The primary tightens. I am an Obama supporter and I forecast that he will win the primary and secure the Democratic nomination. I also forecast, as I did several weeks ago, that Huckabee will be the GOP nominee.

Good job Eric, minimize once again the bad news for Hillary.

Could TPM and Election Central please try to be even handed. Eric's Hillary bias does nothing for the credibility of your other postings.

It is actually the MSNBC/McClatchy poll conducted by Mason-Dixon. With the exception of Nevada, all of Hillary's leads are within the margin of error. In Neveda her lead is narrowing, as is the pattern in all the early states as their primaries/caucuses approach. And "if a loss in Iowa gives momentum to another candidate in those later contests" the candidate is most like to be Obama, given these poll results.

stlounick wrote on December 9, 2007 3:02 PM:

The primary tightens. I am an Obama supporter and I forecast that he will win the primary and secure the Democratic nomination. I also forecast, as I did several weeks ago, that Huckabee will be the GOP nominee.

A less likely scenario on the Dem side than the ones I outline below, but there is no question that this race is at the moment a statistical tie between Clinton and Obama in the early states. As in past elections, anything can happen in these states. Clinton wins the nomination relatively easily if she can do well in these states. Remember that Bill Clinton got trounced in IA, and came second in NH but ended up with the nomination on basis of his strength in southern states. Hillary's strength will be in the large blue states, which would hold their primaries on Super Tuesday. She'll pick up the momentum then that will carry first to the finish line.

If Obama does very well, this will be a long drawn out fight between him and Clinton, as they both have loads of cash to allow them to go the distance, but ultimately, Clinton will prevail.

What's interesting about these Mason Dixon polls is that when they polled IA, NH and SC back in June, their results in SC and NH were wildly out of whack in Obama's favor in that case too, in comparison to other polls taken around the same time.

Coincidence or house effect?

In June, the Pew poll of South Carolina came in with Hillary Clinton at 25%, John Edwards 12% and Barack Obama 34%. However the average percentages for those three in the five other polls taken closest to the date of Mason Dixon's were, Clinton 34%, Edwards 19%, Obama 24%.

In New Hampshire, the June Mason Dixon poll came in as, Clinton 26%, Edwards 18%, Obama 21% -- a mere 5-point lead for Clinton, at a time when most other polls put her ahead by 15-20%. There again, the averaged percentage from the 5 polls closest to the date of that one were, Clinton 34%, Edwards 13%, Obama 19%.

The results of their Iowa poll in June were much more credibly in line with other polls for Clinton and Obama, although they still seem to have short-changed Edwards by about the same amount as they apparently did in NH and SC. In Iowa the Mason Dixon June poll came in at, Clinton 22%, Edwards 21%, Obama 18% whereas the 5 most contemporaneous public polls averaged out to Clinton 23%, Edwards 28%, Obama 17%.

So then as now, Iowa looks to have been the most believable of the three. Also could tend to mean this poll might actually signal better news for John Edwards than it appears. But you never know.

Obviously Clinton's "once-hailed inevitability" is already "out the window" (could anyone remotely objective look at the numbers and trends as of right now and proclaim her nomination is "inevitable"?). Indeed, as the states after Iowa also begin to tighten without Clinton first losing Iowa, it only magnifies the importance of Clinton outright winning Iowa--a proposition which is at best a coin flip, and arguably worse given the presence of both Obama and Edwards.

It is of course possible that Hillary Clinton would hold onto her leads in the Super Tuesday states even if she lost all the early primary states to the same person (because pretty much anything is possible in the primaries). But that isn't what happened with Bill Clinton in 1992: Iowa and NH had two different winners, Harkin and Tsongas, each of whom was also a local favorite.

So I strongly suspect that Clinton very much does not want to lose both Iowa and NH to the same person, particularly since it is quite likely if that person is Obama or Edwards, they would win SC too.

Interesting polls. Nice story on Clinton's pant suit. One question: Obama just gave a speech to 30000 people in South Carolina and 30000 in Iowa last night and that generates not ONE post? Not even the link to an AP article? Wow.

Daniel wrote on December 9, 2007 3:49 PM:

The big story of the week-end is the fight over the female vote in Iowa that is shaping up with Oprah's visit and with the fight over health care! The latter is shaping up to be a heated driving issue, with Obama and Krugman now treating attacks and criticism on the issue of mandates.

