We’re now half way through a quiet period in the presidential primaries calendar, which will end with the last major contests in Texas and Ohio next Tuesday. The graphs below show Democratic opinion polling over the past two weeks, bearing in mind that there are almost as many pollsters represented here as polls. The pollsters only record responses from “likely” Democratic voters, which makes it hard for them to get what would strike Australian observers as an impressive sample size: the range was 564 to 902 in Ohio, and 403 to 660 in Texas. Figures sourced from Real Clear Politics.
Just to be fair to Ralph Nader. He has been advocating the kind of things that Obama is now advocating for yonk, anti war, anti Washington, anti big business, being green etc. Ever since Obama was still in nappy rollicking in a waddle pool at Waikiki. Obama comes lately.
So who would Osama bin Laden vote for?
Well, if you read the rightwing blogs attacking the BBC, it’s McCain, because he won’t wimp out in the ME, and of course, bin Laden will just love the marketing opportunities:
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/02/bbc-al-qaeda-wo.html
..and if you think the level of written expression can occasionally be less than sterling on this blog, try some of the comments on this one!
Gotta say it, the loony right are an articulate bunch, and funny as a circus.
Aw shucks.
glad we can all be friends and all.
Except Downer – let me have some fun.
It’s hard to see Nader as a factor if Obama is running.
FG,
Obama as the Nader candidate. That will go down well.
GG – I don’t think anyone will see Obama as the Nader candidate – though I suspect he will steal a lof of the TermiNader’s thunder.
He’s just treating him with kid gloves which is smart politics. Hillary would have been smarter to treat Obama the same way. Forget the plagiarism and snipes at his ‘shallowness”. Accept his popularity rather than taking aim at his ‘delusional’ supporters and gain some stature yourself by publicly treating him with respect. Having done that you will be given sufficient kudos to tackle him on policy issues. It’s the same lesson that the LNP needed to learn in relation to Rudd.
Alas…it may be too late for that.
Go Nicole Cornes, you’re a great gal.
I heard a rumour that Newspoll did a secret poll over the weekend after last friday fiasco at the Parliament. It was polling the preferred PM between the Rudd Cardboard Cutout and Horation Nelson. It was 55% to RCC and 15% HN. One telling comment from the punter was that HN looked a bit more lively than RCC.
Having said that, I’ve said several times that I wouldn’t count Hillary out just yet. She may yet pull off some surprisingly big wins in TX and OH that will give her MO a lift. And before the PB number crunchers throw their calculators at me, I know the numbers look grim for Hillary. But good results in the upcoming primaries may just convince enough SD’s to stay with her till the Convention. It would do great damage to the nominee’s campaign if the uncertainty remains till then, but for Hillary, it’s the only chance she’s got.
And we all know that Hillary won’t be going away while there’s even a remote chance she can make it.
108 FG
everything you just said sounds familiar. Not saying that you couldn’t be right (wouldn’t dare at the moment), but isn’t that the same scenario that the liberal supporters on this site were saying 6 months or so ago??
Not that it’s not possible, being an even-handed, unbiased, non-partisa, open minded Obama supporter and all, but they were um….wrong.
Jen – I’m appalled that you would accuse me of being a liberal supporter and I’m going to ask William to demand an apology forthwith!
Nah…only gaggin’. You can feel free to disagree with me as vigorously as you like – it’s all part of the fun of political discussion.
But I’m not sure what the Lib supporters were saying that is similar to my comments. I’m simply saying that Hillary, like Maggie, is a lady that’s not for turning – not while there’s even the smallest hope of victory.
jen @ 109,
Well it’s an interesting comparison and the old truism about elections being decided 3-6 months ahead probably applies just as much to the Democratic nomination just as much as to the 2007 Federal election.
Note the word “probably” though: I don’t think Obama is a certainty yet.
And of course JWH did fight it out to the end, just as Hillary will – although if she loses O+T, I think that end for her will be March 4.
FG,
It is not about stealing votes. Rather scaring people back to an alternative candidate.
GG – it won’t achieve either way. Which alternative candidate is he scaring people back to? Most of his salvos today have been directed at Obama and he is a long standing nemesis of the Clintons.
