« Hillary's New Oregon Ad: "It's Going To Take A Fighter" | Home | Dems Favored To Pick Up Louisiana House Seat -- GOP Pessimistic »
Poll: Clinton Ahead By Seven In Indiana
A new InsiderAdvantage poll of Indiana gives Hillary Clinton a seven-point lead in this upcoming primary:
Clinton 47%
Obama 40%Sample: 478 likely primary voters
Margin of error: ±4%
From the internals: Clinton is winning white voters 50%-35%, while Obama is ahead 88%-11% among African-Americans.
Advertisement
Real Big sample & M.O.E.?
May 2, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.O.E. yo mamma!!!
BOO YA!!!!!!
May 2, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
All this suggests to me is that the polling methodology is seriously off, because they seem to be underestimating the black turnout.
This year, don't be surprised if nearly 17% of all registered Democrats in Indiana are black... and if they're voting for Obama at a nearly 9-1 ratio, then it's hard to imagine a 15 point lead for Clinton amongst whites is really going to give her these kinds of results, especially given absentee voting that seems to favor Obama.
Judging from how the prior races went, it seems pretty likely to me that a very substantial portion of Indiana voters cast their vote for Obama before Rev. Wright became an issue again. I think these late poll outliers are about as relevant as the ones we saw in California, saying that Obama was leading by 8 points.
Really, given the very large early voter programs in both Indiana and North Carolina, it could very well be that she's running against Obama a few weeks ago, and not what the polls are suggesting today.
May 3, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just in from Zogby:
So, here we have a poll with newer data and nearly 50% more people sampled. And Obama is doing just fine.
Once his early registration advantage comes in, it will be clear that she got outcampaigned at the grassroots level. Hopefully, that will give him the win.
All I can say to Obama supporters out there is keep making those calls, donating, and getting people out to vote, because that will probably be what decides it in his favor.
May 3, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! Here's the link for the latest Zogby poll on Indiana, just released first thing Saturday morning!
Also, more bad news for Clinton from the details of that Zogby poll:
May 3, 2008 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just in from TPM. All campaign news on TPM's Election Central for the last 12 hours has been about Hillary. Apparently, Obama has suspended his campaign. News about Obama superdelegate pickup relegated to user post.
May 3, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's support among blacks appears to be increasing despite already being overwhelming. White support for Obama appears to be dropping. This confirms what I suspected ever since Obama helped spread the falsehood that Hillary belittled Martin Luther King. Obama is racially divisive.
May 2, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was wright that lost the whites.
All the polls confims it.
May 2, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillery is going to win IN by more than 10%. When she does, this thing is over. And she's going to win NC by a very close margin. She said so herself.
I can feel it in my gut.
May 2, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet you $2000 she doesn't win by 10%... which I will gladly donate to Obama.
Willing to take that bet?
May 3, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
heeheehee...just like in this dialogue on race, Otto is convinced that we could end all these nasty racial divisions if Obama would just give up his culture and let Otto call him racist names. Then Otto would like him.
Oh, he also has to stop being "uppity", too.
May 2, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She said so herself."
(clasp hands)
We'll, I'm converted.
May 2, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She wins by 10.
President Clinton won NC by going to 6 stops a day in rural NC like a machine and reconnected with the voters.
Obama is hoping for a large AA turn out to counter but it will not be enough.
She wins NC by 1.
May 2, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
LoL Hillary winning NC? That some funny stuff man. I live in NC I have NEVER met a Hillary supporter in person, ive seen about 3 bumper stickers and 2 signs. Now i dont want you insulting my state by saying Hillary is going to win it, Unlike PA, NC has a large educated democratic vote, a large AA vote and a large Youth vote. Three demographics Hillary doesn't do well in.
May 2, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also Bill visited my campus a while back, i heard not many went, hell i didn't even notice any increase in traffic. I did hear something funny though when he said who do you want to be your president or something like that one guy yelled OBAMA.
May 2, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was killing her in the early voting. In both states. Yet another hurdle to overcome.
IN: Too close to call.
May 3, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I predict she will lose Indiana, regardless of this poll.
