MyDD :: BlogOsphere

BlogOsphere

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:01:00 AM EST

While Obama was making the case that McCain flip-flops more than he does, Gwen Ifill said, what about Obama's change on Campaign finance? That led to this back and forth:

SEN. OBAMA: Well, campaign finance, there's no doubt that that was a shift in recognizing that we could not broker a deal with the Republicans that would prevent the Republican National Committee or the Republican Governors Association or all these other organizations, that are already spending millions of dollars against us, that we could not contain them within a public financing system. So the broader point, Gwen, is if you compare sort of my shift in emphasis on issues that I've been proposing for years, like say, faith-based initiatives, which have raised questions in the press, if you compare that to John McCain -

MS. IFILL: And raised hackles among some of your supporters.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, raised hackles amongst some in the blogosphere...

So, Obama makes that distinction between his "supporters" and the blogosphere (hey, you'll get my vote, be happy).

In poll news, Obama would wipe the floor with Bush, at least:

At a time when Obama and McCain are locked in a tight race, the poll shows that Obama would rout President Bush 54% to 34%. Looking at the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, McCain is outperforming Bush by more than 15 percentage points.

The poll results also show that Obama would have an easier go of it against two of McCain's chief rivals for the Republican nomination. The presumptive Democratic nominee leads former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by eight points 49% to 41% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee 50% to 39%.

However, McCain fares better against Obama than he does against two other prominent Democrats. New York Senator Hillary Clinton leads McCain by eight points, 50% to 42%. Former Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, leads McCain 50% to 43%.

These numbers help explain why Election 2008 is competitive even though events so heavily favor the Democrats -- because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not.

The summation of the McCain-Obama match-up done by Jay Cost (a frame of reference for the GE) provides a good explanation for the closure of the gap (that 15% gain for McCain against Obama). Also, don't miss his Swing State Review: Ohio, Part 1.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 85 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 4)

From memory the support for Obama in the blogosphere was tepid at best for most of the entire primary. Frankly I think it was a good strategy to not attempt a blogocentric campaign from the beginning, given Obama's political instincts and the ideological partisanship evident on the Internet.

Obama tunnelled through the blogosphere to create his web presence without negotiating fealty with the self-proclaimed gatekeepers and that strategy bore good outcomes in building his coalition and liberating him from the partisan tug of the progressive left, arguably a necessary precaution in winning a national election in the current cultural climate of US politics.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:09:53 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 1)

Well of course. He sees the Blogosphere as part of the Partisan Problem.

I'd accepted this by New Hampshire time.

by MNPundit on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:10:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

except that the only reason he won was because the Clinton-hating blogosphere had only him to use to take down Clinton. Now that she's out, they don't care anymore.

by Lakrosse on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:14:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 5)

If you think the blogosphere won the primary then you have no understanding of politics or the actual power of blogs. Also, if the primary was decided by the blogosphere, Edwards would have sewn up the election mid-January.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:17:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

Obama had just enough Democrats from both the blogs and some regular people, edwards only had from a few blogs. Also, edwards didn't have the blacks, Obama did.

by Lakrosse on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:25:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

also, once edwards left, who do you think they took sides with? THAT was when it mattered. Edwards also had no money, the others did.

by Lakrosse on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

MoveOn's endorsement and it's money machine (none / 0)

allowed him the resources to win. Without them, he would have been a goner....

by suzieg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:21:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MoveOn's endorsement and it's money machine (2.00 / 1)

Yea all those millions and millions he raised over the internet from individuals. They didn't count, only MoveOn's millions gave him the edge against the the strongest candidate of all! Gee I guess, when Cassius Clay(Mohamad Ali) beat Sonny Liston we all should have said Sonny would have won if it were not for the audience Cheering Sonny and booing Cassius!

by eddieb on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:38:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 1)

That is a really insightful comment. Obama audaciously went over the heads of the established bloggers and made his own elaborate social networking/blogging site inside of his own sandbox. People really used it during the primaries, and they continue using it now. I also suspect it played a role in his astronomical fundraising during the primary.

