Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditSALEM, NH – Barack Obama might beat both Hillary Clinton and John McCain on Tuesday.
How is that possible?
Obama is drawing a tremendous level of support from New Hampshire's unaffiliated voters – independents who form roughly 45 percent of the electorate and who can vote in either the Republican or the Democratic presidential primary. Polls suggest that a clear majority of New Hampshire independents will participate in Tuesday's Democratic primary, with most choosing the Democratic ballot in order to back Obama's surging candidacy although a substantial number want to support John Edwards and a few will even vote for Hillary Clinton.
With burgeoning independent support, Obama is moving up fast in the polls. On Saturday, the CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary Tracking Poll has Obama and Clinton tied at 33 percent each. On Sunday, the same poll had Obama leading by 39 percent to 29 percent.
A new USA Today/Gallup poll gives Obama a 41 per cent to 28 per cent for Clinton, while 19 per cent are for Edwards. In that survey, independents backed Obama over Clinton by a staggering 23-point margin.
And this may not be Obama's peak. As the candidate says, "We are now on the cusp of building a new majority in America."
There are still plenty of New Hampshire independents who are choosing between Obama and McCain. They are acknowledging as much in questions at the crowded town hall meetings where they say, as Bob Jean, an accountant did at a McCain event in Salem: "A lot of independents are trying to decide between Obama and you, or Hillary Clinton and you."
If they the independent wave does crash into the Democratic contest, New Hampshire could end up doing what Iowa did – sending a dramatic signal about where the November race is could be headed.
The Iowa caucuses traditionally had seen higher levels of participation in contested Republican caucuses than Democratic caucuses.
The caucuses drew a record turnout of 356,000 Iowans.
Of that total, 239,000 caucused as Democrats while 108,000 caucused as Republicans. Why the bias toward the Democrats? Because Iowa independents moved overwhelmingly into the room where Democrats caucused, drawn largely by the desire to boost Obama.
How overwhelming was the rejection of the Republican party and its presidential prospects?
Consider this:
Almost 25 percent of all Iowans who caucused last Thursday did so for Obama.
Another 20.5 caucused for Edwards, while 19.8 caucused for Clinton.
And what of the winner of the Republican caucuses?
Mike Huckabee won a mere 11.4 percent.
So a quarter of Iowa caucusgoers came out for the winner of the highly-competitive Democrats while barely 10 percent came out for the Republican victor.
If the independents-go-Democratic scenario plays out again in New Hampshire, the Democratic primary winner will almost certainly be Obama. And the winner of a Republican primary cleansed of independents and dominated by the conservative base would not necessarily be John McCain.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
All true, and the flaw in the METTEYYA argument that Obama is some "true blue progressive" who by sheer will wins over more moderate and conservative voters.
They're breaking for him exactly BECAUSE he's not "a fighter populist" like Edwards. (Granting they don't like Hillary have have two to choose from)
Obama's message IS appealing...and not because it promises a resurgence of liberalism, but simply that it promises "change" (vague of course) and SOME attempt at ending the logjam and getting some bipartisan stuff through (So recently attacked here at "The Nation" by Ms vanden Heuvel and others).
I don't care...always said I'd vote for whoever the Dems put up. BUT...given mistrust of Hillary and no support of Edwards' "I'll take on The Power" rhetoric or promise....Obama fine with me.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 11:05am
...Obama fine with me.
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 11:05am
Come on, MASK! I endorsed McCain before he really started climbing the polls. Now, it's time, for you and The Nation, to endorse somebody (of no surprise now), a co-front runner if not an outright one!
Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 11:39am
I think overlooking Obama's actual positions is a mistake. By all serious analyses both Obama and Edwards are clearly running to the left of Hillary. He is clearly not moderate. Yet he picks up much more independents (liberal, moderate and even some conservatives) and some moderate Republicans, but this isn't because his policies and values aren't progressive (if this was true I think many moderates and independents would be very comfortable with Hillary), it is because his character is so fresh and inspiring to people who are sick and TIRED of the normal partisan divide in Washington. He also benefits from disillusioned Republicans who are starting to realize the error of their ways after the Bush disaster. Yes, he isn't screaming hang the corporate executives like Edwards likes to do (figuratively, of course), but that is a stylistic difference in a primary campaign, not a sign that Obama won't stand strong on issues. If anything it shows that he is a brilliant politician and natural leader, not weak willed. He knows how to reach people, he knows how to bring people together, and so he will be more effective than Edwards could be with his heightened rhetoric, or Hillary could be with her more moderate (or conservative) policies, even though at first glance it seems counter intuitive. Anyone who doubts his brilliance as a politician and leader should watch his victory video from Iowa. THAT is why he is so popular among many large groups. His talk is disarming, he doesn't make people defensive, talk is not cheap (Hillary), it is what grownups do. And to be clear, his legislative history reflects not only talk of change, but action, and more action than I can say Hillary has accomplished, unless "action" is defined as a failed Health Care reform while being married to a president, and then naming a bunch of libraries and whatnot after people during your time in the Senate.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that some people mistakenly underestimate Obama, and I think they will be presently surprised at what he can accomplish with his approach.