May 2, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with goatlife. Hillery is going to win IN by 10%, maybe more.And she's going to win NC. She said so herself.
Think about it. How many people drive cars in IN and NC. A LOT! They will love it when Hillery cuts the gas tax. Obama probably likes wimpy "green" cars that run on arugula juice. Puh-leeze. The voters know an elitist when they see one. Hint: it's the graduate of an Ivy League law schools fools!
And don't forget the excellent work done by WVWV in "registering" African American men in NC. Come on, Hillery has this thing WRAPPED UP!!!
May 2, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Gotalife," not "Goatlife." Learn to read, and stop libeling Goatlife.
May 3, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not likely, goatlove. I'd be glad to bet you $2000 that she doesn't win by ten percent in Indiana, especially considering the new Zogby daily poll from there.
So, here we have a poll with newer data and nearly 50% more people sampled.
...and Obama is narrowly ahead.
Also, more bad news for Clinton from the details of that Zogby poll:
Why can't Hillary decisively win amongst the working class voters?
May 3, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That poll says Clinton is winning the youth vote 34 to 32, with a large undecided. So lets say the undecided for the youth all go for Obama since the margins for that age groups is normally around 35-65. That gives Obama another 6 percent of the vote.
May 2, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am skeptical about this poll. Obama is losing the youth vote and is winning the women vote. Not that it is automatically wrong but it isn't consistent with other results, even in PA. It is also a small sample with a good sized moe. It could be right but I am reserving judgement.
May 2, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm skeptical of your face!
Boo YA!
May 2, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
33% Undecided 18-29? Other polls have Obama getting 60-65% of that vote. This reminds me of Inisder Advantage's first poll in NC that severely underestimated Obama's black support.
May 2, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
InsiderAdvantage's numbers aren't even worth posting.
I also like how IA put out a new NC poll showing Obama up 5 (compared to Hillary up 2 earlier in the week), yet Eric doesn't bother posting it. HILLARY '08!
(Note: Their new poll re-weighted their sample from their last one that only had 25% black turnout in the state.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/INS_ADV_NC%20Dem%20tables%20May%202.pdf
May 2, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. I just had to repost this comment of Otto's from the last thread:
Driving home I was listening to Sean Hannity on the radio. Normally I'd never listen to him. But he was talking about liberation theology and Obama's defense/rejection of Jeremiah Wright. It was stunning. I had to agree with everything he said. He talked about why it is impossible to believe the reasons Obama gave for condemning Wright. Then a black pastor dissected liberation theology, which is what Wright preaches. Hannity then took the stated mission of Obama's church, and substituted the word "white" for the word "black" wherever it appeared. With the word "white" the document became obviously racist. No white person could ever be elected President if they were a member of a church with such a stated mission. Yet using the word "black" instead of "white" Jeremiah Wright preached such things, and Obama aligned himself with it. The GOP has some very powerful stuff on Obama, and they will most definitely be using it.
And then I switched over to liberal Air America in the middle of the Randi Rhoades show. I used to love listening to her. Not any more. I can't stand her. Today a caller who was an Obama supporter tried to suggest that Obama supporters will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination. Randi would have none of it. She insisted they would not. She even brought up the bogus issue about Hillary supposedly belittling Martin Luther King, which is of course false. She is so filled with hate for Hillary it is unbelievable. And then she proceeded to angrily denounce Wright, apparently not realizing that she was trashing the man Obama aligned himself with so closely. I guess Randi totally buys Obama's belated denunciation of Wright, and feels that Obama's slate is now as clean as if they were never associated. But of course it isn't. To think so is preposterous.
Apparently our Otto is unaware that Randi Rhodes left Air America effective April 9.
May 2, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the repost; I missed the last thread.
Me thinks we should spare ourselves the headache and ignore the repulitroll Otto from now on.
May 2, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commented the same thing on the last thread, Jenn. Otto can't even get the simplest things right - what an asshat!! I personally think the whole thing is made up out of his rather fanciful mind.
May 2, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be very interesting to see which of these juvenile, anonymous trolls have the courage to keep posting here under the same usernames if and when Obama wraps up the nomination and the presidency.