Jonathan Cohn chimes in on the health care debate and comes squarely on Krugman's side. He says that Obama Is Wrong About Universal Health Care and goes on to clearly, succinctly, and convincingly tell us why...

The point was that they promote Hillary.

So, just go elsewhere...

Sounds like Eric is posting as Anonymous.

No you won't get the $1,000 that your contributed to help TPM launch its more ambitious site back... just count it as a contribution to "Hillary for President" campaign.

Cohn of course has been a mandate supporter for a while, so this is actually a defense of his own position.

Cohn is right, though, that the mandate question is more a political one than anything else. That is because everyone recognizes that no system short of a single-payer system will be truly universal. Moreover, a mandate system will be less efficient and likely more regressive than many alternatives. So a mandate system is one of several possible compromises from the ideal, and the argument for them depends on mandates being more politically acceptable than the alternatives.

And on the politics: mandates lead inevitably to the question of enforcement. And I appreciate that at least Edwards was honest enough to admit that mandate enforcement ultimately meant using wage garnishment and collection agencies to enforce the mandated premium payments.

But once you are honest about the necessary enforcement mechanisms, it calls into serious question whether mandates are in fact politically feasible. And if they are not politically feasible, then rather being a viable compromise step toward a better system, they become an unviable barrier in the way of any meaningful progress.

Will I get the $1,000 I contributed to the site back?

No, because you apparently gave freely (but now it seems that you might have been expecting some kind of quid pro quo when you gave...You must really be disappointed)

Pandora, don't you get it?

The purpose of Hillary's candidacy is to assure that the corporate, profiteering, warmongering status quo continues. She will not change anything. We will have more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton political division, the nation divided against itself, with no chance to make progress on the big issues we face: healthcare, immigration, Iraq, social security, global warming, preditory lending, the national debt. Hillary's "war against the Republicans" is a strategy to be sure the nation stays divide. As president, she will continue the Bush policies, because she owes the corporations who are putting her in office.

We need a president with the intellect, vision, ideas and leadership to inspire and persuade a large majority of the nation to move forward, together. I believe Obama can do that. I KNOW that Hillary cannot.

When I gave, I assumed the site would be even handed, at least in its coverage of the very important Democratic primary. I did not expect them to become advocates for Hillary.

All evidence points to a mandate being the best strategy on the table for achieving universal health care. Why's Barack Obama fighting it?

-J. Cohn.

Cohn's piece is well argued. In fact, it is the best argued piece on the topic of mandates that I have seen anywhere. Under our current political system, no universal health care plan is likely to succeed without some sort of mandate, which really is not as bad a thing as the Republicans and some Dems (Obama) would want you to believe...

I would go with any of the Democratic candidates ... except for Hillary. I think many Hillary supporters assume that Democrats will rally to her if she is nominated... two words on that "Rude" "Awakening."

I do not want the Clinton's back in the White House with all their baggage, and back in the headlines. Period. Just too much destraction.

If you want to see an average of a number of polls (rather than obsessing over any single poll), here's the place: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

P.S. Hillary is still way ahead in the national polls.

~ ~ ~

As for Hillary's pantsuits, most of the women senators wear pantsuits, probably because pantsuits are much more comfortable than skirts and pantyhose, AND one does not have to be concerned with runs in stockings, etc.

For gosh sakes, I would think even a dimwit like Robin Givhan could find something else to write about that is actually interesting.

May I second this:

The purpose of Hillary's candidacy is to assure that the corporate, profiteering, warmongering status quo continues. She will not change anything. We will have more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton political division, the nation divided against itself, with no chance to make progress on the big issues we face: healthcare, immigration, Iraq, social security, global warming, preditory lending, the national debt. Hillary's "war against the Republicans" is a strategy to be sure the nation stays divide. As president, she will continue the Bush policies, because she owes the corporations who are putting her in office.

We need a president with the intellect, vision, ideas and leadership to inspire and persuade a large majority of the nation to move forward, together. I believe Obama can do that. I KNOW that Hillary cannot.

Looks like I am outnumbered here by a wide margin. Seems like most everyone here is Obama supporter so question to Obama supporters is make a case for Obama Why should I vote for Obama?

