"Marty, can I have an advance on my allowance? Chris challenged me to a bet!"

Now we know the Democratic primaries are getting divisive: it's an issue that puts Kirchick and Jackson on a different side from Peretz.

Just another mindlessly provocative Kirchick post. Yes, McCain could win Massachusetts.  Obama's campaign could implode in September and he could end up losing every state but Illinois, Vermont, Rhode Island and Connecticut.  But even odds?  What is he smoking?

Those polls could change by Tuesday Chris when the punters get their papers.

I don't know: the next four weeks are critical for him. The party will ditch him at the slightest hint of swift-boat2.

I wouldn't take anything less than evens Chris, but I reckon you're the smart money. Just.

At Survey USA, Obama and McCain are tied in MA.  Clinton's beating McCain by 7 points.  Survey USA has been fairly close this term, while Rasmussen's regularly way off.

www.surveyusa.com/.../PollReportPopup.aspx

I would take SurveyUSA McCain-Obama tie in Massachusetts very seriously. Obama is down to 35% in Pennsylvania against Hillary, where polling is demonstarating the effect of Obama's outdated racial rhetoric (slavery and all that) and his closeness to Wright. The Dems lost Ohio and Florida last time and barely won Michigan. A lot of Clinton voters in Florida and Michigan are going to be angry about Obama's voter nullification tactics in their states. Ohio votes a lot like Pennsylvania, only less friendly to Democrats. New Jersey could easily tilt Republican. He  will certainly lose in Missouri and Virginia.

If Obama gets the nomination, it will be very difficult for the Democrats to take any of the large, vote-rich states. It will be 1972 all over again.

The Dems are on the verge of nominating a flawed candidate who seems to get worse as he gets more exposure.

Remember--John Kerry was up by 17 points over Bush when he got the nomination. Dukakis was up by 14 points over Bush senior.

At least we know Tim Russert and Chris Matthews will vote for him.

"BREAKING NEWS: Breach of Obama's passport file leads to firings at State Dept., officials tell NBC"

Hmmm ... perhaps the bad news cycle is about to end.

pc,

All this time, all this repetition, and "voter nullification" is still a meaningless phrase. Your mantra isn't working.

Go ahead and bet Jamie, you can't lose! Not after the full truth about Obama and Wright comes out.

Here is a piece of that truth:

www.pbs.org/.../interview.html

Read more of R & E (religion and ethics) correspondent Deborah Potter's February 7, 2007 interview in New Orleans with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

Q: How do you feel about that?

A: I would understand. I really would. I would understand. For instance … he can't afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning his allegiance to the state of Israel because I'm saying the position we've taken in terms of Palestinians is wrong, and I think we need to revisit that. Just that kind of statement would cause negative repercussions in some quarters in terms of some supporters, in terms of some people he needs to support his election campaign.

Jamie's point was valid and the business about McCain is a distraction from the reality. Why is McCain's medai scrutiny (or lack of) and his remote opposition to Bush going to affect his performace against only one of the two potential Democratic nominees? The point is that Mass is not the sure-bet it should be and Obama has real weaknesses there...

jackson,

It seems the question comes down to this: is Barack Obama refusing to fully repudiate Jeremiah Wright because Obama, to some extent, agrees with Wright's ravings?  Or is Obama refusing to repudiate Wright because of the reason he (Obama) gave: that Wright is essentially a family member who has strayed?

I believe the second to be true. To me it seems to be more in character, in sync, with the rest of what I have heard from and know about Obama. Conversely, I can find no evidence--zilch--that Obama believes any of Wright's lunacy.

I don't know about you, but I have some associates whose attitudes and behavior are no better, or far worse, than Wright's. Bigots. Wife-beaters. Thieves. Drug peddlers. An ex-wife, who slit a man's throat.

Every one of them knows that I'm here for them in their hour of need, should it arise. I disavow their actions and beliefs, but I do not disavow their personhood. Wouldn't doing so indicate a lack of integrity on my part?

The politically smart thing for Obama to have done, obviously, was to hang Wright out to dry. Obama knew this. He does not believe the venom that Wright spews. So, the only reason he kept Wright in the flock was because of his (Obama's) integrity.

