Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Efficacy of Electability?

As Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) sprints across the country in advance of Super Tuesday, her closing argument to voters can be boiled down to a single word: electability.

Over the weekend, Clinton's campaign released a memo penned by lead pollster Mark Penn entitled "Hillary is the Democrat to Beat McCain".

"If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him -- because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats," Penn writes. Unsaid, but clearly implied, is that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) does not.

On the campaign trail over the last few days, Clinton has echoed that sentiment -- urging Democrats to think long and hard before casting their votes tomorrow about the candidate best able to win back the White House in November.

At the MTV/MySpace forum on Saturday night, Clinton framed the choice tomorrow thusly: "If you're a Democrat, who do you think has the best chance of being able to withstand whatever the Republicans send our way and lead us to victory in November."

Closing the campaign -- or at least this first phase of it -- on electability shows that the Clinton campaign believes it is a winning message for her. But is it?

A look back at exit polling done in the states that have voted to date suggest it may not be.

The key exit polling question when attempting to determine the efficacy of electability reads: "Which one of these four candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted today?" Four options are provided: "Can bring about needed change", "cares about people like me", "has the best chance to win in November", and "has the right experience".

In each of the four states where the Post has exit polling information, less than one in ten voters cited a candidate's ability to win in November as the key quality that made up their mind. Combine those who say a candidate's electability or a candidate's experience was most important and, at best, that amounts to three in ten voters in those four early states. The high point for electability/experience as a factor in the outcome was in Florida (9 percent best chance to win/21 percent right experience; the low ebb was South Carolina (6 percent best chance to win/14 percent right experience).

Clinton held massive leads in each of the four states among those voters who cited experience as the central attribute in making their choice. Among the relatively small number who cited electability, the results were more mixed. Clinton held a two-to-one edge over Obama among that bloc in Florida -- a non-contested race -- while in New Hampshire, Obama doubled up Clinton among electability voters. In South Carolina, Obama edged out Clinton 40 percent to 36 percent among those citing electability, while in Iowa it was former Senator John Edwards who led the electability question.

Those numbers were swamped, however, by those voters citing a candidate's ability to bring about change as the most important trait in picking their favorite. A majority of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida cited a candidate's ability to bring about change as the key attribute to deciding their vote. Not surprisingly, Obama won these groups convincingly; in South Carolina his margin among change voters was 75 percent to 15 percent over Clinton while in New Hampshire it was 55 percent to 28 percent.

In the most recent Post-ABC News national poll, too, it appears as though Clinton's once significant edge over Obama on electability has all but vanished.

Asked "regardless of who you may support, who do you think has the best chance of getting elected president in November," 47 percent chose Clinton in the latest Post survey while 42 percent named Obama. Compare that to the results of a Post poll conducted nearly a year ago (Feb. 25, 2007) in which 48 percent named Clinton as the most electable while 25 percent chose Edwards and just 17 percent named Obama. As recently as November, Clinton held a massive 62 percent to 15 percent lead over Obama on the electability question in a Post poll.

Before drawing any hard and fast conclusions about whether the electability argument will work for Clinton, it's important to offer a few caveats.

First, and most importantly, voters tend to resist citing something so crass as a desire to win as the main reason for making up their minds about a candidate. Most voters like to think of themselves as more high-minded -- voting for a candidate with experience or the ability to bring about change. That resistance to looking too superficial probably skews the electability numbers downward a bit.

Second, voters don't tend to compartmentalize their reasons for supporting a candidate as much as these exit poll questions force them to do. People voting for change could well mean that they want change from the Bush Administration and believe the best way to bring that about is to ensure a Democrat wins the White House. In short, taking these facts and figures as entirely representative of how voters think about each of the candidates and how they prioritize the characters qualities of each leaves something to be desired.

Third, Clinton is not making a strict electabilty case. She is attempting to appeal to voters' concerns about Obama's electability to maker her own case that her experience and ability to create change combined with her ability to get elected makes her the better choice.

As Penn notes in a review of recent polling in the memo, "Hillary's negatives are fully factored in, whereas the same cannot be said of Senator Obama because he is -- by his own admission -- not as well known."

Boiled down, the Clinton argument goes like this: Clinton is experienced and electable; Obama may or may not be. Will voters be convinced? We'll know more in 36 hours.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 4, 2008; 12:55 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam Week in Preview: Super Tuesday Edition
Next: GOP Money Problems Grow

Comments

All of you Barack-ites and and Hillary-ites that say they won't vote if the other candidate wins sound like the same brainless Americans that elected Bush TWICE. Bush, fer cripe's sake, the most criminal and worst president EVER.

Do you want the fascist right dictating you again, this time with McCain?

Obama supporters: your candidate spoke of Democratic and American unity. You do this by threatening to vote for REPUBLICANS (or half as bad, not to vote at all)?

Clinton supporters: are you pretending that Barack's views aren't about four and a half inches from Clinton's, compared to seven miles from McCain/Huckabee?

Grow up, children! The far-right LOVES this stuff.

Posted by: 2229 | February 5, 2008 4:00 AM | Report abuse

KingOfZouk:
"Let's add a third helocopter this time you invade Iran Libs. watch out for the sandtraps though."

You mean "sandstorms," and more than nine helicopters, because six were needed to complete the mission to free the American hostages in Iran.

Dear KingOfIgnorance: The MILITARY - NOT Carter - decided on only nine helicopters. The stupid, brainless military, with a budget bigger than most countries GNP in the WORLD, brought only nine helicopters after spending untold BILLIONS to "keep us safe."

There should have been court martials and lost rank of top officers. Another travesty of American injustice.

Boy, you don't know many actual facts, do ya, King?

Posted by: 2229 | February 5, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

KingOfZouk, about Democrats:
"Get it through your head, the country is not interested in being ruled by money seeking despots, interested in controlling every aspect of our lives."

AH-HAhahahahaha. Cut it OUT! You comedian, you!

Dear KingOfHotAir: What the HELL do you think has been going on the last seven years? Did you just recover from a coma? Your country has turned into a corporate fascist state, ruled by two war criminals and traitors. All of your tax money goes to Halliburton and their ilk, the criminal corporation that has moved to Iraq to avoid post-Bush prosecution.

Wow. Out of touch with reality doesn't say it forcefully enough.

Posted by: 2229 | February 5, 2008 3:45 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY CLINTON ENDORSES OBAMA!! Well, she might as well if she is going to tell voters on Super Tuesday that they should vote for the candidate who has the best chance of defeating John McCain (or any other Republican for that matter).

The polls are already indicating that Senator Obama would fare better than Clinton in a head to head matchup against McCain in a general election. I don't believe that polls are the end all or that anyone should base their vote on them, but I think logic indicates that Obama would beat McCain even easier than present polls indicate while Hillary would have greater difficulty than the numbers show.

Hillary has far too much political baggage and those people who invest millions in ideas for negative campaign ads have had many ideas in the can for attacking Hillary since before she started to fade so terribly when people began to finally vote. There really are a great many Democrats who will not vote for Hillary - not just out of discontent that there candidate lost, but because they would never vote for Hillary Clinton period; and Senator McCain is the perfect GOP candidate to maximize the Hillary Clinton effect. McCain beats Hillary badly among Independent voters. Hillary energizes the Republican base and gets the conservative talk show hosts back into the campaign. At the same time, Hillary takes the wind out of the sails of a great many Democratic voters. The young voters fail to turn out. Many who have learned from history and don't ever want to see the Clinton's back in the White house either vote for McCain, a third party candidate, or simply stay home and don't vote. It's been said since 2006 that this election is the Democrats' to lose; and that is precisely what will happen if they nominate Hillary Clinton.

Look at how badly Hillary has fallen in every state where she has campaigned. Even in states where she has one, her one time 20-30 per centage point lead in the polls fell to a very small margin of victory, and evidence indicates that with a little more time as there was in Iowa and South Carolina, Senator Obama would have passed her in those states too.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Hillary's claim that she is the most electable is her failure to consider the fact that she will not have any "Super Delegates" to fall back on in a general election. The fact that the DNC awarded Hillary with a more than 3 to 1 lead in Super Delegates before a single vote was cast in any state primary or caucus is the ONLY reason that Hillary Clinton has a lead in the delegate count going into Super Tuesday. "Super Delegates", for those of you not familiar with the process is an idea that the Democratic National Committee came up with decades ago because they felt that voters were not smart enough to select the right candidate in primary elections. So, approximately 800 Democratic Congressmen, governors, and big-shot party members (like Bill Clinton) are given the status of Super Delegate which allows them to vote for any candidate of their choosing and each super delegate carrys the weight of tens of thousands of regular American citizen voters. In addition to her husband, more than 400 of the super delegates are Democratic operatives who came to power during the Clinton Administration which helps to explain why she was given such a huge lead among them. Barack Obama has won more votes and more delegates among the voters in this country who view him as our best hope for the future of this country and the Democrats best hope to take back the White House (and strengthen their hold on Congress) in 2008. If Hillary Clinton is annointed by the DNC, she will have to face Senator McCain or whoever the GOP candidate is without the unfair advantage of even a single "Super Delegate".

When Hillary Clinton tells America that she is the best bet to defeat the Republicans in November, she is lying and she knows she is lying. This is perhaps the best reason of all to not vote for her. The woman is almost incapable of making a comment that is 100% true and correct. She would say anything to get elected. Tell Hillary, "no sale" on Super Tuesday!

Posted by: diksagev | February 5, 2008 12:48 AM | Report abuse

can obama win? yes, he can.

thinking good thoughts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk

Posted by: boyohboy | February 4, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

bsimon

Thanks for the response above: we might disagree on the best Democratic candidate for this year, but I had found your posts to be too intelligent for you to have been taken in by the "Reagan saved our people in Iran" nonsense.

ZOK, why are you responding to posts I put to bsimon (using very derogatory language I note), yet still not answering the question I keep posing you: why, if Guiliani was the best choice to keep America safe did your fellow GOP members reject him even in Florida? Why wont you answer that question? Surely you have some view on that which does not become a "Billary" or "Obama=Carter" comment?

Seriously ZOK: you keep berating those of us who dont vote Republican as anti-American and unpatriotic types, who apparently hate democracy. Why cant you asnwer this simple question for us? I'm happy to keep asking.

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 4, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

How can anyone think Hillary is (more)electable? The R's got 60 million votes despite Bush! How many would they get against Hillary? The response from Hillary? Pit people against each other and go all out to "get out the vote". Obama is bringing in millions of new voters, this is a no-brainer!

Posted by: gmundenat | February 4, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary CANNOT beat Mccain.

