It's not a red state, and it's not a caucus, so it might count. But it's an open primary, so it's suspect. Basically that means that if Obama wins it doesn't count, but if Clinton wins it counts double. My prediction: Surprise Clinton win as complacent Obama supporters don't bother to turn out in the cold. This will pave the way to the ultimate vindication of my "Clinton will win" prediction of a week or so ago.
« Retail is Not a Crime | Main | Russert on the Exits »
Wisconsin Ground Rules
19 Feb 2008 05:50 pm
Comments (99)
You should have read the exit polls before you posted this entry (which are only exit polls, we know)
I know we curse the exits for always being wrong, and I hate myself for salivating over them time and again, but ...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Wisconsin_exits.html
Nice prediction - I needed something to feel good about.
Heh. Am I the only one that reads Penn's whining that "red states don't count" as an admission that 50%+ of the country thinks his candidate sucks?
No, he's right. I did the reverse psychology thing for a few weeks but its a real comedown this time.
I think in Wi. she has far more enthusiastic supporters than he does.
But more importantly Wolfsens attack yesterday paid off. Look at today's Gallup. He dropped hard, she rose.
They'll be digging into that a lot more over the last several days.
I would really *love* to believe it is going to be a big night for Obama, since I think a commanding win indicates his momentum is likely unstoppable... but I really have a bad feeling about this... exit polls or no.
It's not a red state, and it's not a caucus, so it might count.
Don't forget: not a dominating number of African Americans.
Whining is so unseemly. Boohoo, poor you.
If Obama wins white Democrats, it will be a significant harbinger that he's convinced some people to vote for him.
If he loses white Democrats by a substantive margin, or wins on the strength of Republicans, independents, and same day registrants, then it hasn't changed the fundamentals of the race--that is, it doesn't "count" in terms of the basic electability concerns.
I should note: I also have a bad feeling about tonight.
I have a really bad feeling b/c of the Gallup poll that shows Clinton won last nights polling and climbed up to tie w/Obama for the first time in the last three days when his lead was outside the margin of error.
I think the "plagiarism" thing and the video comparing him to Patrick is hitting hard and working well. The only upside, if he survives this the Republicans will not be able to use it as effectively.
-Rhoda
Oh, excellent. Cal's here to kick off the absurd racial civil war schtick again.
Dude, it's Wisconsin. 5 degrees is not cold. Maybe -25, but you just put on a windbreaker and you're fine.
"but I really have a bad feeling about this"
I do as well. I have all week. But the Wolfsen attack yesterday seemed like a killer to me.
A different source has exit polls showing Clinton with a slight lead:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1162
It's amazing how so many can be fooled by an empty suit phony who's speeches are stolen and who's autobiography contains "composite" figures who don't really exist. You people are totally nuts.
I have a really bad feeling b/c of the Gallup poll that shows Clinton won last nights polling and climbed up to tie w/Obama for the first time in the last three days when his lead was outside the margin of error.
I think the "plagiarism" thing and the video comparing him to Patrick is hitting hard and working well. The only upside, if he survives this the Republicans will not be able to use it as effectively.
-Rhoda
Yeah. In the words of Han Solo, "I have a bad feeling about this". I don't know what it is. The weather, the wall-to-wall plagiarism coverage, the anecdotal reports coming in from the Journal-Sentinel ... I'm definitely sweating this one.
Ack.
If Obama wins white Democrats, it will be a significant harbinger that he's convinced some people to vote for him.
Some demographics to vote for him. My bad.
Good one Matt. A little self-effacing humor is always fun. I think it is probably better for everyone to just get out of the prediction business, because no one ever seems to get it right. For instance I thought Inter Milan would be Liverpool today at Anfield. Boy was I wrong, particulalry after Matterazzi got sent off after 30 minutes with two soft yellow cards.
Good one Matt. A little self-effacing humor is always fun. I think it is probably better for everyone to just get out of the prediction business, because no one ever seems to get it right. For instance I thought Inter Milan would be Liverpool today at Anfield. Boy was I wrong, particulalry after Matterazzi got sent off after 30 minutes with two soft yellow cards.
Oops. The double post is my bad.
The plagiarism thing was a good, sleazy, one-word gambit.