If you were a manager of a company and trying to hire a person for the job of president of United States and Obama came to you with his resume then tell me why would you hire him? Please don't tell me how bad Hillary is and you want to hire Obama because Hillary is no good. Thats a weak argument. Just tell me what has he done in past that is on his resume that makes him so appealing candidate for the job of the president of United States. I am keeping an open mind.

dcshungu, you sound like someone with a strong personal or vested interest in maintaining the DC insider, corporate-fed Washington status quo, which only serves profiteers. You cynical outlook about this nation, its potential and the prospect for real change are understandable, very much in line with the Bush-Clinton agenda.

Dismissing idealism in American politics, particularly this election, is a bad miscalculation. Average joes are fed up with Congress and the President.

Obama has a life experience that helps him bridge divides, he is smart as hell, charismatic, and has the power to inspire and persuade. I have heard him speak in large and small settings. People listen and respond. He will attrack the best and the brightest to work in his administration, not the psychophant cronies Clinton and Bush brought in. Real thinkers and doers, like Kennedy had.

You mean spirited, harsh, unhopeful view of the world is history dcshungu. Keep spouting off about your frustration or get on the move for change.

Poetry said "When people talk about the bitter partisanship of the Clinton years and blame President Clinton for that bitterness, they are blaming the victim for the activities of the extremist Republicans"

Poetry, you are spouting pure propoganda.

I am soooooo sick of hearing about the Clintons being victims. They gave as good as they got. They lied, sold influence to the highest bidders, and have cashed in for multi-millions. Bill Clinton served the interests of multi-national corporations, and average Americans continue to suffer for it.

Don't spin that noble Clinton garbage and expect thinking people to believe it.

Concerned-in-Iowa,

I believe that you are dead on about Clinton . . . But I urge you to consider backing a Democrat instead of the guy who chimes in five days to a week later and who has been running to the right Clinton for the last five weeks or so.

Consider Edwards, Kuncinich . . . Hell even Biden when he is glad-handing the banking industry is more of a Democrat than Obama . . .

SIDE NOTE: While Oprah is the scariest woman on the face of the planet (Sorry Martha you are a piker compared to Oprah), her support of Obama does less than zero for folk who wear their dangly down bits in their shorts.

DTM, nice summary. Thanks for that.

Concerned in Iowa,

That is the great paradox of such arguments: these people are cynical, but apparently not cynical enough to admit that politics is at root a popularity contest, and coming across as likeable, sincere, and inspiring is a big part of political popularity. A cynical person might claim that is all superficial fluff, but if winning is the goal, then that shouldn't matter.

But of course the explanation for this paradox is that these people are not really trying to figure out who is the best candidate. They are starting with a candidate, and working backward from there to find rationalizations for that candidate.

Pandora,

As an aside, I think you have hit upon a basic reason why experience tends not to be determinative in Presidential elections. Basically, no one is completely prepared to be President because it is a unique job, but on the other hand a lot of people are at least reasonably well-prepared. So experience tends to be a threshold issue, and the candidates who make it past that threshold are then evaluated against each other with respect to other attributes.

So, sure, I think Obama is past that threshold, but so are a lot of the other candidates. Hence, as usual the winner probably won't be determined by resume comparisons.

As for specific accomplishments--again, I'm not sure what level of detail you want, and it would pretty quickly exhaust the practical limits of this forum if I tried to go into detail on everything. Moreove, I'm really not in any better position than anyone else to give details--for the most part I have no special access to information about his career. So, probably the best place for you to start would be something like his Wikipedia page, which as I recall gives an overview of his activities at various levels with links. You can then follow up on whatever you find interesting.

DTM wrote:

I am a big fan of pollster as well, but as they will tell you themselves, their regressions are designed to be relatively conservative. As a result, their charts will reflect a minimum of random noise, but also be relatively slow to pick up legitimate trends (an unavoidable tradeoff).

DTM, you are absolutely right once again (I believe that makes it 4). The trade off with all statistical smoothing routines in general is that improved signal-to-noise ratios come at the expense of response time. Finding the sweet spot is always the challenge.

Radical smoothing can work great for more or less steady-state systems but with faster moving systems you're often better off accepting more jitter and flying a little more by the seat of your pants. Candidate preference trends in election cycles tend to be both though. They start out as very slow-moving sytems, where nothing much of significance may happen in a two or three month period, then gradually heat up to the point that weeks, then days can matter a lot as you get closer and closer to election day.

