Almost?

I think what they’re saying is that they are leading among Democratic voters, as Obama is getting lots of support from Republicans and Independents. I don’t think they are excluding caucuses in this tabulation. She has won the most democratic votes, but not the total votes.

burn daddy burn

I don’t know that it’s accurate that Clinton has more votes from registered Democrats–but even if so, isn’t that an awfully feeble argument for being electable in November? Isn’t it better to have a candidate who can bring in independent and Republican support?

Independent voters determine the presidential elections, and independents are breaking strongly for Obama. It is particularly important for the democrats to field a candidate that can do that, because if they field a partisan like Hillary, the independents will break strongly for McCain. In addition to that, Obama has proven to be fund-raising machine – seriously, who would’ve thought that he would have been able to out-raise The Clinton Patronage Machine? Superdelegates may hold a patently undemocratic office, but they are not idiots and if Texas says no to Hillary, they are going to do what Hillary has asked for . . . their jobs, and they are going to support Obama. It will be case closed.

Clinton Stems The Bleeding – Obama Gains Marginalized in Texas
Source: BELO TEXAS TRACKING POLL

Bad Trend for Obama – First and foremost he’s lost ground instead of continuing to gain. It’s my opinion the debates achieved this by forcing him for the first time since Feb 5th the light of his own campaign and sunny media coverage, thereby revealing the frowning, anti-magnetic Obama that “cut the cord” between him and the spotlight, but whatever the reason, this much is clear: this train is slowing down. His momentum trail has soared to an Obama 45% to Clinton’s 46% dead heat. Secondly, the BELO poll shows Obama at a stark loss for support among registered Democrats – 54% of Democrats favor Clinton whereas only 38 percent of Dems are supporting Obama. This shows a tightening of the Democratic base around Senator Clinton (she leads Obama among true blue Democrats by 6% in all the primaries to date), and while Independents support Obama 56% to 37%, these would be the minority, which could mean bad news for Obama in terms of losing the popular vote to Clinton. His advantage trends to be among the less populous demographic blocks. For instance Clinton has regained her lead among white voters (49%-40%) and enjoys the strong support of Hispanics (63%-31%), and while Obama holds a strong lead among African Americans (75%-15%), even this percentage has lessened whereas African Americans comprise the least populous of the three demographics. “Among those who say they have already voted, Barack Obama leads 53%-47%” – however early voters also make up the less populous demographic (estimated at around 30% by another source). The BELO report also went on to say “with the additional night of interviews, the outlook among issues voters is becoming clearer. Asked what was the single most important policy issue in their vote for a presidential nominee, 23% of likely Democratic primary voters volunteer the economy and jobs while another 19% volunteer health care and 14% offer Iraq.” The war in Iraq again will make up the least populous of these three groups (were Obama leads 50%-43%), whereas Clinton leads Obama on the economy (47%-44%) and brandishes a whopping lead in the health care bloc (52%-43% testifies that the message hit home). Clinton’s numbers increasingly top Obama’s throughout the reading of this report.
Quote: “Asked which of six traits is the most important in their vote for a presidential nominee, 22% choose “best understands the problems of people like you;” Hillary Clinton leads among these voters 54%-35%. Another 19% choose “ethics and honesty,” 18% choose “strong leadership,” and 17% choose “most likely to change Washington.” Clinton leads in the first and third most cited voter answers. Very significantly, the report states: “Interestingly, the two least important traits are experience and best chance of winning the general election in November. Among the 12% who choose experience Clinton leads 93%-5%, while Obama leads 65%-28% among the 5% who choose best chance of winning the general election.” Perceived chance of victory ran very high among the stated motivations of voters in the Wisconsin Democratic primary held Feb 19. This seems not to be a factor here in Texas.

Democrats in Texas support Clinton 54% to 38%. In Wisconsin, 42% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary were Republicans (158,000 of them) and Independents (308,000) of them … More Republicans voted in the Democratic primary than voted for Mike Huckabee. That’s almost half a million people (in record numbers) who in 2004 would have voted for George Bush.

but you know; i voted for clinton in 1996, and if i could vote for him again, i might just do that (i just saw bill on TV) but i’m voting for barack – you know; hillary could still be vice-president – and if anything she could be a very powerful and out-of-control vice president much like dick cheney, using the military ’special forces’ to take out things like rock of love and flavor of love 2, and twisted sister…

I think that John McCain will be in trouble. Obama has proven that his machine can play dirty campaigning tactics–including using the race-baiting card–and have the appearance of being pure and above the fray. Hillary can stay in the race, especially if there is not a knock-out by obama. In 1980 Ted Kennedy polled over Carter 58% to 25%. Kennedy stayed all the way to the convention. Carter won.

How desperate….I’m soooo glad that there will NOT be 4-8 more years of Hill/Bill. I just wonder, after March 4th who will “bell the Hillary cat”?? The more this goes on, the more she reminds me of Nixon.