Still, I don't imagine voters getting exercized over two appealing pols sharing political rhetoric. Obama did well in response, and the world is full of YouTubes of Hillary cribbing lines.
So, I feel pretty neutral about this. Although I feel unhappy that jbryan has a bad feeling about this.
It's amazing how so many can be fooled by an empty suit phony who's speeches are stolen and who's autobiography contains "composite" figures who don't really exist. You people are totally nuts.
Who's that? Or, in your parlance, should I say "Whose that?"
I stand by my analysis last week that Wisconsin does not count because it wears part of Michigan like a hat.
Also, Fox's exit polls have BO winning women voter 51/49, which would obviously be huge IF true. IF.
I, too, have a horrible feeling about tonight. I don't even want to watch....
If you win a state with a lot of blacks or no blacks, that's bad if you're black but good if you're not. If you win a state with some blacks its bad for a different reason. Right? Am I right?
As they say in Madison, "Fuck 'em Bucky, Fuck 'em"
Geraghty at National Review confirms Politico, by the way...
fingers still crossed...
I have a feeling the exit polls are right and this will be an easy and big Obama win previewing the end of the race on March 4.
PD: I almost wore my Fuck 'Em Bucky T-shirt today here in PHL, in honor of the primary back home. But that shirt is 0-3 for the UW in recent contests and I just couldn't risk jinxing today's contest, too.
I think SE Wisco has the right number of AA voters to count (too small to dominate, enough for the racists to grumble). The rest of the state does not count tho.
Tomorrow Howard Wolfson will claim that Deval Patrick won Wisconsin two years ago.
I have a big issue with these guys (Politico and NR) calling for a big win three hours before the polls close. These are presumably based on the morning and afternoon rounds of polling -- there's still a lot more to go. And on Super Tuesday, the post-midday exits were pretty brutal for Obama versus what actually panned out. These were the polls that showed him winning Massachusetts and New Jersey.
I'm fucking sweating it here in Paris, France tonight. No going to bed until I get some results. I'd prefer that my home state (VT) be superfluous, but March 4th is gonna count...
I actually made the mistake of wearing my Obama shirt today so I don't expect any good to come from this. As a lifelong Minnesota Vikings fan, I would hate to be someone that has my backing. If this doesn't pan out, I'm your reason.
Thank you Matt!!!!!
Awesome.
I was in a blah mood - getting cold again in D.C., Barack's wife is getting run through the press ringer....
But now I feel much, much better.
Thank you!
Cal, you have turned to a slimy racist. Slime on, Racist Cal.
MY, your expectations-management is, has always been, gratingly obvious given your blatant Obama partisanship elsewhere.
but isn't this strange: Obama's blackness is being used -- tactitly or not so -- as one reason why his wins -shouldn't- count, rather than why they should. by that logic, should a -loss- in WI not count, and a win for HRC, because it's a majority-white state? I'm confused.
Kevin - this is really funny!
It's amazing how so many can be fooled by an empty suit phony who's speeches are stolen and who's autobiography contains "composite" figures who don't really exist. You people are totally nuts.
Who's that? Or, in your parlance, should I say "Whose that?"
sorry, that's clearer as:
should a -loss- in WI, and a win for HRC, not count
Wisconsin is in Clinton's (alleged) demographic and procedural wheelhouse--working class, white, aging (aside from the college kids). She should win there tonight. If Obama wins, it'll be by reaching into Clinton's coalition. I think Matt and jbryan are probably right, despite the exits.
Jennifer, how about your candidate hiding the fact that she used a ghostwriter on "It Takes a Village" for years? What has Hillary actually written?
For all the hoopla about demographics, I keep looking at the map and wondering if regionalism is more of factor than is commonly being acknowledged.
And Wisconsin is a good test of these rival hypotheses: demographically good for Clinton, but in the heart of what the map says should be Obama-land. I'll be interested to see what happens.
Thank you for sticking to your lucky prediction, Matt! I wholeheartedly endorse it. Even if Obama wins tonight, and even if he wins Texas, and PA, and maybe Puerto Rico, we have to keep one thing in mind: this is trench warfare, and *nobody* is better at it than the Clintons. Cheers!
I agree with cvcobb01 about the weather. I'm right next door in Minnesota, and we're all completely used to it by now. Anything above freezing feels downright unnaturally warm. I'm not kidding.