Posted by bridoc at 01/07/2008 @ 11:43am
well, it seems the pigeons have flocked........................
could be WAY worse, though.
might be kinda cool to have a guy named Barack* Hussein** Obama*** who looks like he's from brazil as president of freedomplaces.
*The boy's name Barak \b(a)-rak\ is pronounced ba-RAHK, BARE-ek. It is of Hebrew origin, and its meaning is "flash of lightning". Biblical: a valiant fighting man who cooperated with the prophetess Deborah to win victory in a battle against overwhelming odds.
Judges 4:6 She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor.
--------------------------------------------
**Husayn, Hussein, Hussain, Husain (Arabic:حسین), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "beautiful" or "handsome". It is commonly given as a male given name among Muslims, after Husayn ibn Ali. In some Persian sources the form Háosayn is used [1]. In Turkish it is Hüseyin.
--------------------------------------------
***Obama; couldn't really find anything. bet it was his grandpa's name.
a hybrid in the WHITE HOUSE.
whoda thunk it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 11:55am
Not that it changes anything much, but there appears to be a typo in the number of Republicans participating in the caucus. I added up the numbers that were posted for each candidate on the Iowa Republican website, and got 118,696.
I've been very active in Clark County, Nevada for the past 4 years as a volunteer grassroots organizer, and the attention we are getting this year is giving a tremendous boost to building a stronger, better organized Democratic Party here.
From the beginning of the nominating process about a year ago, I have been at best lukewarm about supporting any incumbent Democratic Senator -- I believe every one of them should have been totally focused on the Senate for this past year, attempting to at least slow down or stop the continuing damage inflicted on our country by this criminal administration. I will enthusiastically support the Democratic nominee, but I personally favor John Edwards.
Posted by Chesnut at 01/07/2008 @ 12:07pm
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 11:05am
Just clearing up some confusion last week, this was EXACTLY my point to METTEYYA last week re: Iowa and Republican crossover voters.
Posted by BRIDOC 01/07/2008 @ 11:43am
Nice post. A well-reasoned, yet restrained, analysis of what Obama can bring to the table.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 12:16pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/07/2008 @ 11:39am
HAPP, you also said that "The Nation" was full-bore in support of Hillary...and article after article against her wouldn't change your mind.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 12:21pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/07/2008 @ 12:16pm
METTEYYA believes, NOT that Obama is "vague" and that's why modertes, indies, and conservative Dems support him...
but that he's got some super power that makes them abandon THEIR principles and vote for somebody who doesn't represent their values.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 12:23pm
YAY!!!!! FRANK is back...and just in time with 36 hours left until NH's primary (and maybe a month left in Her Nibs' campaign...heheh)
Glad to see ya FG...been missing ya, you ol' poot!
As to--
"I know some of you will be saying that I said Hillary would win this thing in a cakwalk."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/07/2008 @ 12:46pm
Actually what you said was this--
"Nice try but I've said several times before, I could care less about Iowa. Hillary could lose Iowa and new Hampshire and still win very big. However, there's no chance of losing New Hampshire. They love Bill up there. Iowa will change six more times before the caucuses. Not real important.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/19/2007 @ 10:49pm
BLOG | Posted 11/19/2007 @ 12:08pm Fighting Poverty in CT by Katrina vanden Heuvel
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 12:51pm
Katha Pollitt -- The Nation -- 6 January 2008
'...Hillary Clinton['s] ... obvious frustration with the ongoing lovefest for Obama: At one point she even compared his "likeability' to that of George W. Bush. In real life, Obama has made the same sort of compromises she herself has made. As she pointed out, he said he'd vote against the Patriot Act, and then he voted for it. He casts himself as the candidate who'd repair our bellicose relations with the world, and then talks about bombing Pakistan. He talks about putting Republicans in his cabinet, as Bill Clinton did. His health-care plan, as Paul Krugman points out every day on the New York Times op-ed page, is weaker than Clinton's or Edwards'. I'm sure Hillary Clinton must be wondering what the difference is between "triangulation" and Obama's calls for unity.
... Obama, the black candidate who never mentions his race, gets to smile his mile-wide smile and be a rock star. Somehow he has made himself a great big humongous hope object. People can project on him what they want him to be. ...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/07/2008 @ 12:54pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/07/2008 @ 12:59pm
And while maybe not technically true that FRANK "never said cakewalk"...he certainly made it clear that Her Majesty WOULD win the nomination and WOULD easily beat any Republican.
(But, I'm worried if we jump on his case too much...especially after tomorrow night...he won't come back again for a while!)
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 1:07pm
"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!
For those of you who still have not heard:
There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.
It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM
Together for Obama, Anne
Posted by annevilla at 01/07/2008 @ 1:09pm
It's really quite an extraordinary moment in history, as the Clinton Dynasty falls before our very eyes......As indicative of HRC's weakness as a devisive panderer, as it is of Obama's undeniable strength as an inspiring uniter...
Still, though, one has to ask the same question of either candidate....Where's the beef?
