Fight to finish for Democrats
Some back Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigning all the way to the floor of the convention in Denver. Others say she's costing the party good will.
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published May 7, 2008 at 9:30 p.m.
The delegate math says one thing, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton might get the last word.
And unless she gives in to mounting pressure to concede the Democratic Party nomination to Sen. Barack Obama, there's still no telling whether this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver will be a brouhaha or a love-fest, analysts said Wednesday.
The political world was buzzing the day after Obama's big win in the North Carolina primary and closer-than-expected showing in Indiana.
The results put Obama within a couple hundred delegates of clinching the nomination. And they sparked an almost deafening drumbeat from people speculating that Clinton would - or should - soon throw in the towel.
That would allow Denver convention planners to add an Obama flavor and perhaps a few "Yes we can" banners to the ocher walls of the Pepsi Center.
Still, even with a handful of prominent defections from her camp - starting with former presidential candidate George McGovern - Clinton was defiant, telling reporters at a campaign stop in West Virginia that she plans to keep campaigning "until there's a nominee."
That made for one of the most feverish days of speculation yet on the long, long road to Denver.
The question remains: After one of the closest nomination fights of a generation, can Democrats avert a chaotic floor fight at the convention?
Some observers, such as Rep. Ed Perlmutter, suggest that Clinton accept the inevitable and meet with the Obama camp about a cease-fire. Perlmutter is a Colorado superdelegate who supports Obama.
But others said Clinton has campaigned so hard for so long that she has earned the right to keep fighting, at least through the final six primaries between now and June 3.
"Clearly, the Hillary campaign is dedicated to moving forward," said Tyler Chafee, a Denver political consultant who was statewide director of Clinton's Colorado caucus effort. "She has certainly earned the right to do so."
Money is a big consideration. Clinton has revealed that she has had to loan her campaign another $6.4 million, bringing the total to $11.4 million since February.
Some, including Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, cited that as a sign of weakness.
But others read it as a sign of commitment.
"If I were to bet, I think Hillary's going to take it all the way to Denver. She's a real trench fighter," Colorado pollster Paul Talmey said. "She's going to look at every angle, every way until she's convinced there's no possible way she is winning," he said.
Even some of Clinton's own supporters reportedly are asking her to think long and hard about whether a continued contest could hurt the Democrats' chances of beating presumed Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.
McGovern, who triumphantly endorsed longtime friend Clinton at a barn in Iowa City, Iowa, last year, said he called former President Bill Clinton to tell him that his wife should step aside now.
According to CNN, one of Clinton's closest allies in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Diane Feinstein of California, questioned the "negative dividends" for Democrats if Clinton remained in the contest.
The latest projections show Obama with 1,846 delegates to Clinton's 1,696. To make up the difference, she would have to do better-than-expected in the six remaining primaries and also win the lion's share of 265 still-undecided superdelegates.
It's mathematically possible, but a more daunting task after Tuesday night.
John Straayer, political science professor at Colorado State University, said that before Tuesday night, Obama was in a "slide" and Clinton was bolstering her argument to undecided superdelegates that she was the stronger general election candidate.
But in Indiana and North Carolina, Straayer said, "She had to do something to keep the momentum going and she didn't do that."
Experts talk about what Clinton will - or should - do
Throw in the towel
"I'd say her mathematical chances are very slim, and I think it's time to start bringing this to a close," said Rep. Ed Perlmutter, a Colorado superdelegate who long ago committed to support Oba ma.
"I'd like to see her campaign and the Obama camp talking to each other about some kind of cease-fire, either for her to wind down her campaign or wind down the rhetoric."
Run, Hillary, run
Asked for his take, University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato pondered the lay of the land, including upcoming primaries in three states where Clinton is favored: West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.
"Why would Hillary Clinton drop out?" Sabato said. "There are six primaries left and she's guaranteed to win three. It would be foolish in her perspective to drop out. She doesn't even have to spend money to win three."
Dreaming of harmony
Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, among the undecided superdelegates, said he and other Democratic senators were trying to come up with ways to broker a peaceful end to the Clinton-Obama contest.
Salazar said there has been talk of urging the two to join on a so-called dream ticket, although that's up to Obama and Clinton.
How long should Clinton keep fighting?
"The only person who can answer that is Hillary Clinton," Salazar said.
Never say 'never'
Because any of those delegates can change their minds between now and the first vote at the convention, Clinton knows she remains mathematically alive - and on Obama's heels - virtually as long as she wants to push the contest, said Bob Loevy, political science professor at Colorado College.
He said talk of a peaceful conclusion before the floor of the convention is premature, "because the only person who can take Hillary Clinton out of the race is Hillary Clinton."
