unfortunately, the headline rang out "too good to be true" for me. but I was also keyed up for April Fool's by promise of a "Colbert Compromise" in the event of a brokered convention. ah well. I'll keep dreaming...

Posted at April 2, 2008 3:06 AM in response to BREAKING: Clinton to Concede Today

oh, jeebus. I *AM* a North Carolina voter, and I am so totally ready for this thing to be over. I want my primary to focus on our local races (amongst others, we have an important democratic senate primary, because we would really love to dump Liddy Dole in the fall). With the never-ending saga of the Clintonator, a lot the air gets sucked out of the theater of local politics, and some progressive candidates suffer because the increased turnout for the prez race favors the candidates with the greater level of "name recognition." In a less "important" primary, it's easier to turn out energized local voters in numbers commensurate with the resources those candidates can generate.

So before we go making broad claims of "disenfranchisement" for groups of voters, we might want to consider the fact that some of these late voting states had the opportunity to place their primaries earlier and chose not to, with the full expectation that the field might be - and indeed, based on precedent, most likely would be - narrowed to a single candidate by now. It's not like we expected to be the firewall.

Posted at March 29, 2008 2:38 AM in response to Obama: Dem Race Is Like A Good Movie That's Gone On Too Long

PPP has lots of problems (in brief, they suck), but one thing to keep in mind with March polling of NC might be spring break. The last PPP poll (with 1+ lead for Obama) came when the entire UNC system was on break. I was out of the state, and I *know* that as my opinion goes, so goes the state.

Actually, I don't know whether their is a "spring break" factor considered in polling anywhere, but it is something that I've been thinking about in looking at March polls. I realize that I can't generalize from my very specific circumstances, but I live in the "Research Triangle" of NC (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill), and we have a serious demographic shift during the month of March every year. If you figure in a "do not call during March Madness" factor, I do not envy the telephone pollster trying to get an accurate picture of NC in March.

Posted at March 25, 2008 5:24 PM in response to Poll: Obama Ahead 21 Points In North Carolina Primary

I know I should be "beyond" racializing everything, but I think it is also important to point out just that NC has a more complex ethnic and racial make up that "just" white and african american. It also has a growing latino population (with raleigh-cary and charlotte both in the top 10 U.S. cities for latino population growth so far this decade), ditto for asian americans. NC also has a large native american population (by % of our total population, we seem to have the largest n-a pop on the east coast, at least). this is just a quick scan of some census stuff. nc is a "big state" that has just recently come to terms with the fact that it is a big state - and getting bigger, quickly.

a really good source of voter/demographic data on NC can be found at UNC's Center for the Study of the American South. another population that NC breeds in droves is academics. in some parts, you can't swing a cat without hitting a ph.d. it's kinda fun to try, though. :->

Posted at March 20, 2008 3:48 AM in response to PPP: North Carolina Primary A Dead Heat, Hillary Stronger Than Obama In Ohio

nope. PPP is teh suck. You can see a comparative through 2/20 here, and then after that you'll have to do it yourself (realclearpolitics.com is good for a quick aggregate listing underneath the final results). For Ohio, SurveyUSA nailed it, and PPP was way off (most were). Texas is harder to lay claims to accuracy, because it's harder to say who "won" there - and are you polling for just the primary, or just the caucus, or the primary plus caucus, or what? At any rate, Zogby got closest to the primary spread, though not the totals. This seems to have been the first one SUSA comes close to really blowing. Unless they were polling the primarypluscaucus, in which case they got it right. Texas makes my head hurt.

Regardless, PPP still has no traction this season. They haven't made a good call yet, that I can see.

Posted at March 20, 2008 3:11 AM in response to PPP: North Carolina Primary A Dead Heat, Hillary Stronger Than Obama In Ohio

I'm in NC, and the demographics here are far more complicated than "African-American" and "White."

Also, this poll is for shite. Unlike the SurveyUSA poll, PPP *way* oversamples in the 65+ range, esp. in comparison with NC's actual population. (You can't just look at the 45/50+. I believe the PPP has upwards of 20% in the 60+ column, though I may be remembering their previous NC poll). At any rate, PPP has not done particularly well this election cycle (nor has Rasmussen). As much as it might surprise everyone, Zogby has done better than either of those. SurveyUSA is still leading in overall polling cred, and they've got Obama with a comfortable lead in NC (although it's a smaller lead than in their round of polling, to be sure).

I don't think NC will be an easy state to predict, truth be told. There are a lot of smaller cleavages here than just male/female black/white. Throughout the state, we also have a large military presence, a very active academic culture, a growing "creative class" economy and a depressed base of under- and unemployed labor, and a much broader mix of races and ethnicities than the Southern stereotype of black/white would lead you to believe. But basketball is still our primary religion, so perhaps Obama and Clinton should consider scheduling a pick-up game in lieu of a debate. It would probably be at least as enlightening, with (I predict) the same outcome likely for either debate or game.

Another interesting difference between the PPP and SurveyUSA polls: PPP shows Kay Hagan kicking the pants off Jim Neal in the Senate race, while SurveyUSA has the advantage with Neal. Most voters in both polls remain "undecided," but SUSA has fewer undecideds. For those unfamiliar with the race, Neal is by far the more progressive candidate, while Kagan is the candidate that Schumer pushed into running after Neal openly admitted that he was gay and didn't think it should be a "big deal" in his bid to take Liddy Dole's seat in the fall. Neal has been doing a lot more netroots, grassroots campaigning (he's planning to travel to every NC county before the primary), while Hagan is basically working through the NC Dems political machinery, ads, and name recognition. I'm saying all this because I think the major disparity in the way these two candidates perform in the two polls speaks to the fact that two different sets of "likely voters" were being polled here. One set (PPP's) is the old school "likely voter" of 2004, and one set (SUSA's) is the "likely voter" of this election cycle. Just my opinion, tho...