Obama is a weak candidate, IF the republicans find their own message of hope and positive change, and STICK TO THE ISSUES WITH A POSITIVE CAMPAIGN>>>>>>>>
Posted by davebarlett at 01/07/2008 @ 1:10pm
According to Rush (to show how credible this is) Hillary made some sort of "spade" comment this morning regarding Obama in reference to a shovel and experience. The damn jets were flying so I couldn't hear.
Rush really hates McCain and Huckabee. I know MASK said something along these lines the other day but today it was blatantly obvious. Politics are funny.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/07/2008 @ 1:41pm
Frank -
With all respect, do you have anything to buttress your contention that Obama's support is really some sort of right-wing plan? Which radio personalities are encouraging Republicans to show up at Obama rallies? Seems like a curious strategy to me -- one that would require a tremendous amount of commitment. Sure maybe a few outliers might think this is brilliant, but I doubt it is enough to be significant -- certainly not enough to swing it. Wouldn't energy be better spent in mobilizing around a Republican's campaign?
Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 01/07/2008 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person
When was the last time the Republicans ran on a message of hope and positive change? When have they run an issue-based, positive campaign? Not their style.
None of the leading Republicans are likely to run a positive campaign in the general election, they can't even run a positive campaign in their primaries!!!
Let the Swift Boating begin.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/07/2008 @ 2:06pm
Hillary will make a comeback. The battle's just begun despite the MSM's funeral services. Up until now, her campaign has benn handling him with white gloves. Now the gloves come off.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/07/2008 @ 1:27pm
FRANK, I invite EVERYBODY to save that one. And...if she wins...I'll happily post it and say you were right, many of us were wrong.
I'll also post it in the other case, too!
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 2:14pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 01/07/2008 @ 1:10pm
A POSITIVE campaign from the GOP? HA!! When pigs fly, Dave.
It'll be code red scare-the-pants-off-you shit as usual: the terrorists will kill you if you elect a Dem -- if all the illigal immigrants don't rob you first -- an if you live throug THAT, you get taxed to death -- living next door to gay married couples destroying your marriage -- and baby killers down the street -- releasing all the killers from prison.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:22pm
MASK and MARYBRET,
You guys are missing the point.
Not only are Republicans attracted to Obama's POSITIVE message of what America can become, they AGREE with Obama on the issues.
Obama Republicans (about 20%) agree with us on taking back our governement so that it is under citizen control rather than the special interests. They agree with us that we need to break our addiction to oil and usher in a new green economy with American innovation, technology and entrepreneurship. They agree with us on universal healthcare, and are like that conservative member of parliament in the movie "Sicko" who LOVES universal healthcare and thinks of it as a basic human right rather than a partisan issue. They agree with us on ending the war in Iraq and about playing a "constructive" role in resolving conflict around the world. And they "all" agree with us that partisan bickering in Washington has gotten us nowhere and they want to transcend the partisanship of the politics of the past.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 2:23pm
Not only are Republicans attracted to Obama's POSITIVE message of what America can become, they AGREE with Obama on the issues.----Posted by METTEYYA 01/07/2008 @ 2:23pm
METTE, I realize when you're wrapped up in a cult of personality....simple, plain logic doesn't effect you but...
1. Do Republicans support REAL "progressivism"? If so, why are they called "Republicans" and not "Democrats"?
2. Why would they abandon their principles for somebody threatening (yes, threatening) to do something different or even the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they believe in?
3. Is it possible they DON'T think Obama is a "real progressive just using fair-minded language"...but that he's more moderate?
4. Is it possible...he is?
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 2:28pm
Hillary will make a comeback. The battle's just begun despite the MSM's funeral services. Up until now, her campaign has benn handling him with white gloves. Now the gloves come off.
FRNKGRITS,
Hillary tried that in Iowa and as soon as she went negative, her poll numbers fell steeply. It reminded the voter why we don't like her - she is just another Karl Rove divider in Democratic clothing.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 2:30pm
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 2:28pm
Give it up and just save these for your archives. METT has chugged the Kool-Aid and even swallowed the dry mix. Like I said last week, if Obama wins, METT better be ready to be let down come 2010 - like a lot of folks were let down in 1993 and 1994.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:32pm
"They agree with us on universal healthcare, and are like that conservative member of parliament in the movie "Sicko" who LOVES universal healthcare and thinks of it as a basic human right rather than a partisan issue." -Posted by METTEYYA 01/07/2008 @ 2:23pm |
Mett, um, are you talking about Tony Benn? He's hardly conservative. He's the second-longest serving member of parliament for the labor party (sort of like Kennedy, only more leftist). He's got a mug (or pin or something) in the film that says, "Old Labour and Proud".
According to wikipedia: "The term "Bennite" has come to be used in Britain for someone of a radical but democratic left-wing position."
Posted by Rintrah at 01/07/2008 @ 2:46pm
The thing is Hillary can't take off the gloves. If she starts running a smear campaign everyone will counter with the fact that she is giving off the image of so many republicans out there who instead of running on the issues run on fear mongering and the denouncing of the opposition. If she starts slinging mud she's going to do more damage to herself.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2008 @ 2:51pm
Is there a hope that anyone but Kucinich would make an attempt to drive the 100 top Republican - Military complex war criminals into the sea? Probably not. The damage has been done.
