« Clinton-Backer McAuliffe Threatened To Strip Rogue Delegates In 2004 Cycle | Home | WSJ: Bill Clinton Urges Hillary's Campaign To Keep Going, Go More Negative »

Newsweek Poll: Obama's Lead Over Clinton Down Since PA Loss -- But He's Still Ahead

A new national poll from Newsweek has some bad news and some good news for Barack Obama post-Pennsylvania: On the one hand, his lead over Hillary Clinton has been cut significantly since last week -- but on the other hand, he's still ahead of her in the horse race and on other measures of popularity:

Obama 48% (-6)
Clinton 41% (+6)

Obama's favorable ratings stand at 53% favorable and 40% unfavorable, compared to 47%-49% for Clinton.

Another example: On the charge of elitism that has dogged Obama since the "small town" flap, 25% of respondents said he looks down on people like them, with 65% saying he does not. This was in fact slightly better than Clinton's 32%-61% rating on this issue.


124 Comments

| Leave a comment

Come on.

No one has done more for Newsweek readers than Barack Obama.

Hillary pulled even with Obama in today's daily Gallup poll. In the last week Hillary has gained 7 points while Obama has lost 3. But that's good news for Obama! It proves that going negative hurt him less than it helped Hillary.

Obama going negative proved his whole message of a "different kind of politician" is a lie.

Even the kool aid drinkers sobered up to this fact.

What else has he lied about?

Everything.

user-pic

Did you see what I told you on the lower thread? You got Arianna's statement totally wrong, you doofus.

She wasn't talking about Bill Clinton - she was talking about and to Bill Mahr, who has bragged often enough about how many AA women he's banged.

You are in fact the stupidest troll on the internet.

hey gotaLIE?
get any sleep yet??

DO THE MATH NOW SMARTYPANTS!

After my decisive debate victory against that potted plant on Fox today you should see my poll rise. (I mean numbers of course.)

Hope Change Won't Scare The Kids
B. Hussein Obama

user-pic

Hey getalife: what's a "kool aid drinker"? Just wondering how you crack-sniffers define the term.

Take a look at this:
Democrat & Democrat leaning

Men 51 Obama 37 Clinton
Women 44 Obama 45 Clinton

Empirically, more men vote in the general than they do in the primary - and more than women.
Ok this might not hold in this election where for the first time women have a woman to vote for. but look at the disparity between a 14pt win for Obama with men and only 1 for Clinton with women.

Non whites
62 Obama 30 Clinton
Do African Americans outnumber Hispanics that much?

Favourables Obama 53 Unfavourables 40
Favourables Clinton 47 Unfavourables 49

Comparing today’s Gallup and the details in this Newsweek poll, I’d say the jury’s far from in

Temporary effect. Give it 4 more days.

A 15 point Obama win in North Carolina will clear all this up.

And let's face it, if you're a Hillary backer, you're scared to death about what could happen in North Carolina.

user-pic

I hope it's a massacre.

I hope she's left for dead by the time the last vote is counted.

I've never been so sick of anyone. And if she keeps going much longer, she's going to bump right up to her court date in LA.

I have never been so sick of anyone but you chick. Change your stupid photo and try not to bleed so much bile out on the keyboard.

And who of the Press will ask `why can't she close the deal?'

sigh

She will win North Carolina.

When was the last time Obama won?

user-pic

How about a bet? Put your money where your mouth is.

$100 to Obama if he wins?

Texas, getalife. He won in Texas.

Actualy it was Mississippi... you know, the one before Penn... TWO primarie ago.

I'll ask you a different question Gotalife: When was the last time Clinton won a significant amount of delegates?

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!! Oh stop, your killing me! Sure she will. Then they'll pass out lime sno-cones in Hell.

I don't gamble and refuse to roll the dice with Obama like you.

Drink some more kool aid troll.

It would certainly be a long-shot gamble if you were to bet on Hillary winning North Carolina. Don't blame you for claiming moral turpitude as a cover.

Howabout Indiana? I bet he wins narrowly, by no more than 5, no less than 2.

Why so unpleasant? A+ for consistency, but all you have achieved is the regularity of 4th grade recess.

So I ask: why are you so unpleasant?

user-pic

Hey...I have a really great idea!