“almost too ridiculous”
“sleight of hand”

Yes, Ms. Clinton’s campaign does ignore facts she finds inconvenient and emphasize those she finds flattering. So does Mr. Obama’s. To point out that she does so but ignore that he also does so makes you guilty of the same cherry picking of facts.

Also, there may be some relevance to the fact that Ms. Clinton’s campaign does better in primaries and Mr. Obama’s, better in caucuses. Is the eventual presidential election day vote not structured more like a primary than a caucus?

All that said, people like to back who they think is a winner and Mr. Obama has convinced people that he is the new “inevitable” one. It may be far too late now for Ms. Clinton to change the minds of the masses.

Rex, you are making me laugh, “In Wisconsin, 42% of the people who voted in the Democratic primary were Republicans.” The stuff you have posted would make Mark Penn proud. And it is amusing to the rest of us.

Your candidate has been outclassed. I am deeply impressed with the speed and effectiveness with which Obama has responded to attacks from the Clinton and McCain campaigns now that he is the front-runner. I once worked for a congressman that is now a senator – I’ve been around campaigns. This is no ordinary politician that we have been watching mature in front of our eyes. It has taken great skill and intelligence to unseat Clinton – particularly given the incredible advantage bestowed upon her by her core support of older women voters that comprise such a large voting bloc, which is especially true in the democratic party. I feel sorry for Clinton supporters that are so bitter that they cannot appreciate the history being made in front of them everyday.

H is 44 –

I said 42% were Republicans and Independents. I also say that’s not a good thing. Thats almost a half a million people who have anything BUT the best interest in the Democratic party in mind. History is being made and that history will be the demise of the Democratic party and everything it stands for. Oh wait Obama is running *as* a Democrat? How is that a good thing when real Democrats are the ones supporting Mrs. Clinton and non-Democrats make up 42% of the WI primary and they support Obama? Republicans are a *bad* thing for the Democratic party, you *don’t* want them choosing your nominee. If thats what you want you should vote for John McCain.

Rex,

I want some of whatever it is you’re smokin’!

Sorry, my bad on the 42% republican thing.

For the sake of disclosure, I worked for a democrat and I am now an independent with conservative leanings. To me, McCain seems reasonably moderate, but his failure to grasp economic issues disturbs me. I dislike the partisan style of Clintonian politics – an absolute non-starter for me. While I disagree with many of Obama policies (and Clinton’s – let’s face it, there isn’t a lot of daylight between them) I think there is a reasonable chance that Obama could change the tone of the Presidency and also shame the congress into doing a few things that are constructive.

I am unsure about what is so great about the current Democratic party that is so worth saving? What is it you wish to preserve?

For my money, I dislike policies of the far-left and far-right. The liberal base of the democratic party forces democratic candidates to run far left in order to garner the nomination . . . they go so far left they are typically unelectable once nominated (Bill Clinton only got 43% of the vote, Ross Perot got 19%, siphoning votes from Bush, and putting Clinton in the White House). Bill Clinton ran to the left to get the nomination, but then ran back toward the center in the general election. There is a reason that you cannot talk about the Dukakis and Kerry presidencies.

But here is my real question. You have two candidates with nearly identical policies. One is disliked by almost half of the country. The other is attracting support from outside of the traditional base. Why would you even think about sending the former?

I wonder if it is possible to build a stronger momentum after the convention by having Hillary campaign all the way? Is it possible? Or will it throw the General? Is Martha smoking with Jerry? Hillary reminds you of Nixon? Huh? Silly reigns.

(DD)

His44,

You need to take the next step; what is the goal of the two party system. Ostensibly you could make the case that the goal is to provide a choice, and so be it. But shouldn’t one party ‘stand’ for one thing and the other ‘stand’ for another? And if there’s left-over, shouldn’t they constitute a third, and even fourth party. But then you run into the problem other so called republics have, to wit, a government without a consensus, unable to govern.

What is so ‘worth saving’ about the Democratic party is it stands as the only barrier against the Conservative hypocrisy that has become the hallmark of the Republicans. It need no other justification for existence.

As for your closing question, I’m going to assume it’s rhetorical inasmuch as you answered it yourself. Why indeed?

His44,

Unfortunately RS glitched my previous post before the last one you responded to. Thank you for being so constructive by the way.

To answer your question, I would have to ask how old you were. I’m 29. If you’re over 25, I would have to ask how long your memory is. If not, I would have to say that it’s an unfortunate fact that people below 25 will not have the kind of reference that they all really deserve when it comes to answering this question. For everyone under 25, I sincerely wish I could somehow show you what we are missing out on. People read the history of it and come off with a vague sense of economic prosperity and headline scandals. Unfortunately, the difference is so much bigger than that and if you are over twenty five, really if you’re 28 or 29 like me, it means that a lot of us never had the misfortune to realize what the difference really is between a true blue Democrat and a true blue Republican in the White House.