Get on the Obama supporter map: http://www.obamaworldwide.com/SupporterMap.aspx

Posted by: ObamaForPrez | February 4, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

First it was inevitability...now it's electibility. In all honesty, I do not want to vote for a President who thinks people are stupid! I have watched and read from the beginning - and, for someone to pull the dirty tricks that Clinton did (and you cannot convince me she had no idea what her campaign was doing 'cause, if that's the case, she shouldn't be running for president!), and then turn around smiling and state that it would all be forgotten by November tells me outright she considers American voters stupid! And that is why she will NOT get my vote!

P.S. sjl106 - I have no interest in watching her on Hallmark!

Posted by: ndolan622 | February 4, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: Re your 01:44PM?? My experience is that Repubs generally are more likely to vote a straight ticket than Dems. The hard-core of both parties will vote for their party nominee, no matter what. My theory about the Repubs "FEAR" of Hillary is very clear to me, at least. The hundreds of folks I have talked with about the election and not one thinks Obama has any chance of winning. These past months I have been taking medical tests at two hospitals, visiting several Dr's, and I overhear the same thing. I just cannot see how. from what I am hearing, there could be that much difference in folks all over the country. The "Envy/Jealous" Factor I mention so often is apparent in that it is a good thing in favor of Hillary, except for the "Haters", and they have no logical personal reason for this "Hatred". This is like my not understanding the "Feeling" thing I get sometimes. A lot of Posters have mentioned recent polling data about the surge of Obama, and I give a lot of credit to the Repubs for their strategy of trying to stop Hillary in order to run against who they think is a much weaker candidate.

Posted by: lylepink | February 4, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

"Remember what happened after the Libs surrendered Vietnam - decades of American impotence."

America was impotent under Ronald Reagan? But, but, he won the Cold War!

The things you learn on these boards!

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 4, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"Remember what happened after the Libs surrendered Vietnam - decades of American impotence."

Richard Nixon -- "Lib"?

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 4, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Its interesting seeing other people referring to Obama in terms of Jimmy Carter. Its an argument that I've been making for a while. The fact is that Jimmy Carter is the last President to be elected on a strictly change argument.

Obama is following that campaign almost to a T. I'll change things in Washington by being this mild figure head. The way I remember it Carter cratered because people can and did read into it whatever they wanted changed, and many of these change arguments are self-limiting and in a lot of cases mutually exclusive.

If Obama gets the nomination campaigning as "not Bush" may win him the election, but at some point he is going to have to define what he believes in beyond hope and aspiration, or the definition will be filled in by the voters. that may be a way to get elected this cycle, but its also a straight path to oblivion when it comes time to governing.

Posted by: leuchtman | February 4, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- are you still salty b/c Rudy flamed out? There there, I'm sure that whoever the GOP nominee is will be worthy of a new man-crush. Just hang in there and they'll serenade you with promises of "doubling GITMO," tax cuts below 0%, and promises to torture every Democrat on the planet.

See, don't you feel better now? Maybe McCain even likes Opera too...

Posted by: _Colin | February 4, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

silly simple simon, you do not have to reply to me again if you don't like having to defend your simple earlier replies.

I know you Libs always bail when confronted with facts, it is nothing new.

seems cowardly to enter a discusssion and then bail out when you are displayed as a flip-flopper. but that is the Lib way. cut and run when things don't go as expected.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Silly zouk. Misrepresentation will get you nowhere, when a simple scroll upthread reveals the truth. I am uninterested in taking your bait today. Feel free to rant and rave to your heart's content, unbothered by the likes of me.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I've yet to hear from either Democratic candidate which 'red' state they can flip in 2008. Its not enough to rally additional voters unless they turn out for you in a state Bush carried in 04. The Democrats need to do better in the electoral college. I really can't see Clinton (or Obama for that matter) pulling any red states. Virginia seems like a real stretch and Florida has gotten even more conservative. Ohio would seem like the main focus of the Democrat's hopes and dreams.

Posted by: seannewengland | February 4, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

go back decades zouk. reagan and clinton. it's all you got. You cannot live in the now. In the now your boy rudy/thompson is out. In reality the gop has zero chance of winning (unless you count clinton).

Live in the past gop. The future is OURS. Live in teh caves talking about elvis or john wayne or whatever hero you have from centuries ago, reagan. The future is ours. Enjoy your irrelevacne

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Yet you jump to so many conclusions.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 05:11 PM

simple simon, since your posts are never consistent or logically thought out, we have little choice.

the suggestions based on your last post was that you don't make partisan one-sided arguements, yet you then declared that Reagan was wrong to escape Lebabon while conveniently ignoring Carter's bumbling in Iran, Clintons' weakness in somalia, etc., all the while implying that Obambis' idea to immediately capitulate after the election is great.

Was that a one sided partisan approach or am I being to nuanced for you again?

always the simple-minded approach - hence the name. but so easily revealed for the mass of emotional liberalism that you represent.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Barack CAN'T get 270 in Nov. Remember it's ALL about the electoral college NOT! the popular vote. IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN,

Posted by: YANKS_25 | February 4, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

BB-
Look at "The Trail":
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/03/at_missouri_church_clinton_tal.html
The post on 2-3-08 at 3:02P by "AAMITTAL"

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Wait new poll in - magic 8 ball proves unreliable since telling us Surge is a failure - Reid, War is lost - Murtha - suspend disbeleif - clinton.

this year Libs vow to ignore 8 balls and simply take weekly polls.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Wait new poll in, magic 8 ball says moveon.org and daily Kos won't vote for war supporter - go back to immediate pull out.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"It is hard to tell by your post."

Yet you jump to so many conclusions.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Wait new poll in - magic 8 ball says surge is working - fund the troops, make vague promises to get elected.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

BB -

If vishalg is the author, I suspect no ill motive.

I had seen the same invented contrast on another site, and if it comes from a Clinton talking point I would suspect that the usage was an intended double-entendre.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Reagan's decision to pull out of Lebanon in response to the bombing of the Marine barracks.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 04:54 PM

Clearly an error on his part. an error the Libs wish to repeat immediately after the next election. Or do you think that was the right decision? It is hard to tell by your post. you seem to ridicule it yet advocate it. hmmm. didn;t hear any mention of running away in somalia from clinton 1 and 2. was that wise Lib strategery? It is always so confusing when talking about war with Libs. One day they're for it, then a new poll comes in and then they're against it. then they win an election based on losing the war and they fail to do that yet expect us to believe they will soon. Can we just "vietnam" this war already and abandon our allies? Or not?

Do you ever get the feeling the Libs have a six-sided die with various war strategies which they randomly throw every two or three weeks.

Magic eight ball says - surrender soon.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"And what's worse is they are appologetic for their treson. Unrepentant.
"

unappologetic about their past lies and attacks on liberals

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

tHEY SAY WE CAN'T CAHNGE THE GOVERNMENT. wE CAN'T FIX IT. Why who is stopping it? Screw those people. Screw the criminals stopping justice, in the political game. SCrew those that would suppress votes. Screw those who would try and circumvent the people. Who ignore the people's will.

the gop strong armed teh country and forced their agenda. It was an attempt at a cnoservative majority. Would anybody here argue that attempt failed. Is it the dem's fault? Judges the media? No. It is gop'ers and their cult who are responsilbe for their own destrction. And what's worse is they are appologetic for their treson. Unrepentant.

When the propogandists are gone, the gop will earn much credibility back. What has fox and those like them BEEN right about. i know what they don't know. WHAT DO THEY KNOW?

The gop and their cult propogandists have successfully been marginalized. They are no good to you now zouk. You better pull them while you still can. You people think fox is your savior/avatar? It is your biggest enemy. Only now, years to late do you realize.

I tried to help you gop, did I not. i tried tocut yourchains, did I not. What do we get for our trouble? Enjoy the irrelevance you've eearned gop. Come back when you want credibility. Come back when you have some respect and love for america and it's ideals. Your gone from politics until that day. And it's by your own accord, since you refuse to humble yourselves and do what needs to be done.

Get fox rush and savage off the air gop. Clinton has zero cahnce of winning, to support her os to side with the republician sabotuers for profit.

I almost forgot. They say we can't fix out great nation that many of us here served. You know what I say to them?

"YES WE CAN"


Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

tHEY SAY WE CAN'T CAHNGE THE GOVERNMENT. wE CAN'T FIX IT. Why who is stopping it? Screw those people. Screw the criminals stopping justice, in the political game. SCrew those that would suppress votes. Screw those who would try and circumvent the people. Who ignore the people's will.

the gop strong armed teh country and forced their agenda. It was an attempt at a cnoservative majority. Would anybody here argue that attempt failed. Is it the dem's fault? Judges the media? No. It is gop'ers and their cult who are responsilbe for their own destrction. And what's worse is they are appologetic for their treson. Unrepentant.

When the propogandists are gone, the gop will earn much credibility back. What has fox and those like them BEEN right about. i know what they don't know. WHAT DO THEY KNOW?

The gop and their cult propogandists have successfully been marginalized. They are no good to you now zouk. You better pull them while you still can. You people think fox is your savior/avatar? It is your biggest enemy. Only now, years to late do you realize.

I tried to help you gop, did I not. i tried tocut yourchains, did I not. What do we get for our trouble? Enjoy the irrelevance you've eearned gop. Come back when you want credibility. Come back when you have some respect and love for america and it's ideals. Your gone from politics until that day. And it's by your own accord, since you refuse to humble yourselves and do what needs to be done.

Get fox rush and savage off the air gop.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis | February 4, 2008 04:34 PM

Thanks, I value your thoughts.

My guess is that Richardson won't open his mouth.

He is a governor that has already worked for the Clintons. What could they offer him that he already doesn't know.

His future looks better if he is friends with all concerned.

He could endorse Clinton but will she be thankful or will she do a Billary on him later. He knows the answer better than anyone.

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton claim of "electability" is totally bogus, in my opinion because:

1. Her deeply entrenched negatives (documented at over 50%) among the voting public in general will only rise dramatically if she becomes the nominee, virtually inviting the Republicans to highlight what has heretofore been so politely (or politically) left unspoken during the nominating process.

2. HRC's very questionable claim of "35 years of experience" will come under much closer scrutiny and her release (or non-release) of her written records as First Lady, currently under lock-and-key at the Clinton Library, will most certainly be a sticking point to continuing with that claim (or not).

3. Should John McCain be the Republican nominee (as it appears now that he will be), independents and the unenthusiastic (for either one) will most likely split in favor of McCain.

4. While the hyper-shortened lead up to Super Tuesday is certainly in Clinton's favor, the Big Mo most certainly is NOT.

5. As the first primary states have clearly shown, the more the public gets to know her, the more Hillary Clinton's numbers DROP.