I also firmly believe that you can't change someone's mind from afar. You have to hold them close to you. Love thine enemies, and all that. Now, maybe your enemies don't want to be loved. In which case, you talk softly and carry a big stick, as the man said.

What I find most curious about this whole affair: a politician avoids the easy way out and instead shows a little integrity for a change and he's getting slammed for it.

(p.s.: good to see your byline on the Plank of late)

I don't believe in him, but god Bless you, william yard.  

Wood,

24% of Florida democrats say they are less likely to vote for a democrat if their votes are not counted in the primary. Michigan voters probably feel the same way. And they all know who has maneuvered to nullify their votes.

williamyard said:  "jackson, It seems the question comes down to this: is Barack Obama refusing to fully repudiate Jeremiah Wright because Obama, to some extent, agrees with Wright's ravings?  Or is Obama refusing to repudiate Wright because of the reason he (Obama) gave: that Wright is essentially a family member who has strayed?"

I don't think we have enough evidence to decide yet how to answer your question.

I agree that all of Obama's statements about Israel are positive and eloquent, I am concerned that he is merely saying what his audience wants to hear. He is a terrfic salesman.  

But can he say no to people whom he admires like the Reverend Wright whose views and ideas

he finds abhorrent? This is a question of character and not of belief and I am not persuaded that he has what it takes to stand by his principles and to say NO to people like Wright.

In any case I am not willing to trust him with the Presidency, yet. Let him work as a Senator or a Governor for one or two terms and then we’ll see what he made of.

Bomby,

From Craig Crawford's blog at Congressional Quarterly:

>>>>How amazing that Democrats have a frontrunner who is seemingly afraid to allow re-votes in Michigan and Florida. Or at least that is how Barack Obama is allowing it to appear.

Obama is all that stands in the way of letting voters try again in those battleground states. That’s probably a winning strategy for the party nomination. But the general election is another story.

For what it’s worth to Democrats, only Hillary Rodham Clinton has ended up with the political incentive to seat the convention delegates from Michigan and Florida. Obama sees no such advantage.

A Democratic national convention without Florida and Michigan suggests the need for an Electoral College strategy that contemplates victory without either state in the party’s November tally.<<<<<<

blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix

"And they all know who has maneuvered to nullify their votes."

Yes - their state party leaders. Their votes were "nullified" before they even went to the polls.

wbomby,

that's not how they see it--and they are less likely to vote at all or to vote for the dem by 24%. but you tell them that they are wrong to think that way. i'm sure they'll be convinced.

and as craig crawford says, obama has been the only thing holding up a re-vote in both states.

so, how do you feel about a democratic candidate not wanting to have a vote among democrats in two of the key states in the election? what do you suppose that might mean.

if it were a caucus in idaho, he'd be there in a flash.

Yard: Firstly, I apologize for having let my temper get a little away from me in our previous contretempst (although, I won't disavow my basic idea).  I was mad and in no way trying to be hurtful.  In any case, we both agreed on one thing:  Which is, I think, that the legacy of slavery is still with us, and those who believe this is a past-racial era are nuts.

Secondly, for real?

"The Dems are on the verge of nominating a flawed candidate who seems to get worse as he gets more exposure."

Yes, and his name is Hillary.

As to the "nullification" baloney, can we please stop that? As soon as someone offers to let me vote twice, then and only then can we talk about letting Michigan and Florida vote twice too. Democrats in those states made a deliberate choice to hold elections that would not elect delegates in the belief that early elections would generate "momentum" for winning candidates and decide the race before the states that didn't cheat had a chance to vote. Michigan and Florida said "screw you!" to the other 48 states, but now that it's turned out that their cheating didn't pay off like they hoped, they want to vote a second time.

The only conceivable unfair outcome to the MI and FL situations would be to allow either state, or both states together, to affect the eventual outcome of the delegate race.

Or do those crying "nullification" believe that, if Michigan and Florida had put one candidate over the top early on with momentum, both would now offer to erase their earlier results so that states that didn't cheat could have a fair shot? Of course not. Those two states tried to nullify everyone else's votes. They failed, and that's that. Honestly, if Democrats really believe that it's "nullification" to fail to reward deliberate cheating designed to nullify everyone else's vote, then maybe Republicans have been right about us all along.

