National Polls Move Back Toward Clinton

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:32


The Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls have both moved back toward Clinton today (yesterday's numbers in parenthesis):

Clinton: 46.5% (43.5%)
Obama: 39.0% (39.0%)

This could be due to any number of factors, including the debate, the inevitable fading bounce, superior Clinton campaigning, or even the demographics of Friday polling. (Considering the age gap between Clinton and Obama supporters, who do you think is more likely to be at home on a Friday night?) Whatever the cause might actually be, it could not come at a better time for Clinton, since Obama had pulled to within just two or three points in the days immediately after the departure of Edwards from the campaign. It also seems to be rippling into state level polls, as Rasmussen also shows Clinton leading in Missouri by nine, and in Alabama by five (Alabama is a must-win for Obama, and it should be noted that the previous Rasmussen poll of Alabama put Clinton up 15).

As far as big momentum changers in the final days go, it does not appear that either Edwards or Gore will endorse. If Clinton does win the nomination, it will be despite established media, progressive media, and conservative media, all of whom have given more favorable coverage to Obama. It is impressive that she has been able to turn back Obama's momentum, despite having comparatively few allies in virtually every media outlet.  
Chris Bowers :: National Polls Move Back Toward Clinton

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
National Polls Move Back Toward Clinton | 58 comments
That says it all (4.00 / 6)
It is impressive that she has been able to turn back Obama's momentum, despite having comparatively few allies in virtually every media outlet.

Yes, that is restoring my faith in the American people's ability to think for themselves, despite the enormous noise and hate coming from the press.

Impressive (0.00 / 0)
It is impressive that she has been able to turn back Obama's momentum, despite having comparatively few allies in virtually every media outlet.  

Probably is what is more impressive is the fact that she manages to have so few allies in the media despite being an establishment figure for such a long time.  I think that is because of the difference between her highminded goals and her willingness to do bad things to get and retain power.  Naturally the media is going to be inclined to report negatively about such a person.

Lately I've become more optimistic of Obama's chances regardless of the polling.  So I think for him anything that lowers his expectations is good.  He seems to do badly when expectations are high.

Which makes sense.  Younger people who don't vote as often are voting for Obama.  Thus if they think Obama has it in the bag they see less reason to show up compared to more reliable demographics.

So I think that this is one election where polling is hard because it actively influences the final result more than most elections.

Though I can't begin to say who will win feb 5th.  Its just too much untested stuff with things changing rapidly.

not necessarily (0.00 / 0)
I think that is because of the difference between her highminded goals and her willingness to do bad things to get and retain power.  Naturally the media is going to be inclined to report negatively about such a person.

This is the same media that has enthusiastically fellated Karl Rove for the last 8 years. To assume that they're a bunch of Pollyannas offended by Clinton's hardball politics is a bit of a stretch. It's just as likely that the corporate media feels that Clinton most threatens their status quo. I don't know the answer (I suspect it's mostly jealousy magnified by groupthink, plus the fact that most of them work for Republicans and have salaries that make them sympathetic to Republican tax policy), but giving our corporate media stars the benefit of doubt as the dutiful protectors of honesty and fairness in politics seems unrealistic.

[ Parent ]
No they havent (0.00 / 0)
And actually I was talking about perceived hypocrisy.  They like stories like Edwards haircut, Obama and Rezko, and clinton using racial politics to try to get ahead.

On the Republican side charges of hypocrisy are about Republican issues of not being sufficiently protestant or whatever rather than democratic ones.

[ Parent ]
Misplaced faith in the corporate press (4.00 / 1)
I think that is because of the difference between her highminded goals and her willingness to do bad things to get and retain power.  Naturally the media is going to be inclined to report negatively about such a person.

Your assumption--that the press "naturally" reports on bad behavior--is flawed (see: coverage of 2000 election, for one).  Their knee-jerk hatred of the Clintons--and Democrats in general--is not based on objective reporting, but ideological hatred based on serving corporate interests.  They manufacture outright lies about Democrats while ignoring the utter failures of the right.