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
May 8, 2008
3:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Although I have no affinity for the two party system, Mr. Obama has show the fortitude to withstand a multitude of personal attacks. The kid by facing the assaults head on, has show he possesses one of the requirements of the highest office in the free world. I don't favor gun control, abortion, homosexuality, and many of the democratic platforms; but Mr. Bush's lack of world vision and diplomacy has left our nation in terrible shape. It will take a least a generation to repair the damage caused by the republican president. America needs to rebuild not only it's infrastructure, but it's image in the world to remain a leader. Mc Cain is is too old, Hillary is a soap opera rerun, Obama is too inexperenced; thus this election is really dismal. I wish someone of greater vision and accomplishment were running. Mr. Bush leaves America in shambles at home and worldwide. To be fair, we suffered one of the greatest attacks in our history with 9-11. However, Mr. Bush's decisions with his lack of ability left us in greater peril. Even the Russian premier had much greater mind than Mr. Bush. When they met, our president was out of his league. Mr. Bush's only saving grace is America's ability to sustain his bad decisions, and our great wealth. This election has given America a poor selection of canidates from both partys.
May 8, 2008
4:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles__B writes:
Louie are you on crack?
George has done tremendously well.
May 8, 2008
5:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
No my friend, America was a great leader in the world. We were never a colonial power like England and other european nations. We didn't enslave with economic might, we gave the oppressed of other nations the breath of freedom. We walked the high road of diplomacy to the respect of our enemies and allies alike. All nations once looked to America as the nation that stood for all people. We abolished slavery, we empowered our fears to greatness. When they came to our shores as refugees, the next generation of their children shed thier blood for our flag, our ideals. No, Mr. Bush has destroyed our honor in the courts where America was once held in high regard. Crack? Today, it's on every street corner in America; we are falling down.
May 8, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
When it comes to intelligence Hillary is by far the most intelligent of all three canidates. Just can't handle another presidential soap opera. I disagree with Mr. Bush's decisions politically; however, his family and personal affairs have been above reproach. Mr. Bush has the moral high ground, just lacks tremendously in world affairs and abilities of diplomacy. It's been said Satan was as a greatest diplomat.
May 8, 2008
7:53 a.m.
holekeeper writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
May 8, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Gene, I have been known to drink some wierd concoctions; used to watch the sun turn colors and rocks squish under my feet. Suffer me long enough to explain to me a Reagan Democrat. I kind of liked the California Cowboy.
May 8, 2008
8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
What a "friend" she has in McGovern: endorsed her last year, then calls her husband to tell HIM to tell HER to give up, THEN he makes his call known to the media. What friendship; what respect. Thanks George, now go back to your rocking chair.
May 8, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Hey LOUIE: How can you put the following two comments in the same post?
"America needs to rebuild... it's image in the world to remain a leader."
"Even the Russian premier had (a) much greater mind than Mr. Bush."
You fret about the world image of the USA, yet then you show admiration for a brutal, repressive near-autocrat who appears to act only in his and Russia's self-interests, regardless of world opinion?
"We just want everyone to like us" is not a viable foreign policy.
May 8, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
davies, just because a leader is a brutal, murdering, near- autocratic, tyrannt from the darkside of Hell, don't ever underestimate his intelligence. He was and is far more intelligent than Mr. Bush, and it showed when they met. Napoleon was ruthless, but he was also quite brilliant; thus Napoleanic Law is still in force in some countries. Sometimes brillance can be quite evil, as stupidity doesn't maintain the resources!
May 8, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Gene, thanx pal!
May 8, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
LOUIE, It is refreshing to read someone's post that is objective but at the same time not being one sided. Well you even did it with out name calling. Good Job. And very well put. Agree with you 100%.
May 8, 2008
9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Obama is the answer to Republican prayers.
Democrats are nominating a candidate that has proven that he can't win with the largest and decisive voting blocks in the general election.
McCain is tied with Obama in blue states... if Obama can't even beat McCain in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Minnesota, then he is toast by landslide margins.
Even the bluest of blue states...Massachusetts... McCain is within the margin of error of Obama on most polls.
Losing in November is what Democrats deserve.
Republicans nominated a moderate (that independents like).
Democrats nominated a far left extremist. An extremist that reinforces that image by worshipping a proven racist like Wright, having friends like Louis Farrakhan (there goes the Democrat Jewish vote), proven terrorist Bill Ayres (there goes the independent voters), and getting a sweetheart deal on a multi-million dollar house from slumlord and felon Rezko (there goes the middle class vote).
Democrats have once again managed to do what they ALWAYS do.... self-destruct by nominating losers.
May 8, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Sasquatch: Do you ever see the irony in your recent posts saying: "mission accomplished: operation chaos"?
As in, GWB famously stating "mission accomplished" about the Iraq war?