According to the latest SurveyUSA state-by-state predictions of Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain:

Clinton would beat McCain by 63 electoral college votes.

Obama would lose to McCain by 50 electoral college votes.

www.mydd.com/.../733

What Rhubarbs said.

costello, I'll add that your sudden infatuation with polls is precious, adorable and predictable. As for SurveyUSA: Good thing the election isn't being held tomorrow! Whew!

And, of course, I don't believe, that when the first week of November rolls around and Obama is on the ballot, one-fourth of Democratic voters in Florida will stay home or vote for McCain. You don't either. Just like I will vote for HRC if the 'kitchen sink' is successful and she gets the nomination. To do otherwise would be childish. You're not calling all those voters childish, are you?

"I think, that the legacy of slavery is still with us, and those who believe this is a past-racial era are nuts."

Meaning what?  What do you mean by legacy?

Fascinating.  Except that that results has Hillary wining Florida and no one else's poll says that.  Only SurveyUSA which is an extreme outlier in this case.  Everyone else has Hillary losing Florida to McCain and they show her winning by 9%.  Not likely.

SurveyUSA also has an extremely positive outlier on Ohio that just pulls Hillary into the blue on average, also unlikely (not that Hillary couldn't win Ohio but that the SurveyUSA result is very unlikely to be correct as it is so far out of line with everyone else).

Your SurveyUSA map also has Obama in a tie for Massachusetts.  That's till quite unlikely and also out of line with others.

So, if you re-do this map to make more realistic assessments (as of this moment) of OH, MA and FL where SurveyUSA is very inconsistent with other polls, you get Obama with 250 and Hillary with 247, both losing to McCain.  This squares with the general polls that now have both of them lagging slightly behind McCain, and there is no coherent explanation for the SurveyUSA result that has the electoral college vote coming out differently than the consensus at the moment on the popular vote (i.e., where is the outsized McCain popular vote that would explain his winning the popular vote but losing to Hillary in the Electoral College).

You have to actually look at an array of poll results. Not to mention the fact that the SurveyUSA map includes a certain amount of so called up-to-date info on 15 states combined with admittedly out-of-date data on the rest.  That is a singularly bad technique, sure to be wrong and serendipitously dependent on which states have been updated and which have not.  On a simulation of futures trading a long time ago, I made that mistake without realizing it and had myself virtually coining money.  It seemed to good to be true so I took a hard look at the data management.  It was too good to be true.

You have to know what you are looking at.  Indeed, rather oddly, SurveyUSA has Clinton doing better than Obama virtually everywhere, again inconsistent with other polls.  Not likely to be a reliable result .  One has to wonder about their methodology.

Garbage in, garbage out pccostello.  Even the SurveyUSA map is quite inconsistent with your claims, e.g. that Obama won't win big states (they have him winning CA, MI, IL and NY) or that he will lose VA (they have him winning).  Your analytical problem pc is called "cherrypicking" to ignore results that don't square with your thesis.

I"ve written election polls, paid for them out of my own pocket, read and analyzed them with great success.  I'm not hiring you to analyze any polls any time soon.

Even odds? I'll pass. But anything > 50-50, I'll take the McC side of that bet.

The GOP hit machine hasn't even begun to crank up. Obama's handed them all the ammo they need.

All the ammo they need as long as McCain keeps his "laser focus" that is.  I look for McCain to have trouble staying upright.

Ain't seen nothin' yet, roid. Obama royally screwed up. He has only himself to blame.

jackson,

I wish we could see more of him, too (e.g., senate, governor). I like him, but I know at least part of my like stems from being underwhelmed by his competition.

(And whatever happened to the rule that senators, by virtue of their voting records, can't compete for the Presidency against the insulated governor or other outsider? This year is quite the outlier in that regard.)

molly,

Apology accepted. From me, too--I got a little snotty there as well. I'm actually quite an accomplished asshole, when I'm not paying attention, regrettably. Or sometimes even when I am, more regrettably.

