North Carolina and Indiana minus one week

Minus one week and two days, to be precise. Next Wednesday our time, North Carolina Democrats will elect 115 delegates, 77 by district-level proportional representation and 38 by statewide PR*. Indiana will elect 72 delegates, 47 by district-level and 25 statewide. Both are primaries, which have been doing better for Hillary Clinton that caucuses. However, the polls have Barack Obama ahead in both states – commandingly so in North Carolina (51.3 per cent to 35.8 per cent, according to Real Clear Politics’ fortnight average), narrowly in Indiana (46.3 per cent to 43.3 per cent). North Carolina will have a “modified” primary open to independents and registered Democrats; Indiana will have an open primary, meaning all voters can participate. And let us not forget Thursday’s caucuses for the Pacific island of Guam, at which three delegates will be selected by a closed caucus.

* Correct me if I’m wrong here (or anywhere else), somebody.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

822 comments on “North Carolina and Indiana minus one week”

Comments Page 3 of 17
1 2 3 4 … 17

  3. #101 – FG – yes, go to the chemist and ask for the same for hemorrhoid. tell them that the Obamanoids are a pain in the a**e

  5. Hillaroids, Obamanoids, my goodness, we’re getting to the bottom of things now, eh?

    Plummeting the psephelogical depths, hey guys?

    What’s the matter, got ‘roid rage? Can’t get relief from the factoids from the Obamanoids and it’s giving you acute Hillaroids?

    Fear not fellows, a cure is coming soon: Hillaroidadectomy is the newest procedure to give you permanent relief.

    (And we’ll be relieved you’re relieved, so we can bloody-well move on ! LOL)

  9. Are we really heading into a mass outbreak of Hillaside when effective Hillarectomies are available at no cost? We must stand up and recognize this impending Clintastrophe and reach out to these unfortunate individuals – Yes We Can!

  10. Amazing what a little orange county lumber truck seeking & toga lifting turns up eh GG? lol

    Jen’s noseclips are a problem but.

  11. Robert

    #81

    Missed your post , hank you. Are you suggesting without the Russian ‘interest’ ,
    Truman would have risked 1 million allied dead on a ground invasion or are you suggesting he’d patiently allow the fire bombing to continue (which would have killed more japenese civilians ) ?

    It seems to me none of the choices were palatable but then neither was a conditional ‘truce’. The choices never are. One day shortly I may post my unwelcomed Iran exposure on a dozen issues the Obamabots could have focused on to debate re Hillary’s comments but alas the false one liners on the wrong but most senational grab are easier I guess

  12. GG

    #108

    You are wicked. you know Codger is a man of few “words”

    HarryH
    #106
    you obviuosly missed my post last night , the Obamabot class level of ‘elitist views’ sorry you were not admitted to because like Obama you require a state of mind (superiority based to the community) which is not based on where you live or your education or upbringing. Obama has it in spades and so do many of his supporters. A snouted view of issues important to the masses

  16. Codger

    #113

    You certain about that ron? Yes , and the is a special class called “codger’ with only you in it now. Have been seeking other inductees , even your friend in India who today improved on his sportsmanship reputation but even he refused nomination.

    Perhaps you can tell us what Obama should say about nukes & Hillary’s stated policy on it with a detailed explanation as I’ve never heard you make a single policy comment in 3 months

  18. HarryH

    #115

    I think you may misunderstood the enormous task facing the 2 senior Amigos
    confronted by you lot of about 25 Obama supporters. Theonly all of you have in common is your support for Obama.

    After that, there is a chasm in intellect , debating , ‘class’ , political nous , cutural attitudes , literary snoutism , elitistm, political nuances within the ‘left’ spectrum , and indeed ‘rationale’ then the snipers , the one line gigs..strs etc
    Within these groupings the Amigos have to respond at the appropriate level
    and Obama classifications assist. Indeed some Obama supporters are not even Obamabots or further Obamanoids. But overall obamahas a dream , “yes we can”

    I know what Hillary can achieve as POTUS

    HaaryH , but specifially after 6 months of POTUS Obama vs a comparative POTUS Hillary , what will Obama have achieved in policy for the American people that is different ??? the truth is none of you have ever said , thats a con

  20. Dear ron/Ron @116

    ‘a special class called “codger’ ‘ Thankyou, but not in any kinda sorta elitist way, know what I mean? Pal, sunshine?

