This post will be progressively updated to follow the count in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, starting from when I get out of bed (by which time it might well be all over). Real Clear Politics’ poll average shows a slight narrowing in Hillary Clinton’s lead since last week, from 47.4-40.4 to 49.5-43.4.
11.30am AEST. CNN reports Clinton leads 53-47 with 20 per cent of precincts counted. Their exit poll, if I’m reading it correctly, points to a result of about 52-48. They called it a “win” for Clinton about half an hour ago, for what that’s worth.
12.30pm. Clinton has just given a speech to claim victory of one kind or another: she now leads 54-46 with 75 per cent of precincts reporting.
12.50pm. As Obama gives his speech, the CNN’s count clicks over to 55-45 with 78 per cent of precincts reporting. They are giving Clinton 52 delegates to Obama’s 36 on television, but their web page is holding back on 37-31.
2.20pm. With 98 per cent of precincts reporting, Clinton’s has a lead of 54.8-45.2, which is at the higher end of market expectations.
KR, and with Hillary’s tough-talk on “obliterating” Iran, we can probably expect her to be right up there egging them on. It’s hard to know which party Hillary is campaigning for these days…
Movement at the RCP Poll station:
Obama’s lead over Clinton continues to narrow. It stands at 6.2 today, falling from 9% yesterday. The average is based on the latest polls:
RCP Average 04/10 – 04/25 – 48.6 42.4 Obama +6.2
Newsweek 04/24 – 04/25 592 RV 48 41 Obama +7.0
Gallup Tracking 04/23 – 04/25 1234 V 47 47 Tie
Rasmussen Tracking 04/22 – 04/25 900 LV 47 43 Obama +4.0
USA Today/Gallup 04/18 – 04/20 552 A 50 40 Obama +10.0
ABC/Wash Post 04/10 – 04/13 643 A 51 41 Obama +10.0
There is little doubt that the narrowing is influenced by the bigger than expected win to Hillary last Tuesday and the media reports since then.
On the other hand, Obama’s lead in Indiana is steady on 3% and in NC it also remains steady on 15.5%
1146 – If McCain was to get sick, his delegates would be given a free hand to choose who they want. Some of the previous candidates would stick their hands up but if he had announced a VP candidate before that, I would suggest that they would get the nod (unless he went with a hardliner or a RINO).
Ron Paul I doubt would be many delegates second choice, even if he is still is in the race. It would also depend if McCain had dropped dead or was able to name who he wants to takeover.
But I think the odds of a 72 year old dying or become unable to run in four months is probably greater than 1 in 17. So I am almost tempted to take it. It is probably just people trying to take their profits and free up some capitial for their betting accounts.
Good article on Muncie, Indiana. Gives a feel for how tight the battle between Clinton and Obama is.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23598527-26397,00.html
Pancho
#1148
The shallow race card argument
You are peddling a pro Obama story from a predominantly pro Obama blog (Dailykos) which you claim is “scientific” but is childishly amateur.
Their graph on ‘black’ voters says if ‘black’ voters do not vote in in strong numbers in certain selected Repug States like Ohio (“coincidently” !! showing Hillary can win and Obama can not) those Repug States will remain Repug & some Democrat states may switch Repug. Alot of now voting ‘blacks’ won’t vote.
You guys are finally playing the ‘race’ card. Vote for ‘black’ Obama or else.
First of all Dailykos has only one bloc (the ‘black’) as their ‘scientific’ argument. Hillary has NUMEROUS such frim 7 zealous supporters , and any ONE of her ‘bocs’ who do not turn out to vote quote “in strong numbers” destroys Obama 100%
Secondly , and you must be desperate cause the non electability argument is now biting , Hillary’s bloc’s factually did not vote in strong numbers in 2004 (based on independent stats) because of the Kerry/Obama type candidates who they’ve proved in 2004 they will not vote for and factually this is why the Democrats lost in 2004. These ‘blocs’ support Hillary.
We rely on the actual voting blocs that have not voted fot the Kerry/Obama’s , but do vote for Hillary. You instead are relying on an asumption only and on one bloc only.
There’s a sobering report in the NYT about all three candidate’s fiscal policy.
In a word: debt.
Lots of it in McCain’s case, less for Clinton and Obama.
But the numbers are truly ugly:
With the national debt soaring to $9.1 trillion from $5.6 trillion at the start of 2001, in part because of the Iraq war and Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, a crucial question about the candidates to succeed him is “whether they are helping to fill the hole or make it deeper,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan organization that advocates deficit reduction. “With the proposals they have on the table, it looks to me like all three would make it deeper.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27fiscal.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
How hard is it to stand in front of the nation and tell them the plain truth?