Any bets?
May 3, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Jenn.
Guess it shows how much I read his drivel...I don't.
May 3, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
How come TPM is touting Insider Advantage's Indiana poll, which shows Clinton winning, but not its North Carolina poll, which shows Obama leading? I seem to recall that when IA put out a North Carolina poll that showed Clinton ahead, TPM was all over that one.
May 2, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that's how it goes here at Election Central. The only bright spot is that this nominating process will be over soon and then we can all focus on McCain - Greg, Eric and all of us. It certainly is ridiculous, though, isn't it?
May 2, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol, I love reading your comments - we have got to become friends..lol
May 2, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
We already are!! ;)
May 2, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps TPM can cover the JJ speech in NC.
Obama nailed it. Out of the park.
May 2, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
May 2, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about the Hispanic vote? They make up a huge part of Indiana's minority electorate also.
May 2, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is losing the young vote. I can't believe he is losing the young vote in IN.
May 2, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus in the 18-24 range there are 34% undecide. 34 percent are you kidding me.
May 2, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about as plausible as the Insider Advantage poll that had Obama winning only 65% of the black vote in NC.
May 2, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet every time I see one of these polls, what amazes me is the number of undecideds. Really? You still haven't made up your mind? Or even leaning??
May 2, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zogby has them tied. I hate to even promote Zogby but he was right on PA.
May 2, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM is a disgrace these days.
May 2, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton should make an ad on this fraud showing Obama's new kind of politics:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/02/irresponsible/
Should close the deal.
May 2, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Should close the deal."
Obama already closed the deal, douchebag..
May 2, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the deal hadn't already been sealed, Hillary sealed it today when she announced plans to introduce a bill for the gas tax holiday, which everyone else agrees is a dumb idea, and which they're now going to have to vote on...and against. I'm sure all of the superdels on down-ticket races appreciate Hillary sticking them with a point of attack for their GOP opponents in the fall: "he voted against taking the taxes off gas!!"
If she wasn't dead before today, she's dead now...she needed all the help she could get from the superdels, and just alienated a large number of them with this desperate gambit.
May 2, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much have you contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign?
I want to know how deep your roots are to Senator Clinton
May 2, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to believe any candidate would long tolerate such a negative reflection as does gotalife cast.
Wait! I forgot Howard Wolfson.
May 3, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just watched the NC JJ dinner. It looked a lot like ours in VA, which a friend of mine described as "an Obama rally, and someone screwed up and scheduled Clinton to speak."
He looked really good, the stump was refined, and he was very assertive about the ridiculous gas tax holiday, and patriotism.
From the reaction, hard to believe that NC is as close as some of the polls are saying.....
May 2, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aye, and begs the question, how many points does it take to equal a media grand-mal seizure?
May 3, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to harsh on anyone, but why are folks so quick to jump to the bias accusation every time the folks here at TPM post a poll? I'll agree that statements like "Obama needs a landslide in NC" reflect a bias, but seems to me that a simple reporting of what this or that current poll shows sans editorial comment is pretty neutral. We can argue in comments about the accuracy of the poll or its methodology, and FWIW I think this one may not be too reliable ...but just the fact that it's reported doesn't in and of itself reflect bias.
Just my .02.
May 2, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bias aside, part of my problem lately is that Eric in particular simply isn't very good at analyzing many of the polls.
May 2, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that part of it, Jenn, is the fact that the polls themselves are cherry-picked, with the ones favoring Clinton getting posts more often than the ones favoring Obama (see Fred App's post upthread). And, of course, there's the editorializing of the poll results with "caveats" if a pro-Obama poll is posted (such as the "landslide" whopper).
May 3, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Newsflash Folks -- Hillary can win Indiana by 20 points -- and it won't really help her.
As the days go by - and Supers commit - it gets harder and harder for Obama to lose the nom -- even if he only ties Clinton in the remaining 4 states that he is more likely to win by a substantial margin (NC, MT, OR and SD) -- and even if she kills him in the other 5 contests (including 70 - 30 splits in her favor for WV and KY) -- and even still if she gets about 60% of the remaining Super-Deez.
