David Yepsen had some interesting thoughts on this poll, along with a few more tidbits on the internals.

Oh please please pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease let it be Obama vs. Huckabee in the general election.

Compared poll last month, Clinton lost 2 points, Edwards gained 1 point, Obama gained 6 points and Richardson lost 8 points.

Clearly, Obama's gains came at the expense of Richardson. As long as Clinton maintains her support among older folks who are likely to turn out to caucus, she could win, which would effectively end the Dem primaries. Clinton is, in fact, the only candidate who could lose all the early primary and caucus atstes and still win the nomination by capturing the lion's share of wins and delegates on Super Tuesday...

Weren't the Obama and Edwards always claiming they would win? Wasn't Clinton always considered the weakest of the three? Seems to me there is a bit of revisonist history going on right now.

My own thoughts are that the older voters will comprise the majority of the caucus goers, and that helps Clinton and probably Edwards. I could see Obama going the way of Dean on this one.

And, I don't think the Iowan's will be very happy with the bused in people. That would seem to fly in the face of the retail politics they hold so dear.

It will be interesting any way it goes though. Regardless of who wins in Iowa, Hillary is still the one to beat at this juncture.

dcshungu said "Clearly, Obama's gains came at the expense of Richardson."

The spin begins. The point of course is that Obama is trending up and Hillary is trending down. Hillary failed to gain support from those leaving Richardson. This suggests that as other candidates fade, Obama is far more likely than Clinton to gain support. Here in Iowa I am hearing so much positive buzz about Obama and so much head-shaking laughter about Hillary and Bill (is he campaigning for her or against her?).

dcshungu and all the other distorters hanging out at Hillary Central, should read that Frank Rich column referenced by party-of-one above, and quake in their boots.

www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/opinion/02rich.html?ref=opinion

Insert here video of the Clinton Cackle. Is it the equivalent of the Dean Scream?

Ramussen has Huckabee up by 3 in thurleir Iowa poll today, and, perhaps more significantly, up 7 (earning 30% overall) from voters who have already participated in a caucus before.

Romney does lead in the 2nd choice department, so there is still room for a good interpretation on the Romney side.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/iowa/republican_iowa_caucus

Uh oh -- I just read on Politico that Huckabee has been consulting with Dick Morris. Perhaps we better stop assuming that he would keep it clean in the general.

Let me throw another thought into the mix. The conventional wisdom is that Edwards must win Iowa to get the nomination. But suppose Hillary finishes third in Iowa, with Obama not too far ahead of Edwards. So much of Hillary's campaign is based on inevitability that she could deflate very quickly. (Some of us remember Ed Muskie in 1972.) Wouldn't Hillary's older and more blue-collar supporters swing toward Edwards?

Anonymous wrote on December 2, 2007 8:01 AM:

dcshungu says that "Clinton is, in fact, the only candidate who could lose all the early primary and caucus atstes and still win the nomination by capturing the lion's share of wins and delegates on Super Tuesday."

Seems the Hillary Lovers are seeing the writing on the wall: Iowa and New Hampshire are slipping away as voters see Hillary, hear her and are reminded of all the Clinton White House doublespeak and tabloid headlines. No one wants that distraction back, do they?

I have done the researchc for you. You can hyperventilate all you want but this race is still Clinton's to lose. I do not see how Obama wins enough states to reach the number of delegates required to win the nomination. The Table below might be all jumbled up but.if not, it would show the Big Picture. The number just before "Clinton" is the number of delegates for each state, excluding the "super delegates" [Clinton will take most of them]. The % support for each candidate is from the latest available numbers for each state. Tell me how Obama wins even if he captures ALL the early states. He is trailing in too many states (won't win CA, NY, NJ, PA, or any of the Big Ones) to make up for it on Feb 5 even with a "momentum" coming out of IA and NH. This is what Frank Rich's "hit piece" failed to consider. The IA contest is not the end; it is just the very biginning! My sense is that Obama will be the Dean of this election, as someone has suggested. Let's go to the numbers!

The Early Primary and caucus States

January 3, 2008 Iowa caucus 56 Clinton 25% - Obama 27% (JRE 23%)
January 8, 2008 New Hampshire primary 30 Clinton 30% - Obama 23%
January 19, 2008 Nevada caucus 33 Clinton 45% - Obama 20%
January 26, 2008 South Carolina primary 54 Clinton 45% - Obama 21%

Super Tuesday States (February 5)