"For real?" Not sure exactly of which you speak, but certainly my post above to jackson came from the heart, the realest place I know.

roid,

If you've analyzed election polls, I assume you know that it is rather silly to make projections based on results  well within the poll's margin of error.  The problem with the analysis isn't so much the inconsistent timing (although that certainly matters here given what's happened in the past week) as it is assigning states that are statistical ties.

As far as SUSA, their methodology is fine.  They've actually been among the best pollsters over the past several cycles.  The general trends as far as which candidate does better are pretty much the same as they've been so far in those states, but Obama is doing worse across the board than he was in their earlier polling.  Not a surprise given that the polls were done on Saturday and Sunday, at the height of the Wright stuff and before Obama's speech.  Whether it's a short-term or long-term effect remains to be seen.

"I don't know about you, but I have some associates whose attitudes and behavior are no better, or far worse, than Wright's. Bigots. Wife-beaters. Thieves. Drug peddlers. An ex-wife, who slit a man's throat."

Yard, you obviously don't know.  "Associates" -- now there's a weasel word.  Obama has made it clear that Wright is more than an "associate".  He's at least a friend.  Now, I don't know about you, but the kind of people you describe, plus the kind of person Wright is, would not qualify as my "associates," much less as my friends, which presumably Obama is telling us he remains to Wright.

Maybe like the Obamaphiles glibly suggest, in their lame attempts to justify this thing, everybody knows scoundrels.  Well, when I find out that a friend or associate is a scoundrel, I have one less.  And I think this is true with most honorable people.  Apparenlty you have a different set of principles.

Just because you associate with "Bigots. Wife-beaters. Thieves. Drug peddlers. An ex-wife, who slit a man's throat" doesn't make it right.  It's certainly not a precedent which justifies Obama's continued embrace of Wright as a friend.

Wright should not be a friend to any person of conscience. There's no getting around it.  That he speaks for a segment of American blacks is a reflection on them.  Pandering to this segment  -- which Obama is doing by continued membership in Wright's church -- is no better than a white politician's pandering to white American bigots.

Now, this argument does not apply to you if you happen to be a clergyman or a defense lawyer or social worker, whose association with ""Bigots. Wife-beaters. Thieves. Drug peddlers. An ex-wife, who slit a man's throat" is part of your job.  However, that is not Obama's job.

"Apparenlty you have a different set of principles."

That's unwarranted.  Apologies.

"State Department Contractors Peek at Obama File"

Peek? I hope this story gets major traction. Who are the contractors? Or should we call them plumbers?

This kind of thing led to Watergate. In '08, it leads to coverage on Jon Stewart - and then on to serious news via Sean Hannity.

So who are these three plumbers the State Dept. refuses to release the names of?

Colbert was brilliant last night - played a video of the good reverend Falwell blaming gays, etc., for 9/11, and McCain flip-flopping on it.

The serious journalism is on Comedy Central.

I haven't felt the world so turned upside down since the Reagan inaugural.

wood, droid--

SurveyUSA has been very close througout this election season, doing better than other polsters (see pollster.com). When they have state by state results showing Hillary beating McCain in the general by 63 electoral votes and Obama losing to McCain by 50, they are amassing a great deal of data from different sources that is all tending in a particular direction.

Most of their polling does not yet take into account the effect of Wright and Obama's re-immersion into traditional racial politics. And the republicans, who will not be nearly as gentle as Clinton, have not yet begun to run against him.

Basically, Obama has won in two kinds of places: small states without significant black populations and without a democratic mainstream where enclaves of very liberal democrats have chosen him (Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Iowa, Utah, etc,); and he has won in states with large African-American voting blocs. This is not a coalition that can win a general election.

Thus, SurveyUSA's results.

Rhube,

But aren't you embarrassd to be supporting a candidate who is afraid of having a vote in two major states critical to the eletion?

I mean, what is he afraid of? Maybe of getting blown out of the water in three huge states in a row? Now,  there is a good reason to make him the party's nominee.

jmrice,

As you know, the margin of error is a statement about probablilities. The more states you assemble, the more reliable the collective projection becomes.

PC- that map doesn't make sense. And of course the diarist doesn't show their work

Hillary wins Florida?

Obama loses Michigan?