Like I said, the "electability" claim is bogus. (But I also completely understand that it's just about the last thing she's got left.)

Posted by: miraclestudies | February 4, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

anthony.rimmell
"I hope that was a moment of sarcasm on your part...."

Indeed. I was responding to a noted partisan hack who only finds fault in the Dems, while overlooking facts inconvenient to his own version of events. My point was less about Carter & Iran than about Reagan's decision to pull out of Lebanon in response to the bombing of the Marine barracks.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

"I just cannot bring myself to support BO. There is no way. I am a Hillary constituent through and through. At one time, however, when he first announced his run, I did a fair amount of research on the gentleman, and unfortunately, I am disenchanted by his campaign, as well as his record. Hillary is my choice.

If BO is the nominee, then I will happily vote Republican in November. Until then, however, I am a true blue Democrat voting for Hillary Clinton because she is the best choice.

I find it nauseating that Oprah -- a talkshow host whose Book Club ruins the covers of many classic works of literature -- and a Republican governor's wife, and a woman whose only political viability comes from her last name, are the main voices of BO's campaign.

I'm not that easy, Barack.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 4, 2008 04:05 PM
"

HILLARY IS A REPUBLICAN NOW SO YOU'LL FIT RIGHT IN. GOOD LUCK REPUBLCAINS. tRY AND STOP SABOTAGING THE COUNTRY, MAYBE FUTURE ELECTIONS WILL DIFERANT THAN THIS ONE. gO RUDY, RIGHT ZOUK? hahahahahaa

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"You people better wake up and listen to the voters instead of telling them what to do or you are doomed to political defeat.

Dave N.

Posted by: acsht | February 4, 2008 03:36 PM
"

Wanted to give the man credit. left out his post.

Like he said, there are no republcains anymore. I was raised by republcains. My idol, the greatest man in the world, is a republcain. My grandpa. We are no longer on speaking terms. Why? O'Reilly Fox Rush?

I was predisposed to be a republcain, as I was raised by them and taught their cult "laws". Why did I turn away from them, not being politically active previous?

Is everything my fault, in terms of the gop? If the gop is courting voters, should they not try and represent said voters? Is that what this gop movement did? Or did it say "go with the war or you are a traitor"? Did they silence the dixie chicks and teachers that spoke out agaisnt war? Who has bill o'liely and ruish not attacked and tried to silence due to their political perspective? Is that america?

this is why I do not pity the gop. they had their chance. They were greedy. Tehy were criminals. I'm not part of the cover-up. I support america, not either party.

That is why the gop is done. You cannot force religon/or republcain ideals on a free people, any more than you can force democracy at the point of the gun. That is why your done gop.

As a result they have lost millions that should be gop and turned them into anti-gop'ers, like me. But again, I did not make that choice for the gop. They made their bed. Again, lack of accountability lack of credibility. You want a chance again gop, get rid of the right-wing propoganidsts. Rush o'reilly fox malkin savage hannity, you know who. Until that day you will be irrelevant. And you people have no one to balme for your state but yoruselves. Stop the treason. Stop supporting one party over country and you can rejoin america. Not until then

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's add a third helocopter this time you invade Iran Libs. watch out for the sandtraps though.

the legacy of Lib militarism:

Retreat, the French aren't backing us!

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

We'll have to see how this all plays out, after the press coverage of the Rezko trial that starts on Feb. 25th.

Posted by: autowx | February 4, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

As to electability:

1) Clinton is a polarizing figure who unifies & energizes Republicans. Obama is not. Advantage Obama.
2) Obama has demonstrated strong appeal to independents and even some Republicans. Clinton has not. Advantage Obama.
3) Obama brings millions of enthusiastic young people into the process, changing the political landscape. Clinton does not. Advantage Obama.
4) Obama generates enthusiasm and high turnout among African-Americans, a critical part of the Democratic base but one with a highly variable participation rate that is often a key deciding factor in several big swing states. Clinton does not. Advantage Obama.
5) Clinton is running on "experience" but her experience pales in comparison with McCain's, forcing her to retool her message for the general election and thus risking voter confusion. Obama is running on "change" and "the past versus the future," themes that carry directly into a general election campaign and convert McCain's age and experience into liabilities in the minds of many voters. Advantage Obama.
6) Clinton's support is largely confined to core Democratic constituencies, especially older white women, Democratic voters 65+ regardless of gender, lower-income working class white voters, and Latinos. Obama's core strengths are with young voters, highly educated and high-income liberals, moderate independents, and African-American voters. It will be much easier to rally Clinton's highly partisan constituencies around an Obama candidacy that is perceived as open and inclusive but committed to core Democratic principles and policies, than to rally some of Obama's more disparate and less partisan constituencies, especially independents and young voters, around a Clinton candidacy that is perceived as highly partisan. Advantage Obama.

In short, unless you buy the completely speculative and unproven Clinton conjecture that Obama will somehow fold under pressure---something the Clintons fully expected to have happened by now in the primary contests---all the major "electability" factors lie decisively in Obama's favor. That's why the Republican-leaning pundits are both fascinated by and fearful of an Obama candidacy. They keep saying Obama's a much tougher candidate for the Republicans to face in November. They're not kidding, and they're not just saying that to sucker the Democrats into nominating a weak candidate. The Republicans have been readying their playbook against Clinton for four years now, and they're confident they have a winning game plan if she's the nomineee. Not so Obama. Advantage Obama.

Posted by: bradk1 | February 4, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

C'mon bsimon: your historical knowledge is way better than that! By the time Reagan was sworn in as President the deal to release the hostages had been done - and not by Reagan.

I hope that was a moment of sarcasm on your part....

Posted by: anthony.rimell | February 4, 2008 04:31 PM

so your conclusion is that you wish to return to those "Salad Days" with a vote for Obambi - my point exactly. the second coming of Carter or the third coming of clinton. incompetence or extremely competant criminality. nice choice.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

trisha2 | February 4, 2008 04:05 PM

You state that Caroline is a non entity, Maria Sriver also and Oprah has a terrible taste in books.

It just happens they are all self-made.

Caroline has written several well-received books that she actually wrote.

Maria was a top journalist on TV and was still at it when Arnold was elected governator.

Oprah was a lowly local reporter that well, can buy a small country if she so wishes.

Were they peddling anything that would bring sales numbers to their individual professional endeavors? No.

They think Obama is the guy. Are you so shallow that your superficial judgement about these ladies will make you run to the Republicans because of your immature take on exemplary citizens voicing their choice for president?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"This is the problem facing the GOP today. They have abandoned their principles in exchange for the thought of winning something. Anything i guess. Even if it makes them look stupid and out of touch with the people, they continue to promote their Liberal look a likes, Romney and McCain. They both want to raise spending even as the country collapses in debt.

That is crazy if you ask me. Politcal suicide.
"

i AGREE. iW AS RAISED BY REPUBLCAINS. My grandparents have been misled for decades now, imo, by the fascist rightign propogandists. At some point the propogandists took over and the real republcains principles got discarded. What replaced them? Greed (striving for money to the politicains) power (and the need to keep it), lack of accountaiblity and credibility (propogandists).

I was never politically active. My family going down the rabbit hole, bush and what he has done to the government and the doj (spying on americans torture and not being held to account by gonzales or ashcroft.). Great post.

Paul is the only real republcain left, though I would never support the republcain party unless they stop being traitors (serve only money and power) and serve america again. AMERICA , not just the gop, but america needs to take the power from the propogandists and put it when it belongs. In the people's hands.

Again, I would never vote republcain, unless they changed their tune were accountabile to the people and served the people again. You don't hold the gop accountabile by rewarding them.

I am anindependant. I am supporting Obama. I was part of this ANTI-current gop movement before obama was. Obama is not the movement, nor was paul. they tapped into it. Obama now represents my change/fix the government movement. Who else represents fixing the last 8 years? hillary? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. A republcain? they had their chance? they sqandered it.

the gop is done for a generation. Not because I or anyone says so. They are gone because they have no ideals anymore. they have no ideas. They are not accountabile to the people. They have detroyed justice in american. I would like bush and his crew to go to jail once and for all for their crimes. GEt the fact that they are criminals out of the "debate"' mode and into holding them to account. Until the gop starts holding their own to account, they will never be a viable party in america again.

Once they stop sabotaging the country and voting like the borg, unlike paul mccain, they will be welcomed back with open arms. Until then I do not pity the fascists. If they are unable or unwilling to do the patriotic thing (showing the door to the fascists and the right wing propogandists) they do not deserve to represent anybody. Rush and o'reilly have repreentation. It's called radio and tv shows. Now it's time for the rest of america to get representation.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I hear you. Do you have any thoughts on California?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 03:33 PM

California - well, I heard that Richardson is going to make his endorsement very soon (maybe today) and that's going to massively affect the Hispanic vote in California. I fear that it may even decide the state. He goes for Clinton, so does the state. He stays neutral until after tomorrow, Obama wins. He's got too much momentum and all of the latest polls have him surging ahead. But if Richardson endorses Obama, it's a tightly-sealed deal.

California is going to be interesting because only 70% of their delegates are split up among the candidates, with the final 30% going wholly to the winner. So whoever takes Cali is going to get a large surge of delegates. But Obama's winning Illinois by 50% or so, combined with Hillary taking NY by only 5-10%, is going to lopside the results as well.

I have no idea how tomorrow is going to shake out. So many states are surging to Obama, but are still marginally in Clinton's favor, that it's too hard to tell which ones are going to "finish" surging into Obama's territory and which are going to stop short and favor Clinton. All I know is that in the states where Clinton wins, it's going to be narrow, while the states where Obama wins, it's going to be bruising.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 4, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

C'mon bsimon: your historical knowledge is way better than that! By the time Reagan was sworn in as President the deal to release the hostages had been done - and not by Reagan.

I hope that was a moment of sarcasm on your part....

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 4, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"Remember what happened as a result of Peanut not dealing with terrorists - the long slow glide to 911."

If friggin peanut head had properly dealt with the terrorists, Reagan wouldn't have been forced to cut-and-run from Lebanon.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

It's far better to lose this election than the soul of the Republican party. If the Republican Party is no longer the party of conseratives, then let it go the way of the Whig party.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 4, 2008 03:48 PM

I suggest you have already lost the soul of the R party - perhaps years ago when you made the deal to get elected under the "compassionate conservative" agenda.


