Is it official? Is Hillary going to "take on" Obama?

Amazing. We've had a constant Wrightathon in the media, McCain-Clinton-Republican attacks, and he still leads by double digits.

But let's push, instead, the "plummeting" theme.

It doesn't mean a thing if she can't get at least 30-40% of the African American vote. This is just as important, if not more important, than Obama's inability to perform well among working class white people, but no one really wants to talk about it (although, in fairness, there was one article in the Post on Saturday.)

Rasmussen had Obama with a 23% lead but he is down to 14% as of today.

ARG had Obama with a 11% lead but he is down to 10% as of today.

PPP( this polling company is based in north carolina)had Obama with a 25% lead but he is down to 12% as of today.

SurveyUSA has not changed much.....

02-12-08:
Obama: 50%....10% lead
Clinton: 40%

03-11-08:
Obama: 49%....8% lead
Clinton: 41%

04-08-08:
Obama: 49%....10% lead
Clinton: 39%

04-22-08:
Obama: 50%....9% lead
Clinton: 41%

Gov. Easley and Mr. Wright Stories could help hillary clinton in North Carolina:):)

lets do an upset win in north carolina......get the telephone (Cellphones) out and start calling north carolina voters to vote for hillary clinton on May 6.

Maybe it will be 10-20 points, not 15-25 as I had earlier said. I still see it at 58-42 Obama, worst case scenario.

Start talking "upset" when you see Hillary within spitting distance of 45-50% in any poll.

Still trails by double digits.....

Impressive, considering it has been a month of Rev. Wright, "bitter"gate, and Hillary attack-dog tactics. Imagine what would happen if Obama actually got back on message again!

The nat'l Rasmussen #s are wrong on TPM.

Obama leads McCain 46-44 and Clinton leads McCain 46-45.

Bad news for Obama. See Bob Herbert's column in today's NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Funny the Rasmussen polls that show Obama stronger than Clinton aren't promoted like the AP polls were for her yesterday.

your obsession with poll data is well known, but what isn't understood is why you bother posting readily available polling data without adding in your opinion...

So do you think 12.3% would be a good day for Hillary in NC? Even if she gets it to single digits, as Obama did in PA, what does that prove?

The delegate math is not changing, and it appears Obama is headed for the lead in superdels too.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120942916625251325.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_topbox

So what does our resident Hillary-leaning-poll-expert have to say about that?

These polls were all taken before Gov. Easley endorsed hillary clinton for president today and these polls were taken before GOP anti-obama ad hit air waves in north carolina today.....SOME (Not all) of these polls were taken before hillary clinton's pennsylvania win.

I see Obama losing ground in North Carolina......

GO HILLARY!!!!!

Can't compare north carolina to south carolina because that contest was in Jan. and alot has happen since then and Edwards name was on the ticket in south carolina..... so North Carolina could be a swing state between Obama & Clinton....and don't forget that clinton did "alittle" better in Mississippi then they thought she would (even though she lost)..... Less blacks in North Carolina & more Blue Collar, white working middle class whites.....she has had 3,000 to 10,000 people turning out to see her visits, more than she had in the other southern states.

They need to start releasing these polls and publishing them to really reflect truth and reality.

So Clinton's numbers should be in psychedelic style print and colors, since the idea that her poll numbers mean anything at all is a hallucination.

I think it would add so much to the whole process if she just dressed like a clown one day and a tightrope walker the next. It's all a traveling circus. A traveling psychedelic circus. (she's a child of the 60s, right? Perfect.)

Obama drew 18,000 last night at UNC-Chapel Hill. Progressives, students and African Americans are solidly behind him in this state. North Carolina is much more like Virgina than South Carolina.

the real question that didnt get posted was, Is BO the new teflon man in politics?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/obama-shoots-but-doesnt-score/

Obama played with the UNC team, reporter decides the angle on the story is that he didn't get a basket. The press really loves their politics-as-theater.

Aaaaaand, Obama picks up yet another superdelegate, Richard Machacek, and Iowa farmer and DNC member.

The delegate count and popular vote count are becoming irrelevant. If June arrives, and Obama has fallen substantially in the polls, the SDs will not care that BO won a bunch of thinly-attended caucuses. In fact, there is nothing to stop committed delegates from switching to HRC. The primary system is not a suicide pact. If BO has fallen like a stone by the time of the convention, no one will care what the delegate/popular vote count may be. The point of all of this is not a mathematical parlor game -- the point is to win in November.