Obama loses  Minnesota and Hillary wins it?

pcos,

"Basically, Obama has won in two kinds of places: small states without significant black populations and without a democratic mainstream where enclaves of very liberal democrats have chosen him (Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Iowa, Utah, etc,); and he has won in states with large African-American voting blocs. This is not a coalition that can win a general election."

Please stop making this point, BHO is winning on votes and pledged delegates at this point.  Your argument is like arguing the KC Royals are a better baseball team than the Boston Red Sox because they win more blowouts, even though their w-l record is worse.  This is an election not a beauty pageant.  That is why votes, delegates and RULES matter.

BHO is not nullifying votes or for it.  He is playing within the rules as set and doing a better job than HRC.  If she wins more of either votes or delegates (or both) than she has every right to be the nominee, any other scenario would be a sham.  Case closed.

mice,

The projections are based on poll results for all voters, not only democrats. So in many states, the general election results will vary a great from results in the Democratic primaries. Obama is a cnadidate of the primaries. Part of the reason Clinton had trouble among very liberal but small democratic electorate in Iowa is because she had started to shift to the center for the general. It makes a lot of sense that Hillary would win Florida and Michigan but Obama will not--Obama doesn't even want to run in a Democratic primary in those states--and the voters there are aware that he has nullified their votes.

As additional corroboration of the SurveyUSA projections that Clinton would beat McCain by 63 electoral college votes and that Obama would lose to McCain by 50 electoral votes: the last time I looked, Hillary had won states that represented 263 of the 270 electoral college votes needed to win the Presidency. Obama had won states that gave him only 197 of the 270 votes he would need.

pccos,

"Part of the reason Clinton had trouble among very liberal but small democratic electorate in Iowa is because she had started to shift to the center for the general."

This could be the most arrogant thing I have seen written about HRC, she was planning for the general election before the FIRST PRIMARY!  Can you explain how this is not an entitlement mentality and why she is the chosen one?  Why in the hell would she be PLANNING for this as her strategy?

"Obama doesn't even want to run in a Democratic primary in those states--and the voters there are aware that he has nullified their votes."

BHO is NOT nullifying votes, he is not the decision maker..  You keep saying this and it drives me crazy, he is for upholding the rules set by the DNC which happens to benefit him in this case.

TNR pays JK? I just assumed he paid you guys. Whatever it is, it's too much.

pc,

A poll is supposed to be a poll, not political analysis.  It is supposed to be a type of data, not the conclusion.  It is precisely because you are so confused as between data and conclusions that one might draw from data that your "analyses" so often run completely off the rails.

The reason for suspicion of the SurveyUSA map is that it relies on poll results that are in significant cases quite out of line with all of the other contemporaneous polls.  Also, if you look, SurveyUSA seems to have Clinton ahead of Obama almost everywhere, even in the states where they are both given a win.  This is highly unlikely.  It is also inconsistent with the general polls the most of which still show Obama leading Hillary.  You cannot be be behind everywhere and ahead in the aggregate.  Taken together, these discrepancies strongly suggest that SurveyUSA's map, whatever its history as an organization, is highly suspect.

In your case, you constantly extrapolate from primary results to general election results.  This is nonsense.  In the general, the opponent is different and the electorate is different.  Based on this, you have repeatedly stated that Obama "cannot win big states."  Of course, even the SurveyUSA map has him winning CA and NY which are solid blue states.  

Also amusing is that fact that you have discounted every poll up until now, showing results you don't like, as meaningless, but are suddenly devoted to a particular skewed result that agrees with the conclusion you would like to reach.

Like I said, pc, I wouldn't be hiring you to do poll analysis.  You don't know what you are doing and your unfettered willingness to indulge your own biases leads to rather comical conclusions.

It i

AlanSP,

Sorry, but the methodology that SurveyUSA is using for that map is not acceptable and the particular poll results it relies on are bizarre.  When you have a huge discrepancy between a SurveyUSA result and not just the average but the direction of all the other contemporaneous polls, then something is wrong,  I don't doubt that Obama's poll results have declined recently against both McCain and Clinton, but you cannot reconcile the SurveyUSA map with the fact that Hillary is also dropping against McCain or the fact that most broad polls still have him doing better than she is, although by a narrower margin.

