Those numbers reflect the increasing entrenchment as a result of this bitter campaign. The make-up of Clinton backers who claim they would not vote for Obama are traditional Dems, and they are less likely than the Obama supporters to defect to McCain. Even if that polling data was not merely a snapshot and could be accurately projected into the future Obama likely still not have her a his VP candidate--the risk of driving up his negatives, pushing away independents, and the fact that the you have just created a ticket that does not include white males outweighs the benefit of solidifying her supporters behind him.

Posted at March 28, 2008 11:37 AM in response to Obama-Supporter Patrick Leahy Calls On Hillary To Drop Out Of Race

I think for Senator Clinton to stay in this nomination any longer requires a "willful suspension of disbelief" on her behalf.

Posted at March 28, 2008 10:13 AM in response to Obama-Supporter Patrick Leahy Calls On Hillary To Drop Out Of Race

This is an odd place for this comment but I have to get this idea out of my head: I know there is question with Spitzer and how Clinton carefully disposes of the issue, but that I do not think that is where problems could surface. I know this is pushing it--the longer a sex scandal stays in the news cycle the worse for the Clinton campaign. You cannot tell me Democrats will be gently reminded of the scandal the Clinton's were forced to endure. It may be nothing, but it might not.

Posted at March 11, 2008 12:27 PM in response to Obama On Track For Big Victory In Mississippi Today

While this poll might suggest the Democrats are open to either Clinton or Obama winning the nomination, I take something different from it: 43% of Democrats would be angry/upset/disappointed if the superdelegates chose someone who did not have the delegate lead. That is a rather ominous statistic come fall.

Posted at March 8, 2008 12:47 PM in response to Poll: Dems Evenly Split On What Super-Delegates Should Do

Quite frankly, the Clinton campaign is in no position to assert the moral high-ground on virtually any issue right now. It is becoming abundantly clear the Clinton strategy is to damage Obama to the point the Democrats, the superdelegates in particular, have no other choice but to give the nomination to her. The math is not on her side, that is indisputable, so you have to wonder how exactly you go about ensuring the nomination irrespective of that fact. While the explicit argument may be a moral claim to the nomination due to her victory in several large states, they know, and everyone else knows, that does not pass scrutiny.

Posted at March 7, 2008 10:56 AM in response to Hillary Campaign Calls On Obama To Fire Adviser Who Called Hillary A "Monster"

anneeliz, but the link is to MSNBC's numbers, which also have Obama losing, in their case 48-51. what sites have different numbers?

Posted at February 19, 2008 10:31 PM in response to Exit Polls: Obama Cut Deep Into Hillary's Core Constituencies

anneeliz, but the link is to MSNBC's numbers, which also have Obama losing, in their case 48-51. what sites have different numbers?

Posted at February 19, 2008 10:30 PM in response to Exit Polls: Obama Cut Deep Into Hillary's Core Constituencies

Obama actually lost the female vote 48%-51%. I am happy he reached virtual parity, but for the record, he did lose that demographic...

Posted at February 19, 2008 10:23 PM in response to Exit Polls: Obama Cut Deep Into Hillary's Core Constituencies

I am disheartened by the fact this subject actually draws any response, it is even showing up in Gallup's tracking polls. The idea that somehow a politician uses phrases, if not whole lines once uttered by another well-known individual should not cause anyone a moment's pause. You would be hard pressed to unearth a Presidential candidate who did not use lines without immediately giving attribution, it is a stump speech not a research paper.

Posted at February 19, 2008 7:02 PM in response to Another Example Surfaces Of Obama-Patrick Rhetorical Overlap

If the results out of Wisconsin are close then the storyline reads "On to March 4th;" if Obama wins by a sizeable margin then the storyline will not be the same, reason: the CLinton campaign spent time and money, albeit considerably less than Obama, but she did not forfeit the state like she has been previously doing. I think it is monumentally bad for
Clinton if she loses Wisconsin by a lot.

Posted at February 18, 2008 9:53 AM in response to Obama Outspending Hillary 4-1 On Ads In Madison and Milwaukee