So yes -- it's all over but the crying -- but if you know 3rd grade math, you already knew that.
May 2, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not get ahead of ourselves...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/05/early_indiana_turnout_heavy_in.php
May 3, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I live in IL and I can state for a fact that us flatlanders are crawling all over IN in a GOTV effort. I am pretty sure this was a big contributor to the WI win and why a lot of that margin didn't show up in the polls. It is also why the early voting seems to be up in Obama areas.
Whether that is enough is another question, but his ground game is big in IN.
May 3, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the thing that's always amazed me. Alot of friends who support Obama are alarmed at my calm. They are all worried--the Wright affair, the "Hillmentum", etc., etc. And they confront me on my zen-like calm. Why am I not more worried, they ask? And I say, because of the math. It's that simple folks. Obama will be ahead in the delegate math come June 3rd, at which point it would be political suicide for any superdelegate coup d'etat in Hillary's favor.
The only thing that ruffles my feathers is the media shit storm that this race is actually close. That Hillary has a chance, etc., etc. The only way she does is if Obama collapses, and even after this hostile two week period, there's no evidence that that's going to occur. So I sit back, calmly, surveying the scene, while the pundits and demagogues sway back and forth on the tides of fickle opinion confident in the ultimate outcome.
So I say to fellow Obama supporters: relax! Enjoy the ride, because it stops soon, and the real fun begins! Attacking the rethuglicans!
Cheers.
May 3, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll drink to that.
May 3, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that this 'Hillmentum' is a crock of crap. Rachel Maddow said it best a couple weeks ago. Nobody knows what the superdelegates are going to base their decision on. Maybe pledged delegates, maybe popular vote, maybe money earned, maybe years in the White House, maybe a weegie board. What we have is just pure speculation by media pundits who don't have a vote and by all indications don't really have inside knowledge as to the thoughts of the superdelegates.
May 3, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
math? The role of the superdelegates is to make sure that the candidate with the best chance of winning in November gets the nod, in case no one candidate comes to the convention with enough already pledged delegates. I'm not sure the last time this has happened, but not in my memory.
I would guess that the candidate that is trending upwards at the time that the superdelegates have to choose is the one that will get the nomination. Isn't that what any of us (Democrats) would want? A Democratic president?
May 3, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a word...
No.
May 3, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Supers overturning Obama's lead would be suicidal at best, the only hope Hillary has is for Barack to crash 'n burn - - Is that what some of the Hillary supporters (Dems) are hoping for?
The Gas Tax fiasco is an obvious pander to Indiana and the remaining primary states by the "Queen of Pandering", sure it'll get some votes, but it won't matter. Hillary gets an "A" for political maneuvering, she gets an "F" for being a narcissistic fevered ego....as an Independent, I would never vote for Hillary for a number of reasons, but if Obama has the lead assuming this makes it to the convention and it was overturned, the Dem party (and politics in general) would probably be damaged beyond repair in our lifetimes IMO.
May 3, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
For what my opinion is worth, yes, I think it's a little more fluid than ChrisNBama states. But, it is also far more complicated than simply who has the momentum by the end of May or June.
If Obama really implodes - and it has to be a big - then yes, the supers could all change their votes to HRC. But, a full implosion is very unlikely.
The supers are factoring in more than just the recent bobble-head narrative and the ever-fluid poll numbers. Those who're politicians have to consider how their constituents would respond to their endorsement - especially if they have an upcoming election. Many will no doubt look at the huge grassroots campaign Obama was able to build, and consider what kind of asset that will be to the party. Some will try to decide who has the best chance in November. Some will simply choose the candidate they like. Some will choose based on loyalty. And this is a big one: some will take sides in the ideological and strategic battle that the two candidates represent.
How all that plays out is not going to be clear for AT LEAST another month, but the trend has been in Obama's favor, and continues to be despite all the negative press over the past month.
May 3, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who gets to tell Bubbuh Emeritus that it's over?
May 3, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Who'd he listen to, Chelsea?
May 3, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
He'd listen to Rush
May 3, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, she hates him now. Hardly can stand to be near him.