Also odd: how they never seem to report on the Obama campaign employing dirty tactics (e.g., failing to denounce UNITE-HERE ad in Nevada, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Harry & Louise ads, etc.) in spite of having notorious fellows like Axelrod and Robert Gibbs on board.

Besides, I don't care if they personally dislike someone; their occupation (the only career protected by the damn Constitution) requires them to stick to the facts, evidence--truth.

[ Parent ]
Press reaction (0.00 / 0)
It is also a function of how the high school Heathers, aka the DC Press, feel about a candidate.  They hate Hillary, and evidently it is mutual.  Bush cultivated these folk and stroked their vanity spots, and Mccain gives good access.  They hated Gore as the nerdy class know-it-all.  At least corpopratism represents a step beyond high school.  But it doesn't explain the feelings of the petty reporters and prima donna pundits.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
I think it reflects the (0.00 / 0)
settling of about 60% or a bit more of the Edwards supporters in her camp.  
Some Questions and Concerns (4.00 / 6)
I'm curious how people who think it makes zero difference who we nominate against McCain think the media will play out in a Clinton-McCain November showdown? You can crow at potential voter backlash at the media's harshness, but ask Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry how the media narratives impacted their campaigns in the general election.

I'm still waiting for one person to make the case to me that Clinton can win the independents necessary to beat McCain. In the last Rasmussen poll against McCain, she gets crushed among independents. I'm also waiting for someone to counter the very legitimate point that the only thing that will unite the fractured Republican Party around McCain is Hillary Clinton. GOP party insiders all make that point, including McCain advisers, yet some people act like we are choosing between two candidates in our primary who have essentially the same strengths, weaknesses, and baggage.

The final question I have is whether this is actually a change election or not? If it is, per CW, then which candidate will look like change in comparison to McCain? Which candidate is more likely, with 8 months to campaign, to grow and to sink among the electorate? The answer is obvious to me, but apparently, a lot of Democrats are willing to risk the Supreme Court for the next 40 years and a potential devastating war with Iran (something that is very personal to me as a Persian-American) over it.  

I'm with you (4.00 / 3)
My favorite was Edwards, although to be honest none of the candidates really excited me. But I don't understand where all the support for Clinton is coming from. Casual folks that I talk to (who don't follow politics) have a built-in natural dislike of Clinton. Every Republican voter I talk to wants to run against Hillary. Why aren't more Democratic voters worried about her high negatives?

I can be persuaded to support a less "electable" candidate if that candidate is a very strong progressive (like Feingold), because that's part of building a movement. But I can't get behind a DLCer like Clinton.

Of course I'll vote for her in the General if I have to, but it has me concerned about losing.

[ Parent ]
Cong. Jerry Nadler- the definition of progressivism (0.00 / 0)
was at a Union Square rally for Hillary Clinton today.  He said one thing in the speech that you should know and another as we walked there together.  

At the rally he spoke about her courage in fighting for attention to the health problems of 9/11 victims, rescue workers and inhabitants of lower Manhattan ....despite the enormous oppostion of Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, Pataki the Governor and Dick and George....who were more concerned with the economy of Wall Street than the lives and health of real people.

On the way there he was very pithy...."SHE'S THE ONLY REAL DEMOCRAT IN THE RACE"

I think that's what Howard Dean said at the California Democratic conventiion in 2003.  "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"  So now of the 2 of them is she....



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Thanks Are Due. . . (0.00 / 0)
. . . HRC for advocating on behalf on ailing 9/11 workers.

But that's of no real consequence when her foreign policy positions over the years are so militant that they set up the conditions for another 9/ll.

[ Parent ]
that is a canard (0.00 / 0)
there in next to no daylight between her and him.

Neither candidate would have started the war i Iraq, they will both withdraw the troops from iraq and neither one will start another war.

What matters is their domestic policies and that is where the difference is.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
As well put as I've seen it (4.00 / 1)
 Your post hits ALL the concerns I have about Hillary Clinton as the nominee. And I can't imagine that Dem powerbrokers aren't at the very least AWARE of these things.

Which makes me wonder if they care. The DLC crowd is much, much more focused on beating back progressives than it is in beating Republicans, and while Obama's not exactly a progressive, he's become the candidate most progressives have identified with.