Something like:
America, we are in serious debt. We have all been living on borrowed money, and we’ve been spending it unwisely. Instead of fixing our country’s infrastructure, it’s education, it’s health, we’ve been spending more than all nations put together on a military that’s spread around the world. How much is too much? When you can’t afford it.
We can’t afford it.
On so many metrics America is slipping from the top of the first world to well down the scale, and in some parts of the country it’s almost third world. We will not be equipped for the modern world if we continue to watch one high school student drop out every 26 seconds.
Our currency is being inflated to hold up the financial markets but we are paying the price for every commodity we have to import. Those who were lending to us are now shunning us, and very soon interest rates will need to soar just to drag in enough to keep the country running.
We are at a crossroad. Keep doing what we’ve been doing and we will be broken and busted within a generation, or we can start saving, start paying off our debts, and stop borrowing money our great grandchildren will curse us for.
Or, we can borrow a few more trillion and invade Iran.
Take ya pick!
A good summary of Clinton’s predicament in The Age today (also the UK Daily Telegraph):
“With Hillary’s coffers almost empty, a Clinton victory could be achieved only by a top-down coup d’etat in which super-delegates are cajoled into overturning the will of Democratic voters. Party leaders feel this would be an unthinkable — and suicidal — thing to do to their first black nominee for the White House.
The end of the movie is apparent to all but the Clintons. For the Democratic Party, this is turning into Night of the Living Dead.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/for-maimed-hillary-its-a-mere-flesh-wound/2008/04/26/1208743319477.html
It is pure naivety to think that if Hillary were to be handed the nomination by the superdelegates, she would simply go on to receive full voter support and be elected as the next POTUS.
And as time goes on, I am beginning to think that Hillary knows she cannot win this nomination without gutting the Democrat voter base, which makes me wonder why she is persisting (and why her supporters keep egging her on).
Or is she trying to destroy Obama, and therefore helping McCain, hoping that she can have another shot in 2012?
I used to think Hillary was the next best thing to Obama winning the nomination, but the more I see of her and her Rove-style tactics, the harder it is for me to disentangle her from the Republicans, especially when she is out talking about “obliterating” Iran, using the race card, and striking fear into the hearts of voters to score their votes. This is the sort of thing that Hillary supporters on this blog were condemning Howard for last year.
How can any self-respecting non-conservative voter support this?
A little distraction on the super delegate front – one each for Obama and Clinton:
Former New Hampshire Democractic Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan endorsed Hillary Clinton for president [1].
Charlene Fernandez who fills the superdelegate positions in the Arizona delegation is a declared Barack Obama supporter [2].
[1] http://nh2008.blogspot.com/2007/10/kathy-sullivan-endorses-clinton.html
[2] http://www.politickeraz.com/evanbrown/1094/adp-convention-yields-another-obama-superdelegate
The GOP plays the race card in NC and ignores the protest of McCain:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/26sat4.html?ref=opinion
Obama obviously has them really rattled.
The question is why would the GOP undermine the authority of their own candidate to run such a blatantly racist ad in NC?
Another question is how sincere were McCain’s protestations?
1157
Noocat Says: ”
April 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm…How can any self-respecting non-conservative voter support this?”
..
I’m beginning to despair, Noocat. I think I will have to change my blogname to wide-eyed-pessimist. This is becoming a complete shambles.
The only thing Hillary is interested in is Hillary. Not a positive attribute for someone wanting to hold one of the most powerful positions on earth.
Hold the faith Blindoptimist. It takes courage to hold on to ideals when it looks like the whole world is pursuing self-interest. Pursue your ideals anyway! We need you to add to the critical mass if we’re ever to turn this mess around.
1159
Ferny Grover
Can you hear the GOP singing Ferny?
Can you hear it?
Let it rip Randy:
Coz we’re rednecks, we’re rednecks,
don’t know our ass from a hole in the ground
and we’re keepin’ the niggas down!
…in full throat.
McCain will look more and more like a liberal sympathiser the more he complains, while the cynical redneck baiting uber-right chop him off at the knees.
Gotta say how nice it is to see the GOP’s hate-based conservatism turn around to eat their candidate.
Poetic justice, eh?
For all of those of you who keep predicting an Obama or Clinton “landslide”, can you tell me what your definition of “landslide” is. It never fails to amuse me when people get on here and analyse a US election through an Australian perspective, ignoring all the quirky (and some cases ugly) aspects of US presidential politics.
