One thing that is so striking and that Democrats with a mind to winning a big mandate should be noticing is how the more voters see of Obama the more they like him, while just the opposite is true. It is just shocking that Obama is even close given the huge cushion that Hillary had at the outset. Hillary would not have that luxury in a GE matchup.

Thanks for that edit, Jeremy. I thought I would have to smear you (kidding).

This is the kind of poll that is amazing to me. How many delegates in Colorado? 70. That's a good chunk.

It amazes me, because that is not the number I expected. Looks like Obama is pretty strong in the Midwest, because CW says he's going to take Minnesota handily (also a caucus state).

Note: I'm an Obama precinct captain.

Proving that Clinton supporters are delusional. Outside of the democratic party, very few like here. If she is elected, Ind pendents and Republicans WILL vote Republican.

"And the gap between the perceptions of party voters is no better illustrated than by the way they see the former first lady. Asked which of the candidates would best be able to work with Republicans, Democrats picked Clinton by a wide margin. Asked which of the Democrats would best be able to work with them, just 8 percent of Republicans chose Clinton — putting her at the bottom of the list."

Caucuses, eh? Interesting. The back story on Iowa and Nevada is that in Iowa, both Clinton and Edwards met or exceeded their GOTV goals but both were operating on too small a turnout model. The same thing happened to John Edwards again in NV, where his organizers again hit their numbers but were operating on a total turnout estimate of around 45,000 -- Clinton's people had figured out a month before that they needed to double their original estimates. You can bet nobody's going to making that particular mistake again though.

Darth Cheney end minions endorses Romney

I'm with Frog Leg. The fact that this was a pre-SC poll is telling as well.

Steady on. I think a lot of us hoped after Iowa that the HRC campaign would fall like a souffle. It didn't. She has a deep pool of support out there and will win a lot of delegates on super Tue. This thing could go until May.

No end-zone dances, please. Take HRC and JE supporters seriously (well, maybe not all the ones here, but you know what I mean), hear them out, engage respectfully.

On the evening of November 4 2008 some dignified celebration might be in order...

RE: Romney over McCain. Immigrants, yes, but Mormons, too. Romney should be really strong in the Mountain West and on the West Coast.

This is consistent with my impressions of CO. Obama put far more resources into organizing on the ground there than Clinton, which is becoming a familiar story by now. The results in SC, together with the support of Kennedy and prominent Latinos like Becerra will only help. I think we'll see plenty more of these "surprises" in the coming week heading towards Feb 5. Even California isn't out of reach for him at this point...

I just don't think people are using their brains when they are deciding which candidate to support, and that is what grieves me.

That's exactly why nominating Hillary would be rolling the dice, and taking a big chance that she could survive not only her own poor judgment in the realm of international affairs--but the distraction of her husband.

I'm voting for Obama because I want a clean break, and I want someone who is both inspiring but logically consistent. There's a lot to like in Obama for both humanists, and rationalists.

As a Coloradon caucusing for Obama in a week and a half, I'm just going to give a little "hurray!" :-) I've only met three strong Clinton supporters (as opposed to scores for Obama), though I am in my early 20's and in Boulder, which may have no small part in that.

LiberalTarian wrote on January 27, 2008 7:37 PM:

"Hm. It'll be interesting to see the Obama-as-Jesus crowd in 2010. If you can't tell the difference between hiring an executor and canonizing a saint, you are looking for disappointment."

What will happen to them?

Well, I look at it this way. Either Clinton or Obama is going to get the nomination. Both would likely lose to McCain (although I think Clinton has a shot). If that is the case, the future presidential careers of each is likely over because, in modern history, the Democratic party is quite unforgiving to its losers.

Adlai Stevenson was the last losing nominee to be renominated. Gore is the only candidate I can remember who failed to receive a nomination but ended up with a nomination in a latter year. Of course, he had the advantage of being a sitting vice-president.

The Democratic party likes fresh. The Republican party is far more forgiving of old timers who tried and failed before (Dewey, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, McCain - maybe?).

Obama might have a decent shot of being nominated again if he loses this nomination but he would be finished if he loses the election. Clinton is surely finished if she loses the general election and is probably finished if she loses the nomination.

c

it seems that the patronizing anger and arrogance of Billary has seeped into their supporters.

heh, I said "more harder", among other things

There aren't really many places whiter than Colorado too, so that shows that the Clintons' racial strategy pretty much just lost them the black vote, without succeeding in making Obama "the black candidate" ie Jesse Jackson.

Score one for decency!

Jon,

Thanks for the encouragement. The more I read, though, the more I think that neither one of the top Democrats can win in the general election against McCain. The reason I think this is that either nomination will cause significant defections of otherwise inclined Democratic voters.

There are too many Clinton haters and she has too much baggage to keep the party united. She might have had a chance last fall but this campaign has destroyed her ability to keep the party together. The only reason I think she has a slight chance in the general election is that she might be able leverage enough of the gender gap (particularly with older women who know that they may never get another chance to vote for a woman) and she might be able to get a high enough margin with hispanic voters.

What most people on this page do not realize is that a significant minority of Democrats will also defect if Obama gets the nomination (at least if McCain is on the other side). These are older and more conservative Democrats who rarely show up on Web pages like this. I have already seen evidence of this defection in state polls of Northeastern states like PA and MA. Obama will not be able to make up the defections by increased margins with Independents if McCain is on the other side.