May 3, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather have a Republican than a DLC Democrat. They are destroying the brand.
May 3, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another 21% in this and all the reamining Primaries and the Queen o' the Clintoids will break even with the Obama-nationm Woo Hoo!
May 3, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's rather arbitrary don't you think? I mean, campaigns ebb and flow. Even if Hillary is enjoying a brief bit of momentum come June 3rd, that doesn't change the fact that Obama will have won more pledged delegates and more contests, and very likely more popular votes.
The problem with superdelegates deciding that Hillary is suddenly more electable because she's riding a wave when her opponent has more votes in his column, is that it smacks of the sort of political maneuvering that alienates democratic activists. Sure, the superdelegates can vote their conscience, but I simply don't see them voting against their political self-interest.
Let me make a prediction. If Obama is denied the nomination while earning more pledged delegates and more states won, Hillary will have won the battle but lost the war. This would pave the way for a McCain Presidency as disenfranchised Obama supporters decide to stay away from the polls on election day. Before writing off this prediction as sour grapes, let me say that I would vote for Hillary if she were to steal the nomination. I think having a democrat as President is that important. That said, I've talked to too many Obama supporters that don't share my commitment to seeing a democrat as President as much as seeing Obama as President.
May 3, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just drank gbrook's milkshake. You drank it up.
May 3, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obliterattis & Cream
May 3, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Democrat as president, yes.
Someone who would vow to obliterate an entire country that is understandably angry at an unprovoked invasion, no.
May 3, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was beyond the pale, lost in the media nincompoopery, odious, even for a sitting Republican Senator. ++ugh.
May 3, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Either way, I think it is fair to say that a small number of either candidate's supporters won't go to the polls if the other is nominated, but I think it is far less than the polls currently indicate. I think there's a lot of posturing going on and emotions are running high. Cooler heads will prevail when folks consider a McCain presidency.
That said, Obama's campaign is built on the efforts and money of regular people, not corporate fatcats and special interest groups. They've raised more money, which is pretty amazing in itself. But more importantly, because they're financially invested they remain passionate and committed. they're paying now for the right to vote for Obama in November. Should Obama's nomination fail to materialize - particularly if it is perceived as being done through back room deals and changes of the rules - then the passion and energy of those supporters will not pass over to Clinton. Said more succinctly, Clinton needs Obama supporters more than Obama needs Clinton supporters. He has a cash cow, she doesn't.
May 3, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if there is one color undecided super dels pay attention to it's green. Sen Obama has demonstrated how it's done, and this will last beyond his campaign. Super dels want them some of that, it must not be misunderestimated [sic.].
May 3, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, they'll want the database he's compiled, and the activism, etc. He holds more cards than just the number of states won or earned delegates.
That said, Obama supporters shouldn't rest on the assumption that this thing is in the bag. Fight the good fight to the finish.
May 3, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yes, this will be a battle to the finish, no time for complacency at all.
May 3, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
From that AP article, they are on the ground in waves in both states, and he performed very well in early voting.
May 3, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, the almighty dollar speaks loudly. (queue The O'Jays "For the Love of Money")
May 3, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a Clinton supporter I agree but that's only half the story. People better hope that she doesn't win the popular vote because if its a split decision there will be no uniting the democratic party in the ge. Just as a significant group of Obama supporters will bolt if Hillary steals it a significant group of Hillary supporters will bolt if she gets the popular vote and loses the nomination.
Obama supporters can believe all the want that the popular vote doesn't matter. That's an opinion not a fact. Some will see it as a replay of Gore v Bush. I've seen a few polls that asked if the supers should go by the popular vote or the delegate count in making their decision and have yet to see one where the popular vote didn't win.
May 3, 2008 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary is a Democrat then I'm not a Democrat.
May 3, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
DaddyD,
I don't think that anyone is suggesting changing any rules, or even deals. Am I wrong?
Would there be a perception of such even if it has no basis in fact? If so, why?
May 3, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Counting MI and FL. That would be considered changing the rules. And generally, I mean anything that seems like a brokered back-room deal where power-brokers 'buy' votes and hand it over to Clinton. When Hillary says she's taking this to the convention -no matter what - that leaves things open for speculation, no?
