David Corn

CLINTON DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT STABLE

David:

There is another interpretation of results. Democratic votes are consistent with the earlier surveys if you compared polls of declared democrats with votes of declared democrats. In your interpretation, you're comparing the polls with voters who were either democrats or independents.

Look at the numbers:
You state, "Of those who a month ago knew whom they would support, 50 percent chose Clinton over 49 percent for Obama."

These numbers align with those reported in today's Washington Post: "...Democrats in Wisconsin, who comprised 63 percent of the primary electorate, she and Obama were in a virtual tie (51 percent for Obama, 48 percent for Clinton). "

It is possible that yesterday's Obama win reflects the independents who could register to vote for either party at the polls, not a shift in support among democrats.

From this, It appears that Clinton's support among democrats has remained stable in Wisconsin. So give Hillary credit for that!

Obama won Winsconsin in every demographic except menopausal and post-menopausal women.

A few months ago they were calling OBAMA a "hot flash in the pan"!

HA!

"You can't win by losing"

Well, that is unless your name is Bush?

On polling.

I always remind myself that polls before a contest are just predictions and are interesting but not monolithic and polls after a contest are forensic.

It's like saying all left-handed one legged males voted for . . . .

The conclusion is an implied prediction but the left-handed one legged men might vote differently in the next contest - reasons and averages notwithstanding.

"hot flash in the pan"

Quit it, you're giving me the vapors.

I think Tina has a point, but that would also support the argument of Obama being more electable than Clinton if the party base is evenly split but he is able to attract more outside voters.

It dosn't matter how the people voted because the pledged delegates and super delegates can vote for whoever they want to. Hillary knows this and you little flying monkeys better wise up cuz queen Hillary will be pissed when she wins:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton targets pledged delegates

By: Roger Simon
February 19, 2008 05:48 AM EST

Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder predicted riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

What? Isn’t that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Wrong.

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.

But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.

Election analysis: 'Enthusiasm gap' strongly favors Dems

[…]

More than 1.1 million Wisconsinites voted in Tuesday's Democratic primary between Obama and Clinton.

Only around 400,000 Wisconsinites voted in the Republican primary between McCain and Huckabee.

"There was a Republican contest, but even the Republicans seemed to be more interested in the Democratic race," explained WTDY radio host John "Sly" Sylvester, an "election geek" who charts voting patterns on colored maps of the state. "For a state that is usually thought of as a battleground where both parties are evenly matched, this is pretty amazing."

Wisconsin was not the first state on this year's primary and caucus calendar where Democratic turnout dwarfed that on the Republican side. There has been much talk about an "enthusiasm gap" that favors the Democrats.

When the Iowa caucuses were held in early January, for instance, Democratic turnout paced that of the Republicans by roughly a 2-1 margin. In the New Hampshire primary a few days later, 287,000 Democrats while only 238,000 Republican went to the polls. In South Carolina's Jan. 26 Democratic primary, turnout was 20 percent higher than in the Republican contest of a week earlier.

But in Wisconsin, the phenomenon was magnified -- dramatically.

More than 73 percent of Badger State voters who went to the polls Tuesday voted for a Democrat, while less than 27 percent voted for a Republican.

*****

Lets hope these kind of numbers hold up.

After the last two (or more) terms - cynicism is deep. I hope there is a clear winner. That alone will help the country to heal from the divisions enjoyed by those who like to divide us.

Giggle.

McCain's Holiday from History in Pakistan;
Will any Old Military Dictator Do?;
Lies about Obama

Juan Cole takes McCain apart - item by item with strong historical context. Of course the M$M will never address such clear issues.

As more voters make their choice for the Democratic nomination, there is growing interest in the facts and myths about the race to reach 2208 delegate votes - the number required for a candidate to secure the nomination with Florida and Michigan included. The Obama campaign is claiming, without precedent or justification, that automatic delegates (commonly referred to as "super delegates") should switch to Sen. Obama en masse based on arbitrary metrics, with the aim of tilting the delegate balance in his favor. The fact is: no automatic delegate is required to cast a vote on the basis of anything other than his or her best judgment about who is the most qualified to be president.

FACT: Pledged delegates and automatic delegates are the same - they each count for ONE vote.

The Democratic Party chooses its delegates in three ways: 1) through primaries where millions vote; 2) through caucuses where thousands vote; and 3) it gives a role to elected leaders and other party activists in the process. [more]

Automatic delegates (commonly referred to as "super delegates") comprise the third category. Automatic delegates come from all 56 states and territories and consist of Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors, distinguished party leaders (including former Democratic presidents, vice presidents, former House and Senate Democratic leaders and former DNC Chairs) and members of the Democratic National Committee. These DNC members are activists and grassroots supporters who are focused on helping Democrats win at all levels of elective office. There is no difference between pledged delegates and automatic delegates - they each count as one delegate in the final tally and no distinction is made between them at the convention.

FACT: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates.