Nevertheless, the stakes are higher than ideaology and I repeat, billary can cause severe and grave damage. Remember what happened as a result of Peanut not dealing with terrorists - the long slow glide to 911. Remember what happened after the Libs surrendered Vietnam - decades of American impotence. Remember the stain on the office (and the dress) left by clinton 1 and 2. It matters.

your personal (and mine) indignation matters less so.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Trisha, if you're a "true blue" Democrat, then why would you vote Republican? I can't imagine how you could agree with Hillary Clinton on the issues, while disagreeing so much with Obama that you'd vote Republican. Both Democrats are fairly similar on major issues, after all. I notice that you don't list any reasons why you don't like Obama, except that you apparently live in California and don't like Oprah or Maria Shriver. Can you elaborate?

Posted by: Blarg | February 4, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you are forgetting a very important piece of info that more accurately measures electability than whether Democrats think Hillary is most electable: head-to-head horserace polls. Many high quality polls (post/abc news, CNN, NBC/WSJ) have asked their respondents (both repub, dem and independent) which candidate they would choose in head to head matchups. In each of the most recent polls by these organizations Obama has fared better against McCain than Hillary:

CNN 2/3/08 among registered voters:
50/47 Clinton/McCain
52/44 Obama/McCain

ABC/Post 2/1/08 among General Population:
46/49 Clinton/McCain
49/46 Obama/McCain

NBC/WSJ 1/22/08 among Genpop:
44/46 Clinton/McCain
42/42 Obama/McCain

In head to head matchups with Mitt Romney Clinton and Obama beat him by similar double-digit margins in each of these polls.

In summation, Mark Penn's argument is utterly flawed in that Obama consistently performs better than her in head-to-head matchups. Now, of course, all that matters for the campaign is who primary voters "think" is more electable. At best, Penn (a well informed pollster)is simply trying to peddle an unsupported argument to voters in the hope that they can convince them she is more electable, even though polls show she is not. This seems more like the advice from a wayward campaign manager than a man supposedly supported by the numbers.

Posted by: viola061985 | February 4, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes, KOZ - Sometimes it is as simple as doing what is best for the country. Almos no on, outside of a very few neocons and a whole lot of Mormons believes Romney is what this country needs right now. It has been businessmen, MBA's, Wall Street sorts, and corporations running wild that caused the economic collapse we are entering into. The real tradegy of "free trade" is that it carved 60 million jobs from the heart of this country, it removed tariffs that used too account for 1/3 of the federal budget and moved that burden onto Middle class taxpayers, and it has led to the unemployment of roughly 50% of our own engineers and computer programs, they being displaced by cheap H1-B guest workers from India. This is national security nightmare. That it was began by the Clinton's (it's part of Hillary's "experience") is bad, but it was continued under Bush and look where it brought us! That idot, Romney, thinks we can "grow" the economy based on this lunacy, this gigantic Ponzi Schme. All of this, of course, renders Cltinon unelectable and unacceptabpe to the majority of voters. Most of us think she IS one of your conservatives. We, on the other hand, want a President with brains and concern for our future. That means Obama and, if he isn't the Democratic nominee, it means McCain. This isn't about politcis, it's about survival.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 4, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I just cannot bring myself to support BO. There is no way. I am a Hillary constituent through and through. At one time, however, when he first announced his run, I did a fair amount of research on the gentleman, and unfortunately, I am disenchanted by his campaign, as well as his record. Hillary is my choice.

If BO is the nominee, then I will happily vote Republican in November. Until then, however, I am a true blue Democrat voting for Hillary Clinton because she is the best choice.

I find it nauseating that Oprah -- a talkshow host whose Book Club ruins the covers of many classic works of literature -- and a Republican governor's wife, and a woman whose only political viability comes from her last name, are the main voices of BO's campaign.

I'm not that easy, Barack.

Posted by: trisha2 | February 4, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Excellent points on polling, especially the one about bringing about change. That involves looking at the whole team.

Early on, the Clintons were warning people that if they supported anyone but Hillary there wouldn't be a place for them in her Administration.

Meanwhile, Obama says he's reach across the aisle when filling his Cabinet. That tells me a lot right there.

Posted by: TomJx | February 4, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

For those who claim that she can't convince Republicans to vote for her, take a look at her races in NY. Many were skeptical that she could not get the Republican votes in upstate NY. She didn't just give lofty speeches and recycled slogans. She sat down and listened to voters and established a record of delivering solutions. Here is what the NYT has said:
"We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."

IT"S TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK FOLKS!! Choose results and competence over rhetoric. We've just spent 8 years with someone that the media delivered to us as a "uniter not a divider".

Yes, everyone wants change. But we also want and need someone with the competence and experience to DELIVER the necessary changes.

Posted by: joep1 | February 4, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Mark - I don't think it's fair to imply the line "substance not shine" is racist. It's a bit of reach. Reading too much into the tea leaves is what got Dems into trouble in the first place a few weeks ago.

[The comment about LBJ was more a comparison on LBJ vs. Kennedy, not LBJ vs King. The purported anger of Teddy K demonstrates this.]

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 4, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

So Obama is close nationally but that includes states that do not vote tomorrow. You look at these states only Hillary is up by 18%.

Posted by: ericr1970 | February 4, 2008 02:42 PM

=========================================
Perhaps the "Obama is a radical muslim" trash emails haven't been sent out to those other states just yet.

Posted by: mhhaggard | February 4, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: You must be reading Fred Barnes. It has nothing to do with acting like a spoiled child, its about promoting the conservative agenda. I fail to see the point of winning an election if the person you elected will do more to implement the liberal agenda than the conservative agenda. It's far better to lose this election than the soul of the Republican party. If the Republican Party is no longer the party of conseratives, then let it go the way of the Whig party.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 4, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

JD - I wouldn't take the polls that seriously right now. Think about where the polls were 9 months ago. So much for the aura of inevitability (not to mention everyone's favorite game--Where's Rudy?)

Optimyst - Your question misses a major point. It isn't merely independents that count. It's also the base. 2004 was an election driven by turn out of the bases of the respective parties. Bush/Cheney/Rove did it better.

Consider the turn-out in primaries and caucuses so far. Democrats are far more motivated and enthusiastic about their candidate than Republicans. Pick up enough swing voters and get the base to the polls could be a winning formula in November.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin,

Finally some yard signs! 3 to be exact. Unfortunately all in the same yard. One Rudy, one McCain and one Huck. Based on this huge sample, I can assume one of two things. Romney will lose big in VA or the resident staunch Republican needs a bigger yard... No further bumperstickers...

Posted by: dave | February 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

vishalg , I would have compared "substance" with "form", using the traditional idiom.

Did you personally draft the penultimate sentence in your 3:18P post or was it copied?

If you wrote it yourself, I hope you did not intend a racial slur.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

If Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination, the Democratic nominee wins in November. No doubt about it. Every other GOP candidate has the war albatross around his neck;

Posted by: jdadson | February 4, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"WASHINGTON -- President Bush sent the nation's first-ever $3 trillion budget proposal to Congress on Monday.

The $3.1 trillion proposed budget projects sizable increases in defense spending but forces the rest of government to pinch pennies.

But even with those restraints, the budget projects the deficits will soar to near-record levels of $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, driven higher in part by efforts to revive the sagging economy with a $145 billion stimulus package.

Bush called the document, which protects his signature tax cuts, "a good, solid budget"."

the guy that was sent to DC as a 'conservative.' This budget is insane. And guess what? It includes only a small portion what Iraq is going to cost this coming year... that of course will be hidden in a 'supplemental.' God only knows how much we're actually borrowing from China.

Posted by: drindl | February 4, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

vishalg , I would have compared "substance" with "form", using the traditional idiom.

Did you personally draft the penultimate sentence in your 3:18P post or was it copied?

If you wrote it yourself, I hope you did not intend a racial slur.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Jkrishnamurti ---

Here is what I wrote to the GOP web Site today. ----

I came to the GOP web site to see what they offered. I am a very disgruntled Democrat, I am tired of paying ever higher taxes for social programs that do nothing for me because I actually work for my living. I can see it is not going to get any better with the current crop of Dems.

My Problem is, I came to read about Ron Paul and I see absolutely nothing on Ron Paul on the Home Page of the GOP Web Site. Whats up with that?

It may interest some of you, that Ron Paul has been a Republican for longer than most Americans. He has probably been a Repub longer than most people working here for the GOP.

He stands for the true Republican conservative, lower taxes and small Government.

If these statements I make are true, then why has the Republican party shunned him as the MSM have, even here at the GOP home page?

This is the problem facing the GOP today. They have abandoned their principles in exchange for the thought of winning something. Anything i guess. Even if it makes them look stupid and out of touch with the people, they continue to promote their Liberal look a likes, Romney and McCain. They both want to raise spending even as the country collapses in debt.

That is crazy if you ask me. Politcal suicide.

The true Republicans, if there are any left, need to stand up for what is right and just --- instead of what you are told by the do-gooders of the World.

I also notice that there are only 47 people logged on as I write this, so that in itself says there is not much enthusiasm for the GOP. This is the day before a major election process. There should be way more than 47 people logged on. For example I just went to the Democrat Web Site and they have 1189 people logged on right now.

If the Republican party does not wake up soon and start standing up for true conservative candidates then they are doomed to the scrap heap of politics.

I became aware of Ron Paul in the CNN debate where they pretty much ignored him. I listened to what he said when they let him talk and he made sense even to this Democrat. So I watched the MTV debate the other night with my son, of which McCain and Romney didn't have the guts to show up for. Ron Paul knows what he wants to do and none of the other candidates match him there. According to Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul was the most honest man he had met.

You people better wake up and listen to the voters instead of telling them what to do or you are doomed to political defeat.

Dave N.

Posted by: acsht | February 4, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I see drindl is rested up and ready to post endless propoganda with no basis in reality - as usual.

the sky is not falling drindl, that is just chicken little fooling you again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis | February 4, 2008 02:08 PM

I hear you. Do you have any thoughts on California?

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 4, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Mark Penn: "If John McCain becomes the Republican nominee, Hillary is the Democrat who can beat him -- because she has the strength and experience a president needs to get America on the right course and to defend it against future threats."

What poor logic. Hillary has already proven herself incapable even of accurately identifying threats to America. Perhaps if she'd bothered to read the classified Iraq NIE she was given access to, she would have made a better decision. To be fair, John McCain didn't bother reading it either, so at least he can't beat her over the head with that.

But if she plans to run on national security "strength" and experience, she is playing to McCain's perceived strengths. Clinton dropped her support for the Iraq war when it became unpopular. So her pandering and triangulation has succeeded in alienating both sides of the Iraq divide. McCain can taunt her mercilessly with his ridiculous claim that the Surge has somehow made the Iraq war a success after she abandoned it. Clinton can accurately reply that no, Iraq is still a total failure, but McCain will answer: why did you vote for it then?