May 8, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
rickg19611:
McCain continuing the war in Iraq for the next 100 years. There goes 70% of the vote. This will end up being the one of the main issues. And don't forget this one. "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID"
May 8, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Sasquatch.... score a big one for Operation Chaos....
Success on 4 out of 5 objectives.
1) Both Democrats fight it out to the end to maximize GOP benefits from objectives 2-5 below. (Happening)
2) Allow both Democrats to test out what attacks work best against each other. (Success - GOP now knows what works best)
3) Force both Democrats to spend campaign funds on battling each other, reducing their funds for November. (Success - every dollar wasted on each other is lost in using against McCain)
4) Allow McCain to appear above the fray, as Democrats sling mud at each other that helps create negative images of both (Sucess - favorability ratings for both Democrats have gone down consistently each month as the primary battles drag on)
5) In the end, ideal outcome was to have Hillary finish a very close second to Obama. That is a TWOFER victory. He is the weaker candidate for the 2008 general election, and having her finish second in a nasty campaign alienates her in Democrat ranks for the future. A twofer that helps in 2008 AND 2012. Also, it pops that imaginary balloon that Dimwitocrats had about how great Willy is.... and how he's become nothing more than a footnote of irrelevance... even among Democrats. (Sucess)
May 8, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
dilligaf...
Americans are a lot smarter than Democrats. Americans KNOW that there are US forces in Korea, Germany, and Japan more than 50-60 years after those wars. And they don't care.
Democrats have the mistaken belief (as usual) that what appeals to the 30% of the populace known as Democrats will appeal to everyone else. They forget that Republicans and independents make up more than twice as many voters as Democrats. And even Democrats admit that McCain is a moderate (bring in those independents + Republicans), while Obama is a liberal (stuck with Democrats).
No wonder Republicans are salivating over Democrats nominating a far left candidate, that has lots of skeletons and a blank slate for the GOP to fill in for Americans.
Independents will decide the election as usual. And which candidate appeals most to independents? A well known moderate that is a war hero, or an extremist empty suit with ties to Wright, Farrakhan, Ayres, Rezko, etc.
No wonder so many blue states are leaning towards McCain.
May 8, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
rickg19611,
Who are you trying to convince yourself? History has shown polls 7 months are not even worth taking much less believing. Bush Sr held double digit leads on Clinton 7 months prior to that election. Look what happened. This one will come down to the issues and the debates. The war, economy, health care, social security, and gas prices will choose the next president. You sound a little nervous and need reassurance there Ricky boy.
May 8, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
Clinton not dropping out, makes me wonder if she has something on Barrack or in some has a rabbit in the hat - to derail obama?
Hillary - you fought the good fight - be gracious and bow out with some dignity!
May 8, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
rickg19611,
Troops in Korea, Germany,& japan are not coming home in body bags. And we are not spending 7 billion a month. If you don't see the difference I really feel sorry for you.
May 8, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i keep hearing a lot of the usual talking points from the far right about how "even democrats think mccain is a moderate" and that obama is "far left", but i have yet to see anyone make such a case using anything but rushian rhetoric.
i think you folks overlook the fact that mccain's major policy stances translate to a third bush term...something the VAST majority of americans vehemently oppose. i'm not sure you can make the case that bush's presidency has taken the country down a "moderate" track...and may have to really pull out the stops to insist that continuing on said track will bring about "moderate" results in the future.
that said, i also don't think there's a big case to be made that obama's policy stances are "far left". if you go down the line, obama's major policy stances on the issues most important to the american people are supported by the majority of that group. unless you're ready to make the case that the majority of americans are "far left"...i hate to say it...but i think some of you folks are betraying your extremist positions on the political spectrum.
May 8, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
FAR TOO MANY people here listen to and BELIEVE Rush Bo!
That IS scary!
He is in Talk radio - an enttertainment business - he does what he does for RATIINGS and money!
Talk radio is America's Cesspool of mis-information ...
and Rush is the leader!
And you fools believe and quote that fat headed, self serving, drug addicted mouthy media whore?
May 8, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
there are so many inaccuracies and misrepresentations in bporous's argument that one scarcely knows where to start.
holy nonsensical rambling batman
May 8, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
On the contrary, I find bropous' posts to be quite articulate and well-reasoned. Compare this to the nearly constant, desperate one-themed rationale from many of the liberals: McCain is the same as Bush! McCain is the same as Bush! McCain is the same as Bush!
May 8, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
WOW bropous. Do really think that 70% of America is stupid and 30% is smart? I almost threw up reading your last two posts.
May 8, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
davies, i heard someone suggest this exercise for those who are still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the inconvenient political fact about mcsame:
go to www.johnmccain.com
please see his policy stances on the top priorities of the country (ranked most to least important):
Economy/Jobs
War in Iraq
Health care
Terrorism/National security
Ethics/Corruption in government
now...what are the strategic differences between his and bush's policy stances on these issues.
that's it...you don't even have to get back to us if the self-tutoring exercise is performed adequately
May 8, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
dilligaf, I've heard it said that the truth hurts. Maybe like a punch to the stomach.