Alabama primary 60 Clinton 40% - Obama 21%
Alaska caucus 18
Arizona primary 67 Clinton 44% - Obama 14%
Arkansas primary 47 Clinton 49% - Obama 15%
California primary 441 Clinton 53% - Obama 25%
Colorado caucus 71 Clinton 36% - Obama 20%
Connecticut primary 61 Clinton 45% - Obama 19%
Delaware primary 23 Clinton 41% - Obama 17% (Biden 19%)
Georgia primary 104 Clinton 40% - Obama 27%
Idaho caucus 23
Illinois primary 185 Clinton 33% - Obama 37%
Kansas caucus 40
Massachusetts 121 Clinton 32% - Obama 19%
Minnesota 88 Clinton 47% - Obama 22%
Missouri primary 88 Clinton 36% - Obama 21%
New Jersey primary 127 Clinton 52% - Obama 21%
New Mexico caucus 38 Clinton 17% - Obama 8% (Richardson 44%)
New York primary 280 Clinton 45% - Obama 19%
North Dakota caucus 21
Oklahoma primary 47 Clinton 29% - Obama 13% (JRE 29%)
Tennessee primary 85
Utah primary 29 Clinton 31% - Obama 18%
Total - - - - - - 2064

Rest of February (Delegate-rich states only)

Maryland primary 99 Clinton 48% - Obama 29%
Virginia primary 103 Clinton 49% - Obama 25%

March & Beyond (Delegate-rich states only)

Texas primary 228 Clinton 51% - Obama 17%
Ohio primary 161 Clinton 42% - Obama 17%
Pennsylvania primary 179 or 181 Clinton 48% - Obama 15%
North Carolina primary 110 Clinton 43% - Obama 19% (JRE 25%)
Oregon primary 79 Clinton 26% - Obama 18%

Any questions?

These numbers are already in flux and will change rapidly if Obama prevails in the early primary states and you know it -- so cut the propaganda. I do have a question -- how much are you paid for your services? If this is not actually your job, you really must have no life. How entirely sad for you.

donna L. wrote on December 2, 2007 11:54 AM:

These numbers are already in flux and will change rapidly if Obama prevails in the early primary states and you know it -- so cut the propaganda.

All of this presupposes that Hillary would lose the early states. I submit to you that even in IA, she is still very much the person to beat...

The only suspense is whether or not she would win IA, thereby ending this race before it even starts, or whether Obama or Edwards would "upset" her there, to the MSM's delight since it would give them something to do until the conventions.

The Republican side would be a lot more interesting: I think that McCain would resurface as a contender, Romney would fizzle after the early states where he's in contention only because he spent a ton there(he is still a mormon and that is a kiss of death, unless he can make an effective JFK-type speech), Rudy would remain competitive but would fizzle, as his social liberalism had doomed him from the git-go (also, people would have recoiled after they got to know the real Rude-y that we New Yorkers came to know and despise); Thompson is out; Huckabee is here to stay.

I do have a question -- how much are you paid for your services? If this is not actually your job, you really must have no life. How entirely sad for you.

Use ad hominen when you cannot argue a point on the strength of your evidence. Unlike you, I get no penny from the Clinton campaign nor do I have anything to do with it. I am just a naturalized US citizen, who, unlike the wide of majority of those who were born here and usually have no idea or care about who they elect to lead this country (we got GWBush, the Village Idiot, twice, because he was "a guy they could have a beer with", while Gore the Nobel Prize Winner, was too stiff), I do take my civic responsibility seriously and take the time to educate myself so that I could make an informed decision on who to support. LOL: In my spare time, I am a fill-time, extensively published and multi-tasking medical phyisicist with joint appointments at two Ivy League medical schools in Manhattan, where I direct several exciting magnetic resonance neuroimaging (MRI) projects in neurology, psychiatry, physiology and biophysics. I do have a life and I can multi-task very easily. Do you and can you? I hope that answered your questionable "question."

Pollster published a must-read on the subject of early primaries affecting later primaries:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/primary_polling_primer_timing.php

The chart presented in that article effectively illustrates how much the picture can change after Iowa and NH. As they note in that article:

"Just before Iowa, according to the ANES data, only 9% of those planning to vote in the Democratic primaries or caucuses nationally supported Kerry. Kerry shot up after his Iowa caucus victory, approaching 50% in the week before New Hampshire and hitting 68% by the end of February."

By the way, none of this is too surprising. Unlike in a general election contest, in a primary contest usually all the top candidates are relatively well-regarded by the voters in question, since they are all members of the same party. So, it typically isn't a big deal for people to switch their preferences around in light of what happens in the first few states, because most people are just switching from one person they liked to another person they liked as well.

And this race is no exception. All the polling I have seen indicates that all the top Democrats are generally well liked, and a large number of voters are willing to consider any of them, regardless of their current top choice. So, it is reasonable to expect that voter preference will prove just as volatile this year as in previous years.

