Go Mitt! (0.00 / 0)

He's gold now, baby.  Gold!

---

by: Patrickson @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:15:19 PM CST

Chris, what do you make... (0.00 / 0)

of the disparity in national polling on the Dem side?  Some polls are saying it's a ten or fifteen point race, while others are saying it's virtually tied.

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:16:40 PM CST

I gues I usually assume (0.00 / 0)

that the truth is somewhere in between, and that the differences are a combination of statistical noise and selection of poll particpants.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:42:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough. (0.00 / 0)

It just seems like the gap is significantly larger than usual.  I would love to see some of the guys over a pollster.com take a look at this question, especially with an eye towards the relationship between the demographics of the respondents and the demographics of Feb 5th voters... 

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:49:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rasmussen reports (0.00 / 0)

on most of the States in question and in their tracking poll they put the odds at a 59.2% chance of Clinton as Democratic Nominee. Clinton has pretty sizable leads in Florida and California - both huge delegate rich states.

Obama may win S.Carolina with it's Black Democrat vote and even Nevada but there are not many delegates there and a good second showing in each will not hurt her with her constituencies moving forward. Rasmussen has Clinton gaining ground in S.Carolina.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 18:12:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

I guess that's a 59.2% chance that I'll bail the party.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 18:20:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah yeah (0.00 / 0)

People said that when Dean lost too. Nobody left the party. Where are you going to go?  Besides Clinton has an impressive and verifiable Progressive record and beats the hell out of having a Republican in office. What are you and the others who talk like you going to do - not vote and let a republican win.

You owe it to your country to keep the Republicans out of office.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 18:32:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can we postpone this discussion until... (0.00 / 0)

the nominee is decided?  There are a lot of people on the Left who are justifiably upset about Senator Clinton for various reasons.  Sometimes, they talk about bolting the Party if she is chosen as the nominee, mostly for rhetorical effect if you ask me. 

Why not wait until the nominees are chosen, and we can actually say: "Would you rather have X candidate in the White House, or would you rather have Y candidate?"  We can then actually talk about their records, their stances, the people they surround themselves with, etc.  It is hard to make the lesser of two evils argument when the choice remains merely hypothetical... 

Incidentally, the above analysis of the polls doesn't actually answer my question about poll samples. 

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 18:54:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

I don't see the choice between a Democrat or a Republican President as hypothetical anything. Maybe you do but I never will. Especially because I already know the options the Republican candidates offer so regardless of who they nominate voting for Clinton should be a no brainer for any Democrat.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 19:56:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The rhetoric sounds good... (0.00 / 0)

but you aren't addressing my point.  It IS a 'hypothetical' that /Clinton/ (rather than Obama or Edwards) will be the Democratic nominee.  That is my point.  Some may like to imagine that the nomination has already been granted to her, but in fact, this is not the case.

If she does get the nomination, we will have at least six months to make the case to disaffected (ex-)Dems that she is better than the Republican nominee.  It would NOT be a hard case to make, IMO.  (i.e. if McCain were the nominee, I'd say: McCain is anti-choice and says he has no problem with the US staying in Iraq for 100 years... nuf said).  If anything, your defensiveness on this question betrays a lack of confidence that makes your position appear less solid, and raises more questions than it puts to rest.

 

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 20:36:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Baxically I Have No Problem (0.00 / 0)

with postponing the "what should progressives do if HRC wins" until we see who the nominee is because I have already made my choice.  I wont support HRC against anyone.  In my opinion-and its just an opinion-HRC has purposefully used racially motivated tactics to beat Obama.  I understand that many sincere progressives do not believe she or her surrogates have done this.  And I know that I will never convince them that several of her campaign's statements were racially motivated and they will never convince me that they were not.  And I simply will not under any circumstances vote for an individual who panders to racists in order to defeat an African American.

And no, this statement is not made for "effect."  In fact, I am sure it will change the mind of no one and I only state this here because I disagree that such statements are made for "rhetorical effect."

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 21:54:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm not going to be baited into a conversation here (0.00 / 0)

because, as I said above, I think it is a waste of energy and emotion at this stage.  She may not be the nominee.  If she is, we will all have months to hash all of this out...

---

by: seabrook @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:51:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're absolutely (0.00 / 0)

right.  You will change no minds like that.

---

by: RalphB @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:55:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm sick of being scolded into taking the rapist to the prom. (0.00 / 1)

If Clinton won, I would walk away along with many others. Millions will not vote; thousands and maybe millions will vote third party.

I've said it before: Clinton will run a campaign like one of Dianne Feinstein's early statewide CA races: go negative early and completely, depress turnout massively, sling mud in every direction and hope the nuclear exchange damages McCain more.

To nominate Clinton is to willfully embrace that kind of general campaign, and to deliberately turn off millions of populists in favor of a few thousand swing-state seniors.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 19:15:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well OK (0.00 / 0)

But in my book you are not a real Democrat which is OK if that is what you chose. But don't ever call yourself a Democrat if you would bolt the Party and risk installing a Republican in the WH because of your personal feelings on Clinton or any other Democratic nominee.

Clinton has a great Progressive rating but some people don't want to see that because they just don't want to.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 20:00:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah ... like votes on AUMF .. (0.00 / 0)

real progressive record she has .. I don't trust a scorecard where she gets higher "Progressive" rankings than Feingold

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 21:48:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Democrats are still nominating the wrong candidates ... (0.00 / 0)

then maybe things need to get worse before they can get better.