 I honestly believe that there are elements in the Democratic Party who would prefer to lose with Hillary than win with Obama. The question is (a) how many of those there are, and (b) how much power they retain within the party. And the answer to that question, I'll bet, would explain not just the damn-the-torpedoes support of Hillary Clinton, but the running fiasco that has been the Democratic-"controlled" Congress over the last year...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Great points (4.00 / 1)
And I agree completely.

However, as has been said downthread, "strength and experience", in terms of associating Hilary with the VERY good 1990's, in economic terms, is a big big attraction, that we can't discount.

My fear really, isn't in having Hilary as President, although my choice is Obama.  I think she would do a good job as President.

My fear is more, what you sketch above - will she WIN?  

I still think she can - voters again, will remember the good times of the 90's, and that, combined with the fact she has turned out to be a much better candidate - will most likely have her beat McCain.

So objectively, there probably won't be much change.

On a personal, idealistic level, I want Obama.  

I don't want to mis the LARGER opportunity.

I want someone who can make speeches as he does, that inspire, draw people in, and are just SO DAMN GOOD.  Funny enough, just like Bill Clinton who was an incredible politician, but without the baggage of his appetites.

I want all those young voters inspired by Obama, to remain in the democratic party for DECADES.  

I want someone who DIDN'T buy into the perspective that cause the Iraq war.  As a progressive, I want there to be some political cost to those who embraced the perspective.

I want someone like Obama to REPRESENT to the world, just what the American Ideal looks like.  

Work hard, smart, be optimsitic, be responsible for yourself and your family, and yes YOU can be president, even if your father was born in Kenya.

So I have two perspectives at work.  

the objective perspective, who recognizes that Hilary and Obama are not far apart on policy, and if Hillary wins, stil is most likely to win the Presidency.

And the progressive perspective, who sees the OPPORTUNITY of Obama, the statement of Obama, the grace, and is inspired.

And yes, IS afraid, that the media Hilary hate will have an effect, is afraid that the adventages of Obama against McCain are somewhat dulled.  (Again, may be offset by Hilarhy's association with the successful 90's.  I think that is going to be pretty powerful too, as it is now, in the democratic primary.)


[ Parent ]
'90s argument only goes so far (0.00 / 0)
We sometimes forget that every Presidential election we have 4 years worth of new voters, and lose many among the older ranks.  We have at least 6 years worth of voters (18-24 yr olds) who probably don't really remember the '90s that well, and really only know the Bush years. Those are the most Dem cohort voting this year.  I'd think that the candidate who inspires and who gives them hope for a much better next 4 years would get the nod.  But the 26-34 year olds, who remember the Clinton years, do seem to be going more for Hillary from the So Carolina (I think it was) exit polls.  

Berkeley is of course and anomaly, but there sure are a great many people in their 60s for Obama here.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Great analysis, few points/questions. (0.00 / 0)
1) Since these are both tracking polls, only one day of post-debate polling would seem to make the "debate" theory less plausible, although maybe people really saw Clinton as the clear winner.

2) Looking at the Gallup, it seemed that Clinton's four point up-tick corresponded to a 4 point drop in Edward's support. Strange. Why would Edwards supporters who moved to Obama do it the first two days, but those who moved to Clinton take longer?

3) Maybe 1) and 2) explain each other. Maybe Obama WAS doing better wooing Edwards supporters as a default, but then the debate moved a whole bunch of the remaining undecided Edwards supporters towards Clinton. If this is so (which I am still skeptical of) then Obama really blew the debate.