Spin prediction:
If Clinton loses, we will hear that Wisconsin doesn't count because it is next to IL.
Well Yglesias has to be right about something one of these days, right? It's just a matter of time.
I too am worried that events may be turning against Obama. If he survives he'll probably be a stronger candidate, though. And Hillary Clinton can finally stop saying that he's never been vetted or whatever.
I predict it doesn't happen but a Clinton win in Wisconsin would be a serious blow, probably a turning point. The spin will be that the public has turned off to Obama as a plagiarist. He'd have to fight that image the rest of the way. Win and the plagiarism charge slides off.
I don't think that the plagiarism charge is going to die off right away. The Clinton machine is going to keep it going all the way through March 4th. This poses the most substantial challenge to Obama yet even though I think it's completely mercenary and desperate on the part of the Clinton campaign.
For all the hoopla about demographics, I keep looking at the map and wondering if regionalism is more of factor than is commonly being acknowledged.
It is. Wisconsin ain't Ohio or Pennsylvania, folks. Ethnic and racial differences don't loom nearly as large. A lib-lab coalition has existed in the Upper Midwest for almost a century. Blue-collar or white-collar, they're all populists. Expect Wisconsin to look a lot more like Iowa and Minnesota than any Eastern industrial state.
Still Undecided,
Has anything stuck? First he wasn't black enough, then he was too black. Then he was too liberal, then too centrist, then too liberal (all at the same time, seemingly). Then he wasn't popular enough, now he's seemingly too popular ("cult-like").
The plagiarism charge is a cheap shot but there has been no lack of cheap shots by both sides in the campaign. Hillary's handlers vs. Obama's noise machine. It's disappointing.
As an Obama supporter, I do think Hillary "vetting" Obama is a good thing. The one weakness Obama has exhibited in this campaign is responding to distortions, like his inability to concisely explain the "present" votes in the Illinois legislature. In the general, he'll be faced with garbage like this plagiarism attack constantly, and it's important to show that he can deal with these kinds of attacks effectively.
The best result for the Dems would be for Obama to prevail in March after a hard-fought contest that didn't reach nuclear levels. It looks like we're right on track.
Hillary...bring back our Democracy!
I don't see how the exits and turnout numbers are good news for Obama. Turnout in Madison is down. Turnout amongst downscale voters is up (relative). Clinton wins by 7 points.
Bless you Matt. Could you predict her winning by 20 points or so in OH and TX now? Pretty please?
asdf,
That is my thought.
Incidentally, Ohio isn't really Pennsylvania either. Using the regionalism theory, Clinton might do well in Pennsylvania since it is part Appalachia and part Mid-Atlantic. But while Ohio has a bit of Appalachia in the Southeast, it is mostly a combination of Great Lakes and what is sometimes called Farm Belt or Heartland.
Generally, I am not quite sure yet what to predict about Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, given a regionalism model. Of course we would know a lot more if Illinois wasn't Obama's home state and if Michigan had been contested, but c'est la vie.
While the plagiarism charge may not go away, I seriously doubt it's responsible for Obama's slouch in the polls today. It takes more than 24 hours for something like that to have a measurable effect and could perhaps take longer considering that for many, yesterday was a holiday.
I have posted this already at another site, for those of people to whom it it important that I make such a declaration.
This all just makes me sad. I realize that Sen Clinton is trying her hardest to win the nomination. I respect that and I expect nothing less from either candidate. Sometimes, though, I wish her people would step back and think for a second before they go forward with a strategy.
First of all, this type of attack will likely boomerang back at her should she actually get the nomination. Forget the fact that Obama researchers are now going over everything she has ever said, how many RNC people are doing the same thing? And she wins the nomination and the RNC should bring it up, what will she possibly be able to say? What... It mattered a few months ago, but now I consider it unimportant? Nice.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is a large block of dedicated democratic voter out there who could very easily take this the wrong way. If Sen Clinton should win the nomination, what would their campaign have to do to convince African- American voters that they didn't really mean it when they made the 'Jesse Jackson' comments, the 'articulate man' comments, and what could be perceived as 'A successful black politician couldn't possibly have been able to come up with a lot of his stuff alone?' Seriously... This is becoming insulting.