I can call myself a Democrat now, because I am one in every sense. Is that a lifelong pledge of loyalty to the person of Hillary Clinton? No. The Democratic Party is/was supposed to serve several vital political goals, upon which my support and membership is conditional. I can abide failure, but when the party starts to fight in the wrong direction, I can't stick around just for the sake of being on the winning side. This isn't pro football: we expect dividends from our team's victory. Howard Dean pulled me into the party in 2003; if the party decides they now want to court the corporate-defined "centrists" I'm not going to hold the umbrella.

I reject the notion that Hillary Clinton is somehow progressive. If she is, then the word has become as hopeless and meaningless as "freedom." She's for exporting jobs and warfare, and for the dismantling of the New Deal.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 21:57:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I say Amen (0.00 / 0)

Ig she is the nominee, I will not vote in the GE

---

by: BDM @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:29:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where to go? (0.00 / 0)

To use a Clintonish phrase, that dog won't hunt anymore. If my choice of viable candidates is between a Republican and a Republican, I will choose to vote for a third party again.

---

by: shaej @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 19:36:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clinton is no republican (0.00 / 0)

Go see her progressive rating at Progressive Punch and come back and tell me she is not in the top 10 of Liberals in the Senate. You people are ridiculous sticking your head in the sand over her lifetime voting record and her lifetime record of advocacy. Why people let their emotions totally over rule all logic is something I don't understand.

Progressive Punch. Check it out and you will see how she and every other rep is rated both Democrat and Republican. You won't have a case to say she is Republican like you are blindly saying now.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 20:04:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

CLINTON (0.00 / 0)

I will not vote for a candidate who does not admit their Vote to authotize the use oF military force to go to war in Iraq WAS A MISTAKE AND WOULD NOT EVEN READ THE NIE.

THAT VOTE WAS PROOF TO ME THAT SHE IS NO PROGRESSIVE AND CAST HER VOTE FOR POLITICAL PUTPOSES

---

by: BDM @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:34:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Confused... (0.00 / 0)

I've seen different delegate counts for the Republican race, and I'm not sure which is accurate.

Further Reading

---

by: Dave Sund @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:25:12 PM CST

No Dem Delegates from Florida (0.00 / 0)

The Florida primary faces the same sanctions from the DNC as the Michigan race.  No delegates will be rewarded there and all candidates agreed not to make campaign stops in the state or to campaign through mail, paid media, etc. They can visit to raise money of course, but otherwise it is not a real race in Florida.

Once again, they're votes wont count. 

---

by: Elliott Petty @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:28:32 PM CST

Don't bet on it (0.00 / 0)

Most 'in the know' people believe that indeed both Florida and Michigan's delegates will count.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 18:16:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If the party won't abide by its own rules ... (0.00 / 0)

Then that's another reason not to support the Democratic party.

---

by: shaej @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 19:38:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's about (0.00 / 0)

about letting peoples vote count. The hell with the threats.

People get probation when they break the law all the time because it is the right thing to do.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 20:07:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It all depends on what happens in the rest of the race .. (4.00 / 2)

the votes will count .. if they don't decide the nomination ..  if they do decide it .. that's when it gets very tricky .. and it will get real ugly

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 21:50:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is EXACTLY Right (0.00 / 0)

If the nomination is clos, there will be a "credentials" fight on the convention floor regarding whether the Mich and Fl delegates should be seated.  Actually, contested convention fights often are decided on a "credentials" orsome other procedural fight before the actual balloting for President.  In the '68, '72 and '80 Democratic Conventions and the '76 Republican Convention, the key determining vote was on a credentials or other procedural matter.  If the race goes down to the wire you will see this type of battle in both parties' conventions.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:06:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

100% right (0.00 / 0)

that is the situation exactly. Let's hope it doesn't come down to those two states.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:20:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dumb Question (0.00 / 0)

I am confused about Mich and FL I thought they didn't count.
Did Clinton win the delegate votes in Mich or just the poll vote?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 19:28:07 PM CST

Michigan doesn't count right now (4.00 / 1)

Clinton won 73 delegates in Michigan, 55 are Uncommitted. As of now, they don't count, but the decision can be overturned at the convention. So if the nominee is decided before the convention, the Democrats will all be one big happy family, no one will want to anger the voters of the two states, and the delegates will be seated, and vote for whoever the nominee is.

But if the nominee is not decided, Clinton won't have enough delegates overall to get the MI delegates seated anyway, so her lead in Michigan now is essentially worthless in the long run.

DemConWatch

---

by: msn1 @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:56:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks! I keep thinking I understand this. Now I do. I think. (0.00 / 0)

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:41:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Personally Chris (0.00 / 0)

I think you are over playing the importance of Nevada.  If Clinton wins Nevada, and I think she will, and Obama wins SC, and I think he will, then the two sides will be about where they are now.  Florida will be discounted somewhat because no delegates will be selected.  So, what will happen on Super Tuesday is anyone's guess.  As I think we both stated before, I think the odds favor HRC, but in my opinion her chances of winning will not be greatly enhanced just by winning Nevada.

That is not to say Nevada is meaningless.  But the real import of Nevada is who will win the Hispanic vote.  Hispanics will be key in states like Texas and California and very important in states like Florida, Arkansas, Colorado and probably others.  If Clinton wins Nevada because she sweeps hispanics, then this is obviously a good sign for her.

Ultimately, I think the 2008 election is shaping up as a "demographic" election, not a "momentum" election.  The key will be who can add together the biggest coalition on super tuesday.  I dont think momentum will play a very big role in this.  It certainly hasnt so far.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:13:28 PM CST

NEVADA (0.00 / 0)

Insider's for both Clinton and Obama have said that the determination of the Teacher's union law suit will determine the election/ That is why Bill and the Clinton campaign are arguing so vociferously about this law suit.

---

by: BDM @ Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 22:39:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]