SUSA says and they are the best......5 points back

http://www.talkleft.com/

She's coming to get you.

Wait until church service is over. People talk to each other.....numbers will drop like a stone.

the average drop will be 2 points a day.

"...While these polls show her gaining ground in the state, it's not at all clear yet whether she'll be able to cut deeply enough into his support to accomplish this."

really??

not at all clear yet whether she'll be able to cut deeply enough??

polls are a lagging indicator of movement. it's fair to speculate that the 9 point gain by hillary in n.c. is driven by the most notable election news event of the past week and a half: her pa victory.

i seriously doubt that these poll results, or any poll results, yet calculate for jeremiah wright OR today endorsement by the state's blue dog democrat governor.

you want to tell yourself n.c. won't be close, go right ahead.

i'm fairly confident that hillary will be in single digits in n.c. now, and with the easley endorsement, folks in the state, namely the governor, clearly believe she now has a legitimate chance of winning.

so let's just analyze that "impossible" prospect for a second: hrc wins in idiana and finishes 1st in n.c. or loses by less than 5% of the vote.

she will have been outspent yet again 2-to-1, 3-to-1 and will still have significantly outperformed expectations.

one can only supsect that she'll get an additional bump up in the national polls akin to the bump she got from her pa victory, and her lead in national polling against mccain will expand.

i don't know what political calculus you obama-supporters use, but i don't know many politicians who knowingly like backing a loser NOR do i know any who like going against their local constituents.

here's how this thing ultimately goes down:

1. starting with pa, hrc wins 7 of the last 10 primaries or caucuses.

2. hrc currently has more popular vote than obama, but will have more popular vote than obama even by obama camp math come the end of the primaries.

3. hrc will lead mccain by superior and significant spreads as compared to obama in national polls.

4. hrc will lead obama in head-to-head polss among dems.

5. super delegates, announced or unannounced, will collectively recalibrate and either (a) in the main, subjectively swing to hrc, or (b) if looking for a non-subjective cover for their vote, will follow the obama campaign one-time mantra: vote your state. all super d's follow the vote your state strategy, and hrc wins the nomination going away as super ds, like congressional reps, are apportioned by state size with more super ds going to states with larger population.

winning big states matters, folks.

the writing is on the wall. read it and weep.

SCMadden, why do you even bother with these HillBots?

scmadden:

i agree. super ds have a potentially difficult choice to make.

1. do i go with a candidate who's shown inability to win the african-american vote in a race against an african-american candidate, or

2. do i go with a candidate who's shown inability to win critical core dem and swing states vital to dem success in november.

and when i have difficult decisions, i often like to look at the facts for guidance. the fact is that 1 candidate, despite not being able to attract significant percentages of the african-american vote (i'm african-american, by the way), has nonetheless shown the ability to win the critical core dem and swing states in this race and do so convincingly. and when i look to the polls and the momentum, the american voters seem to be backing this candidate over the other as having the better chance in november as well.

conversely, the other candidate has shown that even with 90%+ support among african-american voters he is unable to win those key dem and swing states, and who's success in the main has either been in heavily red states which dems can't reasonably expect to win in the fall, and who will, at that time, be significantly behind in the national polls.

might there be some super ds who go with candidate #2: yes, no doubt. but in the main, the facts are too overwhelming for candidate #1 if the party is indeed serious about winning back the oval office in november.

bdiddy....

i totally agree with what you wrote.... I hope to read more from you within the next few days.

Also, Hillary haters, how will you act if hillary pulls off an north carolina win???

how will you act if hillary pulls off a indiana win???

how will you act if hillary wins all remaining contest????

how will you act if hillary numbers pick up in the national polls???

will you still say that Obama is the winning and should run against John McCain??? What happens if the polls continue to show that Hillary would do better against John MCcain, would you want the superdelegates to risk it all and vote for Obama???

Also, I am so tired of hearing Obama supporters say that the math does not add up for Hillary, but the math does not add up for Obama either....neither of them will reach that special 2,025 delegate number after all contest are over.... so neither of them are actually winning yet.... both are underdogs..... we will not know who the actual winner is until the pleaged delegates and super delegates vote......

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mh: please list the key november "swing states" that obama has won? note, that by its very definition, "swing" means the state has historically bantied between democratic and republican, but whichever way the state goes is more often than not the way the election goes.

clearly, florida, ohio, pennsylvania fall into this category.

which of the obama states falls into this category?

Underpromise and overdeliver.

Time-tested successful marketing strategy.