As for experience, even if Clinton sells the idea that she has more useful experience than Obama, how will she convince independents (who dislike her) that she has more useful experience than McCain? Sure, another candidate might point out that McCain's experience didn't prevent him from advocating a disastrous war. But Clinton can't make that argument, can she? The counter to McCain's experience is not Hillary's unimpressive experience, it's Obama freshness.

The fact is that the polls show the reality of Obama's superior electability. And the gap is even wider than they suggest, because the anti-Hillary energy in the GOP would translate into more money, thus more ads, which would further undermine Hillary, etc, etc. Beyond the mere favourability percentages is the fact that Hillary turns bad opinion into bad votes by driving lazy Republicans to the polling booth as if whipped.

Posted by: Bud0 | February 4, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

You think your taxes are high NOW? --------------- Read This and Cry ---------- http://www.electionnews2008.com/National%20Taxpayers%20Union%20Only%20Paul%20Would%20Cut%20Spending.htm

Posted by: acsht | February 4, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

With the media, rightwing, and obama supporters claiming Hillary's divisiveness has been equivalent to the swift boating of Kerry in 04. If for some reason obama is the nominee, McCain is handed the presidency.

Hillary's country wide townhall meeting tonight 9 p.m. eastern time on Hallmark channel and live stream from her website. First time in history.

http://hillaryclinton.com/

Posted by: sjl106 | February 4, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

did you see coulter throwing her support behind clinton, drindl?

HAHAHAHAH. Priceless. Just liek hillary's interview on fox yesterday. gop talking points and all. At least they show their face now. Can't ask for much more than that. Better than "fair and balanced". At least the old folk now know they are watching lies and propoganda, unlike before when fox was "real news". :)

As long as they know. As long as they can't say it is news and live in willful ignorance, I'm good.

don't get me wrong. I think there should be a fox. I just think they should stick to gossip and hersay, like us weekly. Keep the propogandists away from government. Let them report on britney and paris hilton all day long. they should not be interviewing presidents at teh same time though. Feel me? Let fox exist as they should be. National enquier us weekly. No politicains on there. No power. Or at least us weekly leval power with whoever thye have sway over. Probably the same folks :)

the gop is done. they want to be. do not pity them america. Allow them to embrace the irrelevance they earned. Otherwise you justify the last 8 years. The last 8 years was an exercise in criminality. How to now get arrested. do not ok that behavior. they belong in jail, not running a lemonade stand

do not fear the fascists. Give them the basement they have earned.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

With the media, rightwing, and obama supporters claiming Hillary's divisiveness has been equivalent to the swift boating of Kerry in 04. If for some reason obama is the nominee, McCain is handed the presidency.

Hillary's country wide townhall meeting tonight 9 p.m. eastern time on Hallmark channel and live stream from her website. First time in history.

http://hillaryclinton.com/

Posted by: sjl106 | February 4, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. death toll in Iraq increased in January,
ending a four-month drop in casualties, and most of the deaths occurred outside Baghdad or the once-restive Anbar province, according to military statistics.

In all, 38 American service members had been reported killed in January by Thursday evening, compared with 23 in December. Of those, 33 died from hostile action, but only nine of them in Baghdad or Anbar.

A total of 3,942 American service members have been killed in Iraq as of Thursday, according to icasualties.org, an independent Web site that tracks the statistics.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/26030.html

Posted by: drindl | February 4, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"Again both Obama and Clinton will win against McCain."

Really? Give us the gift of your phenomenal ability to predict the future and provide us with some winning stock tips. Should I back out of my Indian software mutual fund or stick with it?

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 4, 2008 03:05 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

So McCain beats HRC, but loses to Obama. This is a 7 poll average over the last 2 weeks.

Posted by: JD | February 4, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Interesting article on the Obama event here in Mpls on Sat:
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/02/04/774/a_multicultural_coalition_in_minnesota_obamas_campaign_is_counting_on_it

In Chris' endorsement parlance, Rep Oberstar is a significant statewide voice; he represents the far north which is traditionally liberal (labor); as a long-time Representative he also represents the state party leadership. More local to Minneapolis, Obama has the endorsements of Mayor Ryback, Rep Ellison & MN Rep Patricia Torres-Ray. I kindof expect Clinton to do well in the MN caucuses because the process isn't friendly to newcomers & excludes independents. But with prominent DFL endorsements statewide, Obama could do very well in the state.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

My letter to earth-loving Democrats:

Well it's almost time now. Here's my quivering argument for whatever it counts.

Let's first perspectify the Clinton legacy. Obama supporters are very tearful about Clinton's affair with Lewinsky and his hurtful lying. There are politicians, you know, who are both, pristine in private life and make competent presidents. Let's take a historical shot at this Audacity of Hope. JFK was a serial philanderer who poked every hole in sight. He gave us Bay of Piglets and near Apocalypto. Then, came LBJ who fatally perpetuated the Vietnam war. Nixon - you know what he was. Carter - I still ask God why someone so good-hearted must be so utterly incompetent. Reagan doubled the national debt, shamed us with Iran Contra and broke us with S&L crises. George Sr. - no, he was in bed only with the Saudis and very recession prone. Then, we had Bill Clinton. Be swayed not by the Republican propaganda, wipe away the scum thrown at your faces by them, and you will see quite easily, Bill Clinton gave us the best presidential years in recent history. Who compares? All recent presidents before him were either just as immoral or hugely incompetent and in many cases, both.

Let's get to near history and Hillary's vote for the Iraq war resolution. Our country had just been devastatingly attacked. Such was the patriotism fever that a Democratic Senator who left most of his body parts in the fields of Vietnam was knocked out of the senate for not being patriotic enough! 29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many of these senators, including people like Kerry finally gave in because Bush persuaded them that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come clean. They might not have trusted him. Bush was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?
Meanwhile, on a hilltop, far, far away from the battlefield, there was a Senator in the safe confines of Bluest of Blue states, his state not devastated like New York. Sears Tower still towering. He made a fine anti-war speech - it was lovely. Simultaneously, he was lustily voting Present in his state legislature instead of taking a stand on certain radioactive issues to avoid providing propaganda material to the Republicans. There is a phrase for this: political expediency. Clinton haters are aware of it. If Obama had to be politically expedient in the Bluest of Blue states, what, you must think, he would have done in the jingoistic pressure cooker, the senate of 2002/03 was? When we did not know where and when again we might be hit again. One anti-war commentary given from the distant, safe, liberal confines of Illinois should not a president make!
Predictably, once Obama joined the Senate, his voting was similar to "balanced" democrats like Clinton. He raised no hell, made no great speeches, showed no leadership. Why should he? You see, voting against funding is a somewhat unpopular thing. You can't do that and hope to become President. And you can't just say Present, you know. You have to vote.

So now we have a tight race. Hillary might very well lose. No doubt, the Hillary supporters will have to show up.

Obama supporters also feel about his electability. Good night, good luck and sweet dreams. We wouldn't let Hillary lay a hand on Obama. No, we must be all tea and coffee only. If you criticize - you are racist. Dearest, I am going to go out a very dangerous limb here. I have a feeling, Republicans won't be so sensitive. No, I think they will have a thing or two to say about that. *Despite* all the hype, Obama is not seeming to be doing dramatically better than Hillary against McCain. How will it look after Republicans have given him a work over? To those who must believe that our gem, Obama is still somewhat unknown - he has spent over $100 million dollar introducing himself to voters. Media and many of you have been all ga-ga about him. Can it really get better for him? You know, Fox and Wall Street Journal, i.e., conservative media won't keep giving him a pass. They won't be so sensitive about asking him about his drug use. Pox on them but they will - and much more. Though, in my personal opinion they ought not to bother with that. McCain's strong, maverick, character and years of experience will be quite enough. To a left of center and right of MoveOn org type of a person like me, when I put Obama next to McCain, I see a shrub next to a Titan.

All this doesn't even get into what Obama has done aside from making inspirational speeches (including an anti-war one). He has organized in Chicago - shame on me if I deny him that. For a nomination that might work, comrades. In a general election that only works if the public has a seizure while rolling on the floor in laughter. Bird flu, global warming have nothing on the effect Obama's record-setting lack of experience might have on the general population.

It's something to think about. If you believe I am one of those purple Democrats, you are being unfair to yourself. I thought Howard Dean was a better candidate than Al Gore and John Kerry. I was devastated when he was knocked out in the primaries because he dared to be emotional and spontaneous. The media usually likes that sort of thing until it happens. He had such a strong executive experience. But the media didn't like his laughter. He didn't have a pretty wife and he didn't make nice speeches. And in America we must have Style.

I doubt if an undecided voter takes the trouble to log onto this site and sift through all the comments. I have a feeling they don't. And I don't have the Audacity of Hope to believe I can make any impression on those who love Obama. But try I must.

Yes we can vote substance over shine!
Yes we can.

Posted by: vishalg_99 | February 4, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes - You conservaives can stay home. Please do. You brought us Bush-Cheney. For that, you ought to cease voting forever. As for McCain vs. Clinton, McCain will win due to overwhelming Democratic and Independent support alone, thank you very much. If you go around reading these forums at all, you will see comment after comment by normal Democartic voters that they will not vote for Clinton but will vote for McCain.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 4, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I see zouk has nothing to do all day, as usual. Was just listening to rush limbaugh -- what a pleasure to hear them throwing such a tantrum. Boo-hoo, the republiccan party is 'moving to the left' wiht McCain, giving up on core conservative beliefs [like that the earth is flat and there's no such thing as climate change, etc]. So he plays a clip of McCain in Massachusetts saying he was going to reach across the aisle and work with Democrats and Rush cited all the pieces of legislation that McCain has cosponsored with Dems and said, 'if the party leåders think that conservatives are going to take this, they are wrong. I would rather they lose to teach them a lesson than give up my principles.'

So then he had a bunch of callins saying they would never vote for McCain, ever. In many of their minds, McCain is as bad as any Democrat because he works with them. So will their hatred of McCain outwight their hatred of Hillary?

I guess we won't know until McCain locks it up tomorrow and see what they sya then.

Posted by: drindl | February 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes - I do not find your petulant spoiled child approach to this election useful. no matter what, McCain would be better than billary or Obambi. there are federal life-serving judges at stake, nationalized health care, losing a war. etc.

now I can's stand Mccain either, but I can stand uber Libs wagging their finger at me even less.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

KingofZouk: you are back posting!!

Now that you are here, can you please answer the question I keep putting to you: why, if - as you stated repeatedly - Guiliani was the best candidate to keep America safe, did your fellow GOP members reject him so soundly, even in Florida? What do you think their careful reasoning was?

