That's all I need to know about Hillary's voting record.

rssrai wrote on November 24, 2007 4:42 PM:

Why wasn't JRE polled?

CalD wrote on November 24, 2007 4:42 PM:

Here's a better write-up of that Indiana poll I was talking about before.

stlounick wrote on November 24, 2007 4:52 PM:

Mary, I think you summed things up quite well.

Senator Clinton will not win in Kentucky or in Indiana. Those of you beliving this transplanted midwesterner now serving in New York is going to be elected Prez in Kentucky are dreaming. It. Will. Not. Happen.

If you look at these survey results, you can track name recognition for Clinton, Guiliani, and McCain. Anyone else and the person is guessing. And these are calls only within the Kentucky area--could be a minor answering the phone or an unregistered adult.

These surveys say absolutely NOTHING about anyone's election possibilities and are merely floated around to keep you folks fussing about.

In Virginia, Webb barely won because of the northern Virginia population. You are predicting a Clinton victory--even if the nominee is Huckabee? I suspect the fight would be closer than you think. I don't even consider Virginia or Kentucky in my personal calculations on the election.

Putting the South into play. Not in the 2008 election, folks. Won't happen then.

dcshungu wrote on November 24, 2007 4:53 PM:

Yes, it does help counter the idea that she's unelectable, but her negatives still make her a high risk, and as the other candidates become more known her numbers will likely go down.

That comment is a bit (putting it generously) counter-intuitive to me.

1. Hillary has "high negatives" but is ahead because of "name-recognition"? Remember that a nameless generic Dem has consistently out-performed every named Dem against the Repubs. If Hillary is despised as much as the noise machine claims than that, coupled with her universal name recognition, should result in bad poll numbers, no?

2. Also, who is to say that the other candidates' negatives won't go up with better name recognition?

3. Finally, are Giuliani, McCain and Obama really not that well known in Kentucky? Again, on which planet of the solar system did you say Kentucky was?

chigger wrote on November 24, 2007 5:10 PM:

I agree with a couple of the commenters here: Huckabee is the one for the Dem candidate to beat. He best fits the wants of the average Republican voter. None of the others do. And he's bad news for the Dems, would grab a big chunk of the indies, maybe big enough to do damage.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on November 24, 2007 5:11 PM:

"Finally, are Giuliani, McCain and Obama really not that well known in Kentucky? Again, on which planet of the solar system did you say Kentucky was?"

That's my question, also, in response to the subtle inference that Kentuckians don't know what's going on. For one thing, Obama's face is all over the place in the U.S. Kentuckians are just as informed as anyone else, and they're paying close attention. Kentucky is a coal-mining state, and the GOP has been determinedly opposed to ensuring the safety and economic well-being of miners. I suspect that will be a factor for many voters.

CalD wrote on November 24, 2007 5:54 PM:

Dcshungu is right about favorability ratings. Virtually every non-incumbent candidate who gets elected president ends up the race with favorability ratings about where Hillary Clinton's were when she started. They typically begin the race as relative unknowns with a lot of people willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, then see their net favorability steadily decline as the campaign progresses and people start choosing up sides in earnest.

The difference in this case is that there were few people in the country who hadn't already made up their mind about what they thought of Hillary Clinton. So hers were never likely to go much below where they were when she began the race and in fact they're actually up a little since then in most polls.

If you look at the most recent polls the percentage of people who view Clinton favorably at this point is actually as high or higher than Obama's number. Obama still has more people in the undecided and never heard of columns, so his net is still a little higher, but his unfavorables have been steadily rising as expected since the spring. So really, the whole meme of Clinton's supposedly "high negatives" really has very little basis in reality even at this early stage and becomes even less true with each passing day.

stlounick wrote on November 24, 2007 6:11 PM:

No one is saying that Kentuckians don't know what is going on--all one is saying is that NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION YET except for brief headline type news.

Paying attention is not making a decison. That's what we all need to understand, yet apparently do not.

And where are people close to making a decison? Why, Iowa. And how close is the race? Hmmm?

Anonymous wrote on November 24, 2007 6:31 PM:

Hmmm, indeed. If only there were other states that were also voting within a pretty short time, that we could look at to verify that the Iowa race isn't just some sort of anomoly...

Perhaps places like:

New Hampshire (Jan 8 Primary)

Nevada (Jan 19 Caucuses)

South Carolina (Jan 26 Primary)

demwinger wrote on November 24, 2007 7:28 PM:

lol some of you crack me up. Huckabee a threat for dems? HA!! the only republican who stands a chance vs. the dems is McCain.

and yes Hillary will win some southern states.

Arkansas, FL, Virginia are ones that are very possible.

if its a real washout you can throw in KY, TN, and even maybe NC in the mix.

NCSteve wrote on November 24, 2007 7:33 PM:

Jane, Jane, Jane, Jane, Jane.

I leave for the holidays to come back and find you spinning away libels about Obama and the Schiavo debacle.

Here's the real story, as opposed to what some half-assed blogger said about it, and Obama's own comments about it.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2007/04/obama_says_he_e.html

And here is the late, forever-to-be-lamented Molly Ivins, on Hillary's heroic leadership during that same vote.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0120-30.htm

I'd say neither of them come off looking like they had had a profile in courage moment, but I note that Obama at least admits having made a mistake in not cancelling his family vacation and coming back to fight it, whereas Hillary, of course, does not.

So I'd respectfully suggest you just stfu on this one.

colonpowwow wrote on November 24, 2007 8:48 PM:

NCSteve

That's right, I forgot. In the progressiver-than-thou, leftist-behind wing of the Democratic Party, if you screw up on your vote - IOKIYApologize.

I'm glad that since those days, Obama has distinguished himself from Hillary on the Iraq War (the main subject of Molly's hit piece on Hillary).

Oh, wait a minute, that's right. They've voted in lockstep re the Iraq War ever since (when Barry has bothered to vote).