Let's give the nomination to the candidate who's losing and who 49% of voters already say they don't like. While we're at it, let's also chain heavy weights to our bodies and jump into the ocean.

user-pic

Yes and let's totally alienate 99.9% of the African American voters, all the progressives and lose the election to the Republicans.

and then sit and cry when the AA voters and the progressives waive Hasta la Vista and go form another party.

It's high time for a third party, Tena.

It's been high time for a third party since High Times published their first issue.

YES! YES! the progressive people in America should split into two smaller groups and see if they can beat the vast majority of stupid rednecks and corporate whores who run this country. GREAT IDEA!

...and go form another party...

LOL!

If Obama wins North Carolina by a healthy margin(a likelihood) and Indiana is something like a tie (also likely) Hillary will be on the mat bleeding from both ears (metaphorically speaking of course).

Whoa, this is weird. After reading some of the Hillaryites in this thread I thought for sure I was back in February. The race is over. You and yours are doing everything possible to damage the Democratic nominee. I hope you're proud, I hope you'll be happy with President McCain, and I pray you don't have a son or daughter in the military.

user-pic

In fairness, it does get harder and harder to tell who is actually a supporter and who is a troll who the minute Clinton drops out will switch to trolling for McCain.


Screw you too bitch chick~ Do you ever have anything to say except hate?? I like Hillary's Universal Healthcare a lot better than Obama's Republican talking points about "freedom to choose" dying bankrupt.

There's a predictable arc to the media's coverage of the primary to date. It's predictable, and born of a subconscious understanding of dramatic theory. Hillary, the sure thing frontrunner gets challenged by the scrappy underdog. The media gets behind him, and at the end of Act I, he's seized the lead. The media's alliegence shifts, they aid Hillary in her comeback, and now, at the end of Act II, Hillary has regained the momentum. But were now at the beginning of the third act, where Obama comes of the ropes. The media switches again, Obama finishes her off. Justice has been served. All is good in the world. Hillary descends into Hades.

user-pic

(-.-)(_ _)(-.-) I bow in your direction.

(-.-)//**** and offer you a round of applause.

Exactly, silver heron. They're already beginning to switch gears again.

Where there are, in fact, no snowcones.

Got a life. Last time Obama won was March 11, in Mississippi.

Not that long ago.

As for Hillary winning in North Carolina, sorry there's not a chance in hell. He's already leading her in early voting.

The tide has turned.

"The tide has turned."

..and your candidate is drowning..

Loudon, he won Texas.

Mississippi was after Texas, though I suppose he technically won Texas after MS because the caucus votes were finalized later.

Silver Heron: You nailed it. You should be a screenwriter !

Sounds like work. I'd prefer to sit in my jammies drinking rum and following the action.

I've been an Obama fan for a long time, but I think now that it would be best for Democrats to get united behind Senator Clinton so that we can defeat John McCain in the fall.

The press is full of doubts about Obama for this fall, but there is no doubt that a Clinton / Obama ticket would be unbeatable in November.

The quicker we Democrats get to that ticket the better off we will be.

Clinton/ Clark but not Obama.

He is exposed now and the tide has turned.

Obama's talent is grassroot organizing not politics.

He is a failed Senator and does not do his job in the Senate.

user-pic

I call parody troll.

Successful grassroots organizers aren't successful politicians?

Campaign manager is more his field.

He is a terrible politician.

"He is a terrible politician."

That's why he is beating Hillary in states won, pledged delegates, and the popular vote - if he is "terrible", then Hillary must be horrendous.

user-pic

That would be terrific, the obliterating warmonger and her general. Just what we need, another 4 years of a war mad military junta.

user-pic

Indeed - let's make the front runner the vice president.

That's really and truly gonna bring out the voters, boss.

"...it would be best for Democrats to get united behind Senator Clinton...The press is full of doubts about Obama..."

Too late. When all the votes are cast, Obama will have won the most elected delegates, the most states and the most popular votes (no fuzzy math needed). Per Pelosi, the supers will affirm the these results.

Obama is our nominee...even if the "press is full of doubts."

Greenley, the press blows hot air. How many times has the story changed already in this race? And I think speaker Pelosi has far more inside information than you or I and if she's saying give up on the dream ticket idea, my guess is it's dead in the water. If it has to be a boy-girl ticket, which it may, I'd like Obama and McCaskill far better. She's better demographically, being from Missouri, and a Catholic. And the woman can speak.