Posted by: anthonyrimell | February 4, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"Monday February 4, 2008 08:32 EST
Republicans have become the credibility-free party
(updated below)

Substantial attention has been paid to the historic unpopularity of the Bush presidency, but relatively little attention has been paid to the accompanying collapse of the Republican Party's credibility. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll reveals that Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans to handle every issue of any significance, including -- by a now fairly wide margin -- "the U.S. campaign against terrorism":
"

glen greenwald.

Like on this blog. Accountability and credibility do not matter to the gop. Only propoganda. But what happens when propoganda is shown as such? does the propogater then lose credibility? In a normal world yes. Not in dittohead la-la land.

the gop is done. their lack of accountability and credibility did this. not obama or the media or the terrorists or the judges or teachers. The gop destroyed themselves with lack of accountaiblity and credibility. Like on this blog, they show you that these are not their goals. In such they show they cannot be trusted.

Do not fear or pity the fascists for the irrelevacne they have earned. They made their bed, as did the sell-out moderate dem's. Do not pander to the traitors. MArginalize them and point them out. That is the only way to save our country. We must save it from te fascists and fascism.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | February 4, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Cltinon is unelectable. In Europe, which usually leads U.S. opinion by 6 months or so, the headline from Germany's leading newspaper:
"The US presidential election campaign is becoming more heated, fiercer and grotesque. In the final spurt before Super Tuesday, the candidates are invoking the memories of their parties' legendary figures, Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. Meanwhile, the Clintons are invoking memories of -- the Clintons."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,532909,00.html

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 4, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

HRC is by far the weakest candidate, she would unify Republicans if Romney was our Nominee. If McCain is our nominee, it will not matter who the dems nominate because we conservatives are going to stay home, therebt throwing the election to the dems. Unlike McCain, at least their honest about being liberals.

Posted by: vbhoomes | February 4, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

There are a lot of variables that could happen over the summer months, so it is hard to say who is the most electable, but based solely on their records, demonstrated leadership and positions, it is going to be tough to beat McCain by either Dem - but I agree with the Clinton camp that they have the edge.

If the sole credential that Obama is going to rely on is judgment - (and he was correct to voice his opposition to the Iraq war) - he has many more examples of his judgment that the Republicans are not going to be as timid as the Dem's have been about bringing up - and in the crucial Midwest swing states (MI, WI, IA, MN, and especially OH) as well as putting FL,PA and NY into play by nominating McCain, an Obama nomination could spell disaster for what should have been a walk in the park for Democrats to reclaim the Whitehouse.

If they are going to nominate the Senator with the most liberal voting record, who has an admitted drug use history, hails from the most corrupt state and city in the nation and did nothing to change the corrupted politics practiced in IL, and is going to be easily painted as weak on defense after stating that our heroes who sacrificed their lives 'wasted' their lives and now is denying any progress in Iraq.

Obama could well turn out to have the poorest showing in a general election since Mondale.

The Rezko trial is going to have an effect - mark my words. Veterans all over the Midwest will campaign in neighboring states behind McCain - including Democratic Vets who helped Kerry but will not show up for Obama. Early prediction (and hoping nothing deteriorates further in Pakistan) I would say McCain 55 - Obama 45 (if something does happen in Pakistan swap 5 % points)

Clinton's saving grace is her service on the Armed service committee, her votes on the Iraq war (despite the current grief she is getting from the liberal left), and a vastly superior proposal on Veteran Benefits - but I fear she would still come up short against McCain due to higher turn out by the Republican base voting against her.

Posted by: clawrence35 | February 4, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

judge- thanks. that's interesting. I expect that the Clinton campaign, on Wed AM will regret the strategy of targeting only the large-delegate states.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"Again both Obama and Clinton will win against McCain."

Really? Give us the gift of your phenomenal ability to predict the future and provide us with some winning stock tips. Should I back out of my Indian software mutual fund or stick with it?

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

February 4, 2008 -- Bill Clinton just can't seem to keep his sleazy private dealings out of the news: This time, it's a 2005 dinner he shared with a wealthy mining mogul and Kazakhstan's president, after which the businessman wound up with a coveted contract in that country.
The sordid story - about Clinton's meal with Kazakh strongman Nursultan Nazarbayev and UrAsia Energy Ltd. head Frank Giustra - ran on the front page of Thursday's New York Times.

Reporters Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. deserve kudos: They describe how Clinton praised the Kazakh dictator, absurdly, for "opening up the social and political life of your country" and suggesting his nation lead Europe's chief security agency - which would confer legitimacy on Nazarbayev's regime.

They also recount how Giustra, at the time a newcomer to uranium mining, won a deal with Kazakhstan to buy into three of its uranium projects - just two days after the dinner.

And how Giustra, after letting a few months pass, gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation - and later pledging another $100 million.

Now, it would be unseemly enough if Clinton were merely trading on his credentials as a former US president to raise funds, be they for his foundation or personal bank account.

But with his wife, Hillary Clinton, serving as a US senator and running for president, any such fund-raising prompts serious questions about conflicts of interest and influence-peddling.

It's absolutely unacceptable.

The Clintons must decide:

* Will he give up his wheeling and dealing - and any activity that creates questionable appearances?

* Will he sever his relations to the foundation, and to business enterprises to which he's been linked? (He's already begun to do the latter.)

* Will he at least disclose the names of his foundation's donors, so the public can judge his shenanigans for itself?

* Will Hillary step out of the public arena? (Fat chance, for awhile anyway.)

* Or will the pair simply continue indulging in the same sleazy behavior that has marked their political lives from the start?

We think we know what they'll do.

We think you do, too.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/02042008/postopinion/editorials/can_the_clintons_change__549582.htm

As Cher used to say - "and the beat goes on"


Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

peterdc, your posts here and at The Trail read like campaign literature from HRC.

Though I must admit; I'm curious. Please do share the details of her involvement in this trade deal in Macedonia & bringing peace to North Ireland. I'm all ears!

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Blogger Jason George reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton had another teary moment this morning, this time in New Haven, Conn. Tears served Clinton well leading up to the New Hampshire primary. George, who writes "The Swamp" blog for the Tribune Co.'s Washington Bureau, reports that a doctor who was introducing Clinton began to choke up, which led to Clinton's eyes filling with tears. The tears apparently followed a reference to Clinton's youthful fashion choices.


I might lose to Obambi - boo hoo

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

OK, I have a question? How can we even have a debate about electability when the Press has failed to define exactly who Barack Obama is? To this point, HE and his supporters have told us what they want us to know. Wonder what the Republicans have?

Anyone who took this poll and said he was more electable has obviously bought into the media hype that IS Barack Obama.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 4, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

eric1970 writes
"Obama and Clinton are tied in a new CBS News poll, 41%-41%, though Clinton leads 49%-31% among those who live in Feb. 5 states."

Eric, be careful what conclusions you draw from that data set. The poll was taken nationally, after weighting there were 472 Dem respondents. When you segment the results by which state respondents live in, you're splitting the sample into a potentially invalid (i.e. too small) size. Statistically, you can draw conclusions within a regional margin of error for the whole sample that cannot be made for subsets of the sample.

In short, we don't know how many people they sampled in the Feb 5 states, so it is not statistically valid to claim that HRC has a particular lead there with any reasonable level of confidence. If they had a sample size of 400+ in the Feb 5 states, the results would be more conclusive.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I think the fight about electability is not one we need to have. I believe that either Clinton or Obama can beat McCain.

I think the real issue is who will make the best President and who can show us that by what they have done in their lives till now.

That is where there is no comparison. Clinton has a record of making a difference for people from her work with the Children's Defense Fund, Legal Aid, changing the struture of Education in Arkansas, helping to negotiate treaties in Masadonia and peace in Northern Ireland, speaking out for women in Beijing and then passing relevant legislation in Congress including providing for health care for reservists.

Obama on the other hand has basically had a career to promote himself from one elected office to the next. He takes positions as to not hurt his chance at the next job as he did with over 130 "present" votes in the Illinois State legislature. His prime accomplishment in the Senate he claimed was his ethics reform which was lambasted as having really only made lawmakers stand instead of sit when they were taking money and food from lobbyists.

I like Obama, and he is inspiring but in a world in crisis, we need someone who will role up their sleeves and get to work on day one effectively. I don't want to hear more speeches I want to see the work being done.

Lofty rhetoric will only go so far. JFK was a true war hero and had 14 years in Congress and King led a movement and died for it at a younger age than Obama is now.

Obama came out against the war but Cindy Sheehan has done more than Obama to stop it. Only today are we beginning to see some questions on Obama legislation on gun control and nuclear energy and how he cow-towed to lobbyists on that bill and then never even got it passed.

Again both Obama and Clinton will win against McCain. Let's elect the person who can do the job now and that is Clinton.

Posted by: peterdc | February 4, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and Beni, GA is likely to break for BHO in a big way so your post is doubly (at least) unconvincing.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon: sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. From washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020303109_2.html?hpid=sec-politics

"If the overall outcome [of Feb. 5] is a muddle, as both campaigns increasingly expect, Obama aides see a playing field heavily skewed in their favor in the next round of contests. Three states hold contests on Saturday: Louisiana, which has a large African American population, and Washington and Nebraska, which are both caucus states. Obama appears to hold the advantage in all of them, aides said, a point that Clinton advisers did not dispute.

Obama also expects to win the Maine caucuses on Sunday, and his campaign anticipates that Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia will all break for him on Feb. 12. Clinton strategists plan on having her campaign in all of those contests but are banking on big victories on March 4 in Ohio and Texas."

So after tomorrow it'll likely be a string of bad news for HRC until March 4. Not sure if her current lead in the polls in OH and TX will withstand the onslaught of BHO wins to come. Certainly those voters will take a second or third look at him in the interim. BHO tends to grow on you. I'd certainly expect some erosion here in OH but who knows how much? Does TX have a reservoir of African-Americans who don't normally vote? OH certainly does.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Polling over the past month largely has Obama beating McCain by 1-5 points, and Clinton losing to McCain by 1-5 points.

Obama offers a clearer contrast, will get a greater share of independants, and can inspire millions of new voters--changing the electoral map and carving the way for a working Dem majority.