The Obama campaign is trying to shut down the Democratic race before the rest of the country votes. There are still many states and territories that have not voted with over 1000 delegates at stake. [more]

These delegates represent nearly half of the 2,208 delegate votes needed for the nomination. It is mathematically impossible for Sen. Obama to secure the delegate votes needed for the nomination without automatic delegates. This is why, despite publicly attempting to discount the role of automatic delegates, the Obama campaign is aggressively courting - and pressuring - them behind the scenes.

FACT: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.

The Obama campaign is claiming that automatic delegates must follow the lead of pledged delegates and switch their vote to Sen. Obama. [more]

This is false and unfounded - and it is contradicted by Sen. Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, who said, "These are elected officials from across the country and they're supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party." This view is echoed by other prominent Democratic leaders, including House Majority Whip James Clyburn and DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who has said of automatic delegates, "Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party."

FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy.

An important part of the debate over delegates is the role of Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton believes that the voices of 600,000 Michigan primary voters and 1.75 million Florida primary voters should be heard at the Democratic convention. [more]

In the 2004 presidential race, the turnout in Michigan was only a quarter of what it was this year - and the 2004 turnout in Florida was less than half of what it was this year. With such dramatically increased turnout, Hillary won those two states and she did it with all candidates on an equal footing. In Florida, all presidential candidates were on the primary ballot and all followed the rules (except for Sen. Obama who broke the rules by running television ads in violation of his pledge to the early states and to the other presidential candidates). In Michigan, Sen. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the primary ballot to curry favor with Iowa. He was under no obligation to do so. However, his supporters organized a substantial vote for 'uncommitted' on the ballot, thus he is represented in the delegation. Hillary Clinton obeyed all the rules in Florida and Michigan and came out ahead. She had no intrinsic advantage over her opponents other than the will of the voters. The voters of Florida and Michigan should be heard and the delegates from Florida and Michigan should count.

FACT: There is a clear path to an overall delegate majority (pledged + automatic) for Hillary Clinton after all states have voted -- with or without Florida and Michigan.

Contrary to the Obama campaign's claims that the race is over, all voters should have their say before a candidate declares victory and tries to circumvent the democratic process. The race is currently a virtual tie, with the campaigns now separated by a small handful of delegates, barely 1% of all the delegates to the Democratic Convention. [more]

When Queen Hillery steals the election there will be hell to pay by you minions that aren't bowing at the Clinton alter.

George W. Bush's Overall Job Approval to New Low

George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say that the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 15% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 79% disapprove.

*****

Ouch - How low can he go? McCain should be running on the Bush record calling it change. Nobody will notice.

Maybe the SCOTUS can stop the vote counting to protect HRC's equal protection?

That's be plenty fair, eh?

Worse than Watergate: Bush scores lowest presidential approval rating EVER!

George W. Bush is now the most unpopular president in recorded American history. (h/t Atrios)

Worse than Richard Nixon in the days before he resigned in disgrace during Watergate, worse than Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis, much worse than Bill Clinton when he was impeached. Just as Roger Bannister raced through what once seemed the unreachable 4-minute mile, Bush has burst through a barrier once also thought impossible, below the 20-percent mark.

*****

Lowest numbers on record.

The next president will not be the worst president ever by comparison - even McCain would have to make an effort to get lower numbers.

Clinton low: 36 percent, May 1993 (early missteps like Zoe Baird)

George H.W. Bush low: 29 percent, August 1992 (recession)

Reagan low: 35 percent, January 1983 (recession)

Carter low: 28 percent, July 1979 (high gas prices)

Ford low: 37 percent, January 1975 (economy, Nixon pardon)

Nixon low: 23 percent, January 1974 (Watergate)

Johnson low: 35 percent, August 1968 (Vietnam)

Lowest ever? That would be Harry Truman during the Korean War, in February 1952, at 22 percent.

And so now George W. Bush has shattered a record that has stood for 55 long years, and there's not any one reason. It's everything, although I suspect that liberals would more likely say Iraq and torture, conservatives would say immigration and runaway spending, and everyone would now say the economy.

It takes more than unpopularity to become the worst president ever, but this may be the straw that broke the camel's back on that front. It should remind us all what the 2008 election is all about, and it's not about Hillary's wardrobe or an off-the-cuff remark or who is the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan.

It's only about who can undo the damage of the last eight years. It's amazing so many people wanted suck a difficult task.

If I were a Republican, I'd prefer to have McCain run against Clinton too.

"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."