Sorry FG,
Did not make myself clear. From the Democrats point of view it is a polarising moment.
I believe that voting Democrats will see through this announcement at this moment as a tawdry endorsement of Obama.
I just think that it is an eventual overall negative for Obama.
GG, I think it’s actually a non-event – but if it is a negative for anyone it is, as you say, a negative for Obama.
Hi all – Has the surge for Obama just started to stall, or am I reading too much into William’s graph? This at the same time there is the emergence of opinion pieces slagging Obama. Last week his supporters were ‘delusional’, now they’re ‘manic’, apparently.
Seems though that any slight ‘surge stall’ will not be enough to get Clinton back to even next week, but it’s getting a bit more interesting now.
I still want to hear the views of Clinton supporters – if the blog is still diverse enough to have any after the recent blogger purges – as to why she is a better candidate than Obama. That is reasons apart from the standard attack lines about Obama being ‘inexperienced’, lacking in detail, and having no substance behind his fine words, because these have been debunked.
What is it about Clinton’s offerings that make her the better candidate over Obama for a safer world and an improved US society? Spell it out for me because I can’t see it. The more I read the more elusive it becomes.
116
well JV-
– she’s Bill’s wife, so she knows where the cutlery and glasses are,
-she’s a democrat so she’s not a Bush
-she’s white and a woman
-she’s been around for a long time so she’s not “inexperienced”
-she deserves it
Well JV,
– he’s not Bill’s wife, so he knows where the cutlery and glasses are,
-he’s a democrat so he’s not a Bush (maybe a McCain)
-he’s black and a man
-he’s not been around for a long time so he’s not tainted by “experience”
-he deserves it
Geez Jen…
..*cleaning glasses*…for a moment there I’d have sworn you said…”She’s a Democrat, so she’s got a Bush”. Which is ok…I just wasn’t aware of that distinction among democrats.
…now I’ve lowered the tone of political discussion, haven’t I?
FG @ 119 ‘”She’s a Democrat, so she’s got a Bush”’
Hmmm … So I guess the only remaining question is: Is she a natural blonde?
you know Ferny,
I’ve got a bumnper sticker on my fridge along the lines of the “Only Bush I trust is …” not Hillary’s.
Stop guys!!!
I would Never, Never cast nasturtians on Hillary and Bushy thingos.
(I am going to get into So Much Trouble for not Being Very Very Serious.)
And, so where are all the Hillary supporters to make her case??
jen @ 122 “I’ve got a bumper sticker on my fridge…”
Jen does that mean you keep fridge magnets on your bumper?
Ahem….this is a serious political blog. We have digressed…and probably transgressed too!
Made me laugh out loud tho!
The depressing thing is I have heard a few Hillary supporters suggest ‘she deserves it’ as a genuine reason for voting for her.
I think GG summarised Naders entrance neatly. Really, nobody cares he’s in the race and he won’t have much impact throughout the race. Unless… the general election result comes down to one or two states, with the margin of victory being much less than seven figures. And Nader is on the ballot. At this point, he becomes relevant. What are the odds of that happening… again?
Jen…was that your fridge I saw parked outside KMart?!
One of the key points to remember (as others have said) when looking at the Texas and Ohio polling is that Hillary not only needs to win, she needs to win big. If she does not close the gap in pledge delegates enough in those two states to be able to reasonably claim that she can make up the remaining difference in Pennsylvania, then she is finished.
This is even harder for Hillary than it seems. Pledge delegates are NOT allocated on a strictly proportionate basis according to statewide vote. Some are, but most are allocated proportionately at individual electoral district level. So if, say, a district has 4 delegates and votes, say 55-45 for Hillary, the result will still be 2 delegates apiece. In this district example, Hillary needs to be getting into the 60s in order to win 3 out of 4 delegates for that district and start eating into Obama’s pledge delegate lead.
Added to this is the fact that traditionally Democratic districts get more pledge delegates allocated to them (in Texas at least, not sure about elsewhere). Thanks to The Hammer and his gerrymandering friends in the Texas GOP, these delegate-rich districts are either heavily black or chock full of latte-liberals. That is, natural Obama territory.