Where, exactly, is the evidence of this landslide? Both HRC and BHO are flatlining in polling in heaps of states that should be in play if there was a Democrat landslide brewing. The only exceptions to this rule are states where a Democratic primary has just taken place or is about to. Furthermore McCain is highly competitive in places like Pennsylvania and even Massachussetts, where the Republicans should be at least 10 to 15 points behind. As for all the high turnouts for the Democrat race, so what? That is what you would expect when there are two exciting candidates (exciting at least for Democrats) in the closest primary contest since at least 1976.
Without boring all the regular contributors on here who have held it all before, at least from me, there has only ever been one genuine Democratic landslide since WW2, and that was 1964 (a result that was heavily influenced by Lee Harvey Oswald and Barry Goldwater and is also the only time the Democrat has surpassed the 50% mark, although I may stand corrected about Truman in 1948). The handful of other post-war Democratic victories have been either dead-heats or very close. The one of exception to this is William Jefferson Clinton – who won handily twice – and as a presidential candidate for the Democrats, he is so many things that HRC and BHO simply are not and never will be.
For most of this election cycle I had thought Obama was the Democrats’ best chance. But it is quite apparent I have been sucked in by all the pro-Obama hysteria in the media. Obama is just another liberal, like all the other Democrat failures of the past 40 years. When is the leadership of that party going to get into their thick heads that only a centrist / moderate has any hope of victory in November? Until they do, sorry folks, but stand by for a succession of GOP fruit loops – why should anyone in the GOP seriously re-assess the intellectual farce that is what that party stands for when they keep winning the big one?
Well, Obama’s “Banshees of Bulldust Band” is in full crying mode today. Moan, groan, bitch and complain. What a screeching sound you all make.
One thing we should all have learned by now is that you can’t build a more peaceful world by violent means; you can’t build a more truthful world with lies and spin; you can’t build a more compassionate world by caving in to self-interest; you can’t build a more noble, progressive, safe world by appealing to the base elements of fear, ignorance and smear.
So maintain the optimism
Robert Boland
replying to your #1124
and some of Kirri’s Iran/nuke comments
You both seem to hide behind the Iran/nukes issue to camoflage I think an overall opposition to the use of and threatened use of the US military deterrent power under any circumstances.
Such a view is a wimpish-peacenik opinion which threatens Australian’s current & future familys very existence and safety , (& the same for US & the like Country’s)
by undermining the people’s will & belief to support their/US Governments use of the military as stated
Instead of being frank the peacenik set use red herrings like the Iran/nukes to disguise their real overall opinions and their agenda. Those that have genuine disquiet on “policy” grounds about Hillary’s comments can unwittingly foster a peacenik anti US agenda.
Then Kirri in #745 used misleading information/commentary on Bill Sayers to almost exonerate Ayer’s terrorist reputation. This is an example of Kirri being so extremely anti american view based that he distorts Ayer’s past by his presentation
Talk about clearly speaking ones conviction views , similar to Obama there seems a lack of
Well, Obama’s “Banshees of Bulld*st Band” is in full crying mode today. The dischordant moans, groans, b*tches and complaints combine to generate a pathetic screeching whinge sound. I doubt if it will ever go mainstream.
corection Kirr’s #1045
GG at 1168
Did you know that I think your posts like 1168 are really weak because is has no substance – its just trying to drag down opposing views. Other times you can be really good with clear and valuable comments. Me – I like that other GG more than the 1168 GG – but please don’t hold that against me.
1167
Ron
Ron, your arguments are childish:
This is utter nonsense:
You both seem to hide behind the Iran/nukes issue to camoflage I think an overall opposition to the use of and threatened use of the US military deterrent power under any circumstances.
…you may say that you ‘think’, but I haven’t seen much evidence that you have. The argument is that conflating Iran with ‘annihilation’ on a set of hypothetical and highly contingent premises is an utter debasement of political rhetoric to gross jingoist war mongering.
It has nought to do with reality and everything to do with HRC posturing in the worst possible way.
If you cannot understand the difference between that and ‘overall opposition to the use of …US deterrent’ then you are being intentionally obtuse.
This bit is so laughable I need only quote it, lack of syntax and all:
Such a view is a wimpish-peacenik opinion which threatens Australian’s current & future familys very existence and safety , (& the same for US & the like Country’s)
by undermining the people’s will & belief to support their/US Governments use of the military as stated
…whatever in god’s name that is supposed to mean! Even allowing for what I think it means, it’s still utter nonsense. As PM Rudd has demonstrated, we can disagree with US foreign policy but still maintain an alliance.
As for the rest of your post: the same conclusion. Intentioanlly obtuse.