4) As an Obama supporter I am hoping beyond hope that it is the Friday night thing.  

i think your third (0.00 / 0)
point could be right. but it also could be that some Edwards supporters were waiting to see if he endorsed either one. the way I see it, a non-endorsement plays as a de facto endorsement for Clinton. If their candidate isn't ready to get behind Obama, then they aren't either.
[ Parent ]
But the Gallop poll shows woman moving to Obama (0.00 / 0)
"Clinton has been losing more support from women than from men, in essence moving closer to a point where the "gender playing field" has been leveled."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104...
Damn skippy, it's impressive! (0.00 / 0)
I wonder if she has any friends in the media. Why do they hate her? Does it all go back to that travel office fiasco? Are they negative with her because she doesn't toss a football around on the plane with them? What is it exactly?
It's mutual (0.00 / 0)
She doesn't like them, they don't like her.  It is high school all over again.  She dislikes them because of the savaging she and Bill got while he was Pres, and they don't like her because she doesn't stroke them like Bush does and she can't conceal her dislike of them very well.  I'm talking here about the DC Press corps, not the corporate owners.  I think the latter exert some control, but in Hillary's case it isn't necessary--same as with Al Gore.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Superior Ground Organization for Obama (4.00 / 1)
This will win him the nomination.  My prediction: he'll be within 100 delegates on Tuesday--at least.  Then he'll close the deal.

I'm desperate for Clinton to win as simply the far better candidate on domestic policies and rhetoric, but I'm starting to see the writing on the wall.  Poll numbers are nothing compared to GOTV.  Seriously, I expect a big surprise from the Obama camp in turning out their voters in droves.  His ability to take full advantage of momentum is not to be underestimated.

I wish Clinton had gotten ahead of the "electability" issue.  Obama and Clinton are statistically even against McCain and Obama already has rather high negatives considering how he has been downright glorified the press (and blogs) and has not even been punched, let alone body slammed by the right--yet.  There's nothing at all indicating that only he alone could usher in a "working majority," if at all, against McCain and the GOP.

His ground game is definitely better, but by how much? (0.00 / 0)
I just haven't gotten a good sense of how much ground organization Obama actually has in 2/5 states.  Yeah, I think its probably better than Hillary's, although some of her ground game is harder to judge because it is provided by unions (where she still leads big).

Obama spent many months preparing on the ground in both Iowa and South Carolina.  He had over 200 paid staff in SC and probably around 6000 volunteers.  That is a big operation that really dwarfed Hillary's and was probably the biggest reason for his blowout.  Yet I read about states like Kansas where Obama supporters tout his ground advantage, but then I find out that he still only has 12 paid staff there.  How much does that actually get you?

If anything, I think what favors Obama most is that his supporters seem to be more energized.  There are shades of "likely" voters and a greater proportion of his base may be closer to being "definite" voters.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Is it possible, (0.00 / 0)
especially in the south, that Obama has more support than is showing up because many of his supporters are deeply disenfranchised blacks who have not voted in the past and are thus not showing up as likely voters?  Is it possible that disenfranchised voters don't know that he is black?  Are we sure that he is black?  Don't get me wrong, now that his only opponent is Clinton, I am finally an Obama supporter, but, damn, I wish the guy were a little more ethnic. It's not his fault and it should not be held against him but there are a lot of Black folks down here in the south who just might come out and vote for the first time since Kennedy if they thought that he might be black.  It could have some great down ballot results.  And let there be no doubt, if Clinton's on the ballot, southern Democrats are fix'n to get their butts kicked all the way down the ballot.  

 

I think that Hillary... (0.00 / 0)
has as much blind support as Obama who repeat the Experience and Strength mantras as much as Obama's supporters recite the Hope and Change mantras.

I also discount the 'all the media is against hillary' narrative her campaign is pushing.  No one challenges her statements.

She says no child left behind is bad, she voted for it.
She says rails against lobbyists and various industries, yet she says they're normal people and she takes their money.

I think she has been given good coverage in the sense that they don't focus on the accuracy of her statements and the media doesn't correct the record.

I would say both candidates have been given gloss-over coverage instead of delving deep into their statements and details, which I think ultimately hurts Obama because I think he goes out of his way to be as consistent as possible, where as I believe that Hillary will say whatever she can to pander.

http://www.polticalinaction.com

[ Parent ]
It is really possible that (0.00 / 0)
like the DMR poll was ridiculed in Iowa for too many voters and too many young voters that Obama does this nation wide.  Remember Feb.5th has not really mattered since 1992, that is a whole generation of people who have never voted in a presidential primary that mattered.  
[ Parent ]
not likely (0.00 / 0)
Obama is getting more Southern African Americans to participate in the primaries, but African Americans in southern states vote at high rates in the general election. For instance Obama did not turn out as many African Americans in the South Carolina primary as Kerry did in the 2004 general election, about 480k SC AAs voted in 2004 general versus about 290k in this primary. So while his AA vote may be new to primaries, they are not new voters.