Franklin's smoothing routines are non-linear and do give more weight to the most recent data versus older data but I am also pretty sure they're using a fixed time constant for integration. I keep thinking that this would be a natural application for an asymmetrical gaussian smoothing window (with a harder taper on the leading edge and gentler on the back end) that contracts exponentially as you approach election day. I doubt I'll get around to trying it any time soon though. I kind of suck at math so it tends to be a laborious process for me to try putting something like that together myself.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 9, 2007 5:02 PM:

dcshungu, you sound like someone with a strong personal or vested interest in maintaining the DC insider, corporate-fed Washington status quo, which only serves profiteers. You cynical outlook about this nation, its potential and the prospect for real change are understandable, very much in line with the Bush-Clinton agenda.

Anyone who utters stupidities such as a non-existent "Bush-Clinton agenda" cannot be taken seriously and addressed.

Clinton: Eight years of peace and unprecedented prosperity characterized by the longest economic expansion in US history. The smallest, cleanest and more efficient government in a generation. Hillary's politics are pretty much where her husbands were and I expect the same peace and prosperity to return wen she is elected POTUS.

Bush: Eight years of a senseless war with Iraq. The most corrupt and corporations-friendly administration in a generation. A checkered economic performance that took a huge surplus and turned it back into the sea of red ink that Reagan and Bush I had intended to pass on to your kids and grand kids.

Please do not take it against Clinton if you are too blinded by your hatred to fairly judge his record. Same goes for Hillary Clinton.

There is no such thing as "Clinton-Bush agenda" to anyone with an ounce of gray matter between the ears. There is no comparison, continuity or remote connection.

Now, leave me alone.

NCsteve,

I totally agree with you on one point. If Obama can beat Hillary in primaries then in my opinion he has shown that he can take the heat and may be ready for general election. However, if Obama can pull off win in 3 out 4 early states (i.e. Iowa, NH, SC and NV) then the race is really going to be ugly. Between then and super Tuesday Hillary will throw a lot at him and if he can sustain and win on super Tuesday hey as a loyal democrat he is my candidate and I will do everything in my power to get him elected.

Unfortunately, it saddens me to read some of the comments above that people call themselves democrats and still would consider voting for a republican if Hillary is the democratic nominee. I just don't get it. Are Giulian, Romney or Huckabee better than Hillary?

With so few Republicans left, how do we have 3 'frontrunners' in the Dem party, and 5 Repubs? Is that just the normal conservative tipping of the coverage?

Everybody's got these big, big TV screens now, but there's only room on them for 3 Dem. candidates. TPM has the same problem.

There is no such policy as Bush-Clinton policy. We can all recall that Bush did everything to do the opposite of whatever President Clinton had done.Those who don't remember that have a very short memory.

For the Hillary-haters here, any expressed support for Hillary is just "spouting propaganda." But their Hillary-hatred is just some sort of "idealism," huh? A little bit of "projection" there, folks.

For the Hillary-haters who think they are striking a blow for what? perfection? ... and tell us lustily that they won't vote for Hillary no matter what, I suppose they have enjoyed the past seven years of authoritarianism and would like four (or eight) more years of even crazier authoritarianism if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee. Pardon me if I express doubt that you are even Democrats, progressives or any sort of leftists.

audit the polls,

And for what it is worth, I think the recent polls actually contain a decent amount of good news for Richardson in particular. He is getting a good favorability balance and good ratings for his experience (which makes sense, since he arguably has by far the best resume). I really think if experience-oriented voters end up looking for a new home, Richardson could emerge as a contender.

Both HRC and Obama are centrists. If you want a more lefty (in the traditional class-politics sense) candidate, support Edwards. If you want to register a protest there's always Kucinich or Gravel (how can you not love Gravel?). I think it's important not to expect Obama to be a tribune of the left. We can elect him and get good mileage out of him, but if you want really progressive policy you'll still have to organize and push for it. That's just politics.

For me the argument is that Obama is the more interesting centrist, and a potentially game-changing one. "Electability" is one of those things that it's hard to argue about 'cause people just take their gut instincts and project them onto everyone else. But the recent Time poll is interesting.

http://www.time.com/time/2007/november_poll/

(Select candidates, then mouse over the lines to see what they tell you.)