Ron, try looking at the arguments presented rather than taking everything as a personal attack on you and/or a partisan talking point. The conclusion of what I posted @1136 is not ‘peddling’ a ‘shallow race card argument’. Here it is again:
“I’m in no way saying that Clinton cannot eventually rebuild her support among black voters in a general election, just like I don’t believe Obama cannot strengthen his white support in a general election – all I’m saying is that Clinton’s current weakness among black voters is at least as important a factor in this election as Obama’s current weakness among some white demographics.”
Re. your 1167 comment – whoa man! Time to take those partisan blinkers off. I know that you suggested above that Obama is like both Bush and Howard, but boy, you seem to have picked up a thing or two from that pair if you really believe crap like:
“wimpish-peacenik opinion which threatens Australian’s current & future familys very existence and safety”.
Catrina,
I only come with the honesty feature turned on.
You just scroll back through the array of abusive anti Hillary rants that have been served up this day. Time for the Obamists to lift their game methinks.
Catrina, you gotta respect the two takes on it though. Obviously on reflection GG thought the effort @1166 wasn’t substantial enough and gave us a reprise @1169. 🙂
And you wouldn’t be dismissing arguments, GG, after finding that so offensive yesterday would you?
Pancho,
Fair comment but the first one got put into moderation. Obviously, William is lurking.
Pancho,
Please don’t be disingenuous. Yesterday, was not about dismissing arguments.
Appoligies to everyone else for what I’m about to say …
Ron at 1168
Sorry – reposting
Apologies to everyone else for what I’m about to say …
Ron at 1168
Do you have a rationale line of thinking for the argument supporting a preventive strike on Iran? What are (in your mind) the preconditions you believe are mandatory for such an action on a non-nuclear-arms state? What do you think would be the reaction of the global community to another round of US sabre rattling as the grounds for greater control in the middle east? Do you believe that the US can really pull off and sustain another foray into the dark side given public opinion and economic trends? Would you agree with me in the argument that such a action could trip the US economy from recession to depression through a blow-back of global proportions? Would you agree with me that the rhetoric from Clinton and the Whitehouse is seen across the world as the rhetoric of an empire on the back foot and an empire on decline? Would you agree with me that of all the candidates running in the current presidential process – there is only one candidate that can bring America back from the edge and that he is currently head in every poll that matters?
Or should I call my line of though a ‘blond moment’ and follow line of reasoning without consideration for the implications?
oh zutt – please substitute ‘preventive’ with ‘pre-emptive’
A poorly constructed poll about a totally meaningless question?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/04/the_pundit_primary_colbert_vs.html#comments
Pancho at 1175
Your absolutely right – maybe that was a moderation moment – but if I had to make a choice I’d pick 1166 as the better moment.
GG at 1174
Yes, I know – I would like to see a lot less of that – but all the same – the Clinton crowd cannot claim any high ground. Personally I would like to see both sides backing off from the rhetoric but I don’t my side to be seen to be taking any punches without appropriate retaliation – you know what I mean?
Catrina – all seems fair to me.
GG – I thought that was a pretty good poll! The rise of both Colbert and Stewart is pretty interesting, and moreso that it has happened in tandem with a resurgence in youth enthusiasm generally.
GG at 1182
John Stewart in a heartbeat.
1180 Catrina – Agreed – It is getting harder and harder for some of the pretend progressives around here to hide from the fact that they are supporting a right-wing belligerent in Clinton against a voice for change to engagement and dialogue with the world. Exactly the sort of change that 70% of the American people say they want.
Chris of Edgecliff @ 1165 [When is the leadership of that party going to get into their thick heads that only a centrist / moderate has any hope of victory in November? ]
Tell me this Chris, which candidate has the better foreign relations approach?
Clinton’s is the one where she is in bed with the Israel lobby and has now threatened to obliterate the people of another country. Obama is the one with a policy of engagement and dialogue with other nations, including erstwhile ‘enemies’.
Which one seems more ‘centrist/moderate’ to you and which one is more extreme right?’
Catrina,
Overall, I agree with you.
However, Colbert’s speech to the Press Writers Lunch (link is in the article) has to be one of the finest pieces of satire ever. The only things to come close for me were Norman Gunstons interviews in the 70s or Frontline in the 90s.
Just about the two year anniversary of that magnificent speech. I think the press night is tonight again. You can bet the comedian is copping a bit more vetting this year…
1187
Greeensborough Growler
Colbert’s ‘speech’ was one of the finest bits of satire ever?
Growler!
We agree on something at last! LOL
It was an astonishing tour de force of satire delivered with monumental cojones right to face of the Grinning Chimp.