The new voters Obama is turning out are younger voters. Clinton is turning out new women voters. Since women vote at a lower rate than African Americans in the South, and women are a much larger portion of the population, Clinton will do better in the South than you think.

[ Parent ]
Community organizer-in-chief (0.00 / 0)
I think Patrickson raises an important point about the potential impact of Obama's ground game, especially when combined with his appeal among traditionally low-turnout young voters, who are arguably underepresented in polls and will probably be an important target of Obama's and pro-Obama GOTV efforts.  Whether this will be enough of a factor to overcome the numbers suggested by the latest polling remains to be seen.  As someone very skeptical of polling this campaign season, I'm open to the possibility (and, unlike Patrickson, I'm hoping Obama gets the nomination).

Yesterday I read an article by Kelly Candaele and Peter Dreieron The American Prospect's site and would recommend it to anyone interested in Obama's "community organizing" approach to his campaign field operation.  It speaks to elements of his vision and strategy that are fundamentally progressive (and, in my view, more important than the relatively small differences in policy often argued about in this campaign season).  They are also central to why I support his candidacy:    
http://prospect.org/cs/article...

Here are some extended excerpts (with thanks to the authors and apologies for its unusual length in a comment):

As a community organizer for three years in Chicago in the late 1980s, Obama learned the skills of motivating and mobilizing people who had little faith in their ability to make politicians, corporations, and other powerful institutions accountable. Working with churches and neighborhood groups, Obama taught low-income people how to analyze power relations, gain confidence in their own leadership abilities, and work together to improve their housing, schools, and other basic services.

"What if a politician were to see his job as that of an organizer," he asked a local newspaper at the time, "as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?"

...Last year, Obama enlisted Marshall Ganz, one of the country's leading organizing theorists, to help train organizers and volunteers as a key component of his presidential campaign. In the early 1960s, Ganz dropped out of Harvard to work in the South with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the student wing of the civil-rights movement. He then returned to his home state of California to join Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, becoming a key architect of the union's early successes.

...A key tenet of community organizing is developing face to face contact with people so that they forge commitments to work together around shared values. Organizers are not social workers. Their orientation is not to "service" people as if they were clients, but to encourage people to develop their own abilities to mobilize others. They help people turn their "hot" anger into disciplined action. Community organizers also distinguish themselves from traditional political campaign operatives who approach voters as customers through direct mail, telemarketing, and canvassing urging them to support their candidate as if they were selling soap.

This approach is reflected in how Obama's campaign has integrated itself into local communities. In Iowa, for example, campaign organizers, both paid staff and volunteers, were required to help in community recycling projects, tree planting and garbage pick-up -- making themselves available for the day-to-day tasks required to enhance the neighborhoods they were in.

...The campaign recruited coordinators and volunteer teams in each of Iowa's 1,781 precincts, developed chapters at over 200 Iowa high schools (called "Barack Stars"), and built campaign operations on almost every college campus in the state. On caucus day, the campaign enlisted 3,000 volunteers.

The dramatic increase in Iowa's caucus turnout -- twice the number from four years earlier -- is due in large measure to the these organizing efforts.

...Before it sent its volunteers into the fields, he explained, the campaign required them to go through several days of intense four-day training sessions called "Camp Obama." The sessions were led by Ganz and other experienced organizers, including Mike Kruglik, one of Obama's organizing mentors in Chicago. Potential field organizers were given an overview of the history of grassroots organizing techniques and the key lessons of campaigns that have succeeded and failed.

...Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina was due in large measure to this grassroots organizing approach, which dramatically expanded voter turnout. Obama's campaign had organizers in each of South Carolina's 46 counties, 32 Get Out the Vote offices throughout the state, and 154 "staging" areas where volunteers picked up precinct lists and campaign materials. The South Carolina campaign was so well organized they conducted two GOTV "dry runs" on the two previous Saturdays before the primary, practicing every step of the Election Day operation to make sure that all staff and volunteers understood their responsibilities.

On Election Day, the campaign had 15,000 volunteers in South Carolina, according to Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign field director. In another departure from past campaigns, Bird targeted people who had never participated in politics before. Turnout increased to 532,000 this year from 293,000 in 2004. Twenty-seven percent of those who cast a ballot were first-time voters. Moreover, turnout in the Democratic primary exceeded Republican turnout a week earlier by 97,000 voters. As a result, Bird says, "South Carolina is in play in November if Barack is the nominee," challenging the conventional wisdom that a Democrat can't win in the state.

...The Obama campaign also hopes to leave behind a network of trained activists in South Carolina and other states.

"We have been digging in here since last April, which is unprecedented in a presidential campaign," Bird commented. "South Carolina does not have a tradition of grassroots organizing, but what we will leave behind are hundreds of trained organizers and volunteers who will now run for school board, city council, the state legislature," Bird predicted. "They will transform this state."

...Obama's California field operation has been building since last July, when a number of initial training sessions were conducted. Heading into February, the Obama campaign has over 3,000 volunteers, according to Buffy Wicks, the 30-year-old California field director who had previously worked for Howard Dean in 2004, as an aide to Congressman Bob Filner of California, in the anti-war movement, and with the union-backed Wake-Up Wal-Mart campaign.

In California -- a huge state where political field organizers are a dying breed and media svengalis rule -- the Obama campaign is again bucking tradition. Wicks estimates the campaign is making around 18,000 calls a day, all with volunteer help. And in an Internet twist on the usual boiler-room phone-bank operations, phoners for Obama can obtain phone lists and scripts through their computers at home, obviating the need to gather in a single location -- a technology pioneered by MoveOn.Org. The campaign can track in real time the number of calls made, who is phoning, and the results of the calls.

Like Bird in South Carolina, Wicks is looking past the February primary to potential long-term impacts of the campaign. "We're training a new kind of political campaign organizer that speaks to who Barack is," she observes two weeks before the election. "We're trying to create community organizers out of our activists. There's so much energy and enthusiasm. It's just a matter of providing the infrastructure, the technology, the training, and the tools, and they feel part of a larger movement."

...Obama knows that he will have to find balance between working inside the Beltway and encouraging Americans to organize and mobilize to battle powerful corporate interests and congressional in-fighting. But if Obama wants to be a champion of change, he'll need to redefine the role of president as organizer-in-chief.

This "community organizing" political ground game seems like a potent companion to the progressive netroots.  My sense is that the Dean campaign unleashed an early and spontaneous version of this Internet/ground marriage, and that Obama is trying to take it to the next level of breadth, efficiency and sustainability.

If Clinton gets the nomination, I'd like to see her pick Obama as the VP and have them work out a deal where he has major responsibility for developing the sustainable political/community-activism suggested by Candaele and Dreier's piece. It strikes me as a key component of the political realignment we're trying to achieve and, as far as I can tell, Obama's got both a keen appreciation of its importance and knack for catalyzing it.

other races? (0.00 / 0)
Chris,

With your inclination and abilities to digest polls, I wonder if you think there is any merit to the idea of gauging Obama or Clinton support based on polling in other races?

For example, ex-comedian Al Franken is leading GOP Senator Norm Coleman in the polls in Minnesota.  If Franken is doing well, seems to me that it is a positive indicator for Obama.  Same thing with Donna Edwards in MD, who is challenging establishment Democrat Al Wynn.  And so on...  

If those who are perceived to be 'outsiders' or 'agents of change' are polling well in their races, I would think there is a decent case to be made that Obama is going to out-perform the polls.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the quotes and link (0.00 / 0)
That was a great article.