Posted by: sacred_ray | February 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

You're right about McCain not losing mountain conservatives. Although, because of the coincidental overlap of mountain Republicans and the Mormon Church, Romney is going to sweep these states. He's going to win Utah with around 80% support (new poll from Utah came out a few days ago) because Utah is so dense with Mormons you'd never believe. Idaho is extremely dense as well, though it has a much smaller population. Romney is going to win Idaho, Utah, Montana, already won Wyoming and Nevada - not because of the conservative vote but because of the Mormon vote. It's going to cut into McCain's strongest base - mountain state Republicans. it's just bad luck he's against a Mormon this time around.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 4, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

http://theblackamericandiscussion.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-hillary-clinton-must-be-44th.html

Political pundits are forever speaking about presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton's (D-NY) divisiveness and her high "negatives" with the electorate. They think that if she is the Democratic presidential nominee that she cannot win in the general election in November. The pundits are entitled to their opinion and we (The Black American Discussion) are entitled to vigorously disagree with the pundits. We think that those who respect Senator Clinton and realize that she has the right demeanor and skill set to hit the ground running on January 20, 2009 (inaugural day) will come out in historical numbers to support her candidacy and in turn with her election as the 44th president of the United States of America, help our nation to reclaim a place of earned esteem in the world community, to create a fair and workable border and immigration policy, and to work through the mortgage crisis and reignite our economy.

Both Senator Clinton and her husband the former President Bill Clinton do engender strong negative emotions with those on the far right. When Bill Clinton was elected president n 1992, the conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for many months began his radio show program by purporting that this is another day that America was held hostage. But the fact was the President Clinton had been elected in an electoral landslide and the conservatives like Limbaugh just were having a major case of sour grapes. All throughout what we hope will in the future be termed as the first President Clinton's term of office the conservatives stayed on the prowl, looking for any reason to attack; although we were then a nation at peace, held in high regard throughout the world, the economy was healthy with the growth of jobs (both entry level and jobs for experienced workers) exceeding job seekers.

Conservatives hate the Clintons, like the devil hates holy water; because they are fundamentally good people at heart who want the best for America as a nation and not solely the best for a select group of Americans that represent selfish corporate interests (Halliburton comes to mind). We believe that like Senator Clinton that Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) too is a good human being and wants the best for our nation. Surely, Senator Obama is worthy of respect and offers wonderful oratory that instills hope for the future of America at a time when America under the Bush-Cheney regime is a "hot elitist mess" for the masses; while the privileged few misuse American soldiers and the American people for their own purposes.

We are looking forward to Mr. Obama's continued leadership in the Senate or better yet as a Vice President in a second Clinton White House; but we think that he is not the best candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination at this time.

Senator Clinton is vetted in withstanding the ugly attacks from the far right. She has twice won election to the US Senate from New York and she has worked across the aisle and is an effective Senator for the people of New York State. Senator Obama currently has not experienced the full thrust of these vicious attacks, because he has not been a strong enough foe of of the far right. Should he prevail, he will have to become "Clinton tough" to withstand their certain attacks.

Senator Clinton knows how to stand her ground, fight back, and win against the conservatives. Senator Obama and his supporters though well intentioned are naïve if they think that outstanding oratory and a good feeling reminiscent of the JFK era and Camelot are enough to bridge the gulf that separates conservative zealots and the rest of us, who are the true majority of America.

We are pleased with the diversity in race, class, and gender that the three strongest 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton, Obama, and former Senator John Edwards (D-SC) represent and we hope that their viable candidacies will not be an anomaly; but instead that we have witnessed a watershed moment and that Democratic candidates for all offices in all states will forever better reflect the people of the United States.

Senator Clinton deserves the support of voters on Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008 and for the remainder of the primaries. Moreover, she can win against any GOP candidate in the fall as long as we believe that she can win, and then come out and support her in large numbers.

America needs strong medicine to heal its wounds from the current administration and the strong and seasoned leadership Senator Hillary Clinton is exactly what American voters must order.

Beni Dakar
Duluth, GA

Posted by: wedaconnectionmoderator | February 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Here is something odd about the polling.

Obama and Clinton are tied in a new CBS News poll, 41%-41%, though Clinton leads 49%-31% among those who live in Feb. 5 states.

So Obama is close nationally but that includes states that do not vote tomorrow. You look at these states only Hillary is up by 18%.

Posted by: ericr1970 | February 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

One more point on immigrants and English

I have read somewhere that over 90% of 20th century second generation immigrants learned to speak English fluently.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 4, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"The polarization of speech is subsiding. Only 10 percent of second-generation Hispanics speak only Spanish;"

Zouk

This is typical of most waves of immigration in our history. A majority of the first generation do not learn English well, but their children do. My father is a retired pharmacist and he worked in an area with a large immigrant population over 20 years ago. Many times he would communicate with immigrant customers via a child translating.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

zouk would certainly know about losers, having been a strong Giuliani backer.

Posted by: Spectator2 | February 4, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Cris - What you said supports my contention that between the Mississippi and the Cascades HRC is a liability to Ds.

I also think that McC will not be losing conservative votes in the mountains. Your view?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Considering how much the press and people close to Obama say that Hillary is polarizing and Obama can bring people together the fact that her favorables are higher than his and his unfavorables are higher than hers perhaps they should refer to this study a little more.

Posted by: ericr1970 | February 4, 2008 01:41 PM

That poll was among Democrats - Hillary has extremely high negatives among independents and Republicans. Elections are won by the candidate who can attract the most independents. In a McCain- Clinton race, McCain will get most of the independents.

Furthermore, the Republicans are dispirited and a significant number of them are underwhelmed, to say the least, about McCain. It is quite likely that many Republicans will be inclined to sit on their hands this election. However, Republicans are apoplectic about Hillary Clinton. The one thing that can rouse the Republican base is an opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: jimd52 | February 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

that the GOP will chew Barack up the way that they chewed up other candidates like Dukakis, Kerry, Gore?"

Posted by: inonit | February 4, 2008 02:04 PM

More like hoisted on their own petard. Lib policies are losers. Get it through your head, the country is not interested in being ruled by money seeking despots, interested in controlling every aspect of our lives.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Mark, to be honest, I don't know. I don't talk politics with enough MA natives to know whether they're falling for the electability argument. Many of my friends aren't even registered to vote in this state. I talked to someone the other day who said she liked Hillary but thinks she wouldn't be able to govern well, because she's so hated by much of the country. But that friend is originally from Austin. So I really don't know what people in my state think.

Posted by: Blarg | February 4, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

JD -

I think that the momentum swing is already in effect, and the polls are notoriously slow at capturing momentum. Look at South Carolina - the pendulum started swinging toward Obama in the polls, but on the ground it was a week behind by the time caucus day came. He was up by 11% in the polls and won by 28%. The same is going to happen in many, many other states. He's going to win the midwest and the mountain states by stupid margins. I live in Idaho and he's going to take our state by 20-30%, guaranteed. Same goes for places like North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, etc.

Just watch.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Bad news for drindl, Obambi and Billary, things look good:

A number of social indicators, both national and international, suggest that doom-and-gloom criers have never been more wrong than they are today. Prospect, a liberal magazine, and Commentary, a conservative journal, find cheerful cultural trends and challenge predictions of downward slides foreseeing an America weak and demoralized. In a number of key categories of crime, teenage drug use, abortion, educational achievement and welfare rolls, the statistics are positive. The dark diagnoses and gloomy speculations of a decade ago are rendered wrong (and wrong-headed).


The polarization of speech is subsiding. Only 10 percent of second-generation Hispanics speak only Spanish; almost half of second-generation Hispanics speak no Spanish at all. Not all unforeseen consequences are bad. The Economist magazine goes further in qualified optimism, looking past the forecasts of economic uncertainty to discover a world that is "unexpectedly prosperous and peaceful." The men and women who go to bed hungry or who are brutalized by tyrannical regimes can't sup on statistics, of course, but "the world seems to be in rather better shape than most people realize." Many more people have access to clean water, for example. In South Asia the numbers of those who must drink dirty water have been cut in half over two decades.

As a consequence, child mortality is down dramatically. UNICEF, the United Nations organization that tracks child welfare worldwide, reports that in 2007, for the first time in modern history, fewer than 10 million children died before the age of five. The death of any child is a tragedy and these deaths have declined by 25 percent. Literacy is on the rise; now nine-tenths of those between the ages of 15 and 25 can read and write.

While one explanation does not fit every change for good, Congress is entitled to some of the credit. "The 1996 welfare-reform bill was the most dramatic and successful social innovation in decades, reversing 60 years of federal policy that had long since grown not just useless but positively counterproductive," write Peter Wehner and Yuval Levin, fellows at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in Commentary magazine. The dire predictions that welfare reform would merely accelerate the spread of poverty have been proved wrong, wrong, wrong. Poverty declined.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080204/EDITORIAL02/139723764/1013&template=nextpage


Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

JD asks
"Does anyone else here feel that if Super Tuesday were actually *a week from tomorrow*, instead of tomorrow, that Barack would crush HRC, instead of the likely toss-up?"

Hard to say. If I weren't a political junkie checking in here & elsewhere on a regular basis, I wouldn't know much about whats going on. We've received a sum total of ZERO phone calls or mailings on attending the caucuses. The TV coverage is pitiful, covering the horserace primarily, and relative attendences of events secondly. Policy positions? Not on your life. The TV ads we see are for Obama, Franken or Ciresi. None for HRC, McCain, Romney or Huck. Yard signs: Ron Paul & Obama.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Clinton and Obama each have an electability argument, and both are using them. Obama's is that he appeals better to Republicans and independents. I buy Obama's over Hillary's, but I concede I could be wrong (it is true that it will be difficult for the GOP to "define" Hillary as she is already well-known).

The interesting part for me, though, is that this electability argument parallels the whole hope-vs.-fear argument in the whole campaign. Obama's hopeful argument is "I can change how this hostile politics works, and attract GOP voters, even as the GOP attack machine does its worst. I want you to believe -- to *hope* -- that it doesn't have to be the way it's been (with Kerry, Gore)."

Hillary's is "I've already withstood the worst they can throw at me. Do you really want to take the risk -- do you not *fear* -- that the GOP will chew Barack up the way that they chewed up other candidates like Dukakis, Kerry, Gore?"

Posted by: inonit | February 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"I know HRC's electability argument does not work in TX and OK and CO and I think, the plains, the mountain west, and the southwest. I gave her the benefit of the doubt in a blue state on the assumption that partisan Ds would be more comfy with the same-old."

My father-in-law called Sat night, after attending the HRC event in Tucson. He was enthused about the event, which was apparently well attended. He's a long-time Democrat, though has respect for Jim Ramstad (moderate Repub in whose district my FIL used to live) and McCain (who is now my FILs Senator). Meanwhile, here in Minneapolis Obama had a packed-house event on Saturday; the 15000 reserved seats 'sold out' in 24 hrs; though I'm told they didn't turn anyone away, so I don't know the total attendance. I happened to bike by with some friends, the crowd lined up to enter (blocks and blocks long) was very enthused. HRC had an event her last night at a smaller college, which implies a smaller crowd.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Will voters be convinced... that Hillary is really a humanoid?