The point is, instead of reaching out to the established netroots, he planted his own orchard on his own property. I think that was a brilliant move. I can only imagine the value of the database that he's now sitting on. He's in a position to make his ground game a thing of wonder.

I'm really pleased that Obama understands the difference between the grassroots and the netroots. Really, maybe the netroots (and maybe wings of the MSM) are the only people who don't appreciate that difference.

by spork on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

Yes, and it doesn't negate the importance or impact of the netroots either, it just suggests that the genuine political usefulness of the netroots is not specifically tailored to a national political campaign. And Obama's strategy was wise enough to avoid that confusion from the outset, while still hitting certain markers like the MoveOn endorsement. The netroots was basically in the tank for Edwards throughout 2007 and yet he underperformed post-Iowa and failed to match the fund-raising targets which would have kept him out of public financing.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:41:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which states would Bush win against (2.00 / 1)

Obama? I count only nine states: Texas, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.

We should have amended the constitution to allow for this guy to run for his third term.

by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:11:30 AM EST

Re: Which states would Bush win against (none / 0)

You're probably right, but every time Bush won, his opponent vastly underestimated him. He's unpopular, but a genius at winning elections (or at least his handlers are).

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:14:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no way that (2.00 / 1)

Bush could have weaseled his way out of this mess. Him running for re-election would have been the equivalent of Herbert Hoover running for re-election.

by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:18:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is no way that (2.00 / 2)

All I'm saying is that I'm glad we don't have to find out. It's dangerous to go against someone with no concern for anything or anyone, other than his own power. If he were to suddenly start a war with Iran or some other such nonsense, who's to say that the American public wouldn't be fooled a third time?

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:28:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I swould be scared (none / 0)

that if in 2004, he knew he could go for a third term in 2008, he may have conducted his Presidency in a different more politically expedient manner, enough to make a decent bid in 2008. I think the only reason he went after re-election so hard in 2004 was to prove a Bush could win re-election, and show up his dad, and the GOP hadn't been re-elected President since 1984. After he did that, it was maybe like he just didn't give a fuck anymore. he just wanted a Bush second term to be in the history books.

Of course, Bush didn't bother making his second term worth while, and 2008 should really be 1920, tho this time for the Democrats. In 1920, after 8 years of unpopular Wilson who got re-elected closely (although he was actually a great prez, just not too popular), Senator Warren G. Harding promised a return to "normalcy" and beat James Cox in the biggest landslide in American history: 60.3-34.1 a 26.2% margin of victory, bigger than LBJ's 22.6%. After gaining back the house and Senate in 1918, the GOP made huge congressional gains, taking 10 senate seats and a whopping 62 house seats in 1920.

by Lakrosse on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He's so lazy, he would not run for a third (none / 0)

term - his only reason for running for his second term was a) to better his father and b) to legitimize his presidency. He has major psychological problems re: his father and why we are in Iraq - he wanted to finish what his father didn't do! It's a known fact that Jeb is his father's favorite and poor jr. is still trying to get his attention and approval - damn be the country in order to try to do so!

by suzieg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:29:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 4)

Surely you know, Jerome, that hypothetical presidential matchup polls are always suspect. You're not seriously endorsing Rasmussen's fantasy election scenario, are you?

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:12:43 AM EST

I do think that Obama (2.00 / 2)

would defeat Bush by the greatest popular vote margin since FDR. Obama could have won 60% of the popular vote against Bush.

I don't think that Rasmussen poll is too far off as to how HRC would be performing against McCain. It's not a slam against Obama really but more of a testament to her strength, though I suspect Jerome has some ulterior motives to try and needle the Obama crowd.

by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:14:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do think that Obama (2.00 / 2)

I think a talking parrot would be able to beat Bush this time around. Seriously.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:17:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do think that Obama (2.00 / 2)

Oh, I don't doubt the ulterior motives. There hasn't been an ulterior motive-free diary in ages.

by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I do think that Obama (2.00 / 2)

Once again, the Clinton v. McCain poll is dealing with a hypothetical scenario. Feelings toward Sen. Clinton have softened since the end of the Primary because she lost, and because she is no longer attacking/being attacked every news cycle. If you take that reality and apply it to a hypothetical scenario where she is the nominee, she receives all of the public sentiment benefits with none of the costs.