What it tells me is that intense campaigning in Iowa has really worked for Obama: as people see more of him his positives rise and his negatives fall.

On the other hand the data suggest that intense campaigning has had more or less the *opposite* effect for HRC: her Iowa negatives are higher than her national negatives; her Iowa positives are weaker than her national positives! (And it hardly needs emphasizing that the race against the Republican nomiinee will be rougher than this intramural contest.)

So if I take this as evidence of what several months of intense campaigning do, Obama looks pretty good.

I repeat, lest I be misunderstood, that some of my best friends and relatives support HRC. There's a perfectly respectable case to be made for her.

'ivory-tower-itis' is how I would label this thread, today.
Lots of posters with heads down to the matters of old business ideations further argued itsy bit by bit [nothing wrong with that, per se] while if they looked out at the real political world for a moment, they might, at least dazedly, notice that one of the dem candidates just drew 60,000+ folks into rallies in less than 24 hours. [and another 10,00 as I type this]
But, don't let me distract you with the outside world. Back to important business, now.

Really Donna? I don't believe you.

Didn't read anything about it on TPMELection Central

dcshungu, you and all the Hillary staffers assigned to the websites need to learn to discuss and not just attack attack attack.

And your comment above "no leave me alone, is childish." Behave little one.

I HATE MY SELF. SOMEONE HELP ME PLEASE!!!!

Poetry said "For the Hillary-haters here, any expressed support for Hillary is just "spouting propaganda." But their Hillary-hatred is just some sort of "idealism," huh? A little bit of "projection" there, folks."

Poetry, your mean-spirited, attack-mode, dishonest postings create more "hillary haters" every day. Why does the Hillary campaign think it is good politics to attack and insult anyone who disagrees?

"Hillary Hater" means anyone who dares to question her qualifications, experience, postions or candidacy and any one who dares to support another candidate. Hmmmm we do still live in what is left of a democracy, and this is an open forum comment board.

Thanks to poetry, dcshungu and their Hillary loving pals, the "hillary haters" are growing in numbers every day. Just look at the polls.

Thank you, Poetry. Keep up the good work.

Even if Obama wins IA, NH voters may produced a hardened alternative and select Hillary Clinton. Her leads in the other primary states are wide enough to sustain I suspect and she is the overwhelming favorite in the MAJORITY of all Democratic primaries in other states.

Hillary is the inevitable nominee and that is not a bad thing. It's good for this country and will help us repair this country from day one with no amateur hiccups.

Eric, Mrs. Bill..this bud's for you!

Panic

I want honest, hard-working patriotic people....

Vote Different http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

I don't expect Obama supporters to have IQ as low as this. Anyone who has been following the post by TPM contributors should know those people have been rooting hard for Obama against Hillary. For you to complain about the site's bias for Hillary against Obama is beyond laughable.

I've only recently discovered this site and most of the articles as far as the Dems have been related to Clinton. It's very hard to find any article that doesn't have bias, this site seems pretty fair in comparison to others.

Councilwoman Edith Childs is FIRED UP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHfbKTiUH8U

What a bunch of bunk. All anyone has to do is compare Hillary's contributions list to the George Bush list. Hillary is swimming in cash from banks, oil companies, WalMart, defense contractors, Healthcare and drug companies. She and Billare courting the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife. Who exactly is the vast right wing conspiracy that only Hillary can defeat. Looks like she's joining the club (kinda Faustian?).

The line must be drawn somewhere and this is where mine falls. You are too stupid, too rabid, and in active throes of the Clinton Derangement Syndrome to try to reason with. Go and "concern" yourself with whatever in IA.

Good night and so long. May your candidate do well.

It really amazes me how many people have apparently never heard of opensecrets.org and/or fec.gov. Or at least I'm guessing some haven't. Otherwise, why would they think it's still difficult enough to find out exactly where a candidate's money is coming from that they can go around saying any kooky thing they want and no one will ever call them on it?

I think all of the Dem and Rep candidates are nothing to bragg about. This is poor excuse for election on both camps. All are mediocer at best.

Such impudence from so many! Do not the subjects know that the Queen has laid claim to the Throne?

When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes." A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible."