Priceless! And the audience of fawning reptiles of the press just went from slack jawed incomprehension to howling derision right on cue.
Every time I watch it I marvel!
[t is getting harder and harder for some of the pretend progressives around here to hide from the fact that they are supporting a right-wing belligerent in Clinton…]
I support Obama because I agree with much of what he says and stands for. I expect this is the case for most Obama supporters here.
But I don’t think the same can be said for some Hillary supporters. I KNOW that some here were very anti-Howard last year, criticising him over fear tactics, hawkishness, and exploiting racism for votes. And now Hillary is showing signs of moving down a similar path… so what’s it gonna be: principles or loyalty???
To Obamaphiles, just close your eyes if it is too painful to look. We know that the Obamaphiles are ignoring and deriding the Votemaster tracking of the EVs, even though the VM has good track record and widely quoted. Never mind, you see what you want to and hear what you want to hear, like DailyKos and the Huff. Bet you the SDs are keeping a closed eye on this.
Apr. 26 – Electoral Votes: Clinton 284 McCain 244 Ties 10
Apr. 26 – Electoral Votes: Obama 243 McCain 269 Ties 26
Finns, Votemaster does have a good track record when we are down to a TWO-horse race.
Whilst GG and the Finn make childish banter about stalker and parrots, thanks Ron for answering my questions.
What the Hillary supporters show (like the Howard ones last year), is that, faced with the maths, their either totally ignore it, attack the messenger, or attack the opponent. Doesnt change the maths though.
Very interested that they cant answer the question- would they rather have McCain than Obama. I presume their answer is yes. Whilst I prefer Obama to Clinton, I’d rather Clinton than McCain by a mile. I guess it the “Hillary or no-one” mentality
And the Finns, I’m quite happy to look at the poll forecasts you post. Dont need to close my eyes. But, at the end of the day “it’s the delegates stupid”. Hillary cant win the pledged count and her lead in the SDs is ever shrinking. It’s the delegates, stupid
#1193 – there is a big difference between asking a question and demanding an answer. feel sorry for you if you cant tell the difference.
Andrew, a few weeks ago, Finns asked Obama supporters on this blog whether they would support Clinton over McCain if she won the Dem. nomination. The response was overwhelmingly yes, but Finns found it so counterintuitive, he concluded that we were all lying.
I think you have your answer.
Noocat, it still intrigues me that they would rather have McCain than Obama. How bizarre and vindictive is that
I hereby appoint Noocat as my official spokeperson.
Pancho
#1173 replying to your first point re Dailykos
You did not respond to my arguments in #1155 at all , but instead claimed that I think (do not how you know that) that I think you were personally attacking me. I never said that & I did not think that. Perhaps I should have inserted Davidsirota each time I said you. Then you imply I didn’t read the quoted conclusion, I did.
Now the issue, You quoted #1136 a pro Obama Dailykos article by the Davidsirota who has previously pushed this pro Obama line. The pro Obama line is to implicitly acknowledge the reality Hillary is generally more electable than Obama on all KNOWN the demographic polls, political factors, stats ,past elections , base etc. The pro Obama line counter he is peddling is an assumption IF black voters do not come out in large numbers Hillary is also potentially unelectable because her ASSUMED demographic adverse ‘black’ voter bloc counters all the various KNOWN not assumed Hillary demograghic advantages as of now , sub text pick the delegate leader.
Virtually the whole article has this message. The throwaway line of Hillary could retrieve the black vote & vice versa Obama the white vote is not the thrust of the article. I think it is poor argument by Dailykos and I have given reasons.
What are yours for supporting the substance of the article as you’ve not said.
Andrew – I think things often play out like this in the primary season, particularly when the contest gets a little nasty. I have pointed Finns towards polls which showed 50% of McCain’s supporters in 2000 saying they would never vote for George Bush. But guess what – when attention was focussed on a two horse race, they all flooded back.
It has also been pointed out to him many times that it is such sentiment which is likely driving artificially low polling for each Democratic candidate in a triangluated contest against McCain. But again, guess what? – every time that Hills pulls ahead on the beloved EV page we get a little cut and pasting (with no analysis). Note as well that when future polls come out and show her behind, we get no such crowing, cutting, or pasting.
And finally, it has also been pointed out to Finns that different models produce different results, even at this stage of the race. This site for instance (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) has had Obama running ahead of Clinton against McCain for much of the previous few months (along with national polling), but this is ignored as well. Which is completely fine, but for me just makes statements like Finns’ @1191
all the more hilarious. I’m looking forward to dredging a few such comments up in the coming weeks. Ain’t it great how these records remain these days?