Clinton will do better than expected and even though she loses it will add to her momentum.

Clinton is the best choice for the general and the presidency.

zion,

i live in manhattan, i'm a 40 year old african-american attorney, and i value thinking for myself, so perhaps that's what's so befuddling to you about my analysis and/or support for the candidate with superior experience in this nomination race, hillary rodham clinton.

but i'm more than happy to go toe-to-toe with you on "street cred" on african-american qualifications if you like?

as I said, you lost me when you said "As an African American myself".. I C U *wink* but I wont tell.
thus no pic, my counsel. what firm? I just joined this blog so please excuse my manners but but we dont say "brutha" no more.. and um if you dont like that site please let me borrow one of yours..
and by the way we dont say street cred anymore and I am 36 and cannot remember sying that since 9th grade, sorry if I offend.
peace
z

ha! no offense, z. we'll just call you more hip than i...do we still say "hip" z?

i don't practice law anymore, z. i do consulting work which allows me to work from home and burn more hours than i should refuting the nonsensical arguments so often put forward by you obama-ites all souped up on the self-reinforcing online echo-chamber you've created with all your blogging and chatting and social networking.

facts: your candidate, as you and your candidate so often tout, has won twice as many states YET (quandry) leads in popular vote by less than 1-2% (and arguably now trails in popular vote as cited by several news organizations such as realclear politics and mcclatchy news).

how is this possible?

because, contrary to the "echo-chamber" banter you all recount to one another daily and have got the media repeating verbatim, obama is not the only candidate bringing loads of new voters and creating an excitement amongst supporters.

it's just that many hrc supporters have full-time jobs and families to attend to, are older and just may not share the zeal that you and i and the younger folks have for endless blogging on the net.

but fool yourself into believing we're not out here and you do so at your own peril.

z,

here's a better quinnipiac link, you know, the polling people.

"purple states" would qualify as "swing states" according to quinnipiac.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2008.xml

Obama lost Ohio by ten, Penn by 9. He lost NJ by about ten. All Crucial dem/swing states, without question. However, I find the argument that because he lost those states that he would somehow cannot win them in the general election flawed.

Should Republicans be worried about McCain-- who couldn't win Georgia or Alabama or Tennesee or even get more than 5 percent of voting Republicans in Utah to back his candidacy--that somehow, all those states are in play in the fall? Nonsense. Many if not most of those same Hillary voters will in Ohio or Penn will vote for Obama if he is the candidate in the fall. And i'd argue anecdotally that most of those voters who will not vote for him because they are not ready to vote for a black man, were likely not going to vote democratic anyway.

Hillary may take N. Carolina with the help of Rush Republicans and the media will have a field day. But Hillary hasn't honestly won an election since Super Tuesday without Limbaugh's help. It isn't whether she wins, it's by how much. She has to prove Obama unelectible by him sliding down into 30% in the remaining states. Close elections prove nothing about Obama's unelectability, especially with Republicans involved. Ironically, Hillary has proven HERSELF unelectible because she lost the AA vote at shocking numbers with her smear campaign against Obama. The prediction is at least 50% of AA will stay home if she steals the nomination. And the Democrats will lose the White House and Congress if even 20% stay home. Unless Hillary completely "obliterates" Obama into ashes, the SD cannot override Obama's lead and hand her the nomination.

bdiddy - The governors of both Pennsylvania and Ohio said Obama would win there in the general. It's not as if Hillary blew Obama out in those states. And with the establishment support for him instead of running hard against him, he will win the white votes and take those states. But Hillary can't get that 80-90% AA votes in those states back. She said when she started her kitchen sink strategy, "This is when the fun begins." Yeah, well hope she enjoyed it because all that fun kicked her straight out of winning the general with the AA vote.

while i appreciate your passion, debra, what i am really looking for is some sort of factual support for your "50%" stay home contention.

any chance you can provide me with something here? i really would like to take a gander.

thx.

debra: a week and 1/2 ago, obama was supposed to finish within 5 points of hillary in pa, if not pull the outright upset.

1 week ago, obama was up in indiana by 5 points, outside the margin of error.