Posted by Qroger at 01/07/2008 @ 3:04pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/07/2008 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person
Dont forget the demoncrats will turn us into a communist country, God will banned and the activist judges will be at the center of it all.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/07/2008 @ 3:04pm
Posted by DAVEBARLETT 01/07/2008 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person
What issues?
The economy-The housing market is directly effecting every middle class homeowner, the dollar is falling, the credit market is in a crunch and the stock market seems to be in a downward spiral. Translation-Recession is looming around the corner (whether only perceived or actually coming is another argument altogether) Production is up but wages are stagnant-we are working harder for less money. The middle class and most of the independents are sick of the stagnating wages while the CEO's are making billions (collectively). All staples of supply side economics(re: Republican).
Health Care-The majority of Americans want serious change to the current system. All of the Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, are talking of slightly modifying the current system. Status Quo
National Security-Republicans have lost some credibility in this department. The public wants us out of Iraq (the central national security) and most polling has indicated that the 9-11 campaign that Giuliani is running only works on the geriatrics in Fa.
Education-No one on the Republican side really talking about it.
Taxes-You may have one there. But I bet it gets trumped by all the Dems supporting Middle Class tax cuts/breaks while talking about increasing taxes on the 1% and unlike past elections it will resonate with the general electorate(see comments on Economy).
Immigration-Big issue with the Republicans, but without anyone having any concrete solutions-I do not see it carrying any elections.
Social Issues-AHHHHHHH!!! Figured it out. The remaining Red States will all have ballot initiatives looking to fire "Activist Judges" and replace them with "Originists".
2008 is not the year for the Conservative Agenda
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/07/2008 @ 3:05pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/07/2008 @ 12:46pm
hey frank,
why, just yesterday i reposted a couple of yours just for fun,
and hoped for your return...........
speaketh of the devilllllll.....................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 3:05pm
This percentage breakdown in Iowa was reported a few nights ago on Keith Olbermann's show. It's striking, but not exactly new news.
Go Obama!
Posted by wondermachine at 01/07/2008 @ 3:10pm
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 3:13pm | ignore this person
His Progressivism will be dictated by what type of Senate he has to deal with. Democratic Supermajority Senate=Progressive Obama. Republican Senate or a Non-Supermajority Democratic Senate=Moderate Obama. A democrat in the White House next year is about a 65% chance (IMO). What are the chances of a Democratic Supermajority in the Senate? Maybe 40% at best. Looks like a moderate Obama (if he wins the Nom) in our future.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/07/2008 @ 3:12pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/07/2008 @ 2:32pm
I actually already said that (so has EDDIEBISME). But I have a feeling that METTEYYA will be "Chauvin" to the bitter end with Obama (after all, the guy still thinks Arsenio was a comedic genius!...heheh).
Obama slides "center" and METT will tell us "It's only a ploy...he's suckering in those con Dems and Repubs. Just you wait, the bill will be MUCH more progressive when he signs it!"...
then it isn't and METT says "Well, of course he negotiated SOME things...he's a uniter and bipartisan!" Effectively contradicting his claim (over the last couple days) that Repubs and Indies will just roll over and give Obama anything he wants.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 3:13pm
I don't want moderate candidates the best thing we can have in this country is someone to start choosing sides. We already have a broken two party system. We don't need a broken one party system where everyone is just in the middle getting even less done than they already do.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:17pm
Posted by BIZARRORIO 01/07/2008 @ 3:12pm
Depends on what you mean by "Supermajority Democratic Senate". Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Dianne Feinstein, etc. all still going to be there.
And remember, no filibusters by Repubs were needed to kill "Hillary-care" in 1993-1994. It was all internal Democratic politics.
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 3:18pm
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 3:13pm
MASK,
You are missing the entire point about coalition building and how bringing in a whole new group of "voters" to the table forces the Repbulicans to deal or face these voters themselves during re-election.
Obama is not going into the presidency by himself to negotiate with the same old folks, he is going in there with a new progressive majority of "voters' that will hold these old folks feet to the fire or have them booted out during the next election cycle.
2 years into his presidency, he will have every one speaking his unity tune, and even a new crop of legislators that are on the same page.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 3:20pm
This debate has gotten really good.
Some issues I might propose for debate are:
1) Is Hillary still on the top when sampling in the very heavyweight states such as California, New York, Florida? (don't mention Texas because I don't think Dems will ever carry Texas for a while). Or has this Obama wave spread over these states as well? (Because that is the strategy adopted by Giuliani in the other side, to bet for the big states). I mean we have just seen a typical mid-west electorate (Iowa) and we are going to see an 'atypical' New England electorate (New Hampshire is a bit more to the right than most other New England states). We have not seen yet the 'more to the left' California, the 'aging' Florida, and the 'well informed' New York.