AND Obama is the guy who says his vote against human rights violation means nothing, that the BS REP Talking Point on Social Security is god's truth and that failing to cover everybody in an universal health plan is the way he likes it. In the last two months, Obama has out right-winged lil' missy only corporations matter and that's a farging feat.

Very well said. Increasingly, I have no idea what Obama believes in or stands for. He had called Clinton "Bush-lite", but guess that he's been doing? Espousing the policies that have been so despicable about the Village Idiot! He wants to "fix" social security and has been calling the United Nations names, just like George Will and the right-wingers have been for years! Here's a piece at HuffPo that argues why Hillary, Not Barack, Is The One. The relevant graphs about how Obama has been sounding more and more like the righties are exerpted below (emphasis mine):

does not cover everybody; he is spending time trying to fix Social Security, which most experts agree is in relatively good shape, rather than Medicare, which does need help; he talks incessantly (and piously) about bringing people together without explaining what that really means; he makes naïve claims about his mastery of foreign policy - e.g., that he is "experienced" because he lived overseas for six years as a child - that make him look insubstantial; and for all his touted freshness in global thinking, recently rather than embrace the most important international organization on the planet, the United Nations, he attacked it in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for its "flaws" - something conservatives do all the time.
In my view, he is a good person who simply lacks a substantive enough track-record in national and international issues at this point in his life to handle the presidency. My choice is Hillary Clinton. We who live in her home state, New York, have known and admired her for a long time. We know what America is now discovering about her - namely that she is an unusually tough and savvy political figure.

I’m not entirely sure about that. In 2004 Dean, Kerry, Edwards and to a certain extent also Gephardt were all new and unfamiliar faces to the voters. In 2008 however Clinton and Edwards are familiar stock with Obama being the only unknown in the top tier, he’s factor X so to speak. That’s not to say that Democrats couldn’t support anyone of the top three, but maybe the voter preferences are a bit more solid this year than last time around, and that would be especially true of Clinton’s and Edward’s support, the voters know them by now.

That strikes me as about right. The remarkable thing about most head-to-head match up polls pitting Clinton against any Dem or Repub candidate is how low the number of undecided voters generally gets. Hillary and Edwards are a known quantities, so that most people who choose to support them do so despite whatever some might consider their weaknesses. Such support is generally fairly solid. Edwards' support had flattened a while back and Clinton's has pretty much gotten as high as it would get. Only Obama has been showing large changes (mostly upward). The question is how high would he go before he reaches his maximum? He'll need to siphon off support from somewhere in order for him to win, but I do not think that would be at the expense of Clinton. If Edwards supporters decide that he cannot win, then they might switch to Obama... Stay tuned!

I have doubts about Huckabee winning Iowa. Romney has tons of money and a greta organization. Even if Huckabee did win Iowa then what. He has no chance to win NH. Pat Robertson won Iowa in 88. It didn't do him much good.

blockquote>I'm not sure why being well known prior to the beginning of the campaigns would have much to do with it. Again, it isn't so much that people are likely to learn something new about their original first choice, as that they may switch to another candidate once the results start coming in. So the new thing they are learning is about the voting, not the candidate per se.
But the link you provided (btw: interesting read, as always, thanx!) relied heavily on 2004. And the situation is different now. If you are to draw general conclusions from 2004 you must, hence, do that with caution.

It is not only possible but actually probable that voter support will be somewhat less flimsy in 2008 compared to 2004. This would be true especially for Edwards and Clinton support. They are better known, and I’m not meaning mere name recognition here, but actually politically known. That is, voters identify with them politically, on the issues as well as on character and style, and that should, simply put, make their support somewhat more solid. In 2004 no candidate started out with such a head start; this time around there are two.

Thus, it’s reasonable to expect the early results out of Iowa and New Hampshire not to have the same effect as it did in 2004. This is not to say that it won’t have any effect, only probably less so, as compared to 2004.

Strangly, it was an appearance on The Colbert Report about a year ago where I actually thought to myself-- 'Huckabee may be the only real candidate the GOP could expect to succeed with in '08'.

Queue the Twilight Zone theme...

jw1

Due to the proliferation of michaels, I guess I'll be michael a. I was going to go with ocd, but that would play too much into dc's hands.

On another note, the winning dem ticket in 08, will be Obama/Webb. Webb brings national security creds and the south with him and Obama brings unity and hope. We are talking landslide and a new direction for the country. The trend is for obama and away from clinton II and webb would be the ideal running mate. Both obama and webb are straight talkers and look to the future. Clinton II wants to refight the nineties with the republicans and relive them. Let's move on.