1 week ago, obama was up in many n.c. polls by 20%+.

there is an undeniable movement in hrc's direction and it is swift and it is substantial.

this is not to say anything definitive about the upcoming races other than one should not rely on any polling and earlier conventional wisdom on how various contest will turn out.

additionally, your contention that voters who went to the effort to register democratic for the primary and vote for hillary are going to change their registration to republican in the fall and vote for mccain. if you were trying to say that the dem primary only represents half of the pa vote, broadly speaking that's true, except that (1) the state is predominantly democratic in registration, and (2) doubley so after the primary in which hundreds of thousands of new voters registered democratic.

hrc won't lose the blue-collar vote she secured in the primary in the general.

ha! what exactly was unfair about either of those elections?

michigan, you can make the hollow argument that obama wasn't on the ballot, but that was a selective decision by the candidate. obama and edwards and biden all removed their names from the michigan ballot at the request of iowa who suggested that denunciation of michigan's act of moving their primary up would help those candidates with voters in the iowa caucus.

others who, like hillary, decided to not capitulate to the iowa urging: dodd, kucinich, gravel.

the vote was held, the dem primary was not the only issue on the ballot, voters came out in record numbers consistent with percentages of increased voter turnout in other contests, your side organized a public campaign to vote "non-commit" to register obama support, and your candidate got trounced.

now even if you maintain that the michigan vote can't count as is because of the dnc ruling, what prevents you from supporting a re-vote as the obama campaign has consistently done regarding michigan, drawing out his resistance so long as to necessitate the state legislature to pass on the measure citing the lack of time?

regarding florida, what was the "unfairness" of that election? all names were on the ballot, no one campaigned (and i'm not even counting the national tv ad for obama that played in florida market before the election), and your candidate again got trounced. and again, rather than support a re-vote to assuage any concerns about the dnc penalization, your candidate chose intransigence and refusal.

and, unless i'm mistaken, i don't believe there was ever a poll anytime anywhere that had anyone but hillary clinton winning michigan and winning michigan big.

i think the mccauliffe quote your referring to is when he chaired the dnc back in 2000 or 2004, i forget which. and, yes, he threatened penalization for states that moved their dates up, but you know what? states heeded his threat and complied.

apparently either the pressures for abandoning the ridiculous "iowa and n.h." 1st rules have grown, or howard dean just doesn't have the gravitas of mccauliffe to "inspire adherence to the rules."

in any event, mccauliffe didn't have the cluster that dems have now of having voters actually go to the polls, cast their votes for their candidate, have those votes certified by their state election boards, and then be told by the dem party that "hey, sorry, but you don't count or matter because some politicians couldn't come to agreement on how to handle this matter."

now that's a winning november strategy: piss off 2.2m voters in michigan and florida.

c'mon. use you brain here.

debra,

when hillary was the front-runner, all the repub pundits were burning up the airwaves talking about "her historically high negatives" and "heavy baggage" and her as being a "singular figure who could unite the deflated republican party."

in fact, i'm quite sure any number of your blogging obama friends on this site were saying much the same.

now, with your guy being the front-runner, they are making him their focus.

again, this is politics 101, and absolutely shouldn't be give any credence at all. it shouldn't have been given credence when hillary was taking it on the chin, and it shouldn't be given any credence now...as democrats.

as dems, what's relevant is how the candidate's themselves are doing in the states critical to democratic victory in november.

and whether you like it or not, hrc won michigan and florida and would do so going away AGAIN in any full primary re-do. (neither you nor obama could be serious about the caucus suggestion, which is why it was outright dismissed. you'd be talking about half the turnout, perhaps less, than you had in the primary, and it's been recounted in countless articles this campaign season about how caucuses favor campaign activists NOT democracy, the latter which actually seeks to encourage and collect every legitimate vote from every legitimate voter who care to vote).

i'm not swayed. and i'm sure you aren't either.

so, we'll just have to see how things play themselves out.

i'm optimistic. we'll see.

ciao for now

bdiddy,

I agree...Obama is getting hit hard and maybe they will destroy his electability. I'm praying not, because I think he is a good man with innovative and intelligent approaches to the problems facing us in the 21st century. And I do think we have to get over the old divisive politics and work to bring the country together, and strengthen the party against the GOP because they have fallen way off the edge in my mind.

I attended our county caucus here in Texas and it was a party strengthening event. The focus was on the Democratic party in our county, not on the candidates so much, although we were all there to support our candidate. We had a large turnout and that was exciting for the party because we live in a very Republican county. At least 80% of the attendees were not activitists, they were people who know we need a change and, like me, attending their first county caucus. And we really bonded especially within our precinct--Clinton and Obama supporters alike. It was terrific.

My point is, try not to believe every single thing the Clinton camp says. She is a politician you know. :)

Thanks for the friendly exchange.