Comments on: Is Obama In Trouble?

By: DBrooks

DBrooks — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:29:19 +0000

Allowing people to vote in the primary as they choose has nothing to do with the fact that Obama’s campaign is currently “eroding.” I don’t like the idea of people voting solely to throw a wrench into the other party’s process, but the actual number of such voters is debatable, and, in most years, people will be more concerned with voting for their own party’s candidates rather than playing around in the primaries. It’s possible that enough Republicans have voted for Hillary to keep her campaign afloat, but that wouldn’t be enough to undermine Obama’s campaign unless he was experiencing self-inflicted damage all over the place.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:03:05 +0000

I’m not sure its wrong if the rules allow it, although I would agree with you that it subverts democracy. I’m just surprised, shocked, and dismayed that the parties allow such a thing. I just don’t see any upside. Then again, I’m also in favor of making voting more difficult, so what the heck do I know…

By: peter

peter — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:28:07 +0000

On a similar theme: In 2003, I voted to recall Democratic Governor Gray Davis because he and his surrogates supported the weaker opponent in the Republican primary, dealing a fatal blow to Richard Riordan, who would probably have made a pretty good governor. I’m not sure if incompetence is a sufficient reason to impeach a governor, but gaming the system certainly is.

At least there was a happy ending: it led to Governor Arnold, who turned out to be a far better governor.

By: peter

peter — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:16:39 +0000

The Wall Street Journal estimates that up to 15% of the Democratic voters will be crossover Republicans, with no certainty as to whether it benefits Hillary or Obama:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120968538604361075.html

I also think it is absolutely wrong to vote in another party’s primary to elect the weakest candidate. It would be like Democrats voting for Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo. It’s the Tonya Harding version of politics.

By: too many steves

too many steves — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:28:45 +0000

No offense Chris, but your ability to vote in the primary as a Democrat is part of the reason this whole Obama/Clinton fight is such a fiasco; and a self-inflicted wound besides.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:33:46 +0000

Yeah, I saw that one – still an outlier, but he needs North Carolina bad…

By: Chris J. Breisch

Chris J. Breisch — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:30:48 +0000

Shock Poll Of The Day:

InsiderAdvantage North Carolina n=571, 4/29 Clinton 44, Obama 42

http://southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_430_370.aspx

By: Chris J. Breisch

Chris J. Breisch — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:16:05 +0000

It has definitely hurt Obama, and I’ll tell you how much, at least for me.

I live in Indiana and am voting in the primary next week. It’s an open primary, so all I have to do is request the ‘D’ ballot and I can vote for any Democrat I want.

I have been planning on voting for Hillary for three reasons. 1) Frankly, she scares me a lot less than Obama, 2) I have felt that McCain would have a better chance against her than Obama, 3) I have felt that the longer this runs the better it is for McCain.

I am now actually considering voting for Obama.

Why? His campaign is on the verge of self-destructing. this is quickly going from an election that the Democrats can’t lose to one they can’t win. In that case, I want the Democrats to anoint him as their chosen one as quickly as possible, and then live with their choice.

Obama trails Clinton in a matchup against McCain in every single “battleground” state. That is the worst possible news for Democrats and Obama.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:36:04 +0000

I disagree with Clint. I think the Wright thing has been blown up specifically because he’s black. We would make far less hay out of this if he were an angry white pastor.

In any case, Obama’s in no trouble. He’ll be fine. He’s mathematically guaranteed the nomination at this point, and he’s still picking up superdelegates at a higher rate than Clinton (he’s beating her something like 9-5 since Pennsylvania). Insofar as elections are largely determined by fundamentals, he’s still in a very strong position in the general. And he’s still polling better than Clinton in a lot of really important states in the upper Midwest and the West (and even New Jersey, of all places).

To the extent that Obama is “in trouble”, it is for the same reason it has always been: he is up against a very good candidate (Clinton, obv). That will simply not be true in the general.

By: Clint

Clint — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:52:02 +0000

I’m not sure how unfair this is.

Ask yourself how this would play out if John McCain’s pastor for the last twenty years, the man who performed his marriage, baptized his kids, and was featured prominently as one of his role models in an autobiography, was discovered giving sermons like Wright’s, only with the races reversed.

If anything, Wright has been given quite a bit of a pass on his explicitly racist preaching, because he’s black. That kind of bigotry isn’t remotely acceptable, even third-hand, when it’s against blacks. Recall the destruction of Trent Lott, over vague praise for Strom Thurmond at the man’s retirement barbecue.

Remember that Senator Obama has been explicitly marketing himself as the candidate who will get us all beyond the racial divide. It hardly seems unfair, then, to ask about his twenty-year support for race-baiting. If he only attended Trinity Church because of its importance to the “black community” in Chicago (as seems likely), then perhaps we should be asking how this demonstrates the ability to talk frankly on race, or lead a national discussion on it.