May 8, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
So davies if someones views are not the same as yours that person is stupid? I believe in some forms of socialism. If you don't like that to flipping bad. That is my right. Oh and by the way I don't hate America. I just had to throw that in because that is another typical response you get from the righties when they don't like what you say.
May 8, 2008
11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Jay: A good argument, and I tip my hat, except I'm a little surprised you would imply fault with McCain on the last category, and a little surprised that Immigration Reform isn't in your top 5.
But my overriding point is, if I were to say: "Obama is the same as Kennedy" over and over again, then does it become self-evident that we should not vote for Obama? Or am I obligated to do better than that, and suggest or argue for viable alternatives to the allegedly homogeneous Obama/Kennedy policies?
May 8, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
dilligaf....
Having served in the US military in half of those foreign countries, I can say that you conveniently forgot that a lot more Americans DID come home in body bags from those countries than from Iraq. More Americans died in a week in WWII than in 5 years of Iraq.
If you don't understand the difference in those numbers, then it explains why you fail to see the fact that Obama can't even manage to win in blue states.
May 8, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Squatch - it's B-HO, don't forget the middle name. For some reason, that's off-limits. So, for me, that makes it all the more important to reference.
There's just something un-democratic about twisting someone's arm to leave a campaign. Can't quite put my finger on it, but that just seems so like.....like.....FRANK AZAR! The strong-arm! OK, the fact he's in another article today may have had some influence on that thought.
Good thing all of B-HO's momentum (delegate counts, primary wins) came at the front end of the campaign. Since the electorate has seen the other side of the polished turd, he doesn't seem to be doing as well and probably wouldn't be in this "mathmatically enviable" position. Hang in there, Hillary. It's much harder to elect a woman to that position than a man of any race...or mixed race. Sorry SQUATCH, that's the other thing we're not supposed to talk about. The inconvenient truth that B-HO won't be the first black president, but he may be the first mulatto president. Shhh.
May 8, 2008
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"Jay: A good argument, and I tip my hat, except I'm a little surprised you would imply fault with McCain on the last category, and a little surprised that Immigration Reform isn't in your top 5."
those are a list of americans' top priorities...not mine. immigration just isn't going to be the wedge issue this year that the rovians thought it would be. neither is guns. gays maybe. god for certain.
"But my overriding point is, if I were to say: "Obama is the same as Kennedy" over and over again, then does it become self-evident that we should not vote for Obama? Or am I obligated to do better than that, and suggest or argue for viable alternatives to the allegedly homogeneous Obama/Kennedy policies?"
i'm not sure what your point is. mccain's policies have seen an 8 year test drive. if you believe that 8 year trial period was a success and warrants a vote for continuation...by all means, make your case by listing the relevant accomplishments of said track record.
if, however, you believe that obama's policy stances most closely mirror kennedy's, then again, please let us know why you'd like them implemented. i personally see very little difference between hillary's and obama's platforms.
i think a better indicator of their effectiveness can be found by looking at the clinton administration rather than kennedy's, but that's just one guy talking.
May 8, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The facts that Democrats fear the most...
Fact: The states of Ohio and Florida have determined the past two Presidential elections.
Fact: Even if Obama can manage to hold on to every blue state (even though polls consistently showing him tied with MCain in 4 blue states, and within the margin of error on 6), he will have to find a way to win Ohio or Florida to beat McCain.
Fact: McCain leads Obama by double digits in Florida.
Fact: McCain leads Obama by 5% in Ohio.
Fact: Obama's favorability ratings have dropped every single month since January, as Americans learned more and more about him. The more they know about Obama, the lower his support drops.
Democrats have blown a golden chance, by dumping their candidate with the best chance of beating McCain, and choosing instead an empty suit that is struggling to hang on to the blue states.
May 8, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
rickg19611,
I also served in a war. And the difference in the three conflicts you mentioned and this one and the one I fought in (Vietnam) those three where winnable. Vietnam and this one are quagmires and can not be won. When will you people learn the difference between fighting another army that has territories and front lines and fighting an insurgency or gorilla warfare. You don't know who the enemy is much less killing him. It is like getting rid of gangs in this country. You can hire a million more police and there will still be gangs and still be violence. Eventually like Vietnam someone will have to pull the plug. It's just a matter of how many more needs to die and how many more billions do you want to spend.
May 8, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
ricky maybe you should hold your applause until obama and mccain are actually in a race for president.
mccain has come through the last two months pretty unscathed.
no one is digging into his policy stances.
i would say that the mcsame damage has yet to be done.
and remember...it's the economy, stupid.