Finally, rich's piece in the times today was right on target. The republicans won't have a clue how to deal with obama, but they will beat clinton II, because they know how. Also, sullivan in the other op-ed entitle "brother .... [something]", a conservative log cabin republican had an awesome observation about an obama presidency. Talk about changing the face of america in the middle east and around the world. Our credibility would go up exponentially. Can anyone imagine the reaction of a muslim in pakistan or saudi arabia hearing that the president elect of the united states is named barak hussein obama and that he is african american? Wow. Now that would be awesome. It would not only be good for america, but it would be good for the world.

Obama/Webb in 08.

MichaelA says that he supports Obama and Webb in 2008. As a Republican, I almost welcome that ticket because I think it would be eminently beatable. Both men suffer from severe foot-in-mouth disease, especially Webb. Jim Webb is a bit of a demoniac, to be quite honest. He rants, plain and simple and loses routinely loses control of himself. I have rarely seen anyone cut his nose off to spite his face with such passion in the public place.

Watching him in a debate with a Republican is a marvel of rudeness and obtuseness. So he probably would be the perfect choice to sink the 2008 Dem ticket.

Steve, ahhh a clinton II supporter. I am sure that you saw webb's debates with mr. macaca. He could have pounced on a host of things and been "demonic," but he didn't. He wasn't the best debater, but he sure is a straight talker, with good ideas. That's alot more than we can say about clinton II. Does anybody have any idea what her position is on anything other than Iraq and Iran??? Oh, that's right add the driver's license thing, because her polling said 70% of americans were against the idea.

dcshungu said:

For the simple reason that Obama's 28% support v. Clinton's 25% (delta = 3) is no more a "lead" than Clinton's 27% to Obama's 25% (delta = 2) ...

Your analysis would carry more weight if you understood the meaning of the term delta.

roo_P wrote on December 2, 2007 4:59 PM:

dcshungu said:

For the simple reason that Obama's 28% support v. Clinton's 25% (delta = 3) is no more a "lead" than Clinton's 27% to Obama's 25% (delta = 2) ...

Your analysis would carry more weight if you understood the meaning of the term delta.

What an ignoramus. That was hardly an "analysis", and delta is a greek letter that is used by convention in physical sciences for "difference" (capital delta) or "differential" (lower case delta). But I could have defined it any way I wanted, which is why you come sounding stupid making such a statement.

dcshungu said "You can hyperventilate all you want but this race is still Clinton's to lose. "

Yep, and she sure is doing a good job of it lately. The more familiar voters become with her, the less they support her. hmmmm Only Iowa and New Hampshire are really looking now. Soon after New Years, the rest of the January spoiler states and the Super Tuesday crowd will start paying attention. They'll see that Mrs. Bill Clinton's lacks qualifications, character and capacity to address an issue directly, combined with huge obligations for all that corporate cash and a truely arrogant, mind-spirted campaign machine.

Hillary will soon be back full-time as a do-nothing Senator in a do-nothing Congress. If she isn't gonna be president, will she ever see Bill again?

Wow, dcshungu. If your real goal here is to ensure that non-Clinton supporters will work hard for your candidate if she wins the nomination... well, don't quit those day jobs you mentioned. You come off belligerent and condescending--just as many of us find Sen. Clinton. Maybe it's a good match.

That said, you did mention that you've looked into these issues and candidates closely--which might mean you can tell us all just why Clinton is running, and what you think she'll do in office. In your lengthy and well-spun horserace tealeaf-reading, I haven't seen anything about why HRH HRC is the best choice on substance.

And here's another Restorationist spin:

MikeB wrote on December 2, 2007 2:09 PM:
This is not a big deal for Clinton. Her husband did not win either Iowa or NH and went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

A little different when you lose an uncontested caucus to an Iowa native (Harkin) and NH to a next-door neighbor with limited but strong regional appeal (Tsongas, who would have been even more miscast in a national campaign than the 1988 and 2004 Massachusetts-hailing nominees).

Better luck next time.

That said, you did mention that you've looked into these issues and candidates closely--which might mean you can tell us all just why Clinton is running, and what you think she'll do in office. In your lengthy and well-spun horserace tealeaf-reading, I haven't seen anything about why HRH HRC is the best choice on substance.

Please don't get me started. Those who frequent these forums regularly have seen my long post-essays in support and defense of the Clinton candidacy. Check the archives.

So, I am going to turn the question around: why is Obama running, just 2+ years after getting to the U.S. Senate? He has spewed sophomoric lines about how he is going to unite the country, but has not specified at all just how he would accomplish that. The scary thing is that people as apparently smart as Andrew Sullivan have gone gaga over it. The soft bigotry of low expectations, whereby people who exceed such expectations are automatically called geniuses? Remember that GWB was going to be a "uniter and not a divider", and look at what we got. Just because Obama claims that he is going to change politics in DC does not mean that he'll be able to make it so. He has no skills or "gravitas" to be able to get anything done in DC! Show me the money, baby. Even more troubling is that to appeal to Republicans, Obama has been sounding just like GWB, the other would-be "uniter", with each passing day: Obama now wants to "fix social security and is calling the UN names!