    ‘you make a single policy comment’ I’m not a candidate ron/Ron; so your point is?

    But I must confess that I do find it interesting as you move (slip/run) to your end of the stick, grip by grip… & fun.

  21. No you misunderstood Codger , the class was called ‘codger’ in your honour covering attributes but others who were there have moved like js. The policy comment was you have not said any of Obama’s that you support
    …except ‘yes , we can’ whatever that means , so I was asking you for just
    one other Obama policy..healthcare ?

  22. Ron #111 “Are you suggesting without the Russian ‘interest’ ,
    Truman would have risked 1 million allied dead on a ground invasion or are you suggesting he’d patiently allow the fire bombing to continue (which would have killed more japenese civilians ) ?”
    Short answer – yes to the first and he couldn’t have given a toss about the second, which had already been carried out without any moral qualms. But you haven’t addressed my main answer. They could have methodically demonstrated the power of the bomb on uninhabitated areas and tested whether the Japanese realised what that meant. They never considered doing so because the main imperative was time. The Russians were better placed to launch an assault via Sakhalin on Hokkaido and may have grabbed Japan and its excellent industrial infrastructure (as well as all the coal and steel in Manchuria and Korea) before the west. So the largest intact city in Japan was obliterated to demonstrate the effect of the bomb as quickly as possible. And the sole motive was to forestall the Russians.
    Do I think the subsequent conseqent obliteration of a city was morally indefensible? Yes.
    Do I think that Hillary Clinton threatening to nuke a country that doesn’t have nukes and is not even involved in aggression against any other country is sick and twisted and a reason for not supporting her, even if you and the rest of her supporters could convince me she was somehow more electable than Obama? Yes.
    Do I think that Reverend Wright is not “racist” because he dislikes the state that enslaved his ancestors, and has spent the last 50 years backing dictatorships, installing dictatorships, and bombing civilians? Yes.
    Do I think that Obama is “elitist” for suggesting that poor whites cling to religion and guns?
    No. Because I think that hostility to gay marriage or an affection for automatic weapons as a motive for voting by a demographic that has witnessed a ten year freeze on minimum pay and continues to suffer the consequence of no welfare state and privatised healthcare is “false consciousness”, or whatever you want to term it. It is in any case bloody stupid. I would say that to the ten pin bowling cheese-fry eaters to their face, because I’m not an elitist. I don’t want the working class to be bamboozled; I want them to rip the throats out of the real elitists – the Cheney’s the Bush’s and, yes, even the Clintons.

  23. Robert

    #122

    I presume its reasonable that I can put some other views to your blog.
    At this hour last time you shot a good salvo and then reasonably went to sleep due t the hour

    If I reply now you’ll be ‘gone’ whiich is fair enough , but will you subsequently respond Robert to my reply Robert?

  24. ron/Ron

    You must have missed my 3 choice no choice etc, everyone here is familiar with that if not favourable…

    So, as I’m not familiar with js ‘s movements etc…please explain omg

    What is it you are asking me to endorse? Warning I’m now expensive. (special class, no less) But don’t for one minute let this deter you.

    PS Mr Bollard, do you ever miss?

  25. Oh golly!
    Obama has just racked up 1,443,759 independent financial contributors.
    What’s the number on the Hillary Clinton side?

  26. Oh really, to all those folks getting excited over how many different contributers Obama has, let me remind you that Howard Dean had raised the most money and had the most contributers up until February 2004. What a comparison!

  28. The crucial POTUS question that has not been answered adequately beyond a projection screen for other people’s dream and fantasy: WHo is Obama?

    [How much will Obama’s past haunt him?

    CHICAGO (AFP) — As Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama tries to make his mark on the national stage, his past keeps dogging his step.