May 3, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
And let me clarify, the context was: what happens to Obama supporters if it is perceived by them that Clinton won via back room deals and changes of the rules? The key word is 'perceived'. Such a perception will really piss-off Obama supporters, and that would certainly dampen their enthusiasm for Clinton. That was my point.
May 3, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What America is witnessing is the last stand of old politics. The mainstream media is selling the tightness of this race and perpetuating the fiction that Hillary Clinton can still win this thing because the military industrial complex wants it that way. But the movement behind OBAMA that has brought together one of the broadest and most diverse cross sections of the American electorate will not be denied. The Clinton Machine will be defeated. America needs this colonic to cleanse and detoxify itself of the stench of Clinton style politics. Hillary can join Karl Rove, Lee Atwater and Jessie Helms in the anti-democracy hall of fame. American History will regard the Clinton Legacy as smoke and mirrors and defrauding the working class of America for political gain.
May 3, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
[Military Industrial Complex], last time I heard that was from Mike Gravel before he was blacklisted from the debates. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it Clinton & Edwards who helped that along? That man scares the daylights out of the pander bears.
Nice post.
May 3, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a fight to the death for control of the party. The DLC has been in the driver's seat - usually driving over the cliff - for the past 20 years now. Their power started to ebb in 2004 with the rise of internet fundraising and organizing, and I'm sure their belief is that if they can just secure the nomination for Hillary, they can retain control of the party indefinitely. But they can't, with or without a Hillary nomination. The days of big money controlling the Democratic Party are over. Sure, wealthy donors will still have a place at the table...but they aren't going to have the ONLY place at the table, and not the most favored seat either.
May 3, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I was referring to when I said, above, "And this is a big one: some [superdelegates] will take sides in the ideological and strategic battle that the two candidates represent."
May 3, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both parties are suffering a collapse of sorts, which is not surprising. Both had become unrecognizable.
Impossible without the Inter-Webs. It ate King Bubbuh alive.
May 3, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sandmann, when you go through the journey of the dark night of the soul, you awaken to see things far more clearly. I harbor no illusions that any politician is my savior, but having worked on the Clinton/Gore Campaign 1992 and having followed and tracked these people since that time, I have come to realize how I was completely duped. The Clintons are a FRAUD and are attempting to sustain their legacy through voter fraud, manipulation and whenever possible suppression efforts. The Clinton's have used every trick in the book to create the illusion that she is still alive all while doing all that she can to hurt Obama and the Democratic Party. Whatever shortcomings Obama may have, it does not even scratch the surface of the breadth, depth and extent of Clinton Corruption. The Clintons are political predators who's entire net worth was derived through political patronage and selling access to power at the highest levels. The MIC, MSM and lunatic fringe, O'Reilly, are assisting in proping up Hillary because they fear the unknown with Obama. Hillary will protect the status quo and insure that the old guard is not threatened all while fostering the illusion to all the little people that were deceived and voted for her, that she is "one of you"---the shape shifting fraud deftly crafted an All American persona with BOTOX, FAKE BLUE CONTACT LENSES, BLONDE HAIR DYE and BROTHEL RED LIPSTICK. The only problem is when I see that creature smile, all I can think of is THE JOKER in Batman or "Chucky" in Child's Play. Hillary does not look comfortable in her own face because it is not her own face, and neither is Chelsea's for that matter.
May 3, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the Clintons are just so, I've seen through Hillary's charade from the time I first laid eyes on her. From the way she speaks at people and not to them, all the way to the fake "When in Rome" accents in the Carolinas and yokel pandering i.e. "Hat and Cattle" line in Texas. Having spent 6 years as a US Marine opened my eyes to the reality that we are being lied to and manipulated like rats in a maze. Once you have traveled and experienced other cultures and opinions, you come to realize that foreigners know so much more about American politricks than we do because a good portion of them have lived under harsh rules and laws that slap them in the face and force them to pay attention to survive.