Include the election night caucus into this mix and it becomes pretty clear that a close Hillary win in primary votes could actually see Obama pick up more pledge delegates than her, particularly in Texas.
Bludgers, at the risk of seeming a tad ad puppetum, Ralph reminds me of a ventriloquist Vote Whisperer whose dummy mimes instead of cracking wise.
Goes down a treat with Marcel Marceau fans, but has a hail-stone’s chance in Hades of cutting it on the campaign trail.
j view at 116,
could forgive HRC many of her shortcomings, save the fact that she’s an unabashed war-monger. As I quoted Frank Rich of the NYT at the start of this thread;
“WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.”
Und uber alles, the brutal and bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq will come back to bite Johnny Bomb Bomb on the bum*.
* colloquial Australian usage.
129
EC-
IRAQ. That’s it.
Obama has it all over her for that alone.
Ex Norfik @ 128,
Although I agree with the reasoning behind your post, I think it is perceived a bit differently in the media world – ie to the general public.
Only the most avid political followers understand how the delegate system works. And with good reason, before this year it pretty much has never been a factor. Normally, there’s a preliminary tussle in Iowa and New Hampshire. Candidates drop like flies, we are left with two or three. One hits the front, grabs the momentum, sweeps Super Tuesday and the rest drop out or (as in the Huckabee case) continue to poke a stick at the nominee until it starts to piss people off, than faithfully pull up stumps.
So, to tie this in to today’s situation. People understand that Obama is winning in delegates, they might not fully grasp what that means, or how significant it is. Which brings us to the following example.
Hypothetically, lets say Clinton wins both states (for example) 54-46. She will say ‘hey, I won by 8%. What a thumping win, because this is off a 17% loss the other week. I am back, I am the new comeback kid. Game on. People are ready. I am ready. Ready to lead from day one. I’ll meat Barack in Pennsylvania!’
(I can actually picture her giving that speech… but anyway.)
Obama camp: Yeah, but she only won a net of (eg) 45 delegates. We still have a lead of over 130, she can’t possibly catch that, and America is ready for… uh guys? Anybody listening?
Suddenly the finish line has been pushed back. The media has a fresh story, and are quite happy to watch the Dems tear themselves apart a bit longer because hey, there’s not much to look forward to once this is over. She has another whole month to solidify those doubts people are starting to harbour about Obama, right before a state she is expected to sweep. Suddenly, the party hierarchy is in a tough place. Can’t tell the candidate with momentum to quit. Can’t tell that other chap, who is actually winning, to quit either. Oh s***.
I imagine that’s the scenario the Clinton camp is hoping for. Let’s face it, it is all they have, because they are NOT going to win big in Texas, and are looking unlikely to hand out a thrashing in Ohio. So a perceived momentum shift is the last chance. And still quite possible.
129 EC – “she’s an unabashed war-monger.”
And an unabashed Israel supporter, so the middle east would remain a basket case with her as Commander-In-Chief.
That’s why the Clinton supporters say nothing about her credentials on foreign policy – nothing positive to say about dud credentials.
And it looks as if there are no longer any Clinton supporters on this blog – they have either been purged, or have self-purged.
Ferny @ 127 – That might have been my 1991 360 litre Kelvinator 2 door parked outside KMart – was it white?
EC
I agree with your views on Nader – a purely self indulgent exercise designed to massage his ego at the expense of anti-republican forces. It gets him on the air even if he doesn’t really have anything new to say. If he wasn’t claiming to be a candidate would he even get interviewed these days? I’d almost suspect that a GOP figure has put him up to it. It will be interesting to see who funds him.
Can someone please briefly explain to me what is required to become an independant candidate for POTUS? While I am not in favour of limiting democratic participation, it does seem extraordinary that somene can become an ideipendant candiate so easily, when it is so difficult to become a party endorsed candidate. Given that additional candidates can obviously affect the result of any close contest in FPP via vote-splitting, it is an amazing weakness in their system.
Jen @96
Surely the yanks are on to Nader by now.