May 8, 2008
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay...
You left out some key facts.
McCain is already very well known. Just like Hillary, he has been vetted by both parties and the media for years. Obama, as demonstrated by the Wright, Ayres, Rezko, and Farrakhan revelations over the past few months, is unknown to the vast majority of Americans.
Where will the suprise scandals that damage campaigns most likely pop up? Not from candidates that have already been vetted and scrutinized with a media microscope. Obama has been a mystery candidate, but we'll learn MUCH MORE about the hidden secrets of Obama that he doesn't want people to know about... and as proven by his monthly drops in favorability... the more Americans learn about him, the more he drops.
That's why Hillary is such a stronger threat to McCain. She, like McCain, has been vetted endlessly. So there are no hidden surprise scandals to pop up on Hillary or McCain. Obama is unknown, so if there are any surprise scandals to come up, it will be on Obama since his past is so unknown.
Three months ago, American didn't know about Wright. They didn't know about Obama's ties to terrorist Ayres. They didn't know the connections with Farrakhan. What other juicy stories is Obama hiding, that no one has uncovered yet.... the search is on. And Obama's mishandling of all of those scandals shows he doesn't do well when confronted with his secrets getting revealed.
As for your claims that it's about the economy, you are forgetting that the voters are concerned about the economy TODAY!! So polls from today already factor voter opinions about the economy into their responses!
And what do the polls of those economy focused voters show? Those economy focused voters say they prefer McCain over Obama in all of the battleground states, and even in several traditional blue states, McCain is tied or leading over Obama! It's the economy... and voters prefer McCain!
May 8, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chucky....
Keep hoping and dreaming that a miracle will happen to save your sinking candidate. That's all you can do now that Democrats seem unable to escape nominating a scandal ridden candidate that can't attract the votes of the largest voting groups in the country.
May 8, 2008
2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
rick i'd love to see some info to support your position that the majority of voters in "battleground states" support a republican instead of a dem regarding the economy.
furthermore, you're still not addressing the central issue in mcsamegate.
it's not about what we know about john mccain as a man that counts. it is not about which candidate looks good dressed up as a cowboy or a figher pilot. it is about policy stances. it is about which direction this person is going to take the country.
a vote for mccain is a vote to continue down the path that bush has chosen for the country. it's pretty obvious from recent polling that the country doesn't support that outcome.
policy decisions.
May 8, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay....
I'm pretty disappointed that Democrats didn't nominate a better candidate, as I would like to have a real contest between equals on deciding which candidate is best for the country. Democrats have shot themselves in the foot with Obama.
Read the results for yourself...
Florida - deciding state in 2000 - McCain has large lead
Ohio - deciding state in 2004 - McCain has solid lead
Traditional blue states...
Missouri - McCain leads by 6%
Wisconsin - McCain leads by 4%
Pennsylvania - Obama leads by 1.2% (inside margin of error)
The ironic thing is that the same polls show that Clinton beats McCain in both Florida and Ohio, as well as retaining the blue states (Wisconsin is the only toss-up between McCain and Clinton). But even if McCain won Wisconsin, if Clinton took Florida or Ohio, its a win for Clinton.
By selecting Obama, Democrats selected a candidate with more baggage (including unknown surprise baggage), and one that the largest voting groups keep rejecting. State after state has shown the same trend.... Obama loses big time with older voters, white voters, non-college educated voters. Those groups outnumber younger voters, minority voters, and college educated voters by 2 to 1. For Democrats that is a disaster... as Paul Begala admitted publicly today. Obama can't win by just getting the support of 20% of the population and continually losing the other 80%.
Check out realclearpolitics.com for the latest polling results that prove it.
May 8, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay....
More evidence on "policies" that you won't be happy to hear.
A report released Tuesday shows that when Obama's name is attached to a policy postion, voters are LESS likely to support it.
Immigration
McCain leads Obama 45% to 38% on this issue. Voters are evenly split between Clinton and McCain at 36%. Take the candidates names out and Democrats have a four-point lead over Republicans.
Health Care
Nationally, the Democrats have a decisive 52% to 36% lead over Republicans on the issue of Healthcare. On this issue, Clinton leads McCain 48% to 34%. Meanwhile, Obama has just a five-point lead over McCain on this issue.
Balancing the Federal Budget
Clinton also enjoys a solid lead over McCain when it comes to balancing the federal budget-- 46% of voters trust the former First Lady more, while 38% trust McCain more. McCain leads Obama by three points in this category.
Negotiating Trade Agreements
When it comes to negotiating trade agreements, McCain leads Clinton 42% to 37%. McCain holds a wider lead over Obama, 46% to 37%.
