Obama '08?

teenyboone wrote:

eoe wrote:

sad.

Unbeknownst to many, you and I are on the same page! :wink: :wink:
Get it? They're just "itching" for a fight, but the "JOKE" is on them! I'm hear to apologize for calling you names, but I didn't get the nuance, until I looked it up. If you saw the endorsement, our brother received from the Kennedy's, I think, I can deal with any of the "priviledged" white guy stuff, going on in this group. Again, I apologize, for any misunderstanding. PEACE, out!
PS Thanks Glitter! Can't answer private emails. Sorry

and now teenyboone is going to the us versus them speech, privileged white guy remarks... yes indeed... I feel the unity....

Obama picks up endorsement from the NY Post.

Cycloptichorn

That's true, nimh. However, most of the voters in Oklahoma are NOT in the small towns.

Current stats show Oklahoma's population at 3.5 million. Of that, 2.2 million is urban. The state's two major urban centers are located in the center of the state (Oklahoma City) and in the east (Tulsa.) Western Oklahoma has very low population density, so don't pay a lot of attention to that.

Other pertinent stats: 84% of the rural population is white, 11% Native American. Now you can better imagine the racism among rural voters.

Because it's predominantly a red state, Hillary-bashing was a very popular sport here during the '90s. People don't forget.

Fact, I've also seen several polls in the past that I'm too lazy to look up now asking voters of the different candidates who their second choice was, and finding Edwards' supporters either pretty evenly split or favouring HIllary.

Those were state-level polls, so who knows how it works out across the country ... but - OK, lemme look up one bit of data at least - here, Edwards voters in South Carolina were more likely to say they would be dissatisfied with Obama as nominee than with Hillary - and this is from the exit poll, not just some opinion poll.

Are Edwards Voters Obama Voters?

Who will get John Edwards's votes? The exit polls give a split verdict. Those in Iowa and South Carolina show a slight tilt to Hillary Clinton. If you look at those voters among whom Edwards enjoyed disproportionate strength, it was among voters less likely to switch to Obama. In Iowa, it was among older (60-64 years old) and conservative voters. In South Carolina, it was among older (60 years and up), white male, moderate or somewhat conservative voters who wanted to keep troops in Iraq "as long as needed."

In these states, Edwards appears to have picked up white voters who wouldn't vote for Obama. In South Carolina, 35 percent of Edwards' voters said the country is "definitely not ready" for a black president. Only 22 percent of these voters said the country was "definitely not ready" for a woman president. Edwards' voters in South Carolina were also more dissatisfied with the prospect of an Obama nomination than a Clinton one. Fifty percent of Edwards' voters in South Carolina said they would be "somewhat dissatisfied" and 44 percent "very dissatisfied" with Obama's nomination. With Edwards out of the field, some of these voters may not vote at all; but if they do, they seem more likely to back Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama.

In New Hampshire, however, the story is a little different. Edwards ran strongest in New Hampshire among white, male, unionized, religiously observant Catholic voters who saw themselves as "moderates." Twenty-nine percent of Edwards' supporters had a "strongly unfavorable" view of Hillary Clinton; only 10 percent had a "strongly unfavorable" view of Obama. The exit polls didn't ask about social issues, but my guess is that these Edwards voters were more socially conservative on issues like abortion than the Clinton or Obama voters. These kind of Democratic primary voters will be common in states like Ohio, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Some of them might switch to Obama.

So who comes out ahead? I think it's very inconclusive. Clinton will pick up votes from Obama in some Southern states like Georgia that Obama should win anyway?-and Obama will pick up a few votes in middle Atlantic or Midwestern states that Clinton will probably win anyway.

--John B. Judis

The Edwards Votes in the South

I think John, below, is dead on about the splitting of the Edwards vote -- and that, particularly, the Southern Edwards vote won't break Obama's way. There's a perception that Edwards dropping out is awesome for Obama -- a text message I sent this morning that read, "Who benefits?", received the reply, "OBAMA!!!" -- but I wonder if that more reflects the sentiment within the campaigns, both of whose rank and file pretty much hate Clinton, than out in the general universe. A somewhat weird and depressing Times story this morning tries to gauge, on the ground, the feelings of white Southern voters unhappy with Bush. Here's a representative passage:

Similar unease was voiced in Yell County, Ark., another place that has swung back and forth, where some were quick to say that Mr. Obama's race was not prohibitive for them personally but could well be for others. Only John Edwards, a fellow Southerner but now considered an also-ran, met with broad approval from independents who were interviewed in the Tennessee county; in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton's most ardent supporters in the undulating "Free State of Yell" ?- so called because of a history of electoral eccentricity ?- conceded that they knew plenty who were just as sharply opposed to her candidacy. Former Bush voters disillusioned with the president said flatly they would not vote for Mr. Obama, while others expressed disappointment with the available choices. ... "Statements I've heard, Obama, they're seriously afraid of him," said Bobby Rollans, a retired teacher, sitting at Savanna's, a restaurant perched on the Arkansas River. Bill Mashek, a retired National Guard officer, said, "I've talked to some yellow-dog Democrats; they won't vote for Obama."

Read the whole story -- with a big fat grain of salt, as any chronicle of a Times reporter bravely venturing down to discover the true racism of those backward-ass Southerners requires. But there are some interesting sentiments there, especially about the tenacity of the false and outrageous Muslim smear among even non-Republicans.

-- Eve Fairbanks

If Obama gets the nomination, just watch what this horrid rag gets up to.

Obama eviscerates Hillary
by John Aravosis (DC) · 1/30/2008 05:57:00 PM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: Comments (203) · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!

Wow. I'm a bit surprised by the tenor of the attack, and by the attack at all. Both Hillary and Obama get into these mood swings where they attack, then make nice, then attack again. It all started when the race got close, and real, in December or so. But I have to say, this is particularly pointed from Obama.

"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said....

"I know it is tempting ?- after another presidency by a man named George Bush ?- to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," he said in Denver.

"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One ?- you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.

So what gives? My take on this after the jump...

Sometimes campaigns go negative when they're desperate and behind. Obama isn't really behind, and has no real reason to be desperate - most commentators don't think Super Tuesday will give us a definitive nominee either way.

It's possible that the Obama folks are reacting to exit polls from South Carolina and Florida that showed more Dem voters thought Hillary was being too nasty than thought he was being too nasty. Though, it's not clear that the appropriate lesson from the polls is to get nastier. But, Obama may have read this as an opening.

Also, this could be a reaction to Hillary campaigning in Florida the past few days - and that's exactly what she did - in violation of the agreement that all the candidates accepted that no one would camapign in Florida (as a result of the DNC punishing Florida for moving up its primary in violation of DNC rules). What's more, Hillary now wants all of those delegates reinstated, after she was one of the people who agreed with taking those delegates away, and even more importantly, since all the candidates agreed not to campaign in the state this is a non-contest that gives us no indication how Floridians would have really voted had there been a real campaign and a real election. Hillary changed her mind because she won. That's pretty ballsy, and duplicitous, and this may be Obama's retaliation.

And finally, it may also be further fall-out from whatever convinced Ted Kennedy to enter the race on behalf of Obama. Nobody knows what really happened behind closed doors, but again, perhaps Obama and company have finally decided to pull the gloves off. (Having said that, friends who watched the Nevada primaries said that the Obama folks already had the gloves off there.)

My take on Obama's new strategy: It's one-on-one now
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 1/30/2008 07:16:00 PM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: Comments (28) · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!

I have a slightly different take on Obama's speech today than John. First, today, with Edwards dropping out, the campaign is on a completely different playing field. It's one-on-one between Obama and Clinton. For political geeks, it doesn't get much better than this current contest. We are watching two masters of the game engage.

Two things are interesting to me: First, Obama keeps injecting Bill Clinton into the discussion. He did that again today in Denver. Last week, after the South Carolina debate, the punditry were discussing how Hillary was playing for February 5th while Obama was trying to win South Carolina. But, Obama kept making a point of discussing both Clintons, not just Hillary. The media kept wondering if Bill got under Obama's skin. I wonder if it wasn't really the other way around. Obama drew Bill into the campaign -- and Bill acted like Bill does. Only problem is that Bill isn't the candidate. Makes one wonder if the Obama campaign had research showing that the more Bill is the issue, the less support there is for Hillary. She loses the patina of a historic candidacy when the campaign isn't about her. Obama did get the Clinton campaign off its message. Today, she even had to tell us "This is my campaign, it is about my candidacy." (Anyone else hear "I'm relevant"?) That's not something a campaign should be telling us six days before Super Tuesday.

More after the jump...

Second, Obama is using Hillary's language -- the very language she used against him. He kept talking about "Day One." That was a trademark term of Hillary's stump speech. Obama has turned it on her, which is actually somewhat masterful. That makes it hard for the Clinton team to start whining about what Obama is saying. He is re-defining one of Clinton's main talking points. He also talked about Clinton's votes on Iraq and Iran -- and some of the statements she's made during the campaign. But that's fair game according to Clinton. At the South Carolina debate, Clinton said, "I believe your record and what you say should matter." So, it matters.

I don't see what Obama did as all that negative. To me, he went on the offense -- trying to throw the Clinton campaign off their game. We keep hearing that Obama needs to show Democrats that he can play to win, that he can take on the Republican machine in the general election. I think that's what he's showing us. I really don't see it as negative and mean or "blistering." I mean come on, if Barack wanted to get ugly about the 90s, there is plenty to throw out there. But that's not what the Obama did. (And let's not forget, it's the Clinton campaign, and their surrogates, that keeps dragging up dirt about Obama's youthful indiscretions, not the other way around.)

Anyway, that's my take. The dynamics of the campaign changed dramatically today when John Edwards dropped out. Seems like Obama got out in front of it all today.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

teenyboone wrote:

eoe wrote:

sad.

Unbeknownst to many, you and I are on the same page! :wink:  :wink: Get it?  They're just "itching" for a fight, but the "JOKE" is on them!  I'm hear to apologize for calling you names, but I didn't get the nuance, until I looked it up.  If you saw the endorsement, our brother received from the Kennedy's, I think, I can deal with any of the "priviledged" white guy stuff, going on in this group.  Again, I apologize, for any misunderstanding.  PEACE, out! PS Thanks Glitter!  Can't answer private emails.  Sorry

and now teenyboone is going to the us versus them speech, privileged white guy remarks... yes indeed... I feel the unity....

Think whatever you like, you're WRONG!  Didn't know Rove was in this group!     [/qu

Obama in Denver today.

15,000 people showed up for a venue which could only hold half that.

Is Hillary drawing this many people? Is anyone?

McCain regularly shows up to crowds of 3-600. It's not comparable.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Obama picks up endorsement from the NY Post.

Cycloptichorn

Not really. I think this "endorsement" is better understood as merely another means to throw up every old clinton slander once again. There ain't much, if anything, positive about Obama in the piece.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01302008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_barack_obama_813218.htm

The Post is possibly the worst paper in the US. As Alterman has put it (I'm paraphrasing), it's fundamental purpose seems to be something like "Go Likud!" Obama did speak within the last few days to a bunch of senior jewish organization people to push back against the "Obama is a Muslim" smear being pushed into the US jewish community (even Haaretz carried a piece on this meeting yesterday or Monday).

If anyone suspected that there might be some sneaky deal between Murdoch and Clinton (there are folks who thought this might be the case after Murdoch said some nice things about Bill a year or so ago) this ought to correct that very odd idea.

If Obama gets the nomination, just watch what this horrid rag gets up to.

Obama is flavor of the week... one hit wonder... temporary rockstar.... Hillary is the next president....

and btw teenyboone.... I didn't realize you could get on A2K before you had puberty... :wink:

That's true, nimh. However, most of the voters in Oklahoma are NOT in the small towns.

Current stats show Oklahoma's population at 3.5 million. Of that, 2.2 million is urban. The state's two major urban centers are located in the center of the state (Oklahoma City) and in the east (Tulsa.) Western Oklahoma has very low population density, so don't pay a lot of attention to that.

Other pertinent stats: 84% of the rural population is white, 11% Native American. Now you can better imagine the racism among rural voters.

Because it's predominantly a red state, Hillary-bashing was a very popular sport here during the '90s. People don't forget.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Frankly, I think you realize that the contentiousness is likely to be far more pronounced on your end, what with John McAmnesty getting the nod for your team. Don't you think so?

Cycloptichorn

No, I don't.

Tico, whistling past the graveyard

...

and on and on

Plus, the electoral graveyard is littered with candidates who drew big crowds. Think Howard Dean, Eugene McCarthy - and Ralph Nader drew a crowd of 12,000 in Boston.

Yes yes, I know, I'm a wet blanket...