Rasmussen knows hypothetical polls are useless. Why would he survey this question? It could give him a new talking point for his next appearance with Sean Hannity.

Or maybe he wants to keep things close:

RASMUSSEN: No, if...we have a close election....it will be great for your ratings, great for the polling business.
COLMES: That's all we really care about, a close election.
full transcript

I agree that Sen. Clinton had electoral strength, but to claim that this poll is an accurate reflection of where she would have been polling had she won, is faulty reasoning.

The key to the election is contained within the Protocol.

by The Breach on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:22:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Strawman (2.00 / 3)

"So, Obama makes that distinction between his "supporters" and the blogosphere (hey, you'll get my vote, be happy)."

Ethical Rhetoric 101: FAIL

And not for the first time.

"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." -- Dr. Horrible

by BobzCat on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:16:27 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 2)

Wow, Jerome must really hate Obama.

I suppose the "blogosphere" couldn't possibly be a subset of his supporters that he's simply pointing out "raised hackles". No, that'd make too much sense.

by leshrac55 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:21:16 AM EST

Somebody was making the argument yesterday (2.00 / 2)

that Republicans have selected their possible shot which is McCain for the Presidency. Their chances for the downtickets in the Congress and Senate are pretty much shot. They are putting all of their eggs in the Presidency basket. It is the '96 strategy but in reverse when the Republicans decided to throw Dole under the bus and chose to invest in defending/retaining the House and Senate Majority.
The divided Democratic Party and the main progressive stakeholders is not helping..

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:22:02 AM EST

Who would have won Kentucky (none / 0)

between Obama and Bush? I think Obama pulls out a squeaker to keep Bush from 100 electoral college votes. I also give West Virginia to Obama over Bush.

It would have made my day to see the look on Bush's face when they called Mississippi for Obama.

by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:23:19 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (1.50 / 4)

Its clear that Jerome will do anything to put Obama in a bad light. I was not an Obama supporter in the primaries, but its time to move on and get behind the nominee. If not, you should refrain from blogging until the election is over or go blog at a Republican site.

by Marylander on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:23:46 AM EST

Are you talking to Jerome? (2.00 / 1)

I think this is his site.

by catfish2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:31:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you saying that he should self exile himself (2.00 / 1)

from his own blog?

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:32:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you saying that he should self exile himse (1.50 / 2)

Either that or be honest and release a statement that this is no longer a Democratic blog.

by Marylander on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:39:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a Progressive Blog. Excessive bashing (none / 0)

of Democratic Party is bannable offense.

by louisprandtl on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:04:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you saying that he should self exile (1.50 / 4)

Uh, no. The Democratic Party is greater than mere Obama supporters, who frankly are suspect Democrats at this point.

Obama is de facto running to complete/finish off the Bush agenda. He isn't running to implement much of the long term Democratic agenda. That's going to have to wait until 2012.

Not liking this state of affairs is, well, being a hardcore Democrat. Liking it is being an Obama supporter or softcore Democrat.

by killjoy on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:10:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are you saying that he should self exile (2.00 / 1)

Snark?