African-Americans, according to census numbers, make up around 12.8% of the total population. Based on 2004 numbers, 68% of those voters were registered to vote and approximately 60% voted in the election. Considering that the African-American community tends to vote reliably democratic at a 90%+ clip, what happens to her general campaign if she continues to irritate and anger them? I don't know and I don't think the Clinton campaign knows either. I suspect a lot of people will sit out.
Look, I believe that Mark Penn, especially recently, deserves a lot of the ridicule that he gets at times. That being said, I do think that there is some nugget of truth to some of the micro-trend argument. However, even though there may be some wisdom to be gained from some of his philosophies, I still think that the Clinton campaign has lost sight of the forest due to the trees.
The democratic party has been blessed to have three strong candidates run for the 2008 nomination. Two of them remain. The problem is that winning the nomination does not automatically win you the ultimate prize. I implore the Clinton campaign to look at the larger picture before making such silly attacks in the future.
There are a lot of backward fucks in Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Indiana, etc. Clinton could do well.
But Obama actually fared okay in parts of Appalachia. Here's a map. He did get killed in the SW parts closest to Kentucky. But he won the parts on the SE border of WV, even though those counties have very few African-Americans.
Hopefully his victory tonight can be clear so that he can go and say "Even after all the negativity and cheap attacks (aka plagiarism) of the Clintons we have won fair and square" so that the media can move on from that maddening BS.
Ben,
Whether it's actually responsible for an unlikely HRC Wisconsin win or not, the plagiarism charge would still get a lot of media play due to the timing.
As far as "too black", "too liberal" and "too cult-like", those claims are going to be much more problematic in the general election than in Democratic primaries. Michelle's recent outburst did not help. She's well on her way to being a lightning rod.
Just hope McCranky keeps moving to the right and all should turn out okay...
Nicholas,
I couldn't get your link to work (and I would very much like to see it--I am not exactly working with highly granular data).
Well women also make up more than 50 percent of - the country, voters and democrats. And I've heard from more than a few who are not happy with obama's campaign - either direct quotes: "likeable enough", "tea with ambassadors", "claws come out" or the way he hasn't shown any leadership by asking his supporters in and out of the media to shut up with the sexist crap. Some of these women might not vote for him.
So there will be a need for bridge building on either side.
All the tasty exit poll results I was looking at on CBS's site suddenly vanished! Now it says "no results from Wisconsin are available. What happened?!?
Matt, while you're at it, will you please call Hawaii for Hillary?
Chelsea's been there all week stumping, and still refusing interviews.
Free David Shuster!
By the way, apparently "Still Undecided" hasn't been paying much attention to how Obama has been doing among independents and Republicans, nor the recent head-to-head polls. In truth, all this "Obama is too X" stuff is coming from Clinton supporters desperately looking for some way to counteract the mountain of evidence on who would in fact start off in a better position for the general election. And to the extent this species of argument works at all (and I am not sure it does), I suspect it only works with those Democrats who internalized the Carter-Mondale-Dukakis elections and now simply have a hard time believing a Democrat really could be broadly popular. Self-confident Democrats, on the other hand, find it natural to believe that a wide cross-section of the American people could rally behind someone like Obama.
Incidentally, Ohio isn't really Pennsylvania either. Using the regionalism theory, Clinton might do well in Pennsylvania since it is part Appalachia and part Mid-Atlantic. But while Ohio has a bit of Appalachia in the Southeast, it is mostly a combination of Great Lakes and what is sometimes called Farm Belt or Heartland.
In many ways, you're right. However, both reside within the Rust Belt, both have histories of racial tension, and both have large numbers of blue-collar and ethnic voters. Ohio is similar to Pennsylvania is this way, whereas Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, the Dakotas, and Wisconsin (with the possible exception of Milwaukee) are not.
Generally, I am not quite sure yet what to predict about Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, given a regionalism model.
I'd venture to guess that Hillary wins Kentucky regardless of what happens tonight or on March 4. Ohio will probably be within 10 points, but I think Obama has a much better shot at Texas. Indiana could go either way, but at this point I'd bet on Clinton (narrowly).
To Columbia:
I'm an Obama supporter for over a year, but I totally agree with your assessment. He needs to come out be clear that he does not support sexist treatment of Hillary or any woman. I do not believe that his quotes are sexist, nor do I believe he is, but the peace-making needs to come from him...and now.