Obama in 2016!

CalD wrote on November 24, 2007 9:37 PM:

Can someone please tell me why we're still harping on Terry Schaivo? With 55 Republicans in the Senate and 232 in the House in 2005, all marching in lockstep behind a senate majority leader who believed himself possessed of the power of tele-diagnosis, Republicans were pretty much going to do what they wanted to do no matter what any Democrat said or did -- to wit, the illegal Senate vote, "passed" in the middle of the night, during a recess, in the absence of a quorum by three (count 'em) Republican senators.

It's one thing to call the involvement of the Republican congress in the Schaivo affair a travesty, for that it most certainly was and shame on 47 Democrats in the House who went along on it. But for any Democrat (other than the aforementioned 47) to say they could have or should have done more to stop Republicans from doing whatever damned fool thing they got into their heads to do back then, really just amounts to pandering.

We do at least have the satisfaction of knowing two of the three Republican senators who participated in the Palm Sunday charade are no longer with us. Not much we can do about Mel Martinez until 2010 I guess.

Ni Daye wrote on November 24, 2007 9:49 PM:

For you ill-informed, Hillary's husband won Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas each twice. He even managed to win Montana and Georgia the first time around. the right Democrat can win these border states but they red necks are unlikely to be ready for an African American yet!

André Kenji wrote on November 24, 2007 10:27 PM:

Hillary is not Bill. And we are not in 1992. Bill ran as moderate, not as the flip-flop northern liberal.

What ALL these polls shows is that Obama and Hillary would face a tougher fight with Republicans than it looks.

By the way, Dukakis had a REAL advantage on polls on 1988(17%!) and lost. And all the majors races that democrats won last year were with candidate that have no resemblance to Edwards, Obama and Hillary. And it was tougher than it looks.

Regarding Huckabee, two words: Wayne Dummond. There is simple no way for him to escape from that. Someone would use that to hammer him if he gets the nomination.

DTM wrote on November 24, 2007 10:29 PM:

Daniel,

I searched the archives before I posted just to check my memory, and I could not find anything about the Oregon poll. I searched it again after your comment, and I could still find nothing. But please share a link if you can find it.

CalD,

Actually, it is not true that every non-incumbent candidate ends up with a favorable/unfavorable balance comparable to where Hillary Clinton is now. In fact, among the examples are the last two non-incumbents to win: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Bill Clinton peaked with an unfavorable rating of around 40% in the summer of 1992, and then trended back down into the 30s by the time of the election. Bush only got up into the 30s by the time of the election in 2000.

So it turns out not to be the case that the recent non-incumbents who have won were as unpopular as Hillary Clinton is already.

CalD wrote on November 25, 2007 12:43 AM:

DTM wrote:

"Actually, it is not true that every non-incumbent candidate ends up with a favorable/unfavorable balance comparable to where Hillary Clinton is now. In fact, among the examples are the last two non-incumbents to win: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush..."

DTM: In a Gallup poll taken Nov 13-15, 2000, the nearest one available to the 2000 election, Bush's Favorable/Unfavorable rating was 53/43. In a Gallup poll taken Nov 2-4, 2007, Hillary Clinton's was 52/45. Those polls have a MoE of +/- 3% so that obviously does not amount to a significant difference.

As for Bill Clinton, it may be true that he won the race in 1992 with an unfavorable rating in the high 30s, but his favorable rating at the time was in the low 30s, that is to say that Bill Clinton won the election in 1992 with about a net negative favorability rating. I don't know if you were trying to pull a fast one there or if that little detail just got by you.

I don't have Gallup data for '92 although it was a debunking by Frank Newport of Gallup of something Karl Rove said earlier in the year that hipped me to this phenomenon in the first place. I did however find a write-up of a New York Times poll from October of 1992 that backs up Newport's assertion about Bill Clinton.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 2:45 AM:

CalD November 25, 2007 12:43 AM effectively debunked nearly every canard that we hear about Clinton's purported "high negatives" that make her a "fatally flawed" candidate. Please follow the link provided above by CalD to the excellent analysis on candidates' approval ratings by Frank Newport of Gallup if you wish to be informed. Then there is this trip down memory lane, also from one of CalD's links. Just one week before the 1992 GE, a NYT/CBS poll found:

Mr. Clinton was acquiring a more negative image, reflecting Republican attempts to raise doubts about his character and suitability as a potential President: 33 percent now view him favorably, 39 percent unfavorably. And the proportion who say he is not telling the truth about the draft is rising.

Beware your wish for a better name recognition for your candidate for it generally comes at the expense of higher negatives. The fact that Clinton is universally known accounts for her higher negs, but that she has been leadig in the polls for so long suggests her negs will not have the dire consequences that the MSM and leftwingnut cases keep harping about. In fact, barring some catastrophic event that could further increase her negs, I do not consider her current unfavorables to be of any consequence. On the other hand, a sharp rise in the negs of any other candidate to where Clinton's currently stand, could be devastating...It is why I believe that Clinton is the Dems' strongest GE candidate. Most attacks by the Repub smear would just illicit a collective yawn, if not outright irritation.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 6:59 AM:

CalD's exhauastive, Clinton-serving analysis of Hillary's negatives apply to poll numbers. When you translate those negatives into VOTERS it should give the Democratic Party pause.

Many thinking Democrats, progressives, independents and vritually all Republicans DO NOT WANT HILLARY AS PRESIDENT. They will actively contribute and work to defeat her, and very likely turnout in record numbers to vote AGAINST her. There is a passionnant opposition to Hillary's candidacy the likes of which I have never seen.

And for all of posters who keep saying "but, but Bill Clinton carried this state or that" .... Hillary is no Bill Clinton. Nepotism doesn't assure votes, and may actually lose many.

DemAC wrote on November 25, 2007 7:40 AM:

Anonymous wrote: They will actively contribute and work to defeat her, and very likely turnout in record numbers to vote AGAINST her.