What is the rationale for an Obama Presidency other sheer blind ambition and ego? Anyone who has written two autobiography by age 45 is definitely full of himself! He wants to go from junior high to the position of CEO of the most powerful company in the world, with no training whatsoever, and people are cheering him on... Scary!

What do you see in Obama that I do not see? He is politically "green", his so-called "new" ideas sound naive and sophomoric, and he is just ego-driven. Is that your ideal candidate for the next leader of the free world?

c,

The good news is that people have been trying to use Obama's race against him for a long time, and for whatever reason it just doesn't work. Indeed, people have been specifically pushing dcshungu's "black Muslim" idea since last December, and Obama has continued to become more, not less, popular with Republicans, independents, and relatively conservative white people in general.

But I agree that ineffective as it is, people of conscience have to speak out against such tactics. And I also suspect we will see a lot more of it coming from certain quarters if current trends continue.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a known quantity. Even if she gets her 50.0001 percent, there's no reason for Republicans--whose base detests her in a Pavlovian way--to work with her. A Clinton Restoration condemns us to four to eight more years of zero-sum, gridlocked government, and after Bush we can't afford that the way we could in the '90s.

[Obama] is politically "green", his so-called "new" ideas sound naive and sophomoric, and he is just ego-driven.

I can't imagine we'll agree on what constitutes "experience" and who's "green"--but I'll take his community organizing, successful tenure in the Illinois legislature and brief but effective half-term in the U.S. Senate, leading on ethics reform and nuclear non-proliferation, to Hillary's "Being There" m/o--in the White House and in the Senate.

That said, Obama could prove to be not-up to the task. I don't have illusions about him. But he has potential to move the country in a fundamentally new and positive direction; Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and FDR in 1932 had their clear drawbacks as well.

I want a leader; I want someone who might grow in the job. And I want someone who can change opponents' minds about things--this was ultimately the secret to the genius of Lincoln and FDR. Obama might or might not have it; I know, with absolute confidence, that Hillary doesn't.

And I'm not sure she wants to; to change someone's mind, you have to entertain a two-way dialogue. The fact that Republicans are so much more open to Obama than Clinton doesn't mean that he's embraced their worldview; it means that they might be willing to listen to his.

Clinton is a political coward whose biggest fear seems to be that someone, somewhere will call her a "liberal"--which they do anyway. She has no guts, no vision and no leadership that I can perceive. Her nomination will energize Republicans and demotivate progressives--and let the people who've really messed up the country sleep very well at night. They understand what dynasties feed upon and how to deal with people who covet power for its own sake rather than to do anything brave with it.

dcshungu,

First, it is true that both Gore and Kerry lost their cross-over battles with Bush (Kerry overwhelmingly). However, Clinton won his cross-over battle with Dole. And of course Clinton was the last Democrat to actually become President. So, rather than assuming that a Democrat losing the cross-over battle is somehow immutable, I think it more suggests how crucial it is for the Democrats to identify someone who could have significant cross-over appeal, like Bill Clinton did.

Second, what was the exaggeration? That this black Muslim stuff started in December? Here is a link from last December:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/barack_hussein.html

And the point is that polling since then shows that Obama is increasingly popular not only among Democrats, but also independents and Republicans. So your proposed smear just isn't working with any significant group.

So it turns out that Americans as a whole are more decent than you are giving them credit for. Which is something to celebrate, and it is too bad you aren't in a position to celebrate along with the rest of us.

DTM wrote on December 2, 2007 8:04 PM:

dcshungu,

First, it is true that both Gore and Kerry lost their cross-over battles with Bush (Kerry overwhelmingly). However, Clinton won his cross-over battle with Dole. And of course Clinton was the last Democrat to actually become President. So, rather than assuming that a Democrat losing the cross-over battle is somehow immutable, I think it more suggests how crucial it is for the Democrats to identify someone who could have significant cross-over appeal, like Bill Clinton did.

The Clinton model does not apply for a couple of obvious reasons: (a) he was going against a very unpopular GOP incumbent (GWB was still very popular with the "bases" in 2004, whereas it had turned against his dad in 1992), and (b) there was a third party candidate, Ross Perot.

Second, what was the exaggeration? That this black Muslim stuff started in December? Here is a link from last December:

Maybe in your circles this was big news, but it just flared up a bit after the WashTimes piece and then died after CNN went to Jakarta for onsite documentation. What you can be sure of is that the Repubs would not be shy about using it against him, especially in the south.