2)How will racism play if Obama gets the nomination? Will Dems be able to get any state in the south different from Florida? Will Dems be able to get say Arkansas or Tennessee? Carter and Clinton (Bill)were able to snatch some of these states. Because one thing is the Georgia Dems going to primaries and selecting Obama, another totally different is the whole state in an election. Will the Dems be able to get swing Ohio with Obama? As I see it, racism still plays heavily in the south and to a lesser degree in the mid west, it plays much less in the west and the northeast.
3) Some of the items swift boat Reps will use to try crucify Obama are: a. Lack of experience/accomplishments (it will be somehow true but they will take enormous advantage of this). b. Religion (Obama's present ethnocentric religion). His Dad being a Muslim. c. Scare the American people (they will bang on 'Do you really know this guy and where does he stand on, to trust him the Presidency?')
Note: Let it be clear that I prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton. It is I am worried on real things that will happen in the near future.
Posted by Frank42 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:21pm
"Obama is not going into the presidency by himself to negotiate with the same old folks, he is going in there with a new progressive majority of "voters' that will hold these old folks feet to the fire or have them booted out during the next election cycle."
This is assuming that these young voters continue to vote and don't just succumb again to apathy and I would say that right now that is a big assumption to make.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/07/2008 @ 3:24pm
FRANKGRITS
Republicans would rather run against Obama? Polling Report [pollingreport.com]
A mid-December Fox poll had McCain beating Clinton and Obama by about the same margin (5 and 4 points, respectively) and either of them beating Huckabee by 9 points.
A mid-December ABC poll had Giuliani beating Clinton 47-45 but losing to Obama 48-41.
A mid-Decmeber ABC poll had Giuliani 43-46 vs. Clinton but 40-49 vs. Obama. The same poll had Clinton over Huckabee 46-44 but Obama over Huckabee 48-36.
Obama consistently polled better than, or as well as, Clinton against the same Republican candidates.
You can see a similar line up at RealClearPolitics [tinyurl.com]. In fact, the only candidate who does well against Clinton or Obama is McCain. That makes the question of migrating independents very interesting.
Regaring New Hampshire, I defy you to show me a post-Iowa poll that has Clinton ahead. There is one that gives Obama a 1% lead, which is a neck-and-neck result but that's it.
Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2008 @ 3:24pm
FRANK42 1) Is Hillary still on the top when sampling in the very heavyweight states such as California, New York, Florida?
No polls have been taken in those states since 12/18 at the latest, so we have no post-Iowa information.
Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2008 @ 3:28pm
Posted by METTEYYA 01/07/2008 @ 3:20pm
First you claim "Republicans and independents" are voting for Obama...
now you claim there are mysterious "new progressive voters" and THEY'll be the ones who'll push Obama's agenda for him.
Are you even keeping track of what you're claiming?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 3:53pm
As an Independent I find it incomprehensible that a voter who would vote for John McCain would switch to Barack Obama. McCain and Obama are really apart on basic issues. I personally support Dennis Kucinich and after him would vote for Edwards.
Posted by sabb at 01/07/2008 @ 3:57pm
SABB
It may be a character call rather than a policy call. The impression that both try to give is that of transcending the partisan paradigm. In that respect, they could be perceived as similar.
Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2008 @ 3:59pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/07/2008 @ 11:39am
Come on, MASK! I endorsed McCain before he really started climbing the polls. Now, it's time, for you and The Nation, to endorse somebody (of no surprise now), a co-front runner if not an outright one!
Happy, what are you going to do when McCain chokes as the establishment candidate in an election based on "change"? Weren't you also behind Fred Thompson too or did you come to your senses and realize that he is about as exciting as a nap?
Howie Hawkins, Dennis Kucinich, Brian Moore, Ron Paul so many choices, and when that last dog & pony carny makes the last sale scooping up that last, steaming vote along with the other manure, the Democrats and Republicans are going to see some lame establishment candidate masquerading as a "change" candidate in the poop stains - includes you Obama and possibly John "I can change, see how I snuggled up to the religious right" McCain.
Who wants to endorse that business? Certainly not me.
Hey, on a side note, anyone want to take a page from the Christian Exodus playbook and instead of only aiming for an American version of the Taliban in South Carolina, we can create a diverse landscape where every stripe of ideology can promote their fundamentally flawed policies where they live. Happy and the neo-cons keep Texas, California for the Greens, Oregon for the anarchists, Arkansas for "Third Way" Democrats, Alabama for "Blue Dogs", Conservatives in Colorado, etc. Make it work for 20 years where you live, before trying to sucker every one else - will ya?
http://christianexodus.org/
Posted by srjenkins at 01/07/2008 @ 4:09pm
1) Is Hillary still on the top when sampling in the very heavyweight states such as California, New York, Florida? (don't mention Texas because I don't think Dems will ever carry Texas for a while). Or has this Obama wave spread over these states as well? (Because that is the strategy adopted by Giuliani in the other side, to bet for the big states). I mean we have just seen a typical mid-west electorate (Iowa) and we are going to see an 'atypical' New England electorate (New Hampshire is a bit more to the right than most other New England states). We have not seen yet the 'more to the left' California, the 'aging' Florida, and the 'well informed' New York.
2)How will racism play if Obama gets the nomination? Will Dems be able to get any state in the south different from Florida? Will Dems be able to get say Arkansas or Tennessee? Carter and Clinton (Bill)were able to snatch some of these states. Because one thing is the Georgia Dems going to primaries and selecting Obama, another totally different is the whole state in an election. Will the Dems be able to get swing Ohio with Obama? As I see it, racism still plays heavily in the south and to a lesser degree in the mid west, it plays much less in the west and the northeast.
3) Some of the items swift boat Reps will use to try crucify Obama are: a. Lack of experience/accomplishments (it will be somehow true but they will take enormous advantage of this). b. Religion (Obama's present ethnocentric religion). His Dad being a Muslim. c. Scare the American people (they will bang on 'Do you really know this guy and where does he stand on, to trust him the Presidency?')
Good questions!
1) I don't know about post-Iowa polling, but prior to Iowa, Obama was beating Clinton in Northern California but trailing her in Southern California. Her lead is narrowing at a fairly consistent rate, and I suspect that Iowa, NH, and SC will accelerate this.
I suspect that Hillary will carry NY, but with neighboring NH going for Obama, even New Yorkers will take notice and could embarrass Hillary.
It is difficult to tell how the Democratic boycott of Florida (and Michigan) will play out and whether "any" of their delegates will be included, especially if they go against the presumptive nominee.
2) I agree with your analysis of Texas, although the South could see some Obama realignment in Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama.
As for swing states in the past, this may change with an Obama nominee. I don't think Ohio will be the key swing state this time. In fact, there may not be any swing state with Obama's ability to attract independents and Republicans, and he should win with a comfortable margin against most of the Republican nominees (not sure about Romney).
In general, race plays to Obama's favor. He is a "bi-racial" man with a white mother from Kansas. His bi-racial background fits nicely with his unity theme, and will cause both blacks and whites to unite around his candidacy.
3) Republican smears will backfire like they are backfiring with Clinton. That approach does not work well with a "uniter" like Obama that is perceived as unusually decent human being. Lack of foreign policy experience (remeber Obama has 8 years "political" experience) didn't stop Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter, and it won't stop Obama. Republicans may have a foreign policy experience problem of their own if they nominate Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee.
The "Muslim issue" cuts both ways, and only has appeal among the far right that think we are in some new Crusade against Muslims. Most Americans don't like the tension we now have with Muslims around the world, and Obama is the best hope to reduce this tension, in part, because of his father's Muslim background and living in a Muslim country in Indonesia as a child.
So when you look at "all 3" of the issues you raise, Obama is the most attractive candidate the Democrats have had since Bobby Kennedy.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 4:20pm
So when you look at "all 3" of the issues you raise, Obama is the most attractive candidate the Democrats have had since Bobby Kennedy.----Posted by METTEYYA 01/07/2008 @ 4:20pm
Hey, METTE...did you know that Bobby Kennedy worked for...
Joseph McCarthy?
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 4:24pm
I mis-spoke in my last post, Obama will have 13 years elected office political experience when he begins his presidency, not 8 years.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person
Hillary Care went down was due to the fear of making the Dems look like "Socialists" and adding more fuel to the "Republican Revolution" fire and Newt's Contract w/ America. The overall timing was wrong-the Republicans outmanuevered Hillary and painted the entire plan as "Socialism" before it was ever released. At that point the Democractic leadership wanted it buried due to their fear of the Republicans.
I do see your point when it comes to the Rep. Lite & DLC Senators, but, Bush was able to ram a very far right agenda through eventhough he had Sen. such as Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins and Richard Lugar.
The key in today's Washington is the use of the filibuster. If the Republicans begin using the filibuster in a more measured way (like the Dems did pre- '04's "Justice Sunday"), then a super majority would not be required for a progressive agenda. Otherwise, a Democratic President would have a hard time governing from the left, and would have to move to the center. Which seems more likely to me.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/07/2008 @ 4:28pm
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 4:24pm
MASK, I am not talking about policy or issues in comparing Kennedy and Obama, I am talking about their "BROAD ATTRACTIVENESS" as a candidate!
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 4:29pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/07/2008 @ 2:22pm
yep.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/07/2008 @ 4:36pm
but, Bush was able to ram a very far right agenda through eventhough he had Sen. such as Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins and Richard Lugar.-----Posted by BIZARRORIO 01/07/2008 @ 4:28pm
Yes....do the Democrats have that kind of unity? Even if they have a filibuster-breaking 67 seat count in the Senate? (BTW, few are predicting that...most say they get 60).
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 4:41pm
I am talking about their "BROAD ATTRACTIVENESS" as a candidate----Posted by METTEYYA 01/07/2008 @ 4:29pm
METTE, if somebody is "cute", do you do everything they want? Even if it is in contradiction to what YOU want?
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 4:42pm
METTEYYA -
Speaking of polls, in national polls it looks like Obama is not getting the "bump" one might have thought after Iowa. But check out who is trending upwards nationally - Edwards. 10 points in less than a month.
Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Polling History [tinyurl.com]
See, I can spin poll numbers too.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/07/2008 @ 4:43pm
MASK Yes....do the Democrats have that kind of unity? Even if they have a filibuster-breaking 67 seat count in the Senate?
Just a bit of pedantry, 60 is the requirement for a cloture vote, 67 is what is requried to override a veto.
Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2008 @ 4:43pm
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person
Filibusters only need 60 votes for cloture.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/07/2008 @ 5:03pm
Sorry, did not read Brunowe's post first.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/07/2008 @ 5:03pm
Yes....do the Democrats have that kind of unity? Even if they have a filibuster-breaking 67 seat count in the Senate? (BTW, few are predicting that...most say they get 60).
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person
Unity for both parties is about political expediancy. If the electorate gives the Dems a Supermajority AND the White House, then the Dems would be fools not to move on a clear mandate for a change to progressive policy. Bush took 51% and losing seats in the House and Senate as a mandate in '04! Why not a Dem in '08.
But then again, the Dems are politically foolish.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/07/2008 @ 5:14pm
Posted by MASK 01/07/2008 @ 4:42pm
MASK,
No one is talking about physical attractiveness, we are talking about broad political attractiveness that is capable of building super-majorities.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 5:37pm
When you listen to Hillary, she has all but conceded that she is a divisive candidate who can win in another divisive candidate by winning Ohio!
But what most Democrats want is a progressive uniter like Barack, who doesn't need to emulate Karl Rove divisiveness like Hillary, and doesn't need to run in a divisive election. Therefore, winning Ohio is rather meaningless if you carry red states with a united electorate.
We have to set our sights higher than the partisan divide of the past, and Obama is the only candidate with the vision, talent, and political skill to build a progressive super-majority.
Posted by Metteyya at 01/07/2008 @ 5:42pm
Happy, what are you going to do when McCain chokes as the establishment candidate in an election based on "change"? Weren't you also behind Fred Thompson too...
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/07/2008 @ 4:09pm
McCain may well "chokes as the establishment candidate" even though factually, he is far less "establishment". Being a `Maverick' should mean something? No?
No, I was not a Thompson rooter...that was Maasch even before he announced. I was non-committed until just before X'mas when I decided that, despite many `problems' w/McCain, he IS THE MAN....more than anything, I want straight talk and someone I can, and will trust, to do what he thinks is right rather than poll-driven!
I just can't be HAPPY voting for someone I don't trust!
Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 6:19pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 01/07/2008 @ 4:43pm
Posted by BIZARRORIO 01/07/2008 @ 5:03pm
Fellows, ONE of those 60...is Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT)
Posted by Mask at 01/07/2008 @ 7:33pm
Who's more likely to win the general election? Obama or the GOP candidate?
Not that Hillary is so great, I think her policies are about the same as Obama's; in fact Obama seems to be a bit to the right of Hillary on the issues Wall Street really cares about. Of the three candidates, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, which is more likely to pick up at least one red state?
Have you ever lived in 'red' (i.e. redneck) America?
One point to consider, which way will the Hispanic (mostly Mexican) vote split? I live in California, and sense that the Mexicans (especially 1st gneration) will break for the GOP, and once in the GOP will stay there. The Mexicans don't like the blacks and vice-versa, and are not inclined to vote for them. This whole Obama "phenomena" could very well be a ploy by the GOP/Wall Street, to not only ensure a weak Democrat in November but also one that will drive Hispanics into the GOP for the long term.
Posted by wgilwood at 01/07/2008 @ 8:05pm
METTEYYA, this is America. For voters swayed by racist appeals from the GOP, there is no such thing as a "bi-racial man with a white mother from Kansas". To these voters Obama is BLACK.
Posted by wgilwood at 01/07/2008 @ 8:13pm
MASK
Fair enough, 61 then.
Posted by brunowe at 01/07/2008 @ 8:46pm
Barak Obama - Why he's the man.
I think Barak Obama will be the Democratic nominee and I think he will win the general election by a landslide. Here are some reasons:
1. He has and is building the most incredible grass roots organization we have seen since Franklin Roosevelt. This means lots of people who never vote and who have never voted will swell his margin of victory.
2. He will win over marginal districts all over the US by bringing large majorities from blacks, hispanics, young people, and single women. This will not only ensure his win but it will bring in a very liberal congress. Dems could even win a filibuster proof Senate. This is new because the liberals, environmentalists, and standard Democrats will also be there, but did not have enough to win in the past. The most important statistic from Iowa was not the margin of his victory, but the doubling of the Democratic turnout. The new voters were all first time voters. This will be huge in the general election.
3. Being a black man is huge advantage for three reasons: 1. The Rupublican slime maching will have to be very, very careful or they risk a "macaca" backlash. After all, they cannot tell people in South Carolina that he fathered a black child - Whoops! he has fathered two! 2. Many people feel the biggest problem with their government is that it does not care about them. They see government as being run by rich white guys and corporations. With Obama, they feel that he understands people like them because they assume he must have had to deal with some of the same problems they have. 3. There is a undercurrent of guilt in Americans who feel that blacks have gotten a raw deal in America. And they feel that voting for Barak will absolve some of that guilt. Especially since he is so non-threatening. He fits into the Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey, Williams sisters mold. We feel good rooting for them.