No, not really. This virulent and persistent anti-Hillary Clinton idea is more based in hysteria and hateful imagination than in reality. When voters connect with Hillary Clinton and get to know her and to see her and to listen to her ideas, her negatives go down, down, down.

In state after state, starting of course with NY once upon a time, her negatives steadily decrease when voters start paying attention. This pattern is consistent and will continue. The Hillary-haters are not nearly as many as their rabid hatred-infested imaginations would have them think.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 8:52 AM:

DemAC said "This virulent and persistent anti-Hillary Clinton idea is more based in hysteria and hateful imagination than in reality."

You live in a dream world if you think opposition to Hillary is "hysterical" and "hateful." MANY loyal, thinking Democrats know the Clintons, good and bad, and consciously, deliberatly, responsibly REJECT Hillary's nepostistic claims to the presidency. Dominance of the presidency by two families bank-rolled by HUGE corporate contributions, is not good for democracy.

DemAC, your analysis of this election based on the past is seriously flawed. Voters are sick of politics as usual. The Bush backlash will also include a Clinton backlash, if she is nominated. Deny it, call people who oppose her ugly names, try to equate Hillary with Bill, try to hide who she is and what she really believes... but you've got a lost cause.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 8:54 AM:

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 6:59 AM:

CalD's exhauastive, Clinton-serving analysis of Hillary's negatives apply to poll numbers. When you translate those negatives into VOTERS it should give the Democratic Party pause.

In view of the overwhelming evidence to the fact that HRC is by far the Dems' strongest GE candidate, anyone who would try to pass this type of unsubstantiated mindless wishful-thinking for insightful analysis or fait accompli is certifiably a far leftwingnut case afflicted with the Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS). Facts must must be creating an unbearably loud cognitive dissonance in their one-dimensional brain as they cannot understand how anyone could be suppoting the object of their derangement.

Many thinking Democrats, progressives, independents and vritually all Republicans DO NOT WANT HILLARY AS PRESIDENT. They will actively contribute and work to defeat her, and very likely turnout in record numbers to vote AGAINST her. There is a passionnant opposition to Hillary's candidacy the likes of which I have never seen.

This is called "Projection", a key trait of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome whereby the patient strongly believes that the whole world shares his or her delusion, which s/he usually tries to justify by resorting to unmistakable and fallacious ad populum thinking that sounds like this: "Many thinking Democrats, progressives, independents and vritually all Republicans DO NOT WANT HILLARY AS PRESIDENT"... and they say this with a straight face even in a forum discussing a poll that shows Hillary beating all the Repub candidate in Red Kentukcy! dcshungu wrote on November 25, 2007 8:57 AM:

I am "dcshungu" and I authored and approved the preceding remarks...

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 9:09 AM:

dcshungu,

Name-calling is good politics only in the Bush-Clinton world. Hillary is floating on name recognition that is evaporting when people focus on her pandering, lack of substance and strong-arm campaign tactics.

Most of the "Hillary Lovers" have a strong vested interest in her success. They lack integrity and passion.

So, if Hillary wins, America loses. Campaign your heart out dcshungu, and collect that pay check.

dcshungu wrote on November 25, 2007 9:13 AM:

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 8:52 AM:

DemAC said "This virulent and persistent anti-Hillary Clinton idea is more based in hysteria and hateful imagination than in reality."

You live in a dream world if you think opposition to Hillary is "hysterical" and "hateful." MANY loyal, thinking Democrats know the Clintons, good and bad, and consciously, deliberatly, responsibly REJECT Hillary's nepostistic claims to the presidency. Dominance of the presidency by two families bank-rolled by HUGE corporate contributions, is not good for democracy.

DemAC, your analysis of this election based on the past is seriously flawed. Voters are sick of politics as usual. The Bush backlash will also include a Clinton backlash, if she is nominated. Deny it, call people who oppose her ugly names, try to equate Hillary with Bill, try to hide who she is and what she really believes... but you've got a lost cause.

A close up look into the demented mind of a CDS "patient" at the peak of delirium... the symptoms are there for all to see: "Projection", fallacious ad populum "arguments", delusion,...

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 9:19 AM:

dcshunga,

Does Hillary pay you by the word for your postings? Is that why you quote others so liberally?

cha-ching cha-ching

dcshungu wrote on November 25, 2007 9:31 AM:

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 9:09 AM:

dcshungu,

Name-calling is good politics only in the Bush-Clinton world. Hillary is floating on name recognition that is evaporting when people focus on her pandering, lack of substance and strong-arm campaign tactics.

Most of the "Hillary Lovers" have a strong vested interest in her success. They lack integrity and passion.

So, if Hillary wins, America loses. Campaign your heart out dcshungu, and collect that pay check.

You would probably get somewhere if you actually tried to support your fevered rants with credible evidence other than the usual left-wing talking points. If there are no nationwide or state polls matching Clinton against the top Dem and Repub candidates that provide evidence in support of your conjectures and left-wing theories, isn't it time to reassess your "passionate" views on this (oops, I forgot that lefties have only one view!)

dcshungu wrote on November 25, 2007 9:40 AM:

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 9:19 AM:

dcshunga,

Does Hillary pay you by the word for your postings? Is that why you quote others so liberally?

cha-ching cha-ching

And who is paying YOU to come here and spew anti-Clinton dimwits? Kucinich (the only ideologically "pure" candidate who appeals to your kind) is certainly not getting his money's worth!

NCSteve wrote on November 25, 2007 11:36 AM:

Colon,

I believe I was making a point about Mary falsely claiming that Obama voted with the Republicans on the Schiavo debacle. And its not about apologizing, its showing you are able to acknoweldge an error and capable of learning from it. We are where we are today largely because of W's complete lack of this critical leadership trait. I'd even go so far as to say the absence of this trait is implicated, to one degree or another, in the majority of the greatest military and political blunders in throughout history.