I'm glad you've woken up to the facts, especially when trickery and blatent deception is thrown in our faces assuming our mental enslavement is complete. No, because they've underestimated Obama, we have a chance at dropping the status quo on it's head...as you say, there is no politcal savior (as Bob Marley sang "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind). However, I feel that Obama is our best chance at a step in that right direction.
May 3, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody who believes the DLC corporatists are ever going to enact a windfall profits tax on big oil is smoking something Bill never inhaled (yeah, right, another lie).
May 3, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gail Collins has a good column up at the Times now. She says what I think - basically that Hillary thinks she can do great things for America if elected, and she will do anything she can to get that opportunity. Obama, on the other hand, is trying to raise the level of campaigning. She ends by saying to vote for what kind of a political process you want.
I see it as one candidate thinking that you should never underestimate the American public, and the other think you should never overestimate the American public.
Based a little on the kind of ranting we see even here, but of course much more so on a look at American political history... the question becomes to me which candidate has the right idea about the American public.
I would say that as I get older I think I get more realistic and at the same time more cynical. So put me on the overestimating side.
I would be pleasantly surprised if I were to be surprised, but I'm not counting on it.
May 3, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"She ends by saying to vote for what kind of a political process you want."
Beautiful.
May 3, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
If you like the politics of trivia, smear, division, "gotcha," felonious voter suppression, vote for Hillary. She takes to that like a duck to water.
If you like candidates who appeal to fear and prejudice, vote for Hillary.
If you like Democratic politicians who suck up to the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife, vote for Hillary.
If you like a candidate who appeals to white resentment, vote for Hillary.
If you like a candidate whose qualifications are the same as Evita Peron's, vote for Hillary.
If you think elections where only one candidate is on the ballot are fair, go ahead, vote for Evita Clinton.
If you didn't get enough of Whitewater in the 90s put the Clintons, with all their secret Clinton Library contributions in the White House.
If you loved triangulation, vote for the candidate who is already triangulating against a Democratic Congress about the gas tax holiday.
If you only want to support Democrats in the 10 Kerry states plus Ohio or Florida, and don't care if the rest of the country goes Republican, vote for Hillary and her insult 40 states strategy.
May 3, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want another war in the middle east, vote for Hillary. If you want your 18 year old to end up getting his health care at Walter Reed, vote for Hillary.
May 3, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want someone who has a perspective of the world not wrapped entirely in their life long political ambitions, veiled in dishonesty. When working on the Clinton Campaign in 1992, the mantra was that the character of the policy was more important than the character of the man, which is itself a huge concession, to concede that you have no character. I have come to believe the opposite. The Clintons are a LIE. The Clinton Legacy is a LIE. Hillary's entire campaign is a LIE. How much bull_hit does one have to stomach on very critical issues before the media and the people say you know what honey, you are UNFIT to lead this country.
May 3, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Who is the elitist"
Hillary clinton" Rich people God Bless us"
[O’Reilly said,] “I'm not middle class, I'm a rich guy.” Clinton responded (in an awkward moment), “Rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue until the next generation.”
Watch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9X_nnEJmHM
May 3, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Who is the elistist"? I know! I know! It's Barack Obama!
"Who intentionally misrepresents what other candidates say in a pathetic, desperate attempt to distract from the truth about your own candidate"? I know that one too! It's the Obama supporters!
May 3, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
eh, Clinton is trading around 25 on intrade, she still has a shot.
On another note, I am reading some modern Chinese economic history. Man oh man, they are going to eat your lunch. While your Ivy institutions colldle intellectuall ridiculous and socially/economiclly useless AA studies departments and womyn's studies departments, the Chinese are studying engineering etc full-stop. Guess which will be more valuable in the 21st century? balther about patriarchy and Tuskegee, or machine-building?
May 3, 2008 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Intrade is nothing more or less than a numerical representation of conventional wisdom, and it's as vulnerable to bullshit media narratives as certain election websites I could mention. If I were a betting man, I'd sell Hillary and buy Obama at these prices.
May 3, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Zogby showing Obama now leading today in Indiana, albeit by one point ? He's ticked up one point since yesterday.It shows that the undecideds are going for him.
I have seen on some Indiana political blogs that it's very fluid in Indiana right now and that there may be some evidence of an Obama surge. Time will tell.
