Analysis: As Obama nears finish line, can Clinton rebound in time?

[Switchgear]

In Florida at least, the argument is being made that the Republicans in the state legislature rammed the measure through over Democrat objections, so it's unfair to punish the state's Democratic voters by not seating the delegates. I have no idea whether or not that's true on its face, and never mind that the state Democrats probably rolled over instead of fighting it tooth and nail like they should have.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The bill to move up the primary date was sponsored by a Democrat, the idea behind it was to move the primary date earlier so that Florida would be more important in the election cycle. There's a decent interview with the guy that wrote the bill here. He thought that both the RNC and DNC would each strip half of their respective delegates, but the DNC wound up taking all of them away.

From what I've read, the bill passed both the Florida Senate and House unanimously, so it's hard to say it was rammed through anything. That vote was in March 2007, MSNBC has an article from that time. Their was a lot of other stuff mixed into the bill, so it might have been one of those omnibus deals that no one in their right mind votes against. I know that there was a paper trail provision mixed in, no one wants to be known as the one that voted against limiting election fraud.

The DNC decided to strip all of Florida's delegates in August 2007, so if the Florida Republicans knew that would happen they should bring that kind of insight to the national/international stage.

[DjTj]

Sure-

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105073/mccains-67-favorable-rating-highest-eight-years.aspx

John McCain's 67% favorable rating is the highest of any of the three major candidates running for president, and ties for his highest in Gallup polling history.

Well the sub-heading on that article states:

Obama has a 62% favorable rating, while Clinton's is 53%

So neither Obama nor Clinton seem to carry the poor approval ratings of Congress either, although you argue that if they teamed up, they would (and it somehow wouldn't affect McCain, who has been in Congress longer).

I really think that approval ratings are a poor predictor of elections anyways (except for reelections). Although McCain has a higher favorability rating that Obama or Clinton, he is losing to both Obama and Clinton in head-to-head polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

McCain may not be tied strongly to Bush now, but the argument is there to be made when the time comes. It's not that it's being held back; it just hasn't been used repeatedly like a blunt instrument yet. By September, McCain will be hugging Bush during every commercial break on televisions in Virginia...

[Kilmer17]

Well the sub-heading on that article states:

Obama has a 62% favorable rating, while Clinton's is 53%

So neither Obama nor Clinton seem to carry the poor approval ratings of Congress either, although you argue that if they teamed up, they would (and it somehow wouldn't affect McCain, who has been in Congress longer).

I really think that approval ratings are a poor predictor of elections anyways (except for reelections). Although McCain has a higher favorability rating that Obama or Clinton, he is losing to both Obama and Clinton in head-to-head polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

McCain may not be tied strongly to Bush now, but the argument is there to be made when the time comes. It's not that it's being held back; it just hasn't been used repeatedly like a blunt instrument yet. By September, McCain will be hugging Bush during every commercial break on televisions in Virginia...

I dont disagree at all. My point is why would Obama even allow that possibility to exist? Hillary cant help him, she can only hurt him. That's all Im saying.

[Switchgear]

Do you have some polls or articles about this? I think the comparisons will be emphasized much more strongly as the election approaches, and the closeness to Bush will really only matter on one issue: Iraq.

McCain hasn't really been attacked yet. We are still six months from November. The Democrats have been busy fighting each other, but when the time comes, I think they'll hit the flip-flopping angle pretty hard, as well as him hugging Bush and wanting to stay 100 years in Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BpZYuNDezI

I guess you're just showing an example, but how you as a Democrat aren't ashamed of that blantant bit of fear mongering and distortion is beyond me.

link

The DNC paints McCain as favoring "endless war" in Iraq. What McCain actually said is that he wouldn't mind a hundred-year troop presence "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Strange how that last part got left out.

There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.

Of course, this is probably only too accurate

If recent history is any guide, the preemptive attack that the DNC outlines in this message will be followed by similar attacks by Republicans. Past elections have included spiraling rounds of attacks by both parties, in which each side claims to be responding in kind to the other.

I had hoped that both Obama and McCain would "stay classy", but it doesn't look like there's much chance of that.

[mjah]

It's a bit more complicated than that. The bill to move up the primary date was sponsored by a Democrat, the idea behind it was to move the primary date earlier so that Florida would be more important in the election cycle. There's a decent interview with the guy that wrote the bill here. He thought that both the RNC and DNC would each strip half of their respective delegates, but the DNC wound up taking all of them away.

From what I've read, the bill passed both the Florida Senate and House unanimously, so it's hard to say it was rammed through anything. That vote was in March 2007, MSNBC has an article from that time. Their was a lot of other stuff mixed into the bill, so it might have been one of those omnibus deals that no one in their right mind votes against. I know that there was a paper trail provision mixed in, no one wants to be known as the one that voted against limiting election fraud.

The DNC decided to strip all of Florida's delegates in August 2007, so if the Florida Republicans knew that would happen they should bring that kind of insight to the national/international stage.

Interesting information. From reading that, it seems that Florida really did F themselves from both sides of the aisle. As far as I'm concerned, they should get what they deserve for screwing around like that -- but I don't want Florida to be a slam dunk for McCain as a result.

Well, what are you gonna do. :whoknows:

[CallMeGreen]

I agree with the earlier sentiment that Richardson would be a good VP choice. It's expected he'd help pull in Latino voters also.

Still, if this general election follows the path of the last two, the battleground states of OH, PA, FL and maybe one or two smaller states will come into play again. For this reason, you can't rule out Obama picking someone from one of these states in an attempt to tilt the electoral balance.

There's no well on earth that Hillary ends up on Obama's ticket. None. She's got too much ego to accept; he's got to much sense to sabotage his own hard-won nomination.