Maybe this is the real "Clinton derangement syndrome"--the evident truth that their endless sense of entitlement outweighs the very basic function of democracy.

When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don't need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They're not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. "They really, really hate Obama," one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. "They can't stand him. They talk about him as if he's worse than Bush." What do they hate about him? After all, there aren't a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn't gone for the jugular during the campaign. "It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?" You mean, he's, uh, uppity? "Yes." A senior House Democratic aide notes, "The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible

I am a Clinton supporter. I do not hate Obama. From a purely intellectual viewpoint, I just do not think that he has the qualifications to be POTUS at this time. He is smart, charismatic, "articulate" and all the things that his supporters point to that excite them about him. What I have not seen or heard from Obama is his rationale for seeking the presidency, just 2+ years after his first ever nationwide stint as a US Senator. He claims that will have the ability bring people together -- yet another "uniter." That is easier said than done, but Obama does not tell us how he's going to do it. His big FP speech was disastrous and expose his lack of experience and "greenness", his health care plan is the only one among the top Dems' that would leave some 15 million uninsured, and is against mandates, which nearly every expert (save the Republicans) acknowledges would be required for universal health care. Lately, he's been talking about "fixing" social security and he has been disparaging the UN. So, what is Obama offering that is concrete other than "feel-good" promises? Is there anything underneath the imperial suit? I have not heard much beyond the sophomoric feel-good rhetoric. We have already had a would-be "uniter" for 8 years, please let's not yet have another one! Finally, I believe that Obama is the weakest candidate that the Dems could field against the Repubs in the GE: He is really that naive and inexperienced, and he is a black man in 2008 America. The GOP would turn both into liabilities that would make it nearly impossible for Obama to win a single Red or purple state, and might even struggle in some blue states, depending on the GOP candidate.

Having said all of that, I like Obama just fine as good Dem, and I would actively support him in the GE should he be the nominee.

If that is hatred of Obama, so be it...

After reading Corn's entire post, dajafi, I gotta say there's not much there. The accusations of an Obama slush fund came from an article in the Washington post. The "How did running for president become a qualification for being president?" line, I actually thought was pretty good. Corn himself only goes as far as saying he has sensed some hostility from Clinton (and it is that time of year) the most extreme statements come not from anyone affiliated with the Clinton campaign, but from an unnamed "Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign" who apparently has the power to read minds, or believes they do.

Corn also kind of varnishes over poor, "lovable, likable and inspiring" (his words) Barack Obama's numerous distortions of Clinton's votes and fundraising, in saying that Clinton's barbs are "much tougher an attack than anything Obama has hurled at her." Sorry dude, I'm not buying any at this time.

dajafi,

When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I've noticed that they've come to despise Obama

To despise someone they need to be exciting, to exhibit some quality, if you know what I mean. You don’t go around “despising” the cat or the kitchen floor. To me Obama is about as exciting as a dull Monday morning in December. I could never despise that guy.

Chuckling, just chuckling.

I live far away and don't really know any "Hillary supporters". I chuckle at the "inevitability" tag - no one's inevitable. I also chuckle at "despise Obama". As someone implies above, it's easy to despise a mind-boggling pampered idiot like Bush, but not much to despise about Obama. Even if I think Obama's dumb for wading into Social Security, it's not evil, it's just poor politics for himself and for his Party.

As for entitlement, I feel the real desire on people's part for a new Gandhi/JFK/MLK or something. Sorry, folks, it ain't here, no matter how much people want to turn this into an epic. You can try to paint Obama's upbringing as somehow magical and special, but it's fairly trivial and banal, as are all the "bring us together" pronouncements. The closest we'll get together on health care is a 55-45 split. Getting out of Iraq will be a sharper margin. Balancing the budget will bring out the long knives. It's going to take triangulation and back room deals, and I'd feel better if Obama fessed up to that.

For those who speak of the Clintons' sense of "entitlement," I would like to see one quote from them that expresses anything close to such a feeling.

On the contrary, they both worked hard, very hard, for whatever offices they won. No one worked harder than Hillary Clinton to meet New Yorkers, listen to their concerns, and then address the concerns of New Yorkers. That is why she was first elected with 55% of the vote and six years later, when New Yorkers knew her even better, was RE-ELECTED with 67% of the vote.