The Obama folks are having rallies and then canvassing and phoning here in the Bay Area, yesterday, today and tomorrow.  They have a lot of volunteers.  A friend said Robocalls have also started for him.  SEIU is out and MoveOn is calling.  I still think he will get day-of-vote in CA. The question is whether that is enough to win.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I am saying this is a friendly way (4.00 / 1)
But I sure hope that fair use copyright issues apply only to diaries and not comments....because you have a huge chunk of copy here.  At dkos if one posted this much in as a pro clinton diary one would be threatened with banning.

No threat just a friendly head's up.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
I appreciate the feedback (0.00 / 0)
I had concerns about such a long excerpt, but was so impressed with the article and its significance that I went ahead with it.  And, as my last few paragraphs suggest, it wasn't to promote Obama vs. Clinton so much as to highlight the value of this aspect of his candidacy for building a progressive movement, regardless of who gets the nomination.  I also made a point of thanking the authors and providing a link.  I used to have my own blog and sometimes posted comparably long excerpts and never had any problems with authors, but you never know.

That being said, I'm open to getting warned that this is inappropriate and would respond accordingly.  So, if you read this Chris (or Matt or Mike), let me know what you think and what kind of guidelines you'd suggest.

[ Parent ]
Mitchipd, I wish this were the case. (0.00 / 0)
One hour ago, I was visited by two members of Obama's ground team. They were among the many who attended Camp Obama training. (To be fair, they didn't volunteer this, I asked.) No message at all--nothing-- about issues or the real choices before me.  When I told them I was an Edwards supporter looking to be convinced where my vote should land on Tues, I was hit with the usual platitudes about Obama's special transcendence and unique ability to bring all people together.  Please, give me some real evidence of this I asked.  I was told that I still have time to read one his "amazing" books before Tuesday.  "Everything I need to know about him" will be found there. They also said almost dismissively that if I was "really that interested in issues"  I could always go to the website.    Inspiring?   Hardly.  

Perhaps my experience is not the norm, but I can't help but think that what's going on here is not about building an active engaged citizenry, but rather just a new and improved form of personality worship.  

Is this really what Ganz and co. are selling at this point?  (It also is revealing about the state of grassroots politics if this is the sort of stuff that still earns one the title of a "leading organizing theorist.")

[ Parent ]
Good reality check (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for adding some real-world experience in response to my comment and the article excerpt.  I hope your experience is not the norm, but maybe it is.  It'd be interesting to hear from more people on this.  I suppose Tuesday's vote counts will, to some extent, indicate what's really going on out there.  At the least, your comment suggests that a lot more work needs to be done if Obama or any other candidate is to achieve the kinds of goals suggested in the article.
[ Parent ]
Woah Chris! Slow down there! (0.00 / 0)
You should know far better than to put much stock into Friday night polling of this race...especially when the movement is within the margin of area.
What Boggles the Mind (0.00 / 0)
If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency for the democrats we will have chosen a person who sat on the board of an anti-union corporation.  A person who sat on the board and did not protest anti-union policies at all.  To me this boggles the mind.  The democratic party has stood for unions for a long as I have been on earth which is 54 years.  Wal Mart is the leading contributor to manufacturing jobs being outsourced to 3rd world countries.  Wal Mart does not have one american item on their shelves.  What may be the first woman president will also be the first democratic president who has sat on the board and knowingly sat on the board of an anti-union corporation.  Like I said it boggles the mind.
Doesn't anyone remember how Iowa polls (0.00 / 0)
moved towards Hillary on the final weekend?  How Obama would be lucky to squeek out a victory?  How the DM register poll couldn't possible be right because it was the only one showing Obama well ahead?

Simply put, weekend polls cannot be trusted for this race.  This post is a much ado about nothing.

Nice unbiased analysis. Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

McCain Speech (0.00 / 0)
I watched a McCain speech today and it was awful. He stumbled and stuttered and barely seemed to know what he was talking about.  And, geesh, he said "my friends" at least 100 times.  Either Clinton or Obama ought to be able to beat him with one hand tied behind their back!
paper tiger? (0.00 / 0)
I agree, McCain is a formidable opponent until you actually see him speak. He's brutal. Reagan without the looks or charisma: a doddering reactionary. I look forward to seeing our nominee on a stage with him.