I thought that difference could never be more stark than it was the day George Bush was reelected in 2004. To my great dismay, that difference is becoming even more clear every day. The closer we get to Obama potentially winning the nomination, the more clear it is to me just what we are missing. A lot of people don’t know a lot about Bill Clinton besides the political charicature that has been passed down, and the same goes for Hillary. But I can tell you now that he and Hillary are a rare and dying breed of politician. Most big shot politicians are there for their own ego. Bill was working there for *us*, you and me. He means it when he says that Hillary would not just bring back what we had, but she’d even go one better. She’s endured a lot in the last two months – I don’t know how she gets up and faces a day knowing the sneering press is going to pan and mock every word she says, but I know why she does it: because we deserve the prosperity and the opportunity that George Bush’s presidency brought a swift and upbrupt end to. She’s got every reason in the world to go and live a life of peace and ease and comfort but she is fighting to the last, and we’ll all be lucky if she does.

I use this phrase all the time but it seems like a lot of people lost their ability to look behind the landscape of the current political season. One of Barack Obama’s validating factors is the perception that “there’s not much daylight in between them”. Alas my friend there is. His plans are drawn up as a relative copy of hers and Edwards’ basic proposals. The difference is so subtle it’s hard sometimes to get people to look that close, but its the difference between “change you can believe in” and “change you can *count* on”. I’m not trying to compare him to Bush when I say this, but as a candidate we party Democrats realize he’s quite heavy on promises, but we don’t see any evidence of detail nor delivery. That’s why 54% of party Democrats support Mrs. Clinton while only 38% support Obama. We see a lot of compromises in the future. We hear his health care plan and realize he’s ready to water it down to the point of ineffectivity – I expect this will create a situation like “No Child Left Behind”, where he gets to campaign in 2012 on having passed it like Bush did in 2004, but in the end all we’ve got is an empty program that amounts to an empty promise and the illusion of effort, without any real solution. See how boring the discussion gets when you get down to the details? That’s why he avoided them until he was finally pinned down to the debates (too bad for those 11 states in between). What I’m saying is, when it comes down to details, if he had to run on details he’d not be where he is today. We’d also be assured that we know what we’re getting for our vote besides this American Idol style beauty contest. It is like American Idol becuase we do all get to vote but all we get is the satisfaction of the music in reward. There is a real tragedy unfolding today and I feel sorry for us all if it is too late to stop it.

RX

I am a liberal Democrat and I support Barack Obama 100 percent. He is the candidate this country desperately needs to bring this nation together again. The Clinton camp’s latest pathetic attempt to discredit Obama is but one of a million reasons I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. She’s nothing but a power-hungry, egotistical lying backstabber and we’ve already had to endure 8 years of that under the inemptitude of George W. Bush. In short, should Clinton manage to steal this election (because that’s the only way she could win at this point), this liberal Democrat will be voting for John McCain. At least he’s not a sleazy crook.

I am a liberal Democrat and I support Barack Obama 100 percent. He is the candidate this country desperately needs to bring this nation together again. The Clinton camp’s latest pathetic attempt to discredit Obama is but one of a million reasons I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. She’s nothing but a power-hungry, egotistical lying backstabber and we’ve already had to endure 8 years of that under the ineptitude of George W. Bush. In short, should Clinton manage to steal this election (because that’s the only way she could win at this point), this liberal Democrat will be voting for John McCain in the GE. At least he’s not a sleazy crook like Clinton.

This is better than a bad reality tv show. Seeing the Clinton campaign implode has been like watching a train wreck – in slow motion…. I just can’t look away. Typically, I turn a deaf ear to such drama, but this is just way too facinating…

What’s next…? Will she laugh…? Will she cry…? Will she show her vulnerable side, and then scold Obama for being a young, immature whipper-snapper in the following breath. I bet she’ll comfort a small handicap child and pose for the press, all the while dodging real issues on her previous campaign ethics violations like the plague. Who knows?

The funniest thing of all is that Clinton honestly can’t figure out why Obama is beating her pant suit clean off… when it’s so obvious. She (and her hubby) are both profesional criminals… er, I mean politicians, that lie as easy as most normal people breath. Americans are sick and tired of seeing the same game play out in Washington over and over. A new path is needed, and I don’t even care if it’s the wrong path. Anything new… is good.

Obama may not be the best choice, but thank goodness Hillary Clinton isn’t our only choice.