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:11:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you don't like the discussions here why don't (2.00 / 2)

YOU go elsewhere? Why should you dictate who can participate?

by suzieg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

AGREE OR BE SILENT, KNAVE! (none / 0)

by Thaddeus on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 4)

of course, mccain probably doesn't know what 'blogosphere' means.

by benh57 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:29:50 AM EST

That damn Obama (2.00 / 4)

Everyone knows he has no supporters outside the blogosphere. What a specious distinction!

by JJE on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:39:24 AM EST

I find it interesting... (2.00 / 5)

...that the extent of Jerome's contributions to his own site lately have been: 1. Writing about any and every decision that could possibly be turned into a criticism of Obama and his campaign (kind of like a watered down NoQuarter FP writer, minus the outright lunacy) 2. Writing articles about foreign elections You do know that it's OK to write a GOOD thing about Obama every now and then, right? I'm not even saying you shouldn't criticize (he's not perfect) , but I thought the role of a Democratic blog was to occasionally, you know, SUPPORT the Democrat. My two cents.

UNITY!

by The Great Gatsby on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:40:58 AM EST

Oh, and PS (2.00 / 3)

Go figure that you find some crazy polling responses when you're asking questions about CURRENT candidates, and people that aren't running for the office. But no, I'm sure that the numbers showing Hillary ahead would be absolutely the same if she were actually the nominee. Good point. Jerome has officially jumped the shark.

UNITY!

by The Great Gatsby on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:44:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great two cents video on (none / 0)

www.irregulartimes.com then scroll down to July 3rd to FISA flip-flop? send Obama your two cents or go to: www.formerobamasupporters.com/page/2/ and scroll down to same title - the guy is brilliant!

by suzieg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 5)

Perhaps the fact that Hillary Clinton has faced zero negative press in the last month (same for Gore) explains why they do better against McCain than Obama. It's the reason why the generic Democrat always outperforms the actual Democrat. Hypotheticals allow you to project on the candidate your own ideals without interference from daily events.

by elrod on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:44:49 AM EST

But you are still assuming (2.00 / 1)

that HRC would not be polling as well with the negative press as she is right now as a non-candidate. Perhaps she handles tough press better than Obama handles tough press. Both are hypotheticals.

Obviously Jerome is trying to needle the Obama folks but I think you are understating HRC's strengths. It's not necessarily a slam against Obama to say that HRC would poll better against McCain than Obama; she was an extremely good candidate herself.

by Blazers Edge on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:52:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But you are still assuming (2.00 / 1)

I just think he means that we can imagine that HRC would have never moved to the center or triangulated on the way to the white house. She would have and it would have hurt her with the base, just as it has hurt Obama.

I don't think he was demeaning the abilities of HRC. We all know she was a good candidate and would have certainly won the White House had she beaten Obama.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How could she have hurt herself with the base when (none / 0)

she was accused by Obama/supporters/surrogates all through the primary of being a centrist candidate? How soon you conveniently forget? This argument is stupid!

by suzieg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:43:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what negative press? (none / 0)

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That would make sense (none / 0)

so that can't be it.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 2)

You always hurt the one you love
The one you shouldn't hurt at all
You always take the sweetest rose
And crush it till the petals fall

You always break the kindest heart
With a hasty word you can't recall, so
If I broke your heart last night
It's because I love you most of all

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:56:42 AM EST

Welcome to the "under the bus" crowd! (none / 0)

by suzieg on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:06:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 3)

I wonder how big the margin of victory will be for Obama when he gets reelected in 2012.

Obama/Clark (still dreaming)

by spacemanspiff on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:05:50 AM EST

jerome (2.00 / 1)

will the rumored new ratings/moderation system be in place by november.

by elie on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:10:30 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (1.00 / 2)

Haaaahahaahahahaaahhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Obama.....hahhhahhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Hillary...hahhahaahaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Gonna be real interesting as we get closer and closer and closer to......

The Day of Truth!
.

by Pericles on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:15:40 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 1)

Ya know,

As I watched this interview I was wondering if anyone was going to read something into the blogsphere comment. I thought there was room to twist this into something that could sound dismissive. But then I figured it would still be a net negative for McCain's camp since they'd have to address own angry blog mobs, not to mention the candidate's admitted lack of net knowledge.

But I forgot to thing of our own Jerome.

sigh.

January 20 & sricki join with The engels in love!

by January 20 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:34:37 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (1.50 / 2)

I hope team Obama understands that they are losing the election.