As for Lott and Graham, I must have missed the ground-breaking, paradigm-shifting work she did with them. Or was it like her partnership with Rick Santorum to ban violent videogames?

Then please look it up! This is the information age. We'll be talking passed one another unless we can agree on what is factual or what is just conjecture.

Thanks DTM. I'm now convinced this other one is a troll and not even a very skillful one -- you can see it in the cliche'd confrontational language. Among people I know all the HRC supporters like BO and vice versa; it's only in the blog comments that you get this weird view that backing one means trashing the other.

Back in the old days we called them provocateurs -- plants who would urge the most extreme language and tactics with the aim of discrediting the whole effort.

A Republican troll like dcshungu succeeds if he can provoke people into attacking HRC in similarly nasty terms. He wants a bitterly-divided Democratic party committed to a divisive national strategy that will repel decent Republicans.

Hmmm...

The Clinton model with Dole still included Perot and he was a relatively popular incumbent!

Models that would apply to this election would have to pit two non-incumbent candidates. But the point remains that the formula for winning is not to count on Repubs. They are the "enemy", remember? In nearly three decades, the Dems have won the presidency only once because of fantasies about some great candidate who is ideologically "pure". is above the fray or is going to change Washington. Get real! The Repubs will do whatever they can to win, and we'd better start doing the same. Wonderful candidates that do not win won't do our vision about the direction of this country any good unless they can win! Clinton is committed to winning, the old fashioned way...by playing hardball.

The Repubs will do whatever they can to win, and we'd better start doing the same. Wonderful candidates that do not win won't do our vision about the direction of this country any good unless they can win! Clinton is committed to winning, the old fashioned way...by playing hardball.

This is your weakest argument yet.

You're essentially positing that Clinton's willingness to play "hardball"--whatever the hell that means, and as if there isn't an activist left that will push *any* Dem to avoid the sort of tactical mistakes made by Gore and Kerry--has more weight than the fact that "the enemy" is more dug in and raring to fight against Hillary Clinton than any of our other candidates.

I don't want the Democrats to try and win with the "John Kerry plus Ohio" strategy. I want to win 400 EVs and realign our politics. If we're going to address the real and serious problems this country faces, 50 percent plus 1 won't do it anyway; the 50 percent minus 1 will be as angry and unresponsive toward Clinton as we all are toward The Idiot King.

Have a little faith in the American people; they've seen how badly the Republicans fouled things up the last eight years. Any Republican will have a high barrier to overcome in terms of non-ideological, competent management of the government.

Remember the question Howard Dean asked for the YouTube debate (not aired, of course): After eight years of Bush, how does a vote for any Republican equate to change?

Whoever the Dems nominate will ask this question. Whoever the Republicans nominate will have a harder time answering it than you've had in trying to explain why, substantively, you're supporting Clinton.

dcshungu,

In my adulthood, exactly one non-incumbent Democrat has won the Presidency, and he ran exactly the sort of campaign you say can't win. Meanwhile, Kerry made all the same promises you are making on Clinton's behalf, and lost anyway.

So, I agree Democrats should look to history for guidance about what works. And it turns out, you seem to have things exactly backward.

CalD,

There is a lot of mixed information related to turnout in the cross-tabs. On the one hand, it is true Clinton's support skews older, which is good for turnout. On the other hand, she is now behind among women and third among union members (both facts bad for turnout), and most important perhaps, Obama is now ahead among people "certain" to attend.

But we shall see.

You still seem to think it's 2000. The world has changed; the Republicans blew it, and everyone knows it. The irony is that the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, it sort of *is* 2000; the emotional reaction to that name alone obscures the Republicans' horrible, horrible record, and will drive millions who'd otherwise be open to Democrats--hell, who voted for Democrats in the midterms last year--grudgingly back to any viable Republican.

At the same time, your fevered insistence that hidden racism will undo Obama is rather ugly. I don't think you understand the South very well--especially if you think that Hillary Clinton will do better than Obama there.

Oh, how's that evidence of the Great Lott/Clinton BiPartisan National Salvation Law coming?

Of course the Republicans are going to play dirty. What confuses me is why some Democrats assume it will automatically work.

Again, they threw the book at Bill Clinton in 1992. And frankly, he was pretty bad at dealing with those issues (e.g., "I did not inhale", his confused account his attitude toward the possibility of being drafted, and so on). It didn't matter, though, because he ran as the self-styled "Man from Hope", people were sick of the Republicans, and people just flat out liked the guy. And that was that.

The irony is that the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, it sort of *is* 2000; the emotional reaction to that name alone obscures the Republicans' horrible, horrible record, and will drive millions who'd otherwise be open to Democrats--hell, who voted for Democrats in the midterms last year--grudgingly back to any viable Republican.