As a Missourian, I have to say McCaskill is not a great choice. She has gone up in my esteem based on her work for Sen. Obama during the campaign, but she is a freshman senator with a dubious voting record (she voted for W's telecom immunity bill, for one). I'd MUCH rather see Richardson (Catholic, Hispanic, foreign policy and gubernatorial experience) or Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (Catholic, female, gubernatorial experience).

how about Sebelius? (spelling)? you know, the one from Kansas.

Seriously.

If you're going to pretend to be a Obama old-head, you should probably remember that we can all see that the comment you made prior to this one was:

Obama is a cynical politician just like the rest of them...He can say goodbye to my vote in the fall.

Or this gem:

Why is there no discussion about how Obama is willing to destroy the Democratic party?
Obama's cynical strategy of shutting down revotes in Michigan and Florida may very well insure him the nomination at the cost of disenfranchising Democratic voters in both of those states and severely hurting the Democratic party.
This Michigan/Florida snuff-out is certainly equivalent to a Tanya Harding kneecapping.

I love a good trip down memory lane. You?

How could anyone switch their support from Obama to Hillary? The woman is untrustworthy. End of story. For that reason, she should never be president. We have seen the price of electing deceitful leaders, and the damage will be difficult to repair.

Greenley Greene,

You lying scumbag. You can not get away with your phony crap about how you have been a long time supporter of Senator Obama, and how you have the best interests of the party at heart when you propose that he accept the VP slot with Hillary. Let me expose you for the lying sack of shit that you are by posting your own words from April 4th. Eat your own bullshit, Moron!!!


Greetings from Michigan,

Obama is a cynical politician just like the rest of them...

He can say goodbye to my vote in the fall.
Posted by Greenley Greene
April 4, 2008 5:52 PM |


100% agreed. No more obliteratti.

user-pic

And in case you don't understand irony, that "boss" was meant ironically.

Figure it out and also figure out just how much of an insult that would be to a whole bunch of voters who will not turn out for her.

We won't.

It's been said a trillion times before, but listening to Wesley Clark makes one fantasize about paint drying. Evan Bayh (sp?) is no slouch in the boring to tears department. If Hillary steals it, she's actually considering these guys. I wish her luck.

user-pic

O if she manages to strong arm her way into the nomination, the next president is John McCain.

You know all that record voter turnout and new voters registered we've seen?

We'll never see it again.

The last time he won was not Texas. It was Mississippi... er, wait, that state doesn't count, right? I'm so confused with Hillary's rule changes lately.

Oops, you're right. Got my weeks mixed up. Pennsylvania's been such a long time coming, it all seems like years ago.

He can't make a move till he wins the primary.

Wesley is perceived as a loser.

Obama should be hinting at asking Colin Powell to be Secretary of
State as part of a general hint at a bi-partisan regime.

It will take very bold moves to take this from McCain.

user-pic

I hate to disagree with you but no.

Colin Powell is a war criminal. He was there in the meetings on torture - part of the group responsible.

No. I adore you but Colin Powell needs to be tried for war crimes.

And I'm really serious about that.

OK. Where did you read that? I'll take a look. Thanks

user-pic

Look in the archives for the past week of so of TPM, the front page.

It's all over it - the whole story.

:)

Thanks.

user-pic

Found a brief article for you, Maria:


http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4635175&

100% agreed. Powell had his time for honor, and he let is lapse. That he has sat on the sidelines since deepens his dishonor.

Obama would do well to choose a fresh face, someone we do not expect, but who can express the kind of presidency he wants.

Wes Clark, however honorable, is a symbol of war. Enough.

Pax,
M.

WHY would we want Colin Powell in an Obama administration? I don't think he'd be the right choice, just hinting or otherwise. Maybe Chuck Hagel, if you are just talking about making overtures to republicans, but what good does it do for Obama to float a name, only to have that person possibly turn him down?

user-pic

No Republicans.


No Republicans.

No Republicans.

Are you an Obama supporter with a terrorist's pic for you avatar?

WTF?

I'm actually going to miss the Hillary supporters, since their complete disconnect from reality is always good for a laugh.

I realize that Hillary is owed the nomination and everything, so it must be a tough pill to swallow, but sorry, the race is over. Even if Hillary were to run the table (and she won't even come close) in the remaining contests, there is no way the super delegates will overturn Obama's lead in pledged delegates because they know what the ramifications of doing that would be.