But, as long as we're off on tangents, your claim that Obama votes "in lockstep with Hillary" is a bit presumptious. Might it not be the case that Hillary is voting in lockstep with Obama? Indeed, I believe we have heard repeatedly that this is deliberate strategy on her part. Infact, I do seem to recall an important vote or two where she's waited to see how he votes before voting herself.

Thus, as usual, this lack of distinction between their Iraq votes you are touting would appear to be yet another example of Hillary's standard practice of subordinating whatever remaining principles she might have left to political expediency.

And, btw, leftist? Moi? It's amazing that one week a Hillary suppoter here accuses me of being a DLC Republican collaborator, the week after that, another acuses me of being a Rush Limbaugh follower and the week after that you're lining me up with the "better to lose than be indeologically impure" leftists?

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 11:37 AM:

dcshungu,

I'm a citizen in democracy, a concept you seem to have trouble grasping. Not everyone shares the everything-for-a-profit Bush-Clinton world view you so tirelessly champion.

Dismissing legitimate concerns about Hillary's qualifications, integrity and judgment and throwing insults at anyone who opposes her, doesn't make those concerns go away. You'll hear a lot more about them from growing numbers of voters.

Anybody but another Bush or Clinton, PLEASE! [This is a nonpaid political ad]

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 11:43 AM:

Anyone who reads Molly Ivins' essay on Hillary Clinton and still supports her after that is hopeless. "Republican-lite" is exactly right and it's what you will get. In all I've read about her in the past few weeks I have yet to see one substantive, issues-based reason her supporters want her in office. And that goes for columnists, bloggers, and the Hillary-supporting posters who post on their sites.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 11:51 AM:

I might add that I've been looking to see an issues-based debate in several places, and it's mostly about reading useless tea leaves like negativity rates or KY polls a year out from the general election. They're interesting more than anything else for what motivates bloggers to cover them, but are they are otherwise useless.

Take health care, for instance. I find mandated care somewhat scary. How many unfunded mandates do we have already? NCLB for health care, anyone? What happens when people can't afford health insurance with their "tax credit"? Does anyone who devises these plans have a clue how working class people who don't qualify for Medicaid live? What choices they have to make with the money they have?

arks wrote on November 25, 2007 11:53 AM:

The two previous anonymous posts were mine. Not that any of you knows me or cares (I don't post here regularly), but just to clarify.

Truthwhip wrote on November 25, 2007 12:18 PM:

dcshungu,

Unfortunately for you, Anonymous' comments are absolutely spot on.
I myself have been a life long Democrat -- one who has spent plenty of time volunteering my time to our party -- and I'm not interested in voting for Hillary Clinton at all.
In fact, I'd be happy to vote for ANY of the Democratic Candidates over her. That's because I view Hillary as the Republican Lite candidate who has clearly been bought and paid for by the corporations, and has continually supported this failed, disastrous debacle of a war.
Her flip-flopping, all-things-to-all-people rhetoric may appeal to the wishy-washy middle and chronic fence-sitters, but why on earth would any strong liberal Democrat want to vote for that?
Clinton still needs the base (people exactly like me) to win -- and from everything I've seen, she doesn't have nearly enough of our support.

If she wins the nomination, I'll either stay home in protest -- or maybe I'll actually vote Green for the first time ever. That's how dimly I view her "experience" and "electability."

dajafi wrote on November 25, 2007 12:23 PM:

As always, the Clinton cheerleaders point to the polls that mostly reflect their candidate's celebrity. As always, they swoon to the tactical brilliance of her campaign.

And as always, they offer NO substantive arguments for why Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation should lead the country.

I share the view of those who disdain the politics of nepotism, parsing and Beltway "wisdom," the politics that Hillary Clinton embodies. I utterly fail to see how she will accomplish--hell, even that she wants to accomplish--the progressive reforms that we so badly need. I well remember her "real world" opposition to McCain-Feingold... a position that ultimately showed no faith in the voters of her own party, who filled the vacuum left by the end of soft money. With that as background, her status as the candidate of choice for lobbyists and corporate interests comes as no surprise--and for her is evidently not a point of shame.

Though I support Obama, I'm not here to present him as a candidate of pure heart and clean hands. I acknowledge that on the issues, he's not very far from at least some of Sen. Clinton's many positions. (It's Sunday; check back tomorrow, as she might have moved.) But I think he at least gives us a chance to move away from the zero-sum partisan scat-throwing politics of the Bush/Clinton/Bush years, the Rove/Carville years.

And he's still growing; he's grown in the course of this campaign. She's done; she is who she is, in herself and in the minds of the public.

A final thought: Sen. Clinton might well win the election, as her team is good at some aspects of "the game" (which is why the media whores love them so). But after she gets her 50.00001 percent, her 271 EVs, what happens then? Will she move the country in the direction we all--I think--want to see it go? Will she be able either to build coalitions or destroy her political enemies to accomplish great goals like universal health care?

Or will she shy away from the great fights (and their great risks) and immediately turn her attention to 2012, the next election, the next chance to polarize and divide, doing just enough not to upset anyone while raising the money that's core to the Clintons' political vision? In other words, what will we gain--really gain, as opposed to avoiding further Republican damage--if she wins?

CalD wrote on November 25, 2007 12:24 PM:

If I were Barack Obama, I'd sure be hoping (audaciously, of course) that no one reading this blog judged me by some of the comments that Obama fanz leave here. I tend to think that way too little attention has been devoted to the possible role some of Howard Dean's most petulant, ill-mannered and abusive supporters may have played in contributing to his eventual collapse in 2004. It appears that Senator Obama has primarily been the one lucky enough to inherit that demographic this time around. Lucky him. I have always suspected that their behavior in may have helped soften up Dean's support among the presumably saner majority of his support base in 2004 and could well have been a factor in the apparent readiness of a large number of Dean backers to bail on him at the first sign of trouble.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 12:33 PM:

Dean's scream and the media's 24-7 repeating of it did Dean in. Seriously.