I’m hoping he is a non-event – a bit like the P. Hanson re emergence in our campaign: everyone was over her.
Dont underestimate Hanson’s influence. Her 4% plus in 2004 was the main reason why Howards mob won 4 seats in the Qld Senate and hence grabbed control nationally. Hanson locked up !% plus votes which would not have gone to coalition and sent them to coalition. Hutton from Greens would have been elected otherwise.
2007 and Hanson’s 4% plus not quite so important but helped ensure Labor got third seat ahead of Greens. Nader will not have same influence as 2000 when a Green candidate but in a first past the post system it is always a potential problem if things are close.
Well the kid has made it past the grassy knoll without incident:
That afternoon, Mr. Obama’s motorcade passed Dealey Plaza and the Texas Book Depository building, where the fatal shot was fired at President Kennedy in 1963. Several campaign aides looked out their windows, silently absorbing the scene.
Not so for Mr. Obama, who later said he had not realized he was passing the site. And no one in his car pointed it out.
“I’ve got to admit, that’s not what I was thinking about,” he said. “I was thinking about how I was starting to get a head cold and needed to make sure that I cleared up my nose before I got to the arena.”
…and he was worried about his sinuses! LOL
Ferny @197
I never drive my fridge to Kmart. I take the bus.
Nader’s going to get even less interest than Ron Paul, who at least got to some ‘debates’. Nader will have no national stage, a very limited budget, and will have to contend with the sour taste he left in the mouths of many people last time.
137 KR
And let’s not forget the fact that he helped get George W Moron over the line. Any self-respecting Democrat would rather gnaw off their right arm than vote for him, I suspect.
There was a discussion with Aranque a week ago a to what HRC’s worst error was.Without going into details my general view was HRC lost the Presidency in 2002 when she thought she had the Democrat Nominee tied up.
At that time she started courting the ‘right’ to win her Republican votes in her Presidency race. Her vote for Iraq was just one example.
This ‘courting’ exposed a vacuum in her Democrat voting ‘left’ flank which O has generally filled & the Iraq vote specifially lost her Democrat voting ‘centre’ flank as well. I believe HRC left the door not ajar but wide opn for a brilliant leader like Obama to run through
…and the Democrat Primarys are the result.
The fact HRC then compounded this by only tackling the ‘big states’ is bewildering to me
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm
Oh Clinton campaign, this is Hilarious. Oh my god.
and Erytnicam it just happened to get onto the net for widespread viewing
such coincidences eh
What secret devious plan do you see Ron?
Hillary finds her key demographic:
http://www.news8austin.com/content/top_stories/?ArID=201172
Erytnicam @ 140
Ah, cute outfit! Is that a towel on his head?
That dull thud you heard was the sound of the HRC campaign coming into sharp contact with the bottom of the barrel that sits on the back of a speeding wagon whose wheels are just about to farewell the axles.
Night all.
Glad we are all friends again.
Possibly because not one person that I can think of is supporting the republicans. Wonder if that is representative…?
maybe I’m too cynical of all the ‘spin’ doctors Erytnicam , but the dress code visually could reinforce “Muslim” and “black” but perhaps I read too much into it ?
Jen did you mean not one “sensible’ person ??
But Ron, it is so obviously a filthy tactic that when I awake tomorrow morning, I expect this to have turned into an absolute pyrotechnics masterwork. It is the epitomy of what people now think of by the term Clintonian.
It is hilariously sad and desperate.
Ron #139 Hillary lost the nomination when she voted for Iraq. History has passed her by. The tactical errors are symptoms. The disease is the American version of “me-tooism” which has kept the dems from mobilising their potential base since the shock of 1972. Since then they’ve won three elections: 1976 (Watergate), 1992 (Perot) and 1996 (incumbancy). The rest have been lost because they had nothing to offer except a pallid elite shadow of liberalism, a program that offered nothing to working class Americans annd an inconsistent pale shadowing response to Republican wedges.
well yes ! , I immediately saw “Muslim” and “black” in the selective photo
the Clinton camp distributed and I reckon that was the nasty purpose
It seems the longer the campaign the worse the tactics are