Personally, I think the Democrats are screwed if the nominee is McCain. The Democrats went for star power and identity politics in this election and ended up with two top candidates who are probably not electible.

If we only had Gore, or a Joe Biden, or even an Evan Bayh.

lombard,

I agree the problem presented by McCain is that he will attract a relatively large share of independent and Democratic votes.

But you left out a third category: Republicans. For reasons I don't entirely understand, there are a good number of Republicans who do not like McCain, and I think a good number of them would cross over to vote for Obama.

But they probably wouldn't cross over for Clinton. Which is why I think it would be pretty foolish for the Democrats to nominate Clinton if McCain is the Republican nominee (which is currently a very live possibility).

Hey-

Where is the poll where Hillary is kicking "the Ones" ass in FL? Oh and those delegates will count. Don't cry for him cause he accidently advertised in FL when he could not possibly help it. Those darn cable companies just left hime no choice. Oh, Hillary thinks the 4th largest states delegates should count. Oh, Josh, how dare she. She is just a bad person.

You WIMP! Your worse then Bush's father.

Nice to see you leaving it out.

I use to read you all the time but you are another wussy blogger that gets the vapors when the election process gets rough.

WIMP!

Please no more pictures of your kid. Spare us your spawn. Pictures of cats work better!

Sitting around one the the tables at caucus training deep in the heart of Tancrudo [sic] country this weekend we had a straw vote to practice the worksheets. I was pleasantly surprised with the show of hands.

Edwards 7 Uncommitted 2 Obama 1 Clinton 1

Everyone at the table was taken aback by the results. The impromptu stumping that followed was decidedly light on positive Hillary talking points with a few barbs about her being a lightning rod for Republican attacks and GOTV ta boot.

The counts that were reported out by each table were not that different. As the numbers went up there seemed to be a collective puzzlement across the whole room.

This from a group of engaged, grass roots activists.

November 5th will be interesting!

Should be a high college turn out and iirc Colorado has a lot of well educated people.. Obama has done well with both groups...

c,

brings up a good point (though I think the tone could be nicer, we should all start to try to make peace . . . though I suppose the roughest part might still be ahead)

Anyway, dont forget that the big mo that we have seen in all the Democratic primaries/caucuses as compared to the Rs. Obama got more votes than Huckabe and McCain combined.

Not only that I believe that I have read that on the ground in these states, Democratic operatives out number Rs 10 to 1.

This is a huge huge advantage we did not have last time (when essentially Bush had been building his reelection campaign from the first day he took office. Hillary and Obama have razor sharp smart young motivated field people working for them. Look at the what has happened for each campaign and the states they focused on: Hillary: Nevada, Obama: SC.

Jon,

I agree that some of the Republicans who don't like McCain are more likely to be in the stay at home camp than the actual cross-over camp, but to the extent they are more likely to stay at home if Obama rather than Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the logic still holds.

And at least anecdotally, I know a lot of relatively moderate Republicans who are not fond of McCain either (again, for reasons I don't entirely understand), so they might be legitimate cross-over targets.

Would smoeone please explain why we should believe polls?

Because 9 out of 10 people surveyed said we should.

The biggest challenge Hillary faces in this election is Bill. On the one hand, he's KILLING her campaign. On the other, she can't possibly win without relying on his legacy, his resume' and his status as a former president. If it weren't for Bill, Hillary would be out of this race by now.

My 64 year old father is a dyed in the wool Republican. He doesn't like any of the Republican choices and actually told me that he is considering voting for Obama. I almost fainted. However, he despises the Clintons and would never vote for Hillary.

If Obama can get my father to think about voting for him, the are a LOT of disecouraged Republicans out there. And Hillary won't benefit from that.

Vote Obama on Feb 5. Or any other day for that matter.

Always worth a read. If it's been updated to today's date (Jan. 28th)...go back and read Friday's post about Josh. Sad.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Not only did she call Bill the first black president, she had been campaigning for Hillary.

Now she's flipped:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/author-toni-mor.html

Toni Morrison

I'm not even a bit amused by the rampant sexism and ageism exhibited here by the Hillary-hat . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Obama supporting "progressives" posting here.

First of all, I am upset by the strong women who were liberated in large part by efforts from those like Hillary - stating as gospel that Hillary's presidency will be a carbon copy of Bill's. Guess the little lady doesn't have any smarts on her own, eh?

Then I become absolutely jaw-droppingly astounded by the giddy, patronizing pigeonholing by age (and gender again), but especially by age - by those who think "da yoot vote" is the bee's knees, the cat's pajamas.

Remember how hard everybody worked in 2004 to capture and increase the student and black vote. While Kerry/Edwards did, indeed, bring out the largest turnout of Democratic voters in history, student and black voting only increased by a dismal 3%-5%.

We vote every time. I've voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1968. I support Hillary Clinton, one of the finest Democrats of any of them, with no apologies to anybody. Don't need your snotty disrespect. It doesn't match the class of your candidate.

BTW - not to worry if Hillary astounds you all and still captures the nomination in large part due to the support from doddering geezers like me. Black Democratic-leaning voters will nearly all rally around her like they should. As a voting bloc, they're not blindly stupid and immaturely aimed against their own self-interest politically as are many of the progressiver-than-thou, Naderlites that post here often.