Posted at March 20, 2008 2:52 AM in response to PPP: North Carolina Primary A Dead Heat, Hillary Stronger Than Obama In Ohio

Only one of NC's 7 Reps has endorsed so far (G.K. Butterfield), and he came out for Obama long ago. Actually, I should rephrase that. Six of NC's Reps endorsed Edwards, but have not declared new allegiances since he left the race. Neither has the current governor, Mike Easley, nor the extremely popular former governor (while not a current superdelegate, Jim Hunt is the only NC gov ever to have served 4 terms, so his voiced support is more meaningful than a single anonymous convention vote might be). That's a lot of endorsements/potential delegates up for grabs (there are also a couple of DNC superdelegates from NC who haven't pledged yet, and a few who've already gone to Obama).

In addition to the Governor's race, we also have an interesting primary race for the Senate candidacy to take on Liddy Dole in the fall. Jim Neal has gotten the endorsements of several netroots and progressive groups, including Act Blue, while Kay Hagan has the support of the old school party faithful in the state. Neal has repeatedly referenced Obama as a role model for his campaign - and I believe he stands a much better chance of being elected on a ticket with Obama.

It's a very mixed "blessing" to have so much attention paid to the presidential primaries this year. Record turnout is wonderful as a general indicator of increased interest in the political process. At the same time, people don't seem to pay the same amount of attention (or do the same level of research) about local races as they do national races, so the increased turnout doesn't necessarily help progressive candidates at the state or local level.

While it will hopefully help Dems in the fall, huge turnout tends to play to incumbents' advantage in the primaries (with notable exceptions like Donna Edwards). I'm glad that I have really good incumbents in my state and federal districts - but I wouldn't necessarily say that of the state as a whole.

Posted at March 19, 2008 3:57 AM in response to North Carolina: Democratic leadership lining up behind Obama

It's fine to be insulting or disbelieving that there are "real" Democrats out there who feel this way, but the last few weeks have indeed turned a lot of "real" Dems off to HRC. I am deeply torn right now about how I would vote in the fall - or if I would vote in the Presidential race - were she to become the nominee. I cast my first votes for Bill Clinton, and came into politics as a teenager working on the Clinton/Gore '92 campaign. I have never voted for a Republican, so I can't be accused of being an "Obamacrat" or whatever the word is. But I have been deeply, deeply offended by Clinton's tactics in the last couple of weeks. I never thought I would hear a Democratic candidate say, in essence, that the Republican challenger was preferable to her Democratic rival. She has given too much fodder to the Republicans, and its inexcusable, in my opinion.

Yes, I will consider not voting Dem in the Presidential column should she become the nominee. I will work my butt off for all the other Dem candidates in all the races that matter to me, and I will vote a straight Dem ticket with that possible exception. But I don't believe in her as a Democrat anymore. And I think there should be room for a person to sincerely express such an opinion without being doubted or thought to be a troll, traitor, or closet Republican.

Some of us have been hurt by the baseness of the Clinton campaign, as hard as that might be to believe. Implying that McCain is a better candidate; comparing Obama to Ken Starr - these things are just beneath us as a party. I thought I had lost my last bit of political idealism in 2000, but I guess I was wrong.

Posted at March 11, 2008 12:50 AM in response to If Clinton Is the Nominee, Political Realignment Will Occur

The political vision espoused in Ferraro's statements cannot be excused. Her "legacy" does not get her off the hook - and if we are fair, we have to admit that we would not be making excuses for similar statements from, say, Elizabeth Dole.

As a feminist and the daughter of a feminist, I am tired of Clinton supporters trying to gain votes or political leverage from the argument that sexism is somehow worse than racism. I'm tired of the arguments that Clinton has gotten rougher treatment than Obama because she is a woman (rather than, as sg401 and others have noted, the fact that she is Hillary Clinton).

There are so many empirical, logical, and ethical fallacies in these claims that it is almost impossible to unpack them. The most important thing to keep in mind is that such claims are damaging to *everyone* working toward social justice and equality for all peoples, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, ability, or any other artificial construction of privileged division that exists within our society.

In the words of Augusto Boal, "I consider the struggle against one oppression to be indissociable from the struggle against all oppressions.”

Posted at March 11, 2008 12:05 AM in response to I am outraged by Ferraro's comments and I am letting her know it

Yes, I've been thinking that there's still quite a lot of effort being put toward keeping the Democratic primary race going. I'm not trying to sound "conspiracy" minded, because I don't really think like that. I think there are various actors with different reasons for wanting the Obama/Clinton race to continue: RNC/GOP folks who would prefer to see HRC as the candidate, or at least to see Dems waste resources and goodwill on the primary; the press, who are doing very well from this race; supporters of both candidates who are very invested in the outcome; cosmic forces of good and evil. Okay, maybe not so much that last...

But I think there may be no single driving figure orchestrating the machine this time around. I don't think there really is a "Rove" at the center - just a bunch of Rove-lites, each trying to gain advantage while they can, and each totally bewildered by the fact that they are not completely in charge anymore.

Posted at February 28, 2008 3:59 AM in response to What Everyone is Missing with the "Hussein"