The Michigan as a hat line gets me every time.
Yes, I'm quite aware that Republicans and undecideds prefer Obama to HRC. That's largely why he's poised to get the nomination.
Apparently you're not aware that the opponent in November won't be Hillary Clinton.
asdf - there aren't a lot of ethnic voters in Illinois?
Well women also make up more than 50 percent of - the country, voters and democrats. And I've heard from more than a few who are not happy with obama's campaign...So there will be a need for bridge building on either side.
Why do I have the suspicion that all of these hyper-sensitive paleo-feminists ("Obama said PERIODically!") reside in coastal Democratic strongholds that have no possibility of going Republican anyway? Could it be that they back a Democratic candidate that is strongly and vocally disliked by both independents and Republicans -- a fact that anyone who had ever interacted with people outside of his or her insular bubble would be well aware of?
asdf,
I guess it all depends on how you cut things up. Personally, I think of Cleveland-Toledo-Detroit-Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee as being quite similar. Cincinnati and Dayton, though, I would more associate with Indianapolis and Louisville. Meanwhile, Youngstown, Zanesville, etc., I would associated with Pittsburgh and West Virginia. Columbus is kind of a wild card, being sort of an overgrown college town.
So personally, I somewhat expect Obama to do well in the Cleveland-Toledo part and Columbus, and Clinton to do well in the Youngstown part. I have no real idea what to make of the Cincinnati-Dayton part.
Columbia, you're right that there's been misogyny in the media and elsewhere and Obama should be more out front. He blew the NH debate. But let's be a little careful: (a) the "claws" remark was not about HRC, (b) Obama declined the opportunity to take a cheap shot at HRC over the NH tears incident (an opportunity Edwards took), (c) his campaign issued a clear statement on the Shuster incident. Obama's been talking in public for about a year now, and if there were a pattern of coded misogyny in his remarks, you'd have more to go on by now.
SoCalJustice: "Chelsea's been there all week stumping, and still refusing interviews."
Yes, another week, another state and the nation still deprived of its right to learn if Chelsea reallym truly loves her mother. Damn!
"Still Undecided",
Oh, I am highly aware of the fact that Clinton won't be Obama's opponent in the general. But since Clinton's current supporters are mostly core Democrats, that actually helps Obama's case considerably, since those people are very likely to choose her fellow Democrat (Obama) over a Republican (McCain). Obama's independent and Republican supporters, however, would likely be far more open to switching to McCain instead of a different Democrat if Obama isn't available. And Clinton in particular is not exactly a popular figure outside of the Democratic Party.
All this is quite clear if you, say, look at current head-to-head polls. Obviously, those polls can't predict the future, but they do a nice job of summarizing the implications of one candidate running best among core partisans, and the other candidate running best among independents and crossovers.
Asdf - the ones I know live in a swing state. But even if these "proto feminists" were all in laguna beach, well he loses five percent of woman voters and that's a death knell for a democrat considering the gender gap. That puts a lot of states into play for mccain.
(It's not just obama either - I'm hearing that many are horrified by the fact that the dnc has been silent as MSMers use vile language to trash women.)
Andruw - I don't think obama is sexist, but I do think he has benefitted from a lot of sexism in the media. A statement about shuster is nice, but as has been noted by media matters and others, there's a pattern here and I've yet to here him speak as eloquently againt sexism as he has in other areas. So the omission seems more glaring.
Again, you don't have to agree with this to know the sentiment is out there. And I'm hearing it A LOT from women who have never voted for a republican and who have been tireless volunteers for dems. They might not vote for mccain (probably will vote for the D in the end). But they have a bad taste in their mouths.
Obama wins!!!
Go Matt!
columbia,
This is just my opinion, but I personally think Obama would actually be a more credible voice on this issue once the nomination is decided, one way or another. That is because right now, I think people might interpret any efforts to dramatically raise his profile on this issue as politically motivated.
Generally, there is always going to be some bridge-mending after a closely fought primary. I am personally confident that the Democrats are going to be capable of doing that (at least provided this is decided by the pledged delegates--all bets are off if it is not).
Another victory for regionalism over demographics. And not a caucus.
columbia, I don't think you mean to respond to me, or are misinterpreting my comment.
I was