Losing as distinct from currently behind, he is currently polling ahead.

Obama is losing his movement aura and with it the election.

If the battle is leader to leader he will lose.
If the battle is person to person he will lose.
If the battle is plan to plan he will lose.

Only if the battle is McCain the individual vs Obama the movement will he win.

Obama needs the kind of crazy energy he had in March.

The kind of energy where he can say stuff like "Say what you will of me but my name is still Barrack Obama" And get applause.

I know my statement above is disputed but you are up against Rove and if I was in Rove's shoes I could beat Obama with McCain leader to leader, person to person and plan to plan.

To recreate the energy Obama needs a united house and the only way to do that is Hillary for VP.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:46:04 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

fyi to my knowledge Obama never said "Say what you will of me but my name is still Barrack Obama"

Its just an example of something silly getting an applause like Obama's cough getting applause which did happen.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 1)

I disagree with almost everything in this comment.

I would say:

Leader to Leader = tie
Person to Person = Obama
Plan to Plan = Obama

Clinton would probably make a win into a landslide but Obama is not losing by any measurement.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 02:49:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

Plan to Plan

McCain wins on drill now drill often, Nuke plant now Nuke plant often. So far nothing Obama has put out on energy measures up to 100 nuke plants. Energy is money and its a money election.

Person vs Person and Leader vs Leader. This is an I like or I don't like this guy. Consider how very very focused Obama is on the Obama is a muslim stuff, he wouldn't be that focused if it didn't work. People will decide they don't like him if the press and adds tell them too. He has no defense because he has no record. McCain was a war hero, McCain was a senator for decades, McCain can counter the McCain is a baddie but Obama can't.

Obama's total package is based on future achievements not on past achievements.

He needs the energy to keep people focused on that and not allow the argument to move to any past vs past or present vs present comparisons.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:26:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How is this (2.00 / 1)

specific to Obama? The Republicans would have a smear machine against any nominee. They'd use Whitewater and Vince Foster against Clinton, they'd use lack of experience against Edwards, they'd use gaffes against Biden, they'd use Countrywide against Dodd, they're using Islam against Obama. You can make the same paranoid argument against anyone. I can say Clinton would take a hit on trust, Dodd on scandal, Edwards on experience and authenticity (he's rich you know), while McCain is celebrated as the war hero with decades of experience.

I don't think this election is about the past, I think it's about the future, so on that, we're ok. People aren't really paying attention to what the candidates did. They're paying attention to what they want to do.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:37:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is this (2.00 / 1)

Hillary has a record as Bills wife.

Bill has the best record of any living politician in the USA.

GOP attacks Hillary.

Hillary defends.

Bill counter attacks on meet the press.

Public thinks would I rather have Bill/Hillary/Obama or McCain/Nobody?

Bills Record and to a lesser degree Hillary's counters the nasty.
Hillary has her own 16 year record in public view and hasn't changed her positions much.

Because people already know what they are going to get because they have already seen it.

What will we get with Obama?

100 nuke plants?
10 nuke plants?
1 nuke plant?

Exit Iraq in 100 days?
Exit Iraq in 10 days?
Exit Iraq in 1 days?

Fisa vote yes?
Fisa vote no?

People don't know because he doesn't have a record with enough in it.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:44:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is this (2.00 / 1)

I think you overestimate Bill's appeal at the moment. When he was campaigning for Hillary, especially in the press, he came across as a mean old dog more than once. He would have lost it for her, not won it for her. Just my own thoughts.

Meanwhile, you should keep up with what's happening perception-wise. Obama is positioning himself quite nicely and any momentum he lost from whatever "pandering" he did he has made up. I think that McCain finally making his move to try and define him made him snap into action. As of late, he's put forward a good rationale behind his Iraq plan (one of his most tricky issues), he's got an international trip that will be well-received, he'll be giving his acceptance speech in front of a football-sized audience (as opposed to McCain, who will be pathetically delivering his address while losing half the audience to an actual football game).