Education
Clinton dominates McCain in this category, 51% to 31%. Obama leads the GOP candidate by just five points. Nationally, the Democrats have six-point advantage over GOP’s when it comes to the issue of education.
The polling proves 3 key facts....
1) Clinton is a much stronger candidate against McCain than Obama. With Obama's negative affect on policy positions, McCain easily neutralizes any Democrat advantage on an issue, and substantially leads Obama on the other issues that voters consider important.
2) Attach McCain's name to a policy position, and his support RISES.
3) Attach Obama's name to a policy position, and his support DROPS.
Read it for yourself with Tuesday's report titled "When Compared to McCain, Voters Trust Clinton More than Obama on Five Key Issues " on rasmussenreports.com
May 8, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chucky...
Sounds like a hopeless task. Obama needs some miracles to overcome the fact that he's losing in states that Kerry and Gore won easily. And if the battle continues to be in the blue states, he's toast.
May 8, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
BigD...
A bad candidate with an ideal running mate will result in..... still losing.
Obama desperately needs to address his disastrous results among older, working class, and white voters who have been consistently rejecting him. Richardson does NOTHING to address that problem.
There doesn't appear to be enough running mates to fill all the problems he has....
May 8, 2008
6:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Bropous, I apologize for not responding earlier; life calls. You feel our economy is rolling great, I don't. You feel Mr. Bush has inhanced our position in the world, I disagree. Let's not waste each others time on these issues, let history judge the man. I do not attack Mr. Mc Cain except on health and the issue of his age. He is an honored veteran who served his country at a time when most forsook the honor and chose to ridicule our sevicemen. In those days, the military wasn't choosy, they took me in out of an institution with an 8th grade education. Hippies, druggies, these cowards who refused thier nation and spit upon our servicemen upon thier return from Southeast Asia, are now the generation in power. Mr. Clinton although a Rhoades Scholar, refused his country's call. As president, he should have never walked in Arlington Cemetary. Unlike the other two, Mc Cain put his life up for his country, and was a POW. That alone, democrat or republican deserves great respect. As for your whitewater comments concerning Clinton, go back further to a little airport in Mena, Arkansas about 1981-82. People like Barry Seal, Lassiter, tell me why we nobody mentions this, always Whitewater. Read up on this canidate and her families past. Americans have short memories. Hillary has a long history yet to be truthfully told. Mr. Obama is extremely liberal as well as inexperenced, yet he has brought this nation to a point I never thought I'd see: A black man with a creditable chance to be president. That is a " one step for man, one giant leap for mankind" to borrow the words of an astronaut. So, no matter what party I will vote for, I give him his credit; this was long overdue. Sometime I will tell you about veteran who didn't adjust and ended up in prison on the bottom of the food chain in the animal kingdom. Thier minds weakened by animals, it a sad thing to see. They are not the killers you think they are. Lastly we can debate pal, but lets be civil; save your ass candy on the location of my eyeballs to impress someone else. I'll respond with respect as anything less is an exemplar of personal insecurity, and I'll move on.
May 8, 2008
8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chucky...
Obviously, you don't know that the outcome of Presidential elections are determined by the results of INDIVIDUAL STATE RACES resulting in ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes.
A poll showing a national result is as useful as a poll of the feelings of German citizens about their favorite zoo animal.
Even the dimmest American learned that fact after the 2000 election.
May 8, 2008
9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chucky..
You have to rely on a "blogger" for your sources? ROLFMAO!!
What next? Finding a website dedicated to space alien research for your "info"?
May 9, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chuckie....
You're funny! You think that some blogger can "assemble" disparate sets of data, patch them together with some duct tape, seal some gaps with glue, and then roll that monstrosity out to their blogsite readers, and actually pass it off as reliable data?
No wonder you keep getting things wrong.
Stick to credible organizations, providing data collected with valid statistical methodologies. Otherwise you end up relying on some internet "expert" sitting around in his pj's, drinking beer, and telling you what to think about space aliens, black helicopters, and their connections to Lyndon LaRouche and John Edwards.
May 9, 2008
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
"I provide information--with citations--to counter your claims."
Well, this might be true, on the day that Youtube is considered a valid source of information. Probably the day that Wikipedia receives the same status.
May 9, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Rule #1 for establishing personal credibility....
NEVER rely on data provided by a blogger who posts the following headline with their data... "Solve the world's problems, one beer at a time."
Unless your only real objective in life is to achieve a perpetual state of intoxication.