Rex wrote of the BELO Texas Tracking Poll: “First and foremost he’s lost ground instead of continuing to gain”

This is what the BELO Texas Tracking Poll actually says:

“Five days out from the Texas Democratic presidential primary, the race remains a dead heat,
but Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton by a 46%-45% margin. Over the past three nights, Obama’s numbers have improved from 43% to 46% and Clinton’s have slipped one
point from 46% to her current 45%. The race continues to trend slowly but steadily toward Barack Obama, keeping in mind these changes are slight and within the margin of error.”

That does not look to me like “he’s lost ground”…

So isn’t that how a party grows – getting members of the opposite (or undeclared) party to participate in their elections and support their candidates? Some might look at increasing participation in the democratic party as a positive thing – not a dilution of the power of “true” democrats.

BTW: Ann Colture is supporting Hillary Clinton – so Hill’s doing her part to expand the flock as well.

(DD)

RX,

Nicely done. I was amused to witness a 28-year-old advising a 25-year-old, but your message was directed, articulate and accurate. History does NOT record the joy that resounded in the Democratic ranks the night Billy Boy was elected. For those who only know of the Clintons via a not so favorable MSM, I suggest they actually read a book or two. “Agenda” by Woodward would be an excellent beginning.

The discussion about independents and Republicans voting for Obama is significant. I don’t put it past the Cons to register many of their folks as independents and then have them vote for Obama. Rightly or wrongly, I think they are of the mind that the Race Card will trump young Barack. I don’t believe so, but to disregard that possibility OR the possibility the Right is ‘orchestrating’ Democratic primaries is, dare I say, immature.

Your point about issues is most trenchant. Their ‘plans’ are identical. And it matters not who was first with a plan. On issues, they are one and the same. Which means the separation of voters is based more on personality than substance, or, better, the perception of personality. Clearly, Obama has the edge there ten-fold. HRC’s bane has always been her difficulty in presenting herself. But anyone who has observed her, objectively, over the past 15 years will find the shrill criticisms of her as a liar, cheater, backstabber or criminal is either a shill for the Right or dupe.

If any of you have evidence to support your claims, please submit it. Otherwise you’re dabbling in polemic hysteria, to your discredit.

And Kent, your point is well made, if, indeed, that is what’s happening. Would that it could be so. Obama IS galvanizing a large segment of the population, mostly the young, to his credit and my immense satisfaction. I am pleased by what I am seeing with Barack; I am NOT pleased by what I see being done to HRC. It is wrong, petty, demeaning of all involved, biased and, worse, counterproductive. In a word, political. In another word, Democrats doing business as usual.

Let’s call it the quest for the grail Defense , now that they are stealing lines from from Monty Python’s “The Holy Grail”.

The Scene:
A combatant loses all limbs to a foe but insistently declares victory amidst the hemorrhaging .

DD

RE: “Their ‘plans’ are identical.”

I agree with most of wha you posted and I can see where you’re coming from on the above quote. What I would like to say is that those ‘plans’ might be similar, identical even. Well similar is as far as I will go on health care – 47 million people go without health care and the 15 million who could be left out equals 1/3 of all uninsured people. To summarize briefly, a voluntary plan basically preserves the imbalance we already see today. Case in point I’m elligible for health insurance for the first time in my life next month at my job and I had to think really long and hard about whether I’d take it or tak an extra $200 bucks a month on my pay check. I guess I’m a good example of these 15 million people we’re talking about: if i didn’t need to go to the doctor this year, I’d be keeping the money. This is a financial incentive for we the uninsured to support the current imbalance in the system. People on this topic sometimes knee-jerk about the “mandate” but that scare tactic is what the republicans have used to keep this a dead issue for the last fifty years. What the madate does is give us the only chance we have to rein in costs – it creates a model whereby capitalism will have less and less a place in this life and death public service.

Leaving this as voluntary is something I see as an example of what I feel is a real danger in Barack… He’s got the “identical” plan that he can campaign on and 4 years from now who’s really going to be looking back and counting whether these promises today become dead issues tomorrow. Leaving 1/3 of these people uninsured is like closing the door on any chance of health care reform. Basically it’s a preemptive decision to spend the money on the program and leave the follow through to 15 million people who have every financial incentive to let it die just the way the insurance companies want it to.

See how boring it gets when you get down to the details? Obama would lose on details because the closer you look the fewer legs he’s got to stand on. There’s a bit more than usual to read on this this weekend.

He wants to bash Clinton for her attempts to accomplish this years ago. This really highlights something about Obama. He’s always talking about being willing to stand up for what’s not popular but I don’t think he’s stood up for anything as unpopular as health care reform was in the 90’s. To use a phrase a lot of people won’t identify with, she was “health care” when health care wasn’t cool. Obama made a speech that reflected the sentiments of quite a lot of people – the war in Iraq. But even though Bush won, that war was unpopular with at least half the electorate. He therefore didn’t stake his reputation the way Clinton did on health care. As evidence, she’s *still* being ridiculed about health care even within the context on the health care debate. Which is pretty much ridiculous.