And what Jerome forgot to mention is that the interview he speaks of also was one of the first times we've seen Obama turn the flip-flop argument back on McCain. If he pushes that, he will win. There is no objective way you can say that Obama has changed his positions more in the last eight years than John McCain. Or with such gusto or lack of explanation. McCain is not being perceived as the leader that he should be. Truth be told, John McCain should be eating Obama's lunch. He won't get it, though, because he's too old. That will be abunduntly, painfully obvious by November. He's getting more tired by the day and more forgetful every week. Do you think America would elect someone who was nearly senile?

You need to pay more attention to the news via Politico and less time on No Quarter. You'd like Ben Smith, he's not a huge Obama fan either. But at least he's balanced.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:32:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I would say (none / 0)

Leader to Leader = McCain
Person to Person = McCain
Plan to Plain = Clinton

I don't think she'd win in a landslide. Too many preconceived stereotypes about her and her husband. There would be people who should vote for her who won't simply because she's a Clinton and with many people, that names just defines untrustworthy (I'm not saying that's fair, but it is what it is)

Personally, I'm in the school who thinks we lost our strongest candidates in January while the Republicans nominated theirs.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:33:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would say (2.00 / 1)

You misunderstand me. I was commenting on DTaylors desire for Hillary to be VP. She suggests that HRC is mandatory for an Obama win. I say Clinton as VP turns an Obama win into an Obama landslide.

I was not commenting on the hypothetical McCain v. Clinton matchup.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:36:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ah (none / 0)

see I don't even think it would. Most of her supporters are on board. Most of the ones who aren't won't be on board even with her on the ticket. They'd call her a sellout.

She may be good for a percent or two, but I don't think she makes a landslide. I can't think of one state she brings over except maybe Arkansas, which I suspect will be closer than 2004 anyway, probably 5%-10%. She may lock up Ohio and Pennsylvania, which I think he's still going to win and she might cost his votes in the Plains and Rockies. Not that the latter two regions matter if he has Ohio and Arkansas.

But a landslide, I just don't think the margin will be that different.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ah (none / 0)

They wouldn't call her a sellout, they'd say that she didn't really want it or that she was only doing it out of politeness or some other such nonsense. Literally stalker logic. "She says she wants me to stop, but she just doesn't want the policeman to know how much she really cares."

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You guys (none / 0)

can't explain why if you have no faith in his ability to lead, why would putting Hillary on the ticket change that?

What? you think she's going to run the country by proxy?

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:30:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys (none / 0)

It takes a certain level of knowledge to listen to a person who knows what they are doing and understanding afterwards that you should listen to them.

It takes a whole world of different level of knowledge to be that person.

Hillary is that person. Obama is not but is sufficiently intelligent that if a person of Hillary's knowledge tries to convince him that X is a good way to go will at least understand the positives related to X when the conversation is done.

For example, Writing up a plan for investing in energy independence to the tune of say 800 billion in sufficient detail that it is revenue neutral and helps balance the budget is hard.

Reading the report is easy. Bush could do that (but wouldn't that lazy bastard)

Admitting that the plan is better than your own and opting to accept it is hard but Obama is a good man and I believe would do it.

Likewise foreign policy etc etc etc.

So no I don't think she would run the country. But she could make sure the top people had a way to get the top responses to the president. Thats the skill that matters.

When you have a friend that introduces you to super hot women time after time you are wiling to clear your schedule to meet the next one. Likewise the Clintons could feed Obama success and he could choose which courses of success he wants to eat so he would be the leader but they can make sure for every direction he is inclined to go that they have the best plan for success ready.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys (2.00 / 1)

I think you underestimate Obama's intelligence.

But I am glad you think he is a good man. Its a start.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:03:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys (none / 0)

He'll realize it. Hell, I wasn't even completely sure about Obama until recently. The GOP wasn't either. He's a lot smarter than he lets on. He's just street-smart enough to know how to hide it.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:38:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys (2.00 / 1)

There are lots of smart people.