Better hope they don't zero in on that hiddeous, contrived Hillary cackle.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on November 25, 2007 12:41 PM:

In response to CalD,

If I were Hillary Clinton I would take great pride in the agressive, mean spirited, insulting, self serving quality of the Clinton posters on this site. Their hair-trigger attack-mode and verbal abuse of any detractor reflect Hillary's campaign style very well. Just so you know, Hillary's campaign style and her arrogant machine, aren't playing well in Iowa.

CalD wrote on November 25, 2007 12:49 PM:

NCSteve, I think you meant Jane, not Mary.

Also, Clinton's ADA progressive voting scores (to name one example) for the the four years before Mr. Obama came to Washington were 95% every year. So if it were the case that Clinton had been voting in lock-step with Obama, then she must have also had the amazing psychic ability to be able to do it for years before he even showed up.

dajafi wrote on November 25, 2007 12:57 PM:

Those voting scores indicate little. If you look at Lieberman over the same time, I suspect he scores well at all. A record of how a partisan official voted doesn't tell you about the issues they fought for, anywhere they took a leadership role, and even what they most cared about.

Hillary Clinton might well have "voted right" during her time in the Senate; as a New Yorker who voted for her the first time she ran, I hope so. But if she's exhibited "leadership" on any issue during her tenure, I've missed it.

Jane wrote on November 25, 2007 1:06 PM:

To NC Steve:

I was wrong in stating that Obama voted in the Terri Schiavo case. I much regret the error. I went back to try and see how I made such an embarrassing error.

I had googled Obama Schiavo and Obama Clinton. On the Obama Shiavo link one of the early right wing posts stated that Obama had voted in the Schiavo matter and linked to an expired Chicago Tribune article. That coupled Obama's recantation and his prior language of support (cited in sevearl blogs although I have not run down a source)that 'There's nothing unconstitutional about having a little more due process than was due." and my failure to recall the illegal three senator vote lead me to fail to check futher.

I have since gone to the limited summary provided free by the Chicago Tribune for their March 27, 2005 article on Obama's position. Their summary statexs that he supported the compromise legislation because it avoided providing a new Federal right of action and would 'provide additional certainty as to Terri Schiavo's intent.'

I remain disturbed by his postion on Schiavo. I do understand the art of compromising by accepting a bad bill in order to avoid a worse bill but it need not be accompanied by words of support.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 1:21 PM:

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 11:37 AM:

dcshungu,

I'm a citizen in democracy, a concept you seem to have trouble grasping. Not everyone shares the everything-for-a-profit Bush-Clinton world view you so tirelessly champion.

First, please show thy face rather than hiding behind the nameless poster. Second, show me where I have championed anything resembling "everything-for-a-profit Bush-Clinton world view". The only thing that has been missing from your mindless rants has been anything resembling a coherent view on anything other than the unsubstantiated bullshit about how "thinking" people DO NOT WANT CLINTON TO BE PRESIDENT, despite mountains of polling data which suggest otherwise...

Dismissing legitimate concerns about Hillary's qualifications, integrity and judgment and throwing insults at anyone who opposes her, doesn't make those concerns go away. You'll hear a lot more about them from growing numbers of voters.

Put up or shut up. Your so-called "legimate concerns" are nothing more than the usual imaginings of a demented left-wing mind that is driven bat-shit by the thought that Clinton might actually be elected the first woman POTUS ever. It is called Clinton Derangement Syndrome and you seem to be struggling with an especially acute eruption of this wingnut-specific ailment at the moment.

"You'll hear a lot more about them from growing numbers of voters"...Promise, promises, promises!!! We have been waiting for this wishful-thinking to come to pass and are still waiting. I suspect that we will still be waiting even long-after she'd been elected POTUS, only then it would be something else that would become the "legitimate concerns" of the wingnuts about HRC.

jane wrote on November 25, 2007 1:31 PM:

Jeremy at :

You are comparing Clinton and Obama on their attitudes towards making government open and democratic. Progressivepunch.com has a general category – Making Government Work for Everyone - not just the rich and powerful which is too broad to be particularly helpful. It also included spending for homeland defense which did not seem to be related to open government. There were 6 subcategories which are more closely related: Campaign Finance Reform, Curbing Presidential Power, Ethics, Insuring Fair Elections, Lobbying Reform and Right to Government Information. The short answer is that Clinton and Obama have voted identically since his election in these areas as the progressive stance is defined by Progressivepunch.

Here is part of their description of their methodology:

Here is Progressivepunch.com's description of their methodology:
1. Using publicly published data from Congressional Quarterly, we averaged a couple of different types of scores that they published, looking at all votes going back to January 1, 1991. After going through a number of steps and gyrations, we came up with a list of six hard-core progressive United States Senators (6% of that body) and 39 hard-core progressive United States Representatives (about 9% of that body). The algorithm that we've used to come up with these progressive scores is as follows: We take ANY VOTE in which a majority of the progressives we've identified--so in the House say, if there were no absences, it would be 20 of the 39--voted in opposition to a majority of the Republican caucus and have that vote qualify for the database. The same process is used in the Senate. So, non-ideological votes such as National Groundhog Day: 429-0 with 6 absences, do not qualify for the database. ANY vote in which a majority of progressives in the progressive cohort listed just below here votes against a majority of Republicans qualifies for the database.. The percentage of votes which qualify using this algorithm remains remarkably constant from one Congress to another, about half of all votes cast.

So essentially they are looking at how often a Senator votes with the Progressives when a majority of the Progressives are in disagreement with a majority of the Republicans.