Finally Barak is new type of leader. Every other candidate - Republican and Democrat follows the leader mold of "Father knows best." They lead from the top down. Their style is the pyamid with them at the pinnacle. But Obama is a leader whose style is "Come. Let us reason together." This style could be diagrammed as a wheel. Obama is the hub but others form the spokes and rim and gain support from the whole. What this means is that when he is president, he will be able to build support for change from a large base of popular support. Look where he got his money - millions of small donations. This critical mass of popular support will sweep a lot before it.
I have spent months trying to decide whom to support, but I now see Barak Obama as not only the right candidate to save the Democratic party, but the right man to reform America. Wouldn't it be nice to feel pround to be an American again?
Posted by ABowers at 01/07/2008 @ 9:55pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/07/2008 @ 6:19pm
Oh, I distinctly remember some posts by you comparing Thompson to Ronald Reagan, just prior to his formal announcement. Don't make me bust a Mask on ya!
McCain: He was against the religious right before he was for them. Now, the straight-talk express cuts right through Bob Jones University. He clearly has a temper problem - not a quality you want in the guy with access to the button.
There was a time he might have been a maverick, but his caving to Bush and his complete 180 degree turn-around and willingness to do anything to be POTUS since, makes him worse than the worst flapping with every poll politican, because at least poll driven politicos are reacting to the people they are supposedly representing - rather than appeasing to leaders of voting blocks with a "Please, Please, Please pick me!" mentality.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/07/2008 @ 10:14pm
Well this is that what polls have been showing for months, but now actions are speaking louder than words: Obama the most progressive, also showing up as most electable (because he is the "great communicator" for the liberal/progressive moral cognitive model. he inspires independents and republicans, despite that they don't agree with everything he wants to do). And now he's on the verge of reaching a critical mass, as he demonstrates his ability to thoroughly beat a bush republican (though she claims she's a democrat) in New Hampshire and probably SC-- and prove what he's been saying about hope (those who understand the full depth of this strategy codeworded "hope" know that it has to do with reinforcing forward thinking with solid victories, and thereby reversing the cycle of cynicism and lowered standards.) I predict Obama will win the primary and the general election, possibly on the scale of a 40-50 state victory, and then go on to govern in the same creative and inspiring way
Posted by robertplevy at 01/07/2008 @ 10:20pm
METTEYA,
I wish I could share half your optimism. I am supporting Obama by the way, since Edwards will be knocked down tomorrow.
The fact of the matter is - acting as devil's advocate - HOW do you do things. When one talks generalities it is easy to 'seduce' multitudes towards a uniting proposal. When Obama "matures" as the Dem candidate and engages more the Reps in debate he will be obliged to get into details into almost everything. And then suddenly he will not be a "uniting" candidate anymore but what he really is - and I support - a liberal trying to straighten some politics in Washington. And after all the usual Rep smears he might win the general election but not by a high margin, especially if it were against Huckabee. (I think that Romney would be the easiest to beat but I think he is already half out.)
So finally politics they say, is the art of compromise. And if he will be uniting with Reps, surely he will be compromising. Unless we win a very clear majority in Congress, it will be business as usual.
Posted by Frank42 at 01/07/2008 @ 11:22pm
Oh, I distinctly remember some posts by you comparing Thompson to Ronald Reagan, just prior to his formal announcement. Don't make me bust a Mask on ya!
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/07/2008 @ 10:14pm
I think I did make some light comments on his actor role on Law & Order but in no way, was drawing direct comparison of the two for Presidential qualities...Fred never inspired me in any way! I'm sure JOMA was a big Fred fan!
Now, as to McCain, he IS a politician and has to adapt....just as I as an investor, will adapt as the environment dictates....e.g. I used to be a fan of Big Pharma, no more, probably permanently, now a high-risk, low-return play......I do have TEVA, an Israeli generic maker.....can't wait to unload the last of my Pfizer stocks, maybe even with a tiny bit of gain :-)
No matter how you feel about some adaptations, McCain was truly gutsy to sponsor the immigration bill which no one liked and for sticking to Iraq's need for more troops!
Posted by Happy at 01/07/2008 @ 11:37pm
A couple of quick thoughts:
In a general election contest between McCain and Obama (which is looking more likely to my mind on a daily basis) Independents will break for Obama based on McCain's support of the Iraq war in general, and his absolutely idiotic assertion that Americans wouldn't care if we stayed in Iraq for 100 or 10,000 years. This will spell his doom among independents and turn the election for Obama.
Given the xenophobes running on the Repub side, I find it hard to believe that Hispanics would turn out in large numbers for them, but adding Bill Richardson to the ticket as VP would be a shrewd move on Obama's part for numerous reasons. Again, assuming a general election run against McCain, it mitigates (to a certain extent) McCain's natural advantage in the southwest, would bring some Hispanic voters to the Dem side and would create an historic ticket.
Posted by skeletonman at 01/08/2008 @ 07:50am