Is there a procedure to recall Connecticut senators? He was elected by lying about his future support for Democrats. That should be the basis for turning him out of office now.

Posted at August 12, 2008 5:42 PM in response to McCain Campaign Officially Endorses Lieberman's Claim That Obama Hasn't "Put Country First"

For those who are intersted, ARG was off in South Dakota by 16 (they predicted C by 26, it was C by 10) and off by 12 in Montana (they predicted O by 4 and it was O by 16).

This caps a truly awful run in which they predicted 25 races during the primaries and the margin between Obama and Clinton was off by an average of 10 points. That means they consistengtly predicted, by an average of 10 points, a better margin for Clinton than was realized. In 19 of the 25 races, they predicted a better margin for Clinton. In 9 races, they were off in favor of Clinton by more than 10 points (SD, MT, VA, OR, DE ,CT, IA, IL, SC). In only one race (NH) were they off by 10+ points for Obama, and that one every pollster got wrong that way.

This is truly awful polling and clearly with a bias. I mean, I could understand if early on they were polling slightly better for Clinton, realized it, and then corrected later. But their favoritism for Clinton was even worse at the end.

What keeps them in business? Clearly not competence.

Pablo

Posted at June 4, 2008 6:27 AM in response to Barack Obama's Primary Night Speech

I know two types of Clinton supporters. A couple of siblings, a friend working in government lobbying, a colleague I respect. these are all rational, thoughtful people who think she'd make a better president because of her experience. They have varying levels of comfort with Obama, but all agree they will enthusiastically vote Democratic in the presidential race.

Then I know three people at work who insist they'll vote for McCain. They're basically insecure people who have gotten way too emotional about the contest. Their candidate won't win, so they'll take their ball and go home. It's also the way they perform at work. What's sad is that the Clinton campaign is pushing them in that direction, especially Bill of late. These are people who are easily led to be angry and defensive and not easily led back from the ledge. I think a number of them will vote against Obama in the GE, and the Clinton campaign will say they had nothing to do with it, see how Hillary campaigned for Obama, etc.

I worry that in a good year for Dems, this dynamic will take hold. Even in these last contests, the Clinton campaign has been playing the resentment card for all its worth - and it has some effectiveness for winning some battles after the war is lost - becasue let's face it, right now Obama doesn't want to say anything that might offend the highly sensitive Clinton campaign. Her claim of having more votes, of being more electable, etc are all highly debatable, but voters are only hearing one side right now. Let's get today over with, and move on - and hope the Clinton's haven't poisoned the water too much.

Pablo

Posted at June 3, 2008 6:48 AM in response to Hillary Spokesperson: She Is Not Conceding

Thanks Kash - I'll try to get to it tomorrow night - got to get to bed now.

pablo

Posted at June 1, 2008 10:54 PM in response to Democratic Race Unchanged By Hillary's Puerto Rico Win

Kash - thank you - how does one open up a blog?

Posted at June 1, 2008 10:21 PM in response to Democratic Race Unchanged By Hillary's Puerto Rico Win

One thing that is amazing is that the Obama team's leaked projections have proven remarkably accurate. There have been 25 contests that have taken place since the memo was leaked (just after Super Tuesday) and the projected winner has been accurately predicted 23 times (exceptions: Obama won Maine, and Clinton eked out Indiana, thanks to Limbaugh). The delegate projections were 722-682 for Obama (+40), but it has turned out 750-654 Obama (+96). So the Obama campaign anticipated that the states deciding after 2/20 would be in Clinton's favor overall, but also anticipated the 11 contest victory string for Obama (with exception of Maine). They even projected Texas exactly and Ohio within 1%.

Don't you want someone this smart running the government?

Pablo

Posted at June 1, 2008 9:48 PM in response to Democratic Race Unchanged By Hillary's Puerto Rico Win

This is just depressing. How will Clinton put the genie back in the bottle? Does she care to? There are already so many of her backers whipped up in anger to vote McCain in the general. How can she and her campaign only see one side of an argument? Do they really believe all they say? Are they saying they will destroy everything if they don't get their way?

Only the Democrats.......

Posted at May 31, 2008 6:49 PM in response to Rules Committee Officially Rejects Full Voting Strength For Florida

Hello! It's hardly a compromise to give her 75%+ of the delegates. What a sham! The two primaries were name-recognition primaries. Everyone agreed not to participate in them, but Clinton broke her pledge in Michigan. If the rules can just be ignored at this stage, why should anyone take the primary rules seriously ever again. States will do what they want and we'll have the entire primary campaign take place in the month of January.

Didn't the Michigan pols suggest a 69-59 split? That seems like the fairest proposal out there - and if Michigan supports it, then what argument would Clinton have for continuing to fight? In re Florida, didn't they propose one-half votes for each delegates. Same end point. And in both cases, the DNC would have to be taken seriously in future when they say a rule is a rule.

Pablo

Posted at May 26, 2008 5:40 PM in response to Hillary Supporter Lanny Davis Suggests Proposals For Florida And Michigan

If Obama is losing by so much in this appalachia region, then he must be doing VERY well elsewhere. Why so much focus on Appalachia, when he's much better positioned than Clinton in several other states (Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, even Nebraska). Interestingly, he's also doing better than Clinton in Virginia and Maryland, and he's ahead in recent polls in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Obama even puts North Carolina in play.

Look, we can play these games all we want. If Clinton were ahead, someone would be writing sophomoric assessments of why she can't win the young vote, the male vote, etc. If the MSM says the race is over, then no one buys their papers and magazines.

Pablo

Posted at May 26, 2008 12:16 PM in response to Newsweek: Obama's Appalachia Problem Is Real

I don't get it when I hear one side or the other say that the supporters of the other candidate are the evil ones. Get a grip! There's vehemence expressed by both sides. To those who say Clinton has been unfairly attacked here, why not go check out hillaryis44.com, where the attacks on Obama are relentless and overhyped.

The true dynamics here are that both campaigns started out waging a mostly positive campaign. Obama took the lead in that stage of the campaign. Clinton's only hope to win was to go negative. She did it. It worked partially - she stemmed the bleeding and got to breakeven for the post-Wisconsin contests. But breakeven wasn't good enough, as Obama had the lead. I think it's fair to say that had Clinton gotten the lead, Obama's campaign would have been far less negative than hers. It's partially a stylistic (and hopefully governing) preference - and it's also true that this is her last, best shot at the presidency, so she had more motivation to throw the kitchen sink.

The problem is that she has continued to gin up her supporters' sense of resentment well past the point at which she has lost the contest. There is always some resentment at the end of a primary contest. I remember resenting Carter for beating Udall; Carter for beating Kennedy; Mondale for beating Hart (with that ridiculous "Where's the Beef" line, and Roger Mudd's unfair slant on the southern primaries - the wounds take a long time to heal), etc. But I got over it and voted Democratic every time. What Clinton is doing is taking it too far. She is emphasizing not only differences, but imagines that she, exclusively, has suffered slights - which, frankly, took place on both sides of the campaign. She is hurting Obama as the national nominee. it is time to give it up if she really believes in the policies she has run on. There's too much healing to be done. If this goes on to the convention, there is no way the Democrats win.

Pablo

Posted at May 26, 2008 11:56 AM in response to Rick Horowitz and Hillary Clinton's "My Way" & Paul Krugman Plays the Tool