On a lifetime basis, in the overall category of Making Government Work for the People, Clinton comes in 14th at 93.56 while Obama comes 26th at 90.16. As was pointed out to me earlier while this gives a general sense of tendencies it is comparing apples and oranges since Clinton’s record includes votes which occurred before Obama joined the Senate. So I looked at all the votes in the 6 subcategories -- Campaign Finance Reform, Curbing Presidential Power, Ethics, Insuring Fair Elections, Lobbying Reform and Right to Government Information – since Obama joined the Senate and their votes are identical.

For those who believe this is solely because Clinton is allegedly tailoring her votes to Obama’s votes, If true, that would be moving her rightward not leftward. Clinton’s lifetime rating which includes votes for which Obama was not present is 91.34 making her 15th while Obama is 89.02 which puts him 24th.

These numbers change slightly as more votes come in. The numbers for Curbing Presidential votes are different because there are votes Clinton took before Obama got there in her rating: when you track the underlying votes since he got there on that Subcategory they are identical. Each of them vote the non-progressive way once and that was on the same vote to confirm Rice.

Voting records reveal what the Senators do when they don't think the public is watching as opposed with what they say they are for. It reveals underlying tendencies in their actions.

dcshungu wrote on November 25, 2007 1:43 PM:

Truthwhip wrote on November 25, 2007 12:18 PM:

dcshungu,

Unfortunately for you, Anonymous' comments are absolutely spot on.
I myself have been a life long Democrat -- one who has spent plenty of time volunteering my time to our party -- and I'm not interested in voting for Hillary Clinton at all.

Actually, the "Anonymous" poster in question said absolutely nothing that anyone with an ounce of gray matter could possibly agree with. He just spewed the usual left-wing talking points that have no basis in reality whatsoever and tried to pass them for accepted facts. If that is what you agree with, then you're just as clueless as he or she is. Fortunately, you and your kind (lefties) are but a very small minority of the electorate and can be safely ignored if the election is not close.

Listen: Clinton has the best progressive record of the top-tier Dem candidates. For you to call her Repub-lite just betrays where you are with respect to the center of the American political divide and says nothing about HRC's fitness to be POTUS. Kucinich, who is a great guy, will never be elected POTUS because he is too ideological "pure" [read: liberal], and few people live where he and you live. From from way out there in the left field where you stand, someone just left-of-center like Clinton (and myself) might as well be a Republican Fifth Column! Got that?

André Kenji wrote on November 25, 2007 1:50 PM:

Hillary is not Bill Clinton and James Webb is not Hillary. You can´t compare, for example, the most hated woman by the NRA with pro-gun democrats.

And she has no REAL advantage with no one until now. That´s bad. Don´t forget that Dukakis had a very better prospect on polls than Hillary has...

CalD wrote on November 25, 2007 1:50 PM:

Anonymous wrote:

Dean's scream and the media's 24-7 repeating of it did Dean in. Seriously.

I hate to be the one who keeps letting facts intrude on this discussion, but Dean's scream happened after he sunk from a 14-point lead over Kerry in Iowa in early December to finish 20 points behind him on caucus day. Dean had also slipped from late-December peaks in the mid-40s down to mid-20s in New Hampshire polls the week before caucus day rolled around in Iowa.

So unless we think Dean's famous scream was so powerful that it actually traveled back in time to affect trends that were clearly in place before it happened, one would just about have to conclude that the media frenzy that ensued in the wake of Iowa 2004 was probably at least as much a symptom of a shift in attitude that had already occurred as the principle cause of what happened after. A single straw does not a camel's back break. Seriously.

As for Clinton's laugh, I fully do expect Republicans to try and caricature the Democratic nominee any way they can. It's either that or argue the issues and they sure as hell aren't going to want to talk issues. Whoever our nominee is had damned well better be expecting those kinds of petty attacks and be ready to fight back.

Mary wrote on November 25, 2007 1:54 PM:

I think it's straightened out, but for the record - I'm fine with Obama's votes on Schiavo and I think the current polls understate his potential in KY.

CalD - thanks for the IN info. IN is a hugely hugely hugely strong pro-life state. There are boatloads of people who would have nothing to do with the party and who would never have voted for GWB the second time in particular, but for the abortion positioning. Add to that the secondary issue - of gun control - where many really believe that Dems don't want people to have guns, and those are the only things that drive the Republican party to so much success in those states. It's why Giuliani is so susceptible.

For many who are saying that KY liked Bill, so it will vote for Hillary, keep in mind that KY doesn't see them as one in the same. Hillary is getting that bump on name for now, especially since the Republican frontrunners are such unattractive personas for lots of KY and IN, but the reasons that KY liked Bill attach more to Edwards and Huckabee than to H. Clinton. fwiw.

And someone needs to really articulate a party platform on abortion and gun control, that can be clearly articluated and not alienate, bc even with the war, those issues are not going away as drivers. As a matter of fact, theless difference people perceive between candidates on the war - and HRC seems to be striving to not differentiate herself on the war very much, then the deciding issues in those states are going to give a Republican an edge. Despite the collapsing economy and health care crisis etc.

dcshungu wrote on November 25, 2007 2:01 PM:

jane wrote on November 25, 2007 1:31 PM:

For those who believe this is solely because Clinton is allegedly tailoring her votes to Obama’s votes, If true, that would be moving her rightward not leftward. Clinton’s lifetime rating which includes votes for which Obama was not present is 91.34 making her 15th while Obama is 89.02 which puts him 24th.

Nice and well researched post of the kind that we seldom get from Clinton's detractors. The canard that Clinton sits around waiting to see how Obama votes (when he does bother to show up and vote) before she votes, beside being utterly ridiculous, is another urban legend created by her detractors in a desperate attempt to paint a Hillary that most voters simply cannot reconcile with the one that they have come to see with their own lying eyes...

Mary wrote on November 25, 2007 2:28 PM:

Finally, are Giuliani, McCain and Obama really not that well known in Kentucky? Again, on which planet of the solar system did you say Kentucky was?