There is only one Clinton team and it clearly was MUCH better at running the country than anyone in my lifetime.

Carter was smart too.

But the Clintons know what works and Obama doesn't.

Do you want a pilot who won awards for flying a stunt plane or someone who has a small plane license has never flown a stunt plane and is really smart to fly you around in a stunt plane and do stunts?

Even having the expert explain it to the other pilot before he flys you around would vastly increase your odds of a safe trip.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You guys (2.00 / 1)

Which is why Clinton might work best in the Senate if she was given leeway by Obama to push through policies and shape the legislation that he would push hard to get through.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:37:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

You've been spouting doom about Obama for months now. I have to think it will be a very sad day for you when he wins by a substantial margin. Try to prepare yourself now.

by HSTruman on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:42:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Give it up. Hillary lost (2.00 / 1)

Why are they even doing polls comparing Hillary vs McCain now and Gore vs McCain.

I think those polls are USELESS because when candidates do battle against each other ie McCain vs Obama, each brings out the negativity of the other.

Who knows in a general election of McCain had totally gone after Hillary as he is going after Obama that her poll numbers would have been lower.

That's like comparing apples to oranges since they are not battling each other.

In terms of the blogosphere comment. I see nothing wrong with it. Obama could have been talking about the right wing blogosphere or other left wing blogosphere who didn't like his campaign finance stand. It really isn't that big of a deal.

by puma on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:03:28 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 2)

Is this piece another snyde "I told ya so" piece Jerome?
I'm sure this little ditty, "because the Republicans are on course to nominate their strongest possible general election candidate but the Democrats are not." sent a thrill up his leg. What other purpose was there for this dairy? I know, it's a "Let's all take time and talk about the fact that the Majority of Democrats in America were wrong and Jerome was right!" Dairy

by eddieb on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 06:44:02 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 2)

The majority of Democrats voted for Hillary.

The majority of voters in the democratic primary Voted for Hillary

The majority of voters in the democratic primary once you take into account some form of fraction in Michigan or award Edwards voters to Obama or some such voted for Obama.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop, stop fighting over spilled milk. (none / 0)

The reality is Obama won the primary and is our nominee. Hillary in her last gasp effort to win jimmy rigged the numbers so she could CLAIM she had the MOST votes. She lost because the Democrats elected the MAJORITY of Delegates needed for OBAMA to WIN. Now thats reality! Now let discuss why you think the South won the Civil war!

by eddieb on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 03:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stop, stop fighting over spilled milk. (2.00 / 1)

I state facts you get offended and state different likely facts.

I suspect Obama wins the primary and becomes our nominee but that vote hasn't yet occurred he isn't yet the nominee. So if you want to be a stickler on facts....

And she lost because democrats, greens, and GOP voted for Obama. She handily won the democratic party vote.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 04:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Polls versus elections (2.00 / 5)

I just cannot agree that Obama is our weakest candidate. He may not poll as strongly in hypothetical match-ups, but polls don't win elections -- turn-out does.

Neither Clinton or Edwards was able to put together a ground game to rival Obama's. Obama was able to do exactly what it took to come out ahead in the delegate count. Now he is mounting the strongest ground operation I've seen in 10 election cycles.

A reminder that it is only July. While a strong Clinton supporter all along, having watched Obama navigate, I have every confidence he is our strongest candidate to land this plane in November. e doesn't rsttle, he is far less likely to commit some damaging gaff, and he seems to have a gift for rescueing himself when he does.

He doesn't appear to have "momentum" right now because he's not focused on winning in July -- his energy is going towards laying the groundwork to win in November.

Sexism is real.

by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:13:49 AM EST

Re: Polls versus elections (none / 0)

He isn't our weakest.

But he sure isn't the strongest either.

by dtaylor2 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BlogOsphere (1.50 / 2)

Jerome--

Do you understand the concept of a subset? I assume you do.