So who gives a damn about the Republicans, anyway? I had a post recently in which I had documented with facts and figures that EVERY self-identified republican can come out and vote against Hillary and that would get them only 32.7% of the vote, whereas if every Dem came out and voted for Hillary, it would net us 37.5%. There just aren't that many Republicans for anyone to care about "energizing" them. Besides, that is exactly what the Repubs would like for you to think so that you would nominate a candidate (Obama) who they will have an easy time defeating. Obama is green, naive and untested, black and will lose big. Guaranteed.

We just need to get energized for our own!

DTM--

If, like me, you entered into dialogue with dcshungu in hopes of either finding common ground or eliciting a substantively positive reason for vote for Hillary Clinton, you're probably as disappointed as I am. I'd thus respectfully suggest that, as I will now do, you find a more productive use for the remainder of your evening than arguing with a True Believer who, ironically, seems to believe in nothing except InevitaBillary.

DTM: Of course Clinton ran as a centrist in 1992. That was the heyday of the DLC and Clinton, a past chairman, positioned himself as the penultimate New Democrat. If he hadn't, Ross Perot would likely have taken a bigger piece of the moderate independent pie and Bush might well have gotten his second term after all.

dajafi wrote on December 2, 2007 10:16 PM:

DTM--

If, like me, you entered into dialogue with dcshungu in hopes of either finding common ground or eliciting a substantively positive reason for vote for Hillary Clinton, you're probably as disappointed as I am.

LOL. Facts and coherent logic win arguments. Conjectures cannot be passed for facts, and to use the well-known ad populum fallacy when you fail to sway people due to weak evidence or flawed logic is a very bad debating tactic.

Bonsoir et bonne nuit, mesdames et messsieurs!

We are indeed seeing a test of how good a candidate Clinton truly is--the first real test she has ever faced, in fact. We shall see how it works out.

LOL. Dissembling again. You know better than that! Clinton went to toe-to-toe with a firing squad in several debates and prevailed in all but one, is leading in every state except Illnois where she's just barely trailing the home boy(37% Obama - 33% Clinton), and is tied in Iowa (in spite of the noice machine), and you want us to somehow believe that Clinton has shown some major weakness? LOL. The race was going to tighten. It always does, but Clinton remains the candidate to beat!

Capece?

Over and really out this time...

DTM: I never said Bill Clinton was a Republican.

Centrist ≠ Republican

Also there's a question of perspective. Politics in America have moved so far to the right in the last decade that what was centrist in 1992 would in many cases be considered pretty progressive by now. Hell if Nixon were alive today he'd be a pretty liberal Democrat. No way would he be welcome in today's Repub party.

Here you go, DTM. Take a trip down memory lane.

CalD,

And here is a link for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulation_(politics)

Again, I don't deny Bill Clinton was at heart a standard DLC centrist. I am just pointing out he did not run as one in 1992.

dcshungu,

Right, the DLC-types in that NYT article are complaining about Bill Clinton in 1993 trying to raise taxes, increase spending on things like public health care, and allow gays to openly serve in the military.

But contrary to your assertion, that was not stuff he came up with after the election--rather, he campaigned on it.

Here are a few articles for you (all from the NYT since you like it):

Raising taxes:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D6143BF932A15754C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Universal healthcare:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE2D71130F936A1575AC0A964958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Clinton,%20Bill

Gays in the military:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDB133FF933A25754C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Dissembling To Mindlessness:

DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 1:17 AM:

dcshungu,

Right, the DLC-types in that NYT article are complaining about Bill Clinton in 1993 trying to raise taxes, increase spending on things like public health care, and allow gays to openly serve in the military.

But contrary to your assertion, that was not stuff he came up with after the election--rather, he campaigned on it.

LOL. If you think that makes any sense than you're really more confused than I thought...really. Where were these DLC-types during the entire 1992 campaign? Asleep? What you are claiming is that they let Bill Clinton say anything that he wanted during the campaign and then after he got elected without their objecting to his liberal campaign promises, they just suddenly woke up and decided to start bitching? Double LOL! They were Clinton's policy guys, who crafted the 1992 platform and shaped his daily message! Moreover, Bill's poll numbers went south by 10 points as a result of his sharp liberal turn after being elected. Do yo think that had he campaigned as a liberal he would have beaten GHWB? No. He would not have attracted the "Reagan Dems" back into the fold, and would have lost.

Know when to quit, man. I think that you need to have a Sister Souljah moment to help along:

But the Clinton Administration's brief record indicates that the problem goes deeper than particular proposals. In matters of appointments and policies from civil rights to foreign intervention, Mr. Clinton's Administration appears torn between the New Democratic promises of the campaign and the political realities of dealing with the national Democratic Party, controlled by Old Democrats, elected officials and interest groups of a determinedly liberal ideology.