May 9, 2008
8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
LOUIE writes:
Okay, fair enough. Back a after Vietnam, many soldiers returned home to a society that was less than hospitable. Our government turned thier face on them. Many suffered emotional as well as mental problems. Failing to adjust or re-enter society, many ran affront of the law and ended up in America's prisons. The state of Florida were I was in prison did nothing to address the problem either. The prison handed them thorizine and other psychotropic drugs like M&M's candy. Florida State prison was a gladiator's arena. These men who once proudly served ther country where ill-equiped to deal with it. It is a very sad thing to watch a man suffer even greater evil than what he encountered in combat, and a nation that wanted to shove him under the rug. I was well equipped for prison. I grew up in 17 correctional facilities in three states as a child before entry into the Army. Alaska where I came from had no correctional facilities other than McLaughlin Youth Center. Thus I witnessed firsthand the terrible distruction of some of America finest soldiers. I don't know who committed the worse crime, the soldier or the nation that turned thier back on him. Today, these former hippies, druggies and societal dropouts are the same ones who you'll see standing up for our country. Yet when our country was down and called upon them, they were the cowards who turned against thier country. My mother held the highest security clearances given by our government as she was part of the Stategic Air Command on Elemendorf Airbase in Anchorage. It hurt her deeply to see the wounded get off the planes from Southeast Asia only to re-enter an ungrateul nation. Today, how many of these protesters are carrying our flag or sit in positions of leadership?
May 9, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chuckie...
You rely on a blogger who selectively patches together data from other polling organizations to invent a picture he wants to sell you.... and you swallowed that hook, line, and sinker.
But then what do you expect when you rely on a blogger with a headline of "Solve the world's problems, one beer at a time."
Try to remain sober, and next time... use the data directly from the polling organizations... not some drunken cobbling of data for other people.
May 9, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
ricky...still waiting for those links....your opinions and nonscientific online polls don't count as credible sources...
May 9, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay...
You were provided those links twice yesterday... your refusal or inability to read them does not qualify as a judgment on the qualifications of others.
May 9, 2008
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Wow.... today's polls show that Obama's collapse among older, white, and blue collar workers is getting even worse for him as the race goes on.
The latest polls of the upcoming primary states of Kentucky and West Virginia, whose demographics match those of the decisive Upper Midwest down through the South, shows that Clinton is leading Obama by the largest margins in this election cycle.
Clinton is crushing Obama by 34% in Kentucky and 29% in West Virginia. Those are historic landslide margins. The media praised Obama, like obedient lapdogs, when he won North Carolina by a 15%. If they are willing to proclaim a 15% win as a "landslide", will they even attempt to appear unbiased in accurately describing Obama LOSING BY 29% or 34% MARGINS as a MAJOR LANDSLIDE VICTORY FOR CLINTON?
Obama sinks deeper and deeper into trouble with each new day's results.... he has proven that he cannot win the largest voting blocks in the country. As Paul Begala accurately described "Obama can't win with just the egghead and African American vote".
No wonder the blue states are in play. Even super-blue states like Wisconsin favors McCain over Obama by sizable margins.
The Democrat Party can proclaim that their candidate is "unsinkable" all they want..... just as the captain and crew of the Titanic said too. The real world results are proving otherwise.
May 9, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"today's polls show that Obama's collapse among older, white, and blue collar workers is getting even worse for him as the race goes on."
at what polls are you looking, rick?
can you post a link to the poll that illustrates this point?
May 9, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
kissiee writes:
I'm not sure where some of you people are getting your statistics from, most likely the delusional Clinton playbook, but Obama' numbers are WAY ahead of hers. The potential for superdelegates stepping up for her is very unlikely. It is her unbudgingly stubborn fighting style,no matter how delusional, closed-minded and off-track, and so similar to Bushie's, that is such a turn-off to many, and so indicative of her huge negative ego and pride. The "magic" of Obama, which so many refer to is only the TRUTH, which continues to exponentially resonate with more and more people. Her negative Obama-bashing style only serves to further distract from the real issues, and is becoming increasingly transparent to people. Well, after all, she IS the Illuminati puppet candidate ...
May 9, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay....
For Kentucky.... SurveyUSA.com has the latest results
For West Virginia.... Rasmussen has the latest results
All of the major polling organizations are showing large leads by Clinton in both states.
The SurveyUSA poll has the extra benefit of showing demographic breakdown, and that clearly shows the challenge that Obama faces is getting larger... as the race continues.
May 9, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
jay writes:
rick, please just post a link to the specific polls that you're sourcing to try to make your point. if you can't, admit it...don't send me on a wild goose chase.
May 9, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay...
LOL.... and here I thought that everyone would know how to go to a website directly or use Google!
Here are some shortcuts to help you out....
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollR...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...
May 9, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
don't pout that you're having to post sources for your rhetoric, rickybobby.
you still haven't posted the one that supports this argument:
"today's polls show that Obama's collapse among older, white, and blue collar workers is getting even worse for him as the race goes on."
still waiting...
May 9, 2008
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
The evidence is irrefutable. Even the bluest of liberals are agreeing ......