The SurveyUSA results are  just bad data.  I do statistical analysis of stock price movements for a living -- going quite well thank you for 14 years now without a down year.  This result is not credible.

droid,

There asre so many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your argument that I just don't have the time to educate you. But I do think you have achieved a marvelously ponderous and self-important tone in your confusions that makes you an appropriate supporter of your candidate.

teplukhin

You too are in the group that completely discounted polls when the didn't show the conclusion you like but suddenly find them irresistible.  They are the temperature of the moment.  His is down, to be sure, but not by very much considering the beating that has been administered.  If Obama had been going after Hillary -- which he has properly been unwilling to do because it is not in his long-term interest -- her numbers would be way off, and they weren't that good to begin with.

When "laser-boy" McCain starts campaigning, the situation will be rather different.  His opposition in the primaries just crapped out.  Long time since he has been tested or vetted or anything else.  Even without the immediate pressure of the campaign, he is a gaffe a minute.  The fun hasn't even begun.

Hillary set out to damage Obama as the "affirmative action" candidate.  She has done damage.  The Wright controversy on top of that could hardly be worse.  Yet, the McCain-Obama difference is miniscule.   Polls have shown hiim up by much more than that which merely illustrates the scale of volatility (until election day).   An election is like a stock option with an expiration date.  Further out from the date, prices are relatively more volatile.  If this is Obama's nadir at the worst moment since he became a serious contender, this far out from election day, that is hardly reason for pessimism.  

Did you note the Times article yesterday that the economic problems are spreading from Wall Street to Main Street already?  Just perfect for John ("I don't know anything about economics") McCain.

You are on a hobby horse teplukhin.  You cannot ride off into the sunset that way.

pc,

Oh please, whenever you have the time, I welcome your education.  In the meanwhile, I'll just hang with my "confusions" and leave you to yours.  

So far, everything you write that purports to be analytical has shown a hopeless confusion between fact and opinion.  I don't expect that to change any time soon.  Now, is that what you mean by my "ponderous and self-important tone?"  If so, thank you for that compliment.

If you want a good gage of the temperature of the moment, take the four major polls from 3/18-3/19, Fox, Rasmussen, Gallup and CBS.  I discount CNN and USA Today, even though they are more favorable to Obama, because 3/16 and 3/15 are already out of date, as is Reuters 3/14.  Rolling averages conceal more than they reveal because it is the direction and momentum of these things that is most interesting when the numbers are close, not their absolute levels.  The average of the four polls for Obama-McCain is McCain by 1.75%.  Against Hillary, it is McCain by 2%.  

If you look at the Obama v Hillary spreads within the four polls, they are Hillary +4, Obama +3, Hillary +1, Obama +3.  Two have him better, two have her better, the differences are small and all of similar magnitude, comparable to the statistical error.

Given the overall consistency of these results, the firmest conclusion one could draw at the moment is that McCain is slightly ahead of both Democrats and the two democrats are dead even with each other.  This of course is a decline for both Obama and Hillary, a bit moreso for Obama as he previously had a little daylight between himself and the other two.  

Not only is this a consistent reading of the most recent polls, but it squares perfectly with the events of the past few days.  It is not at all hard to understand and not the slightest bit perplexing.  If you then look at the SurveyUSA electoral map and adjust for their weird outliers, FL, MA, OH, and MA you reach the exact same conclusion with the Electoral College vote:  The two Democrats are dead even and both lag McCain slightly.

If I  had the underlying data for these polls, their methods, and the demographics, it might be possible to winkle out a little more information, but the overall consistency of these results by five polls, if read with care, make it highly likely that the conclusion is reliable as a snapshot of public sentiment at the moment.

Just what the snapshot of the moment indicates about the ultimate outcome is a whole other question.  But one thing I feel quite sure of, the SurveyUSA map, without some adjustment, is nonsense.

The other useful thing to note is that, with no MI or FL re-vote (who owes me that dollar, blackton, mmathog?  I cannot remember)  Obama almost certainly concluding the primary season with more delegates, a lot more popular votes, and no case, let alone no powerful case, that can be made by Hillary for her electability, Obama has secured the nomination.  Ferraro and Wright certainly hurt him, but not nearly enough to swing things to Hillary.