But if you want to cling to the fantasy that Hillary might win the nomination it's up to you. If nothing else, I'm sure Senator McCain will appreciate your continued support.


There is no coinicidence between the denial of both Sen Clinton and a certain segment of her supporters who contend she should be president "just because" or "so I can see a woman president before I die."

Sen Clinton has had to turn a blind eye most of her adult life as she chose to accomodate Bill. The resulting tunnel vision leads directly to the nuke-em-all mentality expressed in Obliteration.

This makes her an unstable criminal. If any of us in this blog threatened each other with murder, we would be arrested. She has threatened a country five times the size of Iraq with 70 million people with erasure by nukes.

She is disqualified without further comment, regardless of who else is running.

Pax,
M.

hahahah, 'total disconnect from reality', I can just see Al Franken licking his wounds from his own defeat writing a new book 'Fantastic Tales from the Clinton 08 Campaign', including all of the fuzzy math.

user-pic
I'm actually going to miss the Hillary supporters, since their complete disconnect from reality is always good for a laugh.

You can always go to
Anglachel's Journal
to get your fix.


Fight the kitchen sink spin. Hendrik Hertzberg, in this week's "New Yorker" 'Campaign Trail' put it best--despite Obama's best efforts, the Clinton team is determined to drag a New Politics into the mud.

Stay unified.

Political music is back:

http://xpatriate-greetingsfromlafayettepark.blogspot.com/

Thanks for the link. I try to tune in to relevant music but find myself lost in a world of irrelevence (sp?). Just for fun I tried to find the most irrelevant piece of music to share:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=180W3_cJIXY

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!! Oh stop, your killing me! Sure she will. Then they'll pass out lime sno-cones in Hell.

Clinton Challenges Obama To Lincoln-Douglas Style Debate.

He is scared of another complete melt down.

I wonder if he edited the Fox interview.

user-pic

Tell you what, why don't you rent a studio, get a life-sized standing cardboard cutout of Obama, put it behind a podium, get your girl there behind the other podium and have at it?


Cause the nominee is through debating She Who Will Not Go Away.

There's no need for him to - he's the nominee. This is all a Clinton and media driven dog and pony show.


It shows he is weak if he does not .

She is taunting your hero troll.

user-pic

Ever seen a girl try to get in a fist fight with a boy on a playground, and the boy stands there and holds the girl off by the top of her head while she swings wildly?

Like that.


he even used that 'out on the playground' image in one of his stump speeches yesterday. He appeared to be talking about 'when he is President' but you just KNEW he was talking about the campaign. 'Sometimes, you take hits... I've taken hits in this campaign. And the one who talks tough all the time isn't the toughest one on the playground.'

Gotalife, why are you so unpleasant?

user-pic

Yeah, I'm sure she's driving him nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

"He is a terrible politician."

Ha! Maybe the best line yet! Yeah, he's a terrible politician. I guess that's why he's registered a record number of new voters, regularly fills up sports arenas to hear him speak, set new records for fundraising and despite the fact that he was completely unknown on the nation stage a year ago is a little over a week away from clinching the Democratic nomination.

Hillary on the other hand is such a superior politician that even with nearly universal name recognition, a huge head start in fundraising, a popular ex-president campaigning for her and the backing of the entire Democratic party establishment, she still managed to lose the nomination.

gotalife: So, how long have you been working for the McCain campaign?

Obama's so yesterday, can't people admit that, who should we look to in 2012? Rendell? Pelosi?

Just because Hillary's campaign is debt and can't afford airtime, it doesn't mean that Obama is obligated to give her free media.

As the Dem nominee, Obama's focus is were it should be - on McCain.

Maybe Hillary can challenge the other candidates who dropped out before her to a debate for second place.

Gotalife: How's that "Compassion Tour" going for your candidate? It's very admirable of him to have compassion for the people that will be hurt the most should you be successful in getting him elected in November.

As Senator Obama indicated, you need to be tough when it matters, you are tough when you are ignoring stupidity...
and he has now decided to ignore Senator Clinton and focus on John MacCain...

He is winning by every measure, so no need to worry...

By the way, do we have a sense at that is going to happen in Guam, who is the favorite to win there?

The Obamites are certainly a nasty bunch. Go back and read this thread. Check out how many times they (metaphorically, of course) want to do violent harm to her. It's telling.