Let me give you an example.

There is a group called "Cars"

Within that group is a subset called "Red cars"

Were you to say "Cars tend to be of a red color."

I would reply, "Well, Red cars."

Does that mean that there is a distinction between the greater group "Cars" and the subset "Red cars"? Yes.

That distinction is that it's a subset.

No Jerome, not all of Obama's supporters are Bloggers.

Jerome, at what point did you, who thinks that the Democrats should literally compromise every value they have to get elected, decide that your website was a great platform to make post, after post, after post bashing the presumptive Democratic nominee?

Are you truly, truly that bitter?

Go over LGF if the success if the failure of our nominee is just THAT important to you, because frankly, you're pretty much illustrating that you don't belong on your own blog.

by mrrara on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:41:07 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (2.00 / 2)

Wow! Another swipe at Obama from Jerome! What a surprise!

I voted for Hillary!

by deepee on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:03:26 AM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

Was it only yesterday that Tod Beeton wrote his brilliant discussion of Obama's strategy, analyzing the Quinnipiac poll results and coming to the realization that framing Obama's strategy in terms of left, right and muddled middle misses the point entirely? Note, too, how folks like Russ Feingold and David Sirota have expressed disagreement with the "Yes" vote on FISA but strongly urged us to get behind our candidate, who will make a much better president that John McCain.

For my money, which is still going to Obama, Jerome has succumbed to the kind of rancid sour grapes that make it appear he would rather lose than win, destroying his own credibility.

by jlmccreery on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 09:51:40 AM EST

In related news (2.00 / 4)

If Ernie didn't pick Bert as his running mate, I think Big Bird might vote for Oscar the Grouch. sums up my thoughts on this.

by Dog Chains on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:16:18 AM EST

I know, Dog Chains (none / 0)

But the Erniebots are just too blind to see it. WAKE UP MUPPETS!

4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.

by ashriver on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:23:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Correct (none / 0)

Most people didn't care, only the online audience, much more devoted to minute-to-minute campaign happenings really paid any attention. Well them and the MSM....hmmm.

by PHDinNYC4Kerry on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:56:13 AM EST

Re: 15% poll drop myth (2.00 / 2)

Jerome-

You should know better than this. There was no 15% poll drop. It is a figment of the imagination of various pundits that want this to be a close race. If you are talking about the Newsweek poll, the results of the two polls were virtually identical. However, in the second sample, they reduced non-whites and young voters by 2% each, then added 10% more Republicans and zero Democrats. These "adjustments" to the sample account for the entire 12% drop.

All other polls the last few days have shown Obama with a lead of 5 to 9%. That is a huge lead at this point in the race. Also the state-by-state poll numbers are very bad for McCain. When McCain starts gaining in the red states that are close, then you will know that there has been slippage. It has not happened yet. And as for the Clinton-McCain and Gore-McCain matchups? They are meaningless. Gore and Clinton are not being hammered everyday by a GOP campaign expending millions of dollars. If all three, i.e. Obama, Gore and Clinton, were being criticized daily on an equal basis, then I will guarantee you that Obama would poll the best.

Rick R.

Los Angeles

by tiger547 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:50:14 PM EST

Re: BlogOsphere (none / 0)

I recognize the article from the Wake up America Blog (Hillary Hysteria?-July 16th). I am new here. I thought this was site for ensuring the election of democratic candidates.

Should I tuck my tail and run back to the Kossacks?

"They are ever so much nicer at Tiffany's!"

by epiphany on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:18:30 PM EST

I guess I'll give Obama this one! (none / 0)

The Blogosphere is hardly monolithic nowadays - even the progressive blogosphere. Hundreds of blogs florish that don't support him - in fact are dedicated to taking him down.
There were the ferocious supporters in the primary - which turned to tepid now, after all the...refinements.
That B0 knows this is to his credit.
As for the polls - it's always the trend I look for. And they are clear.

by Robbedvoter on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:06:48 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.