You know what they say. The problem with a milking cow is it won't stay milked.

Which, now that I write it, sounds like an unfortunate knock on Hillary when it's really meant to be a metaphor for winning over women voters. Which, now that I write it, sounds like an unfortunate knock on women voters.

But I digress. Point is, she had to go back to the well on the crying thing. It worked with women last time, and voters who are just tuning in had to get a snapshot of "human," "emotive" Hillary just in time for tomorrow:

Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.
A doctor, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye.

At the time, the doctor was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

Hopefully we're not "on the path" to another clinton administration.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 4, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else here feel that if Super Tuesday were actually *a week from tomorrow*, instead of tomorrow, that Barack would crush HRC, instead of the likely toss-up?

It seems that he has all the mo', and HRC is looking more and more unattractive (as a candidate) all the time. Thankfully, Bill STFU, but with that buffoon, it's just a matter of time.

And the 'electability' issue is very surprising: judging from the comments on this blog and others, it seems like many many Ds actually hate HRC almost as much as the Rs do. Maybe not bad enough to vote for McCain (or Mitt), but surely bad enough to stay home, which keeps the Whitehouse red.

I detect no similar level of Barack-hatred among the HRC-lovers.

Posted by: JD | February 4, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

what we can continue to expect from the Dems:

Hensarling Hits Pelosi over Earmarks [David Freddoso]


From a statement by Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.):

"When it comes to earmarks, Democrats act like a pig that eats from two troughs. They failed to live up to promises to cut the number of taxpayer funded earmarks in half. Democrats broke promises to bring greater transparency to the process and instead attempted to keep earmarks hidden from the view of the taxpayers who fund them. Not to be outdone by her caucus, Speaker Pelosi tells reporters that she'd personally get rid of all earmarks while remaining one of the largest earmarkers in the House - and that is saying something."

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

clinton 3 or carter 2

would you rather cut off your finger or your toe?

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, I live in a red state, bsimon and optimyst live in purples, and you live in the bluest of the blue. I know HRC's electability argument does not work in TX and OK and CO and I think, the plains, the mountain west, and the southwest. I gave her the benefit of the doubt in a blue state on the assumption that partisan Ds would be more comfy with the same-old. You are a blue stater. Is her argument likely to resonate with voters in the Bay State?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

A year after the American troop surge in Iraq began, its success is clear, even to Newsweek, the Washington Post, and Rep. John Murtha. As Wesley Morgan details in the current issue of National Review, violence is way down, American troop levels are decreasing, tribal leaders are casting their lot with America, and a tattered al-Qaeda is on the run. Yet most leading Democrats sound like they haven't heard the news.


On the anniversary of the surge, Harry Reid wrote that "as President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, Al Qaeda only grows stronger." After Bush's State of the Union Address last week, Hillary Clinton said, "President Bush is not satisfied with failure after failure in Iraq; he wants to bind the next president to his failed strategy . . .," while Barack Obama's assessment was: "Tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that's just not true." During Thursday night's debate at the Kodak theater, conservative radio host Michael Graham asked in frustration, "Do these two U.S. senators have any idea what's actually happening in Iraq?"

Are they simply clueless?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWQ2MGNmMzg0YTMxZGIwYjA4N2M4NjI4YTZkMTQ3MzY=

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is still fighting the battles of the 90s, it's all about her and Bill.

Obama moves us forward, away from the Billary divisivness.

Nothing will unite the currently fractured GOP like a Hillary nomination.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | February 4, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

thecrisis writes
"Clinton is all of the opposite. No support from moderates. Hated by Republicans. Can't win Independents over from McCain."

Her only hope is that conservatives like McCain less than they hate her. Will they stay home in disgust of both, or drag themselves to the polls to at least try to keep her out? Lylepink, what do you think? You've claimed that they are biasing the primaries by voting for Dems in order to stop HRC early. When it comes to the general, will they vote for a Republican they don't like over a Dem they hate or stay home and let the chips fall where they may?

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

One argument that rarely comes up on the question of democratic electability is the sheer numbers game of attracting voters.

Clinton, while perhaps better able to combat McCain on issues of national security (assuming that that is the focus of the general election and not the economy or a personal scandal within one of the big two campaigns), simply appeals to a smaller percentage of the voter pool than McCain. VERY very few Republicans are going to vote Hillary and most are going to feel more motivated to go out and vote for McCain if she runs. As a result McCain, who can pull independents and moderates like nobody's business but has trouble with the conservative wing of his party (such as Coulter to name only one), suddenly receives an influx of support from conservative GOP voters. In the final result, McCain pulls his own party and independents and possibly some Democratic moderates. Hillary pulls only a part of her own party (the moderate to liberal wing). Unless there's an incredibly high turnout among that part of the electorate, McCain wins.

If McCain runs against Obama, the situation is reversed. Obama has great cross-over appeal (witness the recent Eisenhower endorsement) and is popular among Democratic blue-staters (Kennedy endorsement[s]) and red-staters (Nelson, Kaine, Napolitano endorsements) alike. He can compete with McCain for independents and he has the respect if not the support of many conservative Republican figures. McCain is left with a battle for independents and moderates of his own party and an un-energized Conservative base that seems unlikely to get very excited in their opposition to an Obama nomination. Barring a huge personal scandal on Obama's part or a national security event of enormous magnitude (as in another terrorist attack on the US), Obama wins.

Posted by: Tgsprank | February 4, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

seems a sound arguemnt to make for anyone left undecided at this late date and there wouldn't be a need now to pitch to the decideds - and hasn't Obama been making this same arguemtn all along?

Posted by: tonysmith | February 4, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

From Pollster.com

If you pay attention to nothing else, remember this: As in New Hampshire, a lot of Democrats are having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. According to the Pew Research Center, both candidates now receive overwhelmingly positive ratings from Democrats:
• Clinton: 80% favorable, 15% unfavorable
• Obama: 76% favorable, 16% unfavorable
•
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/february_5_polls_four_cautions.php

Considering how much the press and people close to Obama say that Hillary is polarizing and Obama can bring people together the fact that her favorables are higher than his and his unfavorables are higher than hers perhaps they should refer to this study a little more.

Posted by: ericr1970 | February 4, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama is leaps and bounds ahead of Clinton in terms of electability. Why? Republicans don't hate him and Independents love him. An Obama v. McCain ticket will leave Republicans at home - they don't like McCain and don't hate Obama so they'll just sit this one out - and Independents will go to Obama because he's the "change" Independent. Plus liberals and Democrats love him because he's optimistic and hopeful.

Clinton is all of the opposite. No support from moderates. Hated by Republicans. Can't win Independents over from McCain.

Give Obama a chance. He'll win the presidency and do great things for the United States.

Posted by: thecrisis | February 4, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"I seem to remember Rudy saying much the same thing a month or two back."

Couldn't have been Rudy, '9/11' didn't appear in the sentence.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

And I seem to recall you believing him. What's your point?

Posted by: Blarg | February 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Barack Obama has erased Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead among Democrats nationally, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll out Monday. The two are in a virtual tie, with Obama at 49 percent and Clinton at 46 percent.

The survey represents a dramatic turnaround in the race from a few months ago when Clinton had a significant edge over Obama.

With 1681 delegates up for grab, what Candidate do you believe will accumulate the most delegates on Super Tuesday?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1693

.

Posted by: PollM | February 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"So we're left with Hillary repeating that she's electable without a shred of evidence to support that"

I seem to remember Rudy saying much the same thing a month or two back.

Posted by: kingofzouk | February 4, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

optimyst says
"[How] odd that the electability question by pollsters between Clinton and Obama is posed to democrats. Isn't the one most electable s/he who appeals most to independents and republicans. Why would democratic voters have any insight into that?"

I agree. The partisans, of both parties, that are most likely to participate in party events (i.e. closed primaries & caucuses) are least likely to be able to pick the most electable candidate(s).

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Another stupid non-argument from the Hillary campaign. She says that she's most likely to win. Why? What's the basis for that assertion? Is it her claim that she has "strength and experience"? Because those are also vague assertions with nothing to back them up.

If you're going to make an electability argument, make it. Say something like "A lot of people will not vote for a person of my opponent's race/gender, so I'm more likely to win." Or "I have appeal in areas not traditionally won by our party, which will give us an advantage." Or "Everybody knows who I am, so uninformed voters will recognize my name and pick me." Those are real statements about a candidate's electability.

But of course no candidate would say such things. It's rude to talk about politics in such stark, realistic terms. That's for pundits and journalists, not the candidates themselves. So we're left with Hillary repeating that she's electable without a shred of evidence to support that. And the sad thing is that so many voters buy it.

Posted by: Blarg | February 4, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

judgecrater writes
"Based on my reading of the upcoming primaries, HRC will see a few bright spots emerge tomorrow which will be followed by a string of losses until March 4."

A comment like that deserves - requires - more details. Whaddya got? My back-of-the-napkin calcs say that if Obama is competitive in the big states where HRC is focusing, and wins convincingly in the red states where HRC is not, he will come out ahead.

Posted by: bsimon | February 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

You think your taxes are high NOW? --------------- Read This and cry ---------- http://www.electionnews2008.com/National%20Taxpayers%20Union%20Only%20Paul%20Would%20Cut%20Spending.htm

Posted by: acsht | February 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

It strikes me as odd that the electability question by pollsters between Clinton and Obama is posed to democrats. Isn't the one most electable s/he who appeals most to independents and republicans. Why would democratic voters have any insight into that?

I know pollsters are smart in designing their poll questions. Why do they miss the boat on this seemingly simple concept?

Posted by: optimyst | February 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary's negatives are fully factored in, whereas the same cannot be said of Senator Obama because he is -- by his own admission -- not as well known."

Neither is he as well hated by the R base. On that note, Clinton's UNelectability is far higher than Obama's. The 'experience' argument is largely cr*p because HRC's "experience by osmosis" wouldn't stand up to review on a NORMAL person's resume. Factually, they are about equal in terms of direct political experience. And, finally, in comparison to McCain they are both babes in the wood when it comes to experience. Hardly a compelling argument for being most likely to defeat McCain.

Based on my reading of the upcoming primaries, HRC will see a few bright spots emerge tomorrow which will be followed by a string of losses until March 4.

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Crowd sizes and "new" voters favor BHO on electability, generally.

The sense that HRC is a down ticket problem in purple and red states seems pervasive in the southwest, plains, and mountain west.
---------------------------------------
Does HRC make this argument in blue states?
Perhaps she has an advantage in blue states.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | February 4, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company