The ONLY ones complaining about the mythical Clinton sense of "entitlement" are Republicans who hope NOT to have to run against her, and the mindless ones who parrot Republican talking points.

Pandora, et al.
The prediction that Obama is a sure loser and Hillary is not is really senseless. As the nominee, the best Hillary could hope to get is a bare majority in a two-person race. At least 45% of the voters say they would never vote for her no matter what. So she has to get 10 out of every 11 of the remaining 55%. If God drops everything else, she could just manage to win.

In contrast, Obama has an enormous upside. If things go well for HIM, he could get 60%. People are sick of Republicans!

Also in Obama's favor--he's a terrific campaigner, a compelling speaker, and comes across an appealing, humorous, warm-hearted person. Hillary's an indefatigable campaigner, but that's all. She's a female Al Gore.

And as for you Obama boosters that hate Hillary so much you'd "look at the Republican candidate"...screw you. You are idiots. There's nothing really wrong with Hillary, except that she's more lilely to lose the election.

poetry,

But as we have discussed before, historically those national numbers have been affected by the results in the early states. Indeed, those national polls are odd in that there is no national primary, so they are polling for an event that will never actually happen.

People first postulating "Obama's naivete or inexperience" and then getting surprised that he is upending the machine: wise up.

Look up his track record, he is the real deal in so many different ways: really progressive, really smart, really experienced, really a grassroots worker, really in it for the public good that he can do, really authentic and confident (based soundly upon real ability to think things through with input from solid advisers).

The visceral reactions against him seem to have their foundations in the anathema for Bush (and his alleged likability/charisma) -- Obama is no Bush. Read his first book ("Dreams from my Father") and his policy speeches from this year and finally his 2002 anti-war speech. He really is a thoughtful person and his experience is meaningful because he learns...

Okay, in the RCP average of many polls, Hillary LEADS Obama in

California by 45.7% to 21.3%

Michigan by 44.7% to 21.7%

Florida by 50.0% to 19.8%

New Jersey by 50.0% to 20.7% [no poll since Oct.]

~ ~ ~

In the Quinnipiac poll, the most recent poll for Pennsylvania (at RCP), Hillary leads Obama by 43% to 15%

~ ~ ~

In the Datamar poll, the most recent poll for New York (at Pollster.com), Hillary leads Obama by 45% to 14%
~ ~ ~

Some rather large states, population-wise, on the above list.

poetry,

Again, though, history says the results in the earlier states are likely to affect the results in the later states.

dcshungu,

I don't think Obama suggested he is the only one in the country with a similar background. Of course, he is the only one currently running for the Democratic nomination with such a background, which is obviously the more relevant question.

poetry wrote on December 10, 2007 10:57 AM:

Okay, in the RCP average of many polls, Hillary LEADS Obama

I tried refocusing people to look at that bigger picture but it has been tough to do, as consumed as they are about the horse race in the early states, which usually get that way the closer the elections get but seldom determine the ultimate nominee...

Hillary is still the candidate to beat because I do not yet see a credible path to the nomination for Obama coming out of the early states. Super Tuesday would be an absolute slaughter house in terms of the all-important delegate count. The narrative would change and Clinton would become "inevitable" again...

Obama must win Iowa. If Edwards wins there [and I believe that he is stronger there than the polls show], Clinton would have a better shot at winning NH, even if she is third in IA. Clinton wins IA, then it would be over early.

dcshungu,

I don't think Obama suggested he is the only one in the country with a similar background. Of course, he is the only one currently running for the Democratic nomination with such a background, which is obviously the more relevant question.

My point is that it is NOT much of a background. Living in Jakarta at age 4 and having relatives in Kenya is not something to tout as a qualification for POTUS or as FP experience. My background in that area is stronger than Obama's. That he has been touting it just shows the thinness of his resume at this point in his life. Someone, preferably one of his opponents, needs to point that out.

DTM wrote: "Again, though, history says the results in the earlier states are likely to affect the results in the later states."