Not only is the assessment that Obama is losing big-time with older, white, and working class voters, but now his disaster is spreading to the Hispanic vote! Obama is making better progress towards the bottom than the Titanic!!!
"McCain's planned July address before the National Council of La Raza must be helping Mylanta sales near Democratic headquarters. Latinos have been a Clinton constituency, but as George W. Bush proved, they are amenable to voting for a friendly Republican. As co-author of the failed grand compromise on immigration — widely scorned as weak on enforcement — McCain can expect a warm reception by La Raza."
"Clinton's support — working-class whites.
Obama has done terribly with this group. And it's not just the old people. Pollsters at ABC News found Clinton leading Obama by 19 percentage points even among 30- to 40-year-old white voters who didn't go to college."
"If demographics are destiny — as the political sages keep telling us — Democratic demographics may offer some choice cuts to the presumed Republican nominee. By dumb luck, Republicans have chosen their one candidate who projects a moderate image, hasn't alienated Latinos and offers an appealing life story to boot.
The core problem for Democrats is that Obama's backers are reliable Democrats, whereas Hillary Clinton's are unreliable Democrats. Less than half of the Clinton voters in Indiana said they would support Obama in a general election, which is a very bad sign. Add these largely blue-collar and rural whites to some swinging independents and you have a potential Big Mac Value Meal for McCain."
"His (Obama) comments at a fundraiser in San Francisco were regrettable for dismissing working whites' affection for religion and guns as an outgrowth of bitterness over their declining economic prospects. And still more damaging was the audience to which he was confiding — the money masters who lay American workers off, or order the companies they invest in to do so, or neatly send their programming work to Romania."
"With a likely Clinton loss exposing the underbelly of the Democrats' white blue-collar and Latino constituency, McCain has his knives sharpened."
http://www.creators.com/opinion/froma...
May 9, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay....
You begged for help in finding the polling results. It was provided.
Then you claimed that you needed the link, because you are unable to figure out how to use Google or type in the URL. It was handed to you.
Now, you're claiming that you can't read it?
What next? Explaining which numbers are larger?
May 9, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
you still haven't cited the poll to support your opinion that "today's polls show that Obama's collapse among older, white, and blue collar workers is getting even worse for him as the race goes on."
why are you fighting this? it takes me all of 30 seconds to source a poll i've used in a point.
please post it or concede that you made up said poll results
May 9, 2008
1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay...
You've been provided several sources (even to the point of linking them since you admitted that you don't know how to find them with the address clearly stated and Google being a mere click away), and now you can't even figure out how to read them?
Are the BIG words they use, like STATE and RESULT, confusing for you? The numbers?
Here's a few tips...
1 - Compare the numbers for Obama in past periods, with today's results
2 - If today's number is lower, then that means his support is LOWER
3 - If today's number is higher, then that means his support is HIGHER
If you STILL can't figure it out with those ultra-simple instructions on how to compare numbers, my 9 year old can teach you. Just be forewarned, to tutor you he will likely charge double. Since you appear to need a lot more help in understanding the polling results than the average 9 year old.
May 9, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
no need to get all agressive mrs. rick. if you can't provide the link to the poll on which you base your opinion....then let's just qualify it as your opinion and not fact.
May 9, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
jay...
You were provided the direct source names and multiple links. All you needed to do was read it.
Your inability to read it and understand that one number is larger than another number, is evidence of why you are confused at hearing what Democrats are agreeing on.... Obama is struggling with the largest voting blocks. And with supporters that can't figure out whether 60 is a higher number than 40, its not surprising.
May 9, 2008
3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i read the links you posted, rickg...and none of them came even close to supporting your position. maybe you just posted the wrong ones.
if you have any that do i'm still interested in seeing them.
May 9, 2008
4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
WOW!!! Just as I predicted repeatedly..... Obama has not been properly vetted and I predicted more and more surprises to come....
And just TODAY... the Obama campaign admitted that they have been engaging in "talks" with HAMAS! What deals are Obama and his friends in Hamas cooking up? Or is he getting advice and directions from his terrorist bosses?
Latest news headline today...."A Middle East policy adviser for Barack Obama has left the campaign after acknowledging having held talks with Hamas"
How many terrorist organizations does Obama need to be connected to, before he loses the remaining handful of his supporters? How many blue states does he need to lose before Democrats admit their mistake in supporting a PROVEN TERRORIST CONNECTED CANDIDATE?
May 9, 2008
7:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Chuckie....
Better work harder. Today's revelation about Obama's terrorist connections with Hamas is sure to make a few million more votes swing over the McCain. At the rate Obama is going, he won't be able to win more than a handful of states.
May 9, 2008
7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Video proof that Obama is retarded. Perhas he should have been learning a few things about the United States, instead of spending his time getting instructions from Hamas.
""Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=93393