The worst I've said is that Obama the Gelding needs to be put out to pasture.

Obamites' nerves are frayed. They can't shake Clinton and she is showing momentum and a second wind. Her timing is perfect. Obama will run for cover thinking he can play rope-a-dope and run out the clock.

Nope.

- FL will be seated as per the primary vote.
- MI will be seated as per the primary vote.
- Clinton will have the popular vote lead.
- Uncommitted SDs will move to her in the convention.
- After an in-conclusive delegate vote, more SDs will shift to her.
- Obama will fold like a house of cards.

And the decision in the final round, by TKO, goes to...Clinton!

Then will come the cries "he was robbed!"

Sorry to break the bad news to you, but back here on planet earth none of those scenarios are going to happen, much less all of them.

Savor your fantasies while you can though, you only have a little over week to enjoy them before they'll be gone for good.


You might want to pay attention. The first three of my predictions are actually in motion as we speak. Lawsuits are being drawn by the state representatives. MI delegates have just been chosen (now why would they bother if they're not going to be seated? Bwahahaha)

The next three will occur at the convention.

In between get ready for this line to be heard repeatedly: "I want to congratulate Senator Clinton on running a great campaign."

How inspirational. Presidency by lawsuit.

Reason #327 she is not qualified.

But the obliteration remark went from politics to criminality. She is a sitting Senator. She has threatened another country with erasure.

If this is where she intends to lead the dem party, I will write in my cat.

Pax,
M.

And Obama would disenfranchise those voters. Presidency by fiat.

No thanks, I'll take democracy over Obama.

I refer real Dems to these blogs to read the garbage posted on the Clintons.

They always get disgusted and will never vote for their hero.

It is a great campaign tool for the Clintons.

And yet, here you are, every single day and night emotionally involved talking about her. Do you also debate Huckabee and Edwards supporters that it's over for their candidate?

That was for Tena @ 5:43

It would be interested to study why Senator Clinton is so delusional, and so out of touch...It is really sad to see...

Ever wonder why Obama doesn't have trolls......

maybe because hes winning

LOL. Almost everyone on this blog is an Obama troll.

Yup.

At least goatselife isn't assaulting me with Scalia's face anymore.

What will you scuzzbunnies do after Obama gets the nomination? Will you still hang around whining and crying? And after he's President?

I have to admit it. I hope you are righty trolls. That will make the final result even more fun.

You too can be Malkinized.

Ah the voice of the great unifiers. Bwahahaha.

The will never...be...a...President....Obama.

For the sake of the party and the nation, Clinton must and will be the nominee...and president.

Must? Your entitlement is showing. So is your complete ignorance of international law, unless you favor the erasure of Iran with nukes.

I invite you to grow up, and quickly.

Thanks for the histionics.

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Right.

She's gonna cry, cry, cry.

She's gonna get primaried and lose her seat.

She's working poor Bill to death. A couple of random bimboes, and she's never stopped guilt-tripping him.

Every now and then somebody comes up and starts talking about what a wonk she is. What a travesty. She has all her little speeches memorized, but she is no more capable of understanding issues than she is of loving her husband. That's why her entire "health care program" is a repetitive nag about one meaningless talking point. Her legislative record is non-existent - because she has to leave herself room to straddle every issue.

She is the female Joe Lieberman.

Jesus, pardon me for even saying it: but in the name of feminism that ugly, lying bundle of psychotic narcissism has to be driven out of American politics.

Obama is treating her like she needs help, which she does. I think he thinks its too bad that she went off the rails like she has.

But it's too late for both of them now. They won't have the place of honor in the Obama Administration that they might have had.

She didn't have to drop out. All she had to do was fight fair, instead of chickening out and opening up the Necro-Rovian book of dirty pool.

How badly she's aging, how badly she's going to age, once her current meth binge expires.

But there's no other way. As the name of Clinton recedes in history's rear view mirror - as Obama stamps his imprint upon this century for the next eight years as President, and for the next thirty years as the spiritual and political leader of this country - our children will come to speak of "the Bush-Clinton years" as a single period of insanity.

Hillary Billary Bush
The difference is a push
The mouths that roared
Just make us bored
Hillary Billary Bush

Just promise me this, you scuzz scrapings: promise me you'll show up here when your girl goes down in flames. Don't lose heart, now. Your girl will need your stalwart support, heck with all those shots she's downing she might have to check into Betty Ford.