"My friends" will definitely be a mocking catchphrase before long. It's ludicrous how often he says it.

[ Parent ]
The Media's treatment has been really shabby (0.00 / 0)
The Media's treatment has been really shabby of nearly every candidate but Obama. It seems like the big media cabal decided weeks ago that they wanted Obama and have done everything possible the starve the oxygen from other candidates and vilify Clinton. I think it is reprehensible the degree to which the media is blatantly trying to determine an outcome. If Clinton does win, I'm sure she will remember the media's behavior this election cycle and I hope she makes an effort to appropriately discipline the big media monopolies.
Revenge.... (0.00 / 0)
....is a dish best served cold.
[ Parent ]
Did you see Bill Oriellys comment? What do we really know about Obama (0.00 / 0)
How interesting that someone in the cable news networks has finally made the comment?

What do we really know about Obama?  btw this was Bill O'Reilly of FNC.

How amazing it is that millions of people are voting for "Change" when they do not even know the person they are voting for to make "Change?"  Is the change that your looking for a change of face, or for "change" and improvement in your day to day life, that is how much better will you personally be off under a Obama administration?

Have you seen all Mr Obama's Policies?  

Do you know Obama's character, I don't because he has not been in the National Spot Light for enough investigation.  Maybe he is fabulous, but do we know who he really is? We know he is a Christian and not a Muslim.  

Have you studied Mr Obama's credentials?  What has he done that you can say you know the actual outcomes to?  Is he perfect like everyone seems to say he is?  Has he never had a scandal in his personal and political life?  How has what he has done affected the entire Nation?

Has Mr Obama 'Changed' Your Life Today or Yesterday or maybe even tomorrow' and have you seen or known of people in every state that Mr Obama has changed?

"Change" is a very powerful word.  It is like when JFK was assassinated and the "CHANGE" was LBJ.  

That is the difference, put those 2 Democratic Administrations together and you will see the many differences that 'change' offers.  

Remember One you did not vote on and One you did.

When you vote for 'change', you need to understand why you are voting for 'change', not because you have a lot of hype surrounding a person that promotes change.

With regards to HRC, yes you will get 'change', but 'CHANGE' you know what your going to expect.  It will be a change from 'BC', and not the same as his administration.  

The 'Change' with HRC, you know what your going to be getting especially when your dealing with a world that is so hostile, an economy which is slowing, unemployment, foreign takeovers, and ask yourself, DO YOU WANT McCain? for 4 years?  That's also 'CHANGE'.  So if you are voting for 'Change'  ask yourself, do you really know what sort of change you want, other than for the sake of 'Change'.

What we all want is money in our pockets, a job, security of family and nation and respect.  Is that worth throwing away, just because we want to 'Change' of face?

I worry about the future I have left, but I am more worried for the future that is coming after me.

The power you have as a Voter is great, use it wisely.

Whoever you vote for, remember that you will be affecting the lives of Billions of People around the world in different ways and not just our own.

[ Parent ]
Hillary can Win! (4.00 / 1)
Florida vote numbers -- this ought to tell us something...

Hillary: 856,944
McCain: 693,425
Romney: 598,152
Obama: 568,930

The person that can win Florida is the person that can win the election come November. Hillary won big in Florida! Experience matters! Vote Hillary 2008!

Hillary can Win!!!! (0.00 / 0)
Hillary can win come November! The person that can win Florida is the person that can win the election come November. Hillary won big in Florida!

I just made another contribution to Hillary. I truely believe in Hillary!!! I believe she is the person that can get our nation back on track! I am hoping and praying that she will be our next president! Hillary supporters, please do what you can to help Hillary win! We all need to do what we can to help her win Tuesday!

Despite x, y & z?? (0.00 / 0)
If Clinton does win the nomination, it will be despite established media, progressive media, and conservative media, all of whom have given more favorable coverage to Obama.

With her husband as the only Democratic president in the last 27 years and with the huge network of establishment support, how exactly was she ever the underdog?

As for the media goes, am I then safe to assume that you don't watch CNN?

National Polls Move Back Toward Clinton | 58 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox