I’m getting tired of Clinton and the talking heads saying that she won Texas. She did not. Obama won Texas, if by “won” you mean got the most delegates. Hopefully, Hillary’s latest gaffe — her misinformed assertion that MoveOn opposed the Afghanistan invasion — will convince voters once and for all that she is full of shit and will say and do anything to win.
OK. She needs a 25% margin to get sufficient traction with the superdelegates to have any chance of pulling it off given how far behind she is going in.
Pardon my ignorance here, but who else is on the ballot in PA? Presumably, almost 100% of Dem voters will pick either Clinton or Obama, with a few writing in names or picking minor candidates. But I wouldn’t think that would account for the remaining 6%. Are 6% still undecided?
SurveyUSA has been the most accurate pollster in the Dem primaries so far. Zogby’s all over the place, Rasmussen almost always favors Obama, and ARG seems to pick their numbers randomly. In fact, it seems polls are wrong more often than they are right, so i wonder why people put any faith in them at all.
I’ll predict Clinton wins by 7.5. It won’t be enough to make Hillary quit, but after a couple days, more and more people will see the handwriting on the wall and the flow of superdelegates to Obama will increase.
I suspect there are a lot of people in Pennsylvania who won’t admit to having made their minds up yet. I think the gentleman’s one of them. On the other hand, I just got a call from a real, live Hillary Clinton campaign worker asking if she could count on my vote tomorrow.
According to the local newspaper, a record number of people have registered to vote in this primary, so they’re expecting a high turnout.
By the way, there is still a Republican presidential primary tomorrow, and I heard an ad for Ron Paul on the radio the other day. He hasn’t given up yet, and he’s got roots in Pittsburgh which will help him. On the other hand, I don’t think he’ll get a big enough miracle to win. It would be funny to see Huckabee’s face if he did, though!
Well, on September 25, 2001, they did put this online petition on their website, which says:
Also, I think even though she said moveon.org, she didn’t just mean moveon.org. She meant the type of people who go to sites like that and daily kos…the “netroots”. You know the people I mean. They tend to be younger, really antiwar, really anti-Bush, more ideological, “liberal” or “progressive” rather than Democratic, per se.
The Big Dog, 3 months ago:
Guess Bill’s out as First Hubby, then. 
Heh - McCain knows he’d mow right over Clinton in the general, and Clinton knows she could come back in 2012. McCain hits Obama because he knows he’d have a difficult time beating him, if he even could. I hope this is settled tomorrow evening.
The only thing that statement opposes is murdering innocent people. Even Republicans oppose that, don’t they?
In the absence of further context, I’d read that more as how and how not to wage war in Afghanistan, not whether to. I supported going into Afghanistan after al-Qaeda, and I’d agree with that statement wholeheartedly.
That would make her claim even worse. While the lefty netroots basically didn’t exist yet in 2001, the general attitude by the vast majority of denizens of that universe was “Afghanistan good, Iraq bad.”
But I agree with you that that seems to be her intent: to tar the Dem “activist base” in general as being opposed to even the Afghan war, as being Atrios’ “dirty fucking hippies,” people whose views can be dismissed and written off.
Thanks, Hil, I love you too. :rolleyes:
Her comments about the “activists” is yet more proof of her essential disconnect from the core of the Democratic party and her utter disregard for growing said party. The netroots heavily financed at least half of our 2006 pickups. ActBlue, DailyKos, Think Progress, Talking Points Memo…these are the people doing the work before the primaries, during the primaries, between the primaries and the general…if it weren’t for the netroots, the Democrats wouldn’t HAVE a majority in either house right now. We’re trying to grow the party, despite the pushback from the DLC faction who’d rather grow their wallets by selling the party to the highest corporate bidder.
That’s the real fight of this primary season. It’s not personalities, to me and a huge number of other people. It’s DNC vs. DLC, a Democratic party that’s actually for the people vs. a Democratic party that’s mostly for the corporations. The little guy vs. the Lobbyist.
The DLC must go!
Edited to add that the netroots are also the folks who’ve heavily pushed Obama’s cash pot over the top, as well. We’re a highly significant portion of his Million Donors. That’s probably why she’s so angry at us…
I don’t think that I’d agree with that, especially given that Eli Periser (who didn’t run moveon at the time, but does now) launched 9-11peace.org, which said, we should try a non-military response.
If you’re saying “don’t bomb Afghanistan”, that pretty much carries with it the message “don’t invade Afghanistan”.
I don’t know if they’re the Democratic activist base so much as the progressive activist base. They currently support the Democratic party because they don’t like Bush and because there’s ideological overlap, but they’re not loyal to the party so much as to their ideas. Lincoln Chaffee is a lot more popular on Daily Kos than Joe Lieberman, for instance, because Chaffee, although he was a Republican, was against the war, and Lieberman, although he was a Democrat, was for the war.
That may be true for some of the netroots, but certainly not all. Kos, at least, is fond of saying: “I’m not an ideological Democrat; I’m a partisan Democrat.” His entire goal is to get more Democrats elected. If they’re “good” Democrats, all the better; but the key point is that they should be Democrats.
I missed the “Kabul = Afghanistan” equation.
I’d interpret “don’t bomb Kabul” as “don’t bomb major population centers where you’re bound to kill a lot of innocent civilians.”
Didn’t we manage to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq with only minimal bombing of populated areas?
“[T]hey’re not loyal to the party so much as to their ideas” seems to fit Lieberman to a T, doesn’t it?
Two years ago, he ran against the Democratic Party nominee in a general election. This year, he’s endorsed the GOP candidate for President and expressed his willingness to give the keynote speech at the GOP Convention.
Why should the netroots support a Dem like that? And why in the world should supporting a disloyal hack like Lieberman be a litmus test of one’s loyalty to the party?
There are more seven new polls out today, including the aforementioned SUSA poll, that were in the field up through yesterday.
Clinton by 6 seems to be the consensus, with five of the seven polls (SUSA, Quinnipiac, Strategic Vision, Rasmussen, and Zogby) checking in at Clinton either +5, +6, or +7.
The outliers are Suffolk University, whose polling I know nothing about, which has Clinton by 10; and PPP, which I’ve already indicated my doubts about. PPP has Obama by 49-46; nobody else has Obama over 44.
(My problem with PPP, btw, isn’t that they’re an outlier - sometimes the outlier has it right, and everyone else is wrong. It’s things like having Obama’s lead in NC going from +1 to +21 in a week, and Clinton’s lead in PA going from +26 to -2 in two weeks. It’s hard to trust a pollster when their results are far more volatile than there’s any reason to believe the public’s sentiments are.)
If the consensus is right, even a strong break of the undecideds towards Hillary just gives her a win in the 8-9% range. Which would be just fine with me.
ETA: I hear there’s a supposedly really accurate, large-sample poll of PA Dems being taken tomorrow. Anybody know anything about it?
Our interpretations differ, apparently, and I don’t know what to say more than that.
I’m not talking about supporting Lieberman now, but the netroots made up a big base of Lamont’s support in the Senate primaries. This is fine, of course. There’s nothing wrong with having an ideological position. But it’s wrong to turn around and call them Democratic activists when they’re really activists of a certain ideological position within the party.
I’m not saying that supporting Lieberman should be a litmus test of one’s loyalty to the party. But if you’re a member of the DLC or if you’re a blue dog, Atrios isn’t going to be tooting your horn on his blog.
A friend on the ground outside of Philly just told me not 20 minutes ago that there are Obama signs as far as the eye can see. He’s with the Obama campaign and has been since Friday. He says there is a definite air that Obama may in fact keep it close or pull a squeaker. 
Well, you were talking about Chafee now. Two years ago, the netroots were working to kick his ass out of the Senate.
That’s absurd. You’re saying that anyone supporting a primary challenge to a Dem is somehow less than loyal to the party.
That’s bullshit. Political parties aren’t static entities, and primaries are part of an argument about what the party should become. If you don’t close ranks and support the party’s nominee once the primary’s over, then there’s a strong argument that you’re disloyal. But to imply that saying “we ought to have this Democrat rather than that Democrat in this seat” is disloyal to the Democratic Party, that makes no sense.
This fall, there are going to be more than 450 Democratic candidates for Federal office, just like there were in 2006. Atrios is entitled to like some of them better than others.
JFTR, the netroots haven’t been remiss in supporting Blue Dogs. In 2004, for instance, we helped get Ben Chandler and Stephanie Herseth elected. Right now, there’s a Dem named Cazayoux down in Louisiana who will be among the reddest of Blue Dogs if elected to the House, but who is drawing a fair amount of netroots support nonetheless.
As the catchphrase goes, we want “more, better Democrats.” In contestable seats, we’re quite satisfied with ‘more.’ In seats that are safely Democratic, we’ll push hard for ‘better.’ Seems simple enough - and loyal enough - to me.
ETA: Is ‘Cazayoux’ a great name, or what? Besides being unmistakably Cajun (and to my ear, at least, Cajun names have a great ring to them), how many names contain x, y, and z?
Philly is not really representative of the state as whole.
Bartender! Give me whatever he’s drinking!
As much as I would like to believe this, I don’t see it happening. Sorry but the working class white vote has been and will be problematic for Obama.