With all the money she's wasting she might have to hit YOU up. Funny, lots of Obama supporters respond to trolls by saying "Right, another $50 for Obama in your honor." And we know how well that works.

But not one of you guys has ever given so much as one dollar to your girl, have you? Well, what she's worth, you're worth.

Now you're replying to yourself ?!?!

Put down the peace pipe and back away from the keyboard oilhead.

It shows how much substance the Clinton team has...

You know the poll also shows that Hillary and Obama both lose the white vote to McCain, and the difference isn't a whole lot. The "demographic problem" is fake, nothing but a Hillary talking point, bullshit as usual.

When the dems choose their nominee, we will have a new race. All polls will be reset, and McCain will become the focus. The polls today do not say much here in April. The first ad agin McCain was high-larious! He looked like a dottering old fool who's toothless maw and broken party cannot even convince a single harpy in NC not to run a really childish ad.

Aye, 'tis nae goin t'be pretty durin McCain season...

Once Senator Obama wins the democrat nomination, Senator McCain will be DOD, he will have not a chance...Senator will unify the democratic party, no doubt.

The polls with be right up for Senator Obama...

And I will add up another $50 to the Obama fund next week...

Yes we can!!!

I think Obama's drop in this poll is partly attributable to the fact that the last Newsweek poll was on crack.

I will shave my Head BALD if the IRON ***** WINS in North Carolina!!!!What do you say GOATLIFE????
NO WAY IN HELL she is gonna win there!!!

Excuse me while I put on my hazmat suit.

I think your head is about to explode.

user-pic

This was posted as a response elsewhere on TPM, but I revive it for fogu2, who apparently has problems with simple logic, and also because I think it fairly well encapsulates his view of why Clinton should be handed the nomination:

blackflag - I don't think the Clintons are racists, though these continued statements that have come out of the campaign and its surrogates have not helped that perception. Between "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice" and "insignificant states", the unfortunate message the campaign has put out there is that somehow, those states that went for Obama in a big way somehow should count for less because, well, those states have large black populations and that's what put him over the top. I'm sorry, but that's the inescapable conclusion those kind of comments lead to, particularly when Hillary has based her whole "electability" argument on this idea that only she can win larger states where black voters don't make up as large a part of the population. That's her argument, not mine, and that's how it plays to me so I can only imagine how it plays to people who are black. Essentially, Hillary is telling superdelegates that the preference of older white women should carry more weight than that of black voters - that her core constituency is the one that should matter more.

I don't think she's making the argument because she's a racist; she's making the argument because it's the only one she can make as to why she should be the nominee, given that she's lost the race on pledged delegates, number of states, and popular vote (at least thus far). But here's the rub: though blacks and white women (of all ages) make up roughly equal portions of the Democratic base, guess which constituency has been the most loyal to the Democrats? Not white women, who in large numbers deserted Democrats in elections in 1980, 84, 88, 2000, and 2004. Black voters have been the single most loyal voting bloc in the party for 40 years, and let's face it, that loyalty has not brought them a whole lot in the way of big rewards, even when the party was in power.

So now that we have come down to a "who gets thrown under the bus" moment, it becomes hard to make an argument that the party should suck up to its more fair-weather friends (white women) at the expense of its most loyal supporters, or to explain how the party could do so without looking racist. If the party isn't even going to honor the preference of black voters for the candidate of their choice, who has won by every metric (to date), it's hard to make a compelling argument as to why black voters should support the party. Under such circumstances, the old unspoken Democratic argument of "you have to vote for us, because the other guys are open racists" just doesn't seem to hold a lot of water and certainly doesn't constitute a compelling reason for strongly supporting the party in this election or future ones.

And as for Hillary's "I'm only saying what the Republicans will be saying in November" argument in the smear-by-association attacks, we should get ready for the heavy repitition of the old Republican saw about Democrats keeping blacks on the liberal plantation if the nomination is handed to Hillary by the superdelegates. And unfortunately, we'll have no good answer to it, because it will be true - the black base will have once again been treated as a group to whom we need to pay little attention, because "who else are they gonna vote for?"