    Controversies linked to his past helped rival Hillary Clinton capture a double-digit win in last week’s key Pennsylvania primary, preventing Obama from locking in the party’s nomination to run for the White House.

    Obama was cast as an elitist after he said people in small towns clung to guns and religion because they were bitter about decades of job losses.

    And both Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain questioned his patriotism by highlighting his links to a 1960s radical and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary comments on the country and race — and even unsolicited praise for him from a member of the radical Islamist Hamas group.

    Such attacks are likely to intensify should Obama get the party’s nomination, analysts said]

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2e1lbP_svK6gmzwCt5ebrNhvxuw

  29. Robert Bollard,
    The Soviets declared war on Japan on August 8, two days after the first atomic bomb was dropped.
    So your contention that the Soviet threat was the sole reason for Truman’s action seems pretty questionable to me. But sure, I have no doubt the Russians were a factor in his thinking.
    I suspect, though, the main reason was Truman’s desire to spare his own forces and get the whole thing over with quickly. Now whether that is morally defensible reasoning, in view of the civilian deaths and devastation the bombs caused, is debatable.

  30. The Lady has been pronounced dead and gone long time back. But she is fighting back. There is no question the tide is turning. The tipping point has arrived. One week before Indiana Jones and Sweet Carolina, the Pastor is trying to extend his 15mins of fame into 15 hours. How can this be any help to Obama.

    The voters are now seeing the fundamentals emerging:

    * Hillary, with all her flaws, is tough, fighter and a doer.
    * Obama – unknown, who is Obama? no ticker, a show pony, a projection screen, and full of the Wright stuff
    * McCain? well, let not get started.

    So who are you gunna call?

    A very good day to all, especially my two amigos, GG and Ron.

    AP Poll: Clinton leads McCain, doing better than Obama, By LIZ SIDOTI – 40 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama.

    Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.

    The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.

    Helped by independents, young people and seniors, Clinton gained ground this month in a hypothetical match with Sen. McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

    Both Democrats were roughly even with McCain in the previous poll about three weeks ago.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP6aoeuUCqIEo5DHDOCMLHyUOCpgD90B3O400

  31. Did I say that Obama’s average lead had bottomed out on 6%? Wrong. There’s more movement on RCP:

    Obama’s lead over Hillary in the national poll avergage has gone from 6.6% yesterday to 5.8% today – down from 10.5% just before PA.

    In Indiana RCP is now showing BHO & HRC tied, after showing a 3% lead to Obama over the last few days. The shift is due to a SurveyUSA poll showing Clinton now has a 9% led in the Hoosier State.

    NC has been stable on 15.5% for the last week, but has now narrowed to 12.3%.

    And, mainly thanks to Rev Wright’s reappearance, the Hillary Deathwatch has increased her chances from 11.9 over the weekend to 12.4%

    The Kid still has the lead – but he does have a fight on his hands.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    http://www.slate.com/id/2190118/

  32. Finns, Great get my neoncob friend.

    Just heard the Rev Wright on AM. Boy, Has he got Obama stitched.

    1. Obama repudiates him and he goes feral. Also raises questions about his sitting lamb like at his feet for twenty years.

    2. Obama ignores himand people conclude Obama supports the Rev’s philosophy.

  33. I guess, seeing as you were so wrong about the Wright effect on Obama’s polling the first time around (remember all that post-Wright polling, from everyone from FOX to Gallup showing Obama being the one with the bounce one week after its momentus breaking?) makes you assume you’ll be right now. I’m just happy sitting back waiting for y’all to tire yourselves out, as a record of ill predictions don’t seem to be doing much.

    In other news, another member of what is referred to as the Bush Senior realist foreign policy establishment (i.e. the wing of the Republican Party remaining some credibility) is in line with Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/brent-scowcroft-echoes-ob_n_99026.html

    An SD announcement each way – great to see those overall numbers falling, bringing us closer to the end, and removing some of the perceptions of a smoky back-room. And helping to kill off one Clinton false narrative:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/north-carolina-primary-ne_n_94961.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/obama-endorsed-by-new-mex_n_99020.html

  38. The dilemma of the Democratic race:

    … [Obama & Clinton] are confronted by a Hobson’s Choice: Act selfishly and cause collective disaster, or act altruistically and aid someone else who is acting selfishly. Either way, selfishness wins.