The most clear, and most explosive, example of Mr. Clinton's dilemma can be found in his handling of racial and sexual issues. In 1991, under Mr. Clinton's direction as chairman, the Democratic Leadership Council braved open intra-party warfare to pass a resolution condemning the use of race and sex-based quotas in hiring. In 1992, Mr. Clinton publicly criticized the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition for inviting Sister Souljah, a black rap artist who has been accused of making anti-white statements, to a coalition meeting.

"But since he's been elected, he's done everything Jesse Jackson could have asked for," Mr. Muravchik said. Theories Draw Attention

Echec et mat!

CalD and dschungu,

I just documented for you how the things the DLC-types were complaining about were in fact part of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign. You can ignore that if you wish, but it is what happened.

And yes, dcshungu, that is pretty much exactly what happened: the DLC-types supported Clinton's candidacy--as in fact did people like Senator Kennedy and many other noted liberals--then started to complain when Clinton actually tried to fulfill his campaign promises. I can't speak for the DLC-types, but maybe they expected that Bill Clinton was making all those promises just to get the support of people like Senator Kennedy, and they didn't think he would actually do anything to back those promises up.

Incidentally, it is your proposed narrative that makes no sense. If Bill Clinton was a centrist and campaigned as a centrist, why would be come into office and then start governing as a liberal in a way that would make the DLC-types squawk? Something must be off in your narrative.

And we agree that Bill Clinton at heart was a DLC-type, so it isn't that he was carrying out his secret desire to be a liberal. Rather, there is only one obvious explanation for the way he was governing: he actually campaigned as more of a liberal than the DLC liked, and he was trying to fulfill those promises when he was governing like a liberal.

Which, as I documented, is exactly what did in fact happen.

Michael A wrote on December 3, 2007 8:21 AM:

dc, you are way tooo funny. Centrist???? Demac has been spouting off how progressive/liberal the clintons are. Can you blind clinton lovers get it straight? And the base of the dem party thinks the clintons are republicans. It's kind of funny, talk about triangulation. Bottom line is actions speak louder than words and clinton I and clinton II's actions are more republican than democratic, so I would say they are republicans.

From where you are way out there in the fringe left field, the Clintons and yours truly might as well be Republicans. But guess what, the Respublicans think that the Clintons are too liberals. Conclusion: They are both at the center of the American political divide where electiond are won, which is why Clinton would win handily if nominated.

I am finally getting back to your slams of my post on obama/webb. One "point" you raised was winning the south. Well, I think obama/webb has a much better chance than clinton II/(some yes person) winning southern states. Webb will deliver virginia at least, where clinton II is getting slammed currently. Also, I have seen you repeatedly say so what about republicans, well you need republican votes to take southern states and obama delivers republican votes for dems and clinton II delivers republican votes for the republican nominee.

I really have no use discussing anything with you because you have no use for facts. You'll keep repeting the same thing over snd over again regardless of how many times it has been debunked.

Virginia (Updated: 11/30/07:

Clinton 45% Rudy 45%
Obama 43% Rudy 47%

but they are BOTH losing to McCain by 10%. Question: Virginia seldom voted Dem in the past, so who needs it? If we get it, great, but if we don't, big deal. For that matter, who needs the Repubs? We need the centrist "swing voters" and Clinton is there with them. That is how we will win. A strategy based on the fantasy that the Repubs would play nice with Obama is a sure loser. The Republicans, especially in the south, are still very racist. Why do you think the GOP candidates have so far refused to debate in forum provided by African-Americans? It is a not-so-subtle message to the Repubs that they still intend to use Nixon's "Souther Strategy."

One last time: There is no formula by which Obama wins in the South, much less attract Repubs there, in 2008 America.

Provide facts or I will just ignore you...

dc, I provide facts all the time that you ignore. The problem is that people read your nonsense and "facts" and take them as true, when they are not. By way of example, any political commentators, activists or advisors with creds that you have to debunk the universal FACT that clinton II will energize the republican base like there is no tomorrow and bring republicans out in droves to vote against her?????

Also, centrist my a**, 70% of the american people are against the war in iraq and want us out yesterday. So, 70% of the public are flaming liberals? And what 30% is probably republican, so she is with the republicans, which would make her republican. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

Finally, your posts indicate that you just want to continue stagnation and not do a gd thing for this country. You don't want to reach out to republicans. You want to write off whole portions of the country. How on earth could clinton II get anything done if she wins a squeaker election? Republicans, who might wind up being the majority again in the senate if she is the nominee, will block everything that she would try to do, other than keeping the war going. Isn't that a problem? Not to blind clinton II lovers.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.