~ ~

Well, that may have been the situation when the other states held their primaries much, much later in the campaign season, but I don't think the Iowa caucus and NH primary will be as compelling now, since more than 20 states have scheduled their contests for Feb. 5 -- a bare four weeks later.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah
Democrats Abroad

~ ~ ~

I believe that by moving their primary or caucus up in time, these states are indicating their UN-willingness to have a few small states pick their nominee for them. I do NOT think voters in these 20 states will feel bound to follow the lead of the early, (some of them) small states:

January 3 - Iowa
January 8 - New Hampshire
January 15 - Michigan (The Democratic National Committee stripped Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention because it moved ahead of Feb. 5 without permission.)
January 19 - Nevada
January 26 - So. Carolina
January 29 - Florida (The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida of all its delegates to the national convention because it moved ahead of Feb. 5 without permission.)

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 11:26 AM:

dcshungu,

The reason you have failed to get other people to accept the polling in later states at face value is that history does in fact suggest that the results in the earlier states will affect the results in the later states.

Time would tell, of course, but it should be evident by now that Clinton does get a lot more support from Dems than Obama's does (I believe that you'd made this point before). Super Tuesday would feature some of the biggest and deepest blue states in the Union (CA, NY, NJ) and I do not see how Clinton would lose there regardless of the outcome in the early states. Clinton would also do well in the deep south against Obama because I believe that the ante bellum>/i> mentality is still alive and well there. Early states are a suspense simply to see whether Clinton would win there, ending this thing before it even starts. Ultimately, she will get the nomination, regardless.

DTM, I know WHY those states were selected to hold the earliest primaries or caucuses. My wonderment regards the absolute media hysteria over the polls in those early, far-from-typical states.

There was a time when, for instance, the state where I live voted in the late Spring. We have now moved our primary up so we can join in the fun. And I assure you the voters in my state don't give a fig what Iowa or NH does.

dcshungu at 11:36,

Actually, both Clinton and Obama appear to be well-regarded by Democrats. So in fact are Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd. Again, it is precisely because all the top candidates are well-regarded that it is likely preferences will shift as the results in the early states come in.

poetry at 11:42,

I won't try to defend the way the media talks about polls, since generally it is highly irresponsible.

But as for voters in your state: generally voters tell pollsters they will not be influenced by the earlier results, but historically that turns out not to be the case. I think the disconnect is that voters are thinking in terms of something very direct (X won Iowa therefore I should vote for X), and that is almost certainly not what is happening. Rather, the effect is likely more indirect (X won Iowa, therefore I learned something new about X, and that new thing I learned suggests I should move X up a bit on my list of preferences).

Again, though, regardless of the explanation, historically this effect has happened, and it has happened fast.

Wow. Clinton's NH firewall is down to 3%? She might want to break out the asbestos pants suit.

Here's a list of PAST New Hampshire Democratic primary winners.

Out of 14 presidential year primaries, I see only four "winners" who actually won the presidency, so what does THAT say about New Hampshire's ability to select a winner?

* 2004: Senator John Kerry
* 2000: Vice President Al Gore
* 1996: President Bill Clinton (no serious opposition) [incumbent]
* 1992: Senator Paul Tsongas
* 1988: Governor Michael Dukakis
* 1984: Senator Gary Hart
* 1980: President Jimmy Carter [incumbent but lost re-election]
* 1976: Governor Jimmy Carter
* 1972: Senator Edmund Muskie
* 1968: President Lyndon B. Johnson [incumbent but dropped out later]
* 1964: President Lyndon B. Johnson (no serious opposition) [incumbent]
* 1960: Senator John F. Kennedy
* 1956: Senator Estes Kefauver
* 1952: Senator Estes Kefauver

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary#Democrats

~ ~ ~

I don't think I'll get too excited about who wins the New Hampshire Democratic primary.

poetry,

As I implied above, I think it is fair to wonder if the arguments in favor of the current primary calendar are actually true, particularly the second one (that winning these states indicates a better chance of winning swing states in the general election). The basic problem is that just because you can win a primary in a state doesn't mean you are the best bet to win the general election in that state, for the obvious reason that you are talking about two different voting pools.

pkoso,

Personally, I did not mean to imply that I thought Obama (or Hillary for that matter) lacked Bill's personal appeal. I will leave that up to your own judgment.

As for Perot: from the data I have seen, Perot did almost as well among Democrats and liberal independents as he did among Republicans and conservative independents. In fact, I believe more Republicans voted for Clinton than for Perot.

So, I don't see much evidence that Perot was directly responsible for Bush losing. Indirectly, he may have changed the dynamics of the race in ways unfavorable to Bush, but that is a very complex issue.