    “The way the system is set up, the more-selfish person has a higher probability of winning,” social psychologist W. Keith Campbell said of the Democratic primary. “You end up with the more narcissistic, belligerent candidate.”

    Which explains the narrowing

  40. 138 Ferny

    It could be viewed as an example of game theory, in this case Prisoner’s Dilemma. The candidates have to either cooperate (not go negative) or defect (go negative).

    “Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies (“defects”) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act? ”

    So far, Obama has been cooperating (simplistically) and Hillary has been defecting (simplistically). Obama’s strategy is a loser mathematically. There have been endless articles written about the best strategy when playing this game (they have tournaments!!). Overall, the winner is always “Tit-for-Tat”, where the prisoner’s next move is to do what the other prisoner did last time. That means it’s time for Obama to attack. 👿

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

  41. After having a look through Anne Davies factually incorrect piece here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/obama-pastor-hits-out-again/2008/04/29/1209234801321.html, I challenge anyone to have a look through Wright’s speech to the NAACP [http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.transcript/index.html?iref=werecommend] and tell me where the basis for the story is. Or is it just lazy journalism perhaps? Oh well, let’s go another round in this game.

    I assume that her comment here

    “But when it came to the question period, he appeared to mock the media, accusing them repeatedly of taking his comments out of context and answering flippantly and with sarcasm.

    Is about his answers to the question he is unpatriotic:

    ‘I feel that those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me. They are unfair accusations taken from soundbites and that which is looped over and over again on certain channels. I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did [Vice President Dick] Cheney serve?’ – Nb: Wright was a Marine for 6 years and served in Vietnam. Cheney dodged the draft about a half dozen times.

    There’s more of his ‘flippant sarcasm’ here to have a look at: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/04/rev-wright-hope.html?loc=interstitialskip

    Then Davies presents a leading conclusion

    “By afternoon, his appearance was consuming US political blogs, both right and left wing and dominating the network and cable news. Several commentators were wondering whether this latest episode would now so wound Senator Obama that he would be unable to clinch the nomination even though he is leading the delegate race.

    I though I’d have a look through some news at this all consuming story. Well, FOX is in there with a story hilarious in its own myriad ways [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352945,00.html], but CNN appears to have a descriptive (and impressed) piece on Wright’s address [http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.npc/index.html], and its comments page shows a more nuanced approach to Wright than we had the first time around when conservative pundits greatly exaggerated reports of Obama’s demise [http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.reactions/index.html]. At least half the comments seem positive.

    So this is the mainstream take. I won’t get into the biased liberals like the NYT, Washington Post or the Huffington Post, cos we can all guess what they would say.

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this is a positive for Obama, but I think a little pause before another round of unfounded and ultimately placed ‘haha! gotchas!’ is wheeled out might be helpful.

  43. I hope this gets a good run in the US press. And Dolly Downer can hang his head in shame.

    Colonel Moe Davis testified overnight that evidence for the war crimes tribunals was obtained through prisoner abuse, and political appointees and higher-ranking officers pushed prosecutors to file charges before trial rules were even written.

    David Hicks was wrongly charged, says Guantanamo prosecutor

    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23615751-5006301,00.html

  44. Anyone care to slash those odds on a Democratic President even further:

    ‘McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. “I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”

    The January 2005 comments, which have not surfaced previously during the presidential campaign, represent a stunning contrast to McCain’s current rhetoric.’
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/mccain-strongly-rejected_n_99082.html

    In U.S. campaign parlance, I believe this is prime flip-flopping. And we haven’t even started.

