We seem to be missing some data.
Odds and ends absent from the best Democratic Primary EVER.
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
And let me depress our Democratic lurkers a bit by noting that we're only at the halfway point of it. Good times, good times.
Anyway, there are some things missing, and I have to admit, I'm curious where they are:
1). Polls for Montana, South Dakota, and especially Puerto Rico. The default Media assumptions are that Senator Obama is going to win the first two because he won the (caucus) States around them, and that Senator Clinton will win the last one because it's full of people who speak Spanish. On the other hand: Montana and South Dakota are primary contests full of working class white people, which is a demographic group that Obama is busily losing at levels not seen since Walter Mondale; and the media folks reporting on Puerto Rico are generally from mainland USA, which means that they almost certainly don't speak Spanish themselves, thus making it hard for them to check. Some actual, you know, polls would be helpful here, people.
2). About those April 2008 fundraising totals, Hillary, Barack: pretty miserable for you both, huh? No? So what were they? It's May freaking 15th, already; and neither of you could be made to shut up about the billions and billions of money you raked up in December, January, February, March... What? Sorry, no, John's taking public money for the general, and our race is over anyway. You two are still in this one. So come on, already.
3). "A senior Democrat strategist, familiar with discussions at the highest levels of the Obama camp, has revealed that Mr Obama is now confident of the support of around 120 of the remaining 260 undeclared superdelegates." Yeah. How is that going, anyway? I mean, given that 29% of Clinton's supporters currently want her to do a third-party bid if she doesn't get the nomination, I think that "delicacy about hurting her feelings" (HAH!) may need to take a back seat to "stopping the bleeding now." You think that maybe you want to get that list leaked, Senator?
Note that there's always the possibility that I just missed any or all of this. But if the obsessive amateur political junkies can't find something...
Moe Lane
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | They're Not Going to Miss It — Comments (12) »
We seem to be missing some data. 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I forgot to mention the poll was done in late March.
There is a valid question: Do the previous Mountain West caucus results reflect actual Democratic voter sentiment in those states, or do they merely represent one campaign's ability to manipulate the caucus system? You'd think that people would want to know the answer, particularly since it's been patently obvious for months that we were going to go all the way down the line on this one.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
but I'm over the depression. MS-01 helped quite a bit. In fact, given that I actually kind of like McCain, the thought of McCain as president with nearly 60 Democratic votes in the Senate and 250+ Congressional Democrats sounds perfectly survivable for my flavor of liberalism. Plus, call me crazy, but I think McCain is to the left of his current rhetoric on everything except for the war, which is my signature disagreement with my party at this point anyway.
My only concern is the Supreme Court, and even there, I have some hope that his original comments about Roberts being okay but Alito too much reflect his actual position. After all, Souter, Kennedy, and Sandra D are all Reagan-Bush appointees. Maybe I'm wrong on this one. But I can always hope.
And all this is my worst case scenario. Muhahaha.
House too, probably: 50 losses this cycle is somewhere around "multiple lightning strikes on lottery winner holding a four leaf clover that they just found" levels...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
But 56 in the Senate + Lieberman, Snowe, Collins, and Specter could make things veddy interesting.
And it won't take 50 flips to put 250 Democrats in the House.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I support Obama, and I think he's more likely to win than not, but a McCain win wouldn't be half bad either. He's much more liberal than any of the fallen GOP primary candidates, and I don't think he'd try to push too conservative of an agenda. A divided Legislature/Executive usually makes for more oversight and accountabilty, as well.
Most importantly, though, the next four years are going to be tough as hell. Gas prices are going to go higher; no matter what we do in Iraq, it's not going to be pretty; with more retirees, the budget is going to get harder to balance; etc. None of these things will be the fault of the guy in the White House, but the opposing party will ensure that he takes the blame. If McCain happens to be that guy instead of Obama, it will only serve to reinforce what many folks think about the GOP. If Obama is that guy, though, the Democrats risk being blamed for many of the consequences of the last eight years.
Maybe I'm being too smart by half here, though...
This poll gives Obama a 12% lead in SD, with a 6% MoE and 10% unsure.