~ H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

If I were a Republican, I'd prefer to have McCain run against Clinton too.
~~~~~~~~~

It will be Clinton, but only after she destroys the Democratic party and brings riots to the streets. You libs have sold your soul to the devil and she is now cashing in on that contract.

Damn, this is gunna be good!

OK, Captain; we understand that President Bush is not your favorite person. But that is so 2004.

Don't you know they are all standing around Senator Clinton's headquarters scratching their collective heads, wondering how this neer do well "Negro" ward healer from Chicago completely outfoxed the most brilliant, ruthless political minds in the world (their words - not mine).

I think the fable of the Emperor's Clothes comes to mind. When you think about it, Senator Clinton is not very likeable and doesn't articulate much of a message. Senator Obama had but to burst the bubble. (Am I mixing metaphors?)

Tom

May the Devil take the foremost!

"OK, Captain; we understand that President Bush is not your favorite person. "

Everything I posted is published today.

Read the links.

His low approval number are fresh off the press.

Sorry if you don't like it. Used to be some folks were singing his praises, now his abject failures have been so exposed - nobody is defending him.

So 2008 is still 2008, eh?

Captain,

Not whether I like it or not. It's whether it's relevant to the conversation at hand.

By the way, you don't seem to mention Congress' approval ratings. What are they?

Tom

capt --- Just higher or lower than the Shrub's will do. They used to be lower.

Can they have gone still lower?

Wow! To think we pay them all that money to do almost 0!

"(their words - not mine)."

Whose words are those?

Are you quoting someone or something in print?

Sorry if you don't like it. Used to be some folks were singing his praises, now his abject failures have been so exposed - nobody is defending him.

Low approval ratings have nothing to do with failure or success, just likeability. If failure or success were the case then Jimmy Carter would have the lowest approval ratings since he was the worst President in history according to factual numbers that is.

Now Congress is another situation all together. They are rated on there failures and successes and the Dems have lower ratings than the Repubs when they were in power. LOL

Tom is right Bush is no longer relevant and will be left to the historians to decide how he did but you can dwell on him all you want Capt cuz McCain will win and have for the most part the same policies in place so you'll be pissing and moaning for another four years.

God bless America

The article I linked to doesn't "mention Congress' approval ratings"

Again, when you don't read the linked piece your questions just seem odd?

Post a piece about congressional approval ratings if you like, although none were published today so whether it's relevant to the conversation at hand would not be a timely consideration in your case, eh?

Americans feel better about future: Reuters poll

[...]

Approval ratings for Bush climbed to 34 percent from 31 percent last month, and positive ratings for Congress inched up from 14 percent to a still-low 17 percent.

Concerns about personal finances, job security, safety and the direction of the country all eased at least slightly in the last month, brightening the outlook for Americans who had slipped into a funk around the holidays.

*****

Also published today. The other poll was from ARG (of course you’d know that if you read the link) and ARG is not a stellar pollster.

I think most all polls suck and are not very interesting unless someone breaks a new record.

Sorry it was your guy, and it is the lowest numbers ever recorded for a president. Not my fault.

For something that is so passe’ it seems to interest me and others (including you) so . . . .

If the ARG poll is accurate that is.

Then again the Americans could be feeling better because they see Bush headed for the exit.

That is a matter of perspective - I guess.

Clinton, seeking comeback, ridicules Obama

A new Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday indicated Obama has leaped past Clinton and built a big national lead in the U.S. Democratic presidential race.

The poll showed Obama, who would be the first black president, with a 14-point edge over Clinton, 52 percent to 38 percent, after being in a statistical tie with the New York senator last month.

*****

I don’t think HRC can recover. The numbers are against her.

Powerful Teamsters Union Endorses Obama

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama won an endorsement from the powerful Teamsters union on Wednesday, critical labor support for the Democratic front-runner with upcoming contests in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

"There was very, very strong support for him" among the union's members, James P. Hoffa, president of the 1.4-million member union, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Hoffa met with Obama on Wednesday in Texas, site of the next Democratic primary against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Teamsters endorsement is expected to help Obama there and in Ohio on March 4, as well as in Pennsylvania on April 22.

The Teamsters have 80,000 members in Pennsylvania, 60,000 in Ohio and 17,000 in Texas, Hoffa said. Besides those members on the ground, the Teamsters plan to have their members and their families from around the country work for Obama, Hoffa said.

"We're going to say, 'Yes, yes, we can elect Barack Obama,'" Hoffa said. " ... He's got the best chance to win in the November elections."

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

*****

Maybe it would have been better to have a romantic relationship at least we could assume we weren’t the ones being screwed.

ElBaradei 'to declare Iran clean'

Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei is to release 'a positive report' on Iran's nuclear activities.

The IAEA Chief's report on Iran's nuclear program would be positive and it would rule out the possibility that Iran may running a clandestine nuclear arms program, informed sources familiar with the UN nuclear watchdog's issues said on Wednesday.

Bloomberg: New York count 'fraud'

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the results for the New York Democratic presidential primary suggest that 'fraud' has been committed.

The New York mayor was pointing to unofficial results in which Senator Barack Obama reportedly recieved no votes in nearly 80 New York State districts.

"If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that's a euphemism for fraud," said Bloomberg.

Election officials have claimed that the result was but a mere 'error'.

Unofficial tallies have given the rising Democratic presidential hopeful no votes in 78 out of more than 6,000 election districts.

*****

Election fraud in NY? The GOP mayor wants to count all the votes? He will have to return his GOPher decoder ring.