When I say "no case" for Hillary, I mean the kind that can be supported with some sort of evidence.  Pccostello and others can always make the sort of hand-waving arguments about this bloc, that state, who had what for breakfast the are not much more than spin.  It is this sort of spin that helped Hillary botch her own campaign.  She seems to have taken her spin seriously, constantly discounting Obama, only to wake up and discover that the nomination was out of reach.

As for MI and FL, I am struck by the similarity between Hillary's failed strategy and that of Al Gore in FL in 2000.  Instead of pressing early on for a re-vote at a time when Obama would have had no choice but to agree and the pressure would have been enormous to hold re-votes, Hillary was maneuvering to have the MI and FL delegations seated as is because this, had it happened, would have been to her greatest advantage.  Only toward the end, when it became clear that would never happen, did Hillary suddenly get religion about a re-vote.  By then, the practicalities made it too late and both MI and FL have now refused to hold a re-vote.  This has left her with nothing to stand on.  In a similar way, Gore pressed for recounts in only a few places.  By the time it became clear that the only thing that would suffice was a statewide recount, time had run out.  Hillary gamed the situation and lost.  Arguably, that is just what happened to Gore.

One last thing before I hit the books:  How did the Clintons come to have such a mediocre group of political strategists?  Hubris?  Are they simply out of date, living in the past?  It is as curious in its way as Spitzer's failure to understand that his sexual adventures would inevitably come to light.

Fougasseu - let's see how much traction the passport file story gets.  State Department trying to dismiss it as "imprudent curiosity'.  Was it that innocent, or could it be snooping to uncover travel to Islamic countries, countries with less than friendly ties to the U.S., travel that could be used to Swiftboat Obama?  We've had experience with low to mid-level government employees and contractors trying to derail Democrats- Linda Tripp comes to mind.

gregs,

You are out of the loop on Obama's voter nullification strategy in Florida and Michigan. It is widely acknowledged by all disinterested reporters that Obama has been surrepittiously blocking any form of re-vote in those states. He is afraid of te voters, and he has good reason to be. So his electoral strategy has been based on nullifying votes through caucuses and preventing re-votes in Michigan and Florida. This fits how he won first nominating campaign in Chicago--he challenged the petitions of all four of his opponents until ALL of them were driven off the ballot. Obama is afraid of the voters. His cucus and Michigan/Florida strategy is one of voter nullifcation.

jm_rice,

First, apology accepted. You, who frequently graces me with direct responses to my comments, never have to apologize to me.

Second, I realized as I was riding in to work this morning that I had left something important out of my previous post. That being, that I have done some truly despicable things in my life, things that I do not feel comfortable talking about here, things that only a handful of people know about. (I am not talking about driving a gas-guzzler or pilfering a few paper clips.) Whatever byline appears in this site, jm_rice or anyone else, my overarching assumptions include that they have not self-mutilated their own hearts by their own actions as I have done. My actions--indelible actions, which can never be reversed--define me at least in part, and as a result I try to remember to hold the door for the rest of you, because the rest of you should enter first.

Third, your post touched on something I've not yet seen regarding this entire Wright business, but I think it's crucial. It also relates to my confession, above. You wrote:

"Now, this argument [the need to cut loose no'er-do-wells] does not apply to you if you happen to be a clergyman or a defense lawyer or social worker, whose association with ""Bigots. Wife-beaters. Thieves. Drug peddlers. An ex-wife, who slit a man's throat" is part of your job.  However, that is not Obama's job."

Perhaps that explains what many people *want* in a President, if not need: not just a commander-in-chief to push back against the bad guys and wonk out on health care and immigration, but a clergyman, a social worker, even a defense lawyer. Perhaps there's a sense among many Americans of shared responsibility--for a busted economy; for, at best, a poorly prosecuted war; for disconcerting changes in the ecosystem; for the world's highest incarceration rate; for an educational system leaking hearts and minds.

I hold myself responsible for my share of the above problems, and more. Obama is saying, in effect: "williamyard, you're forgiven. But let's not dwell on why you and everyone else fucked up; there's plenty of blame to go around. Better that we see what we can accomplish together."  Or at least that's what I hear him saying.