I don't know who said McCain isn't well know in KY, but that would be wrong. He is. I did say KY doesn't know much about Obama yet and hasn't had a chance to get comfortable with him and as someone who lives in the GO BIG BLUE solar system, I'll say that again. He has lots of untapped upside potential in KY.

Giuliani is known in a the cartoon hero sense of 9/11 and then he became a void for Kentuckians. Almost no Kentuckians know about his marital and intrafamily marrying fiascos; Kentuckians don't know about his central role in the failure of communications systems on 9/11 or his role in ok-ing workers to return to ground zero for cleanups and most would be wide eyed to find out that huge chunks of police and firefighters in NYC don't love Rudy.

So that's why I said that, if mud start slinging (which is KY style politics anyway) things are way up in the air on the Giuliani front.

By the same token, Hillary Clinton, the Presidential candidate, has been getting oodles less adverse Republican drummings than did Hillary, the First Lady. Gee, wonder why that is? Why aren't the Republicans going after the polling front runner, against whom they have so much accumulated ammo? Well, KY is one of the states in their strategy IMO. Let Hillary first get the nomination or be a shoe in for it, knocking out some of the candidates that the Republicans will have a harder time tearing down, then start the negative blitz.

It's been quiet times on Hillary from the right wing noise machine - anyone who doesn't think that hasn't lived in states like KY when that machine has been cranked up against her (and btw - I worked in Richmond VA with a pretty conservative law firm for several years too - don't anyone forget that Jim Webb was a high profile Republican for years before the election. Not that there's anything much wrong with that, bc it shows that a lot of Republicans are looking for somewhere else to light, and VA did elect Doug Wilder in the past, but the Webb election isn't the same as saying that VA would have elected a HRC to its open Senate seat.

Still, if Mark Warner has a good run, then yes, I can see Hillary doing OK in VA, again, depending on who her opposition will be.

With respect to Huckabee nationwide, I have no idea of his threat or lack thereof. But with respect to Huckabee in IN and KY, I can say he is the kind of candidate that, if he was running with party backing, would get a HUGE embrace by the whole web of pro-life organizations that help drive elections in KY and IN. They would love the snot out of him and you would see the Baptist and non-denom fundie vote pour out in a way that would make the Rove/Bush drive pale IMO.

The points made about KY being a coal state are good, but Dems haven't really distinguished themselves on this front either - playing up Sago and then dwindling. Plus, the coal companies are very strong players and they are so adamantly anti-Dem it goes beyond the oil companies position. KY has benefited for years from really cheap coal based energy costs and most of the Dem initiatives, and almost all global warming initiatives, stand to drastically change that picture for the average KY consumer and no one is preparing the ground on that front. So with energy costs through the roof anyway, KY is going to be susceptible to the themes of loss of jobs and disproportionately increased energy costs that will go hand in hand with prudent greenhouse gases planning. Don't think the coal companies will sit out the election in a state like KY that will be so important to them and don't think that their energy message and job loss message won't have some legs unless someone starts planning for how to counter it NOW.

So my points were that, polling aside, given the dynamics of the groups and issues that drive the voting in KY and the lack of attack campaigning to date - Huckabee and Obama both have lots of upside potential. Clinton and Giuliani have lots of downside potential. Edwards should have been polled. Romney will be a gift to whoever the Dem nominee is. Abortion, gun rights, global warming initatives and in particular their effect on jobs and costs in a coal dependent, coal industry driven, state shouldn't be forgotten pieces in the puzzle.

That's the view from the solar system here the land of fast horses.

The Book: In the beginning, the Universe was created. This made a lot of people angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea.

CalD wrote on November 25, 2007 2:53 PM:

...As a matter of fact, the less difference people perceive between candidates on the war - and HRC seems to be striving to not differentiate herself on the war very much, then the deciding issues in those states are going to give a Republican an edge...

Not to worry, Mary. I tend to think that "[Democratic nominee] wants to end occupation in Iraq and start bringing our troops home, [Republican nominee] does not," is likely to be enough of a distinction that even a dumb Hoosier (like myself) could probably puzzle through it eventually.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 3:05 PM:

CalD. You must be a bean counter. Your statistical analyses always fail to take the human factor into account. As I recall, Bill Clinton also did poorly in Iowa and recovered. Dean's effort to bounce back after Iowa were torpedoed by the "Dean Scream" media frenzy. It was not the straw that broke the camel's back, but became the dominant image of Dean, fueling a popular misconception that he was too volatile to be president. It was a watershed. Anyone who has seriously studied public perceptions in the 2004 election has noted the Scream is the point of no return for Dean.

With regard to Clinton's cackle, it comes across to many as contrived, irritating, insincere, and like Bush's laugh, shows up at very odd times. My point is not that the Hillary's opponents would seize on it, but that the media could. A 24-7, constant replay of a montage of cackles (or even a Youtube posting that catches on), sprinkled with clips a highly variable accent pandering to her audiences, could well make indelable the image of Hillary as inauthentic, calculating, contrived and dishonest.

CalD wrote on November 25, 2007 3:08 PM:

New Thread Alert!

EC has just posted results of a new poll out of New Mexico with findings similar to this KY poll. If anyone's starting to get a little bored with this thread, you could go trash that one instead.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on November 25, 2007 3:15 PM:

Dcshungu said "Listen: Clinton has the best progressive record of the top-tier Dem candidates."

Hillary's votes like her "legislative record" have no real meaning. She's been holding a seat in a do-nothing Senate, which Bill and machine organized her campaign for president. The only votes of consequence she has cast were the votes to give George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq and now to attack Iran. That's not the kind of judgment we need in president.

Your pompous smoke-blowing is usually worth a laugh, but the increasing frequency of your postings make it incresingly irritating. Are Hillary's talking-point writers on strike? Is that why you simply keep repeating the same old irrelevant rants day after day?

CalD wrote on November 25, 2007 5:46 PM:

Anonymous wrote:

"CalD. You must be a bean counter. Your statistical analyses always fail to take the human factor into account. As I recall, Bill Clinton also did poorly in Iowa and recovered..." [blah, blah, blah]

LOL! I'm afraid I am about as far from being a bean counter as you could get. Anyway, it could always be worse. For example, I could instead be the sort of person who substitutes supposition and name-calling for reasoned analysis; or the sort who would willingly engage in the kind of pretzel logic it would take to try and draw parallels between Iowa in 1992 -- when no one even bothered trying to run against Tom Harkin and certainly no one but Harkin ever led the race -- and Iowa in 2004.

stlounick wrote on November 25, 2007 6:34 PM:

Mary, thanks for the Kentucky update which I believe is quite accurate.

Again, stop telling folks how liberal or progressive Hillary is when she was fooled by Bush in 2002 and didn't even read the intelligence available because Senator Graham worked to make it available. And those two items are facts and not supposition, BTW.

Yet, let's make nothing of a mistake that Hillary made that has cost American blood and treasure--and let's not leave out the Iraqi blood spilled. But, by God, let's pay attention to Hillary's ad pointing out how she saved one child's life. This is called moral dishonesty.

Anonymous wrote on November 25, 2007 6:55 PM:

Concerned in Iowa wrote on November 25, 2007 3:15 PM:

Dcshungu said "Listen: Clinton has the best progressive record of the top-tier Dem candidates."

Hillary's votes like her "legislative record" have no real meaning. She's been holding a seat in a do-nothing Senate, which Bill and machine organized her campaign for president. The only votes of consequence she has cast were the votes to give George W. Bush authority to invade Iraq and now to attack Iran. That's not the kind of judgment we need in president.

Another confused moron with an acute eruption of CDS. He or she starts off by dismissing Clinton's legislative record as meaningless, but then turns around and selectively cites votes from that very "meaningless" record to try to make the ludircrous point that her judgment is too flawed for her to be POTUS. Meanwhile this same "patient" is probably carrying water for either of these two epitomes of good judgment: (1) Sen. Obama who was in no position to vote on the Iraq war bill and claims to have "opposed" it, but has since repeatedly voted to give GWB blank checks to perpetuate that war; or (2) fmr Sen. Edwards who had co-sponsored the Iraq war bill, his serial mea culpas to try to distance himself from it, notwithstanding. Now tell me, with such clear intellectual dishonesty and mendacity why should anyone pay attention to anything that you spew?

dcshungu wrote on November 25, 2007 7:25 PM:

I am "dcshungu" and I had authored and approved that November 25, 2007 6:55 PM "Anonymous" post, to which I would like to add that the K-L bill (that Obama had conveniently ad characteristically ducked, BTW) was a non-binding resolution that cannot be used as the basis for an attack on Iran. Also, remember that Sens Durbin and Levin, who had opposed the Iraq war bill and were called epitomes of good judgment for it, had voted for the K-L "Iran war" bill. What do you make of that apparent contradiction and what does it say about your notion of so-called "good judgment"?

BTW, what ever happened to that imminent attack on Iran, anyway, Josh Marshall, anyone?

colonpowwow wrote on November 25, 2007 8:31 PM:

stlounick said:

"This is called moral dishonesty."

Yes, and saying that Hillary is not a "progressive" because she voted wrong on the Iraq War authorization is an example of intellectual dishonesty.

There are other issues besides that vote, despite the fact that you've decided to make it the only important one in your mind. Kerry, Edwards, and many other progressive Democrats voted wrongly on this issue (in my opinion) too.

We won't talk about what kind of dishonesty it is when one claims that they've been canvassing for many hours per week and haven't yet met a Hillary supporter.

What kind of dishonesty would you call that?

Concerned In Iowa wrote on November 26, 2007 6:00 AM:

Hillary's attack dogs dcshunga and colonpowwow are quick to glaze over her votes on Iraq and Iran. But those votes stand out because they signal the type of judgment she would exercise as president. They show that Hillary has very poor judgment in trusting George W. Bush. Those votes were misguided and irresponsible.

Do these fiercely agressive, mean- spirited Hillaryties really believe their attacks on anyone who disagrees as "idiots" and "morons" does Hillary's cause any good?

CalD wrote on November 26, 2007 8:02 AM:

LOL! C'mon now Concerned, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

audit the polls wrote on November 26, 2007 9:03 AM:

These imaginary matchups are just a way to talk about elections without saying anything. In fact it shuts out people who ARE saying something. Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Paul,... all magically disappear in such fantasy-football polls

colonpowwow wrote on November 26, 2007 9:42 AM:

Dear Coancerned in Iowa:

I've never called anyone here who disagrees with me an "idiot" or "moron" for disagreeing. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to favor any of the fine Democratic candidates and to find issue with Hillary Clinton (I mentioned her Iraq Authorization vote myself as one).

I do, however, chide and characterize the irrational, anybody-but-Hillary-ites here as a bunch of leftist-behind members of the progressiver-than-thou, circular-firing-squad wing of the Democratic Party.

WOOF!

Awaiting your apology with baited breath, I remain,

colonpowwow

DTM wrote on November 26, 2007 10:59 AM:

CalD,

Since this is about to slip off the front page, I will keep it short.

First, the October 1992 poll you linked showed Bill Clinton's unfavorability at 39, which is consistent with what I claimed (he reached the 40s earlier in 1992, but by the election came down into the 30s).

Second, the 2000 Gallup poll you cite was taken AFTER the election during the period in which both Bush and Gore were contesting the results. Gore and Bush both experienced increased unfavorability rankings during that period.

All the other polls actually BEFORE the election show what I suggested: Bush's unfavorability ratings were down in the 30s.

votenic wrote on November 29, 2007 4:15 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Night at Midnight.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)