  45. Robert Boland #122

    Re a/ Frisco ‘bitter’ speech and b/ Rev Wright Pastor (1 of 3)

    A/ Robert: “Do I think that Obama is “elitist” for suggesting that poor whites cling to religion and guns (plus my addition: “who are also bitter , have antipathy to people you do not look like them & have anti immigrant sentiment”) ? No….. Its for reasons “false consciousness”

    Ron: “Elitist” (the Free Dictionary) is a person who believes he is part of a class with perceived superiority in intellect , social status or money , deserving of favoured treatment compared to all others

    For Obama to talk in faraway San Francisco to a bunch of rich Californian donators about a group of working class peoples living in mid west towns in Ohio etc , in and with such derogatory and condescending manner and descriptions
    fits the ‘elitist’ description accurately. For mine therefore Obama is an ‘elitist’
    and so I completely disagree with you

    (ps/ why is he standing for POTUS holding such superiority views of people)

    b/ Robert: “Reverend Wright is not “racist”

    Ron: the issue is not Rev Wright but Obama. The issue is not if Wright is a ‘racist’. The issue is Obama , the Candidate for POTUS

    Obama himself at Philly publicly said he sat sermons but privately disagreeing with some of Wrights racial and anti American sermon comments. Then Obama in the same speech said he condemned the Pastor’s “racially divisive” comments and ‘grossly’ “anti American” comments. A week later , Obama ‘disowned’ the whole thrust of Wright’s racial and anti American sermon thrust.

    The issues for Obama are
    1/ Why sit for 20 years privately disagreeing with racial and anti American sermons you now condemn. These were not one off comments but part of the thrust of Wrights sermon messages

    2/ Which Pastor comments does Obama regard as “racially divisive” comments and which ones does Obama regard as ‘grossly’ “anti American so we know which are OK by Obama’s “standards” and which are not. For a potential POTUS voters are entitled to know his standards. Obama has deceivingly & disingenuously deliberately avoided clarifying this

    3/ How can Obama claim he has judgement when as a US Senator he sits for 20 years listening to such divisive comments which he privately disagreed with & now years later publicly condemns.

    4/ How can America with a strongly mainstream based society (in theory) be represented by a POTUS taught & presumably who will practice as POTUS non mainstream cultural attitudes and standards.

    5/ Is a POTUS promising at Philly “a more perfect Union” fair dinkum in his message consistent with the same man attending Wright’s sermons for 20 years preaching what Obama now says are racially divisive and anti American comments , so bad Obama has to publicly condemn them.

    6/ How weak are Obama’s convictions seeing he can keep attending sermonds that on race & American grounds he privately listened to & only now publicly condemns

    The 6 Pastor issues above reek of grossly poor judgement , lack of serious convictions , double standards , cynical political expediency and a phony a more perfect union message given to voters disenchanted with the current status.
    Therefore I disagree with you & think Obama is unsuitable for POTUS compared to Hillary on these & other grounds

  46. When Obama can finally start campaigning for the general election, I have little doubt McCain will be under enormous pressure – the inconsistencies in his positions on a number of policy fronts, his pro-bomb Iran stance, plus some pretty dodgy ideas, like removing Russia from the G8, and much more – will make it easy for Obama to make McCain himself an issue in this election, especially because he is far better placed to take the moral high ground on a number of fronts than Hillary can.

    The stuff over Wright and other manufactured scandals regarding Obama will be seen for the smear and fear nonsense that they are, just as Australians eventually saw through the Liberal Party’s attempts to smear their opponents with any piece of dirt they could find.

  47. 140 Diog
    Yes I know of the theory.

    But really – if the only way to beat the devil is to become the devil, surely everyone loses. If it held true then there would be no advancement for humanity. In fact, there would NEVER have been any advancement and we would still be governed entirely by our basest instincts.

    In Obama’s case, if the only way to beat Hillary is to become Hillary then he will lose his current support base who are believing he is the one chance, probably in their lifetime, to show that politics can rise above self-interest. If he’s gonna preach values then he needs to model it or lose credibility.

  48. Ferny- While we are not there yet, we now have a firm date for it to end by. McAuliffe, who seems quite likeable and competent, promises it will all be over by June 15th and that it won’t go to Denver. This stuffs up my prediction but is good news for the Democrats.

    McAuliffe Adopts June 15th as Deadline for Superdelegate Endorsements?
    http://www.dailykos.com/

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 3 of 17
1 2 3 4 … 17