Being a clergyman or defense attorney or social worker may not be part of the job description for the post Obama is seeking. However, a little of each thrown in maybe ain't such a bad idea, no?

Roi - I'm not basing my view of BHO vs McC on the polls. I'm convinced that to the extent BHO associates himself with racial issues and figures, like Rev Goofball, who are soaked in racial issues, his post-racial and post-partisan appeal diminish, rendering him an ordinary, interest-group candidate in the eyes of the working-class voters in the battleground states.

"It is widely acknowledged by all disinterested reporters that Obama has been surrepittiously blocking any form of re-vote in those states."

Widely acknowledged where? All disinterested reporters--ALL?  Every single one of them?  And in any case, who determines if they are disinterested?  pc costello?

As for the current poll matchups between McCain and Obama or Clinton:  McCain looks like he is in a better position than he actually is, because the Democratic electorate is fragmented right now.  Obama voters are saying they won't vote for Clinton and vice versa.  But the truth is, most will scurry home to the Party nominee in late October.  They just about always do.  

So you can probably tack on 5 or 6 points to Obama's current numbers.  Clinton as well, although she is not going to be the nominee.    

naomi--

come back when you have done some reading of the political news.

pccos,

So you believe that BHO's strategy was to have the MI and FL primaries violate the DNC set primary schedule knowing that this would nullify all the votes BHO is so scared of?  He magically controlled this before knowing the outcome and influenced the FL legislature to go along with master plan.

I understand that BHO benefits from this result, my point is that he is within the rules set by the Party, not himself, to honor the decisions made.  What is HRC's rationalization?  All I can see is that she is for states breaking rules when it is politically beneficial, where BHO is for following the rules when beneficial.

The voters are punished for the mistakes of the state leaders, yeah this is unfortunate, however if they were not punished I could see where states would leapfrog each other trying to have more influence in the next election by going earlier and earlier.

Just to clarify, I understand your point, I just find it illogical and biased and until you defend why primaries can violate rules and not be punished with the penalty that was established before the trangression your comments hold little value.

Have a Happy Easter everyone

PS pccos I would love a response to this from you about my previous post

""Part of the reason Clinton had trouble among very liberal but small democratic electorate in Iowa is because she had started to shift to the center for the general."

This could be the most arrogant thing I have seen written about HRC, she was planning for the general election before the FIRST PRIMARY!  Can you explain how this is not an entitlement mentality and why she is the chosen one?  Why in the hell would she be PLANNING for this as her strategy?

Peace

A political eternity yawns between now and November. If there's anything this election has shown us, it's that things can change in the course of a news cycle.

So I think you're ALL just talking out your butthole.

gregs--

i didn't respond because you simply assume your own conclusion and i didn't think ti was worth the effort to engage in a pointless exchange with someone whose mind is made up. to me, there is nothing arrogant about positioning yourself for the general during the primary season. all candidates do it to some extent. clinton had the special problesm of being a female who wanted to be commander in chief. she also has had the problem of bing seen as far left by part of the country. this is the same issue she handled very effectively in new york. shen mangaes now to win both harlem and manhattan and the red areas of uspstate new york. personally, i find obama arrogant--we are the ones we have been waiting for. his peeches are really all about himself and his campaign. if ind him very unconvincing when he tries to talk about other people. his spech on race was retro and slef-serving and confused. if he gets the nomination, there are going to be a lot of very disappointed dmeocrats in the future.

Thanks pccos,

I disagree that my mind was made up. ( I am actually an independent)  I think HRC thought she WAS the candidate because she was running and misplayed Iowa and that helped me make up my mind that I do not want an annointed candidate who will not do the work to win on her merits.  HRC seems to be constantly amazed that she is not winning and that for me is arrogance.

"come back when you have done some reading of the political news."

Thoroughly lame, pcc.   You didn't provide even one link to back up your claim.  Not that one link would be enough to establish your fatuous remark that "It is widely acknowledged by all disinterested reporters that Obama has been surrepittiously [sic] blocking any form of re-vote in those states."

And do some spell-checking, for Pete's sake. Your last response to Greg looked like it was typed in a drunken haze.