So, whether it pisses you off or not, that's where it stands. I can't say for sure that large numbers of blacks would sit out the election if the supers handed the nomination to Hillary...but I can say, if I was a black Obama supporter, I would, for all the factual reasons outlined above. I'm frankly amazed by the Hillary supporters who seem to have adopted the position that somehow the party is unfairly being held hostage by the desires of black voters, when the candidate of their choice has won a hard-fought and legitimate lead in the race for the nomination under the party's own rules. This isn't a bone that's being thrown to black voters - it's a legitimate victory. If that victory is stripped on the basis of specious arguments about "electability" that rest on the presumption that older white women are a more important constituency than blacks, it's hard to see how there wouldn't be major negative fallout for the party in November.

Whew, I almost got through that. Employing Occam's Razor I'd have to conclude you are using the most tortured explanation is nything but simple and so I can't be the correct one.


It's pretty simple:
Race is a far more divisive issue than gender.


That's it. That simple

Blacks are voting for Obama largely based on race and nothing else. As there is little difference between Obama's and Clinton's positions there really is no other reasonable explanation for the otherwise inexplicable percentages of blacks voting for him.

As is often with the laws of unintended consequences, Obama the unifier is, in fact, Obama the divider.

If he were to be the nominee, the divisiveness you see withing th e Dems would carry through to the general.

And make no mistake, I'm sure there is a certain percentage of whites that will not vote for Obama because of race.

The "Bradley Effect" is going to be replaced with "The Obama Effect" if he is the nominee.

Why is it that people who are enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama have been dubbed as kool aide drinkers. Is it that unbelievable that a politician could motivate people to support him/her? Do you honestly think that all of these people who are voting for Senator Obama have been fooled in some way? He has somehow cast a spell on everyone his entire life and really has no ability to perform as a politician?

Or maybe he is a skilled and intelligent lawyer/politician who has worked hard to get where he is and actually earned his place in the United States Senate?

You may think it is foolish to vote for Senator Obama but there is no need to insult myself and the other people who have voted for him by saying we are under the trance of some kool aide.

Fair enough. But you have to admit there is a cult-like aspect to the assumption that he is the faultless deliverer of all that is good, honest and true. And then there is the violent anger shown when anyone should question his perfection.

He's a politician. He takes money. He double-talks. He lies.

Just like the rest of them. Surprise!

That he really has very little legislative record and is a neophyte on the national and international stage lends credence to the suspicion that he really is just an actor who can formulate and say the words people want to hear. An ability to make a great pitch is not perhaps the most important point on a resume to lead the most powerful nation in a dangerous world.

So no, I wouldn't say many have been fooled so much as indoctrinated.

I agree with you pillsy. Even as an Obamanite, I thought 19 was a bit much, I figured the real answer was more like 10pts.

I do think that as I predicted she is getting a bit of a post-PA bump. But once the dust settles people, including the media will realize that the race essentially ended in PA and Clinton will need a miracle to win.

Facts are Clinton needed a blow-out (20 pts) and she didn't get it. With each contest that goes by without a huge win for Clinton, the lower her chances of winning. She keeps moving the goal-posts but she is running out of field.

If she had won big in PA, she would have made a dent in Obama's delegate lead and in his popular vote lead (and no- MI doesn't count. At best her margin over non-committed is legitimate. You can't argue that Clinton voters count without arguing that the voters who were AGAINST her also count. In which case Obama still leads by a substantial # of voters). However at this stage, the most important aspect of a huge PA win for HRC would have been to show that the people of PA REJECT Obama. Instead, it appears that they merely prefer Hillary and polls support this. The former is enough to give super-d's pause, the latter is not.

NC will be a big win for Obama. No amount of Clinton campaigning will help. The problem for Clinton is that she is so well known, she has already tapped into most of the people that support her. There are some undecideds but they aren't enough to sway the outcome by more than a few points. Other than NH, there isn't a single contest in which she INCREASED her lead or bit into Obama's once the campaigning started.
This will all but erase HRC's PA gains and make IN at best, a tie for Clinton.

The rest of the contests will be a wash, some for HRC, some for Obama.

The race will be over May 6th because there is no where else for her to move her goal posts and that is going to start to sink in over the next few days. By Monday, Obama will be gaining in the tracking polls again.

Yes, I am an Obama supporter but that doesn't change the facts. Yes, she has a chance, but it gets slimmer with each contest that she doesn't win big.

When you wrote "The woman is untrustworthy.", what did you mean by "is"?

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address