May 3, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks the polls are all over the place. Debating them is meaningless. We will know the results in a couple of days.
I am hoping Obama finally puts her away, but the gas tax pander seems to be working.
We really need to start the fall campaign. We can't let Bush have a third term through McCain. We really have to put that old buzzard away. All this Clinton self-indulgence is growing tiresome.
May 3, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms Jennfier of the Ark,
While Otto appears to be an arse . . . His bent view of the universe may have ome reality in it.
Randi Rhodes is no longer with Air America . . . True. Ms Rhodes is with Nova M (Mike Maloy's) network and almost every single Air America affiliate that was running her show is again running her show. Otto may have been able to listen to Hanky-wipe then dial over to Randi Rhodes.
Agreeing with Handy-job means that he is probably an idiot.
Gbrook,
Go back and read the article . . . Clinton does not want to do things FOR America . . . Clinton wants to do things TO Americans and FOR American corporations.
May 3, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/top-10-inducements-to-vote-for-hillary.html
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Top 10 Inducements to Vote For Hillary (For Letterman)
The Chicago Tribune's blog "The Swamp" has called for suggestions for the "Top 10"list for Hillary Clinton's upcoming Letterman appearance.
Happy to oblige:
Top 10 Inducements From the Clinton Camp To Vote for Hillary
10. All future Hoosiers teams can draft players from the NBA
9. Superdelegates will get actual Spandex costumes along with Super Power of choice
8. Permanent liquor tax holiday
7. Will limit husband to "low traffic" zones of White House
6. Promises to use only one personality throughout first 100 days of Presidency
5. Will hold Inaugural Ball in Smiley's Pub, Allentown, PA.
4. Free rides on Mark Penn
3. Will provide personal armed one-woman security detail through any combat zone
2. New shampoo: No More Tears
And the number 1 inducement to vote for Hillary Clinton:
1: New National Bird: Barbeque.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/top-10-inducements-to-vote-for-hillary.html
May 3, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said today that it would be “the height of political foolishness” for Democrats to back a Republican, or not vote at all, if they’re disappointed by the outcome of the long-running nomination battle between her and Barack Obama.
“Anyone, anyone, who voted for either of us should be absolutely committed to voting for the other” in the general election, Clinton said during an hourlong meeting with The Indianapolis Star Editorial Board. “I’m going to shout that from the mountaintops and the valleys and everywhere I can, no matter what the outcome of the nominating process is.”
...“no matter what the differences are between Senator Obama and myself, they pale in comparison to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.”
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/29/19464/6850
Obama should do the same. Clinton is right! no matter who wins, a vote for McCain is idiotic. There is a hair's width of difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues! If either campaign's supporters vote for McCain...then simply put, they are idiots who were already voting for their candidates for the wrong reasons.
May 3, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richard - here is the quote from the article that resonates to me that Clinton wants to do great things for all (including people and corporations):
May 3, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those who favor Obama, I wouldn't get too excited by the latest Zogby poll. I clearly recall seeing Zogby on MSNBC in April 2004, where he flatly and unequivocally predicted a Kerry win in November. Hopefully his polling methods have improved since then.
May 3, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kleefeld, you are motherfucking sack of shit.
Why don't you post the InsiderAdvantage NC poll, where Obama's gained seven points to retake the lead from Clinton?
But that would interrupt your vigorous Clinton dicksucking, wouldn't it?
May 3, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure... how much to suspect a poll due to the bias of the pollster. There might be no relationship but I recoil from InsiderAdvantage for a few reasons.
One is their "report card" (listed 25th in average error rankings (average error 7.92), 22nd in median error rankings (median error 7)).
The other is the owner of InsiderAdvantage, Matt Towery, who writes things like this
May 3, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too much smoke and smoked mirrors here!
Can you tell me, pleez, are you lekking or not lekking teh polls so much?
May 4, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, forgive pleez, I mean to say above:
May 4, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Louisville Courier-Journal has endorsed Senator Obama in the Indiana and Kentucky primaries, for what its worth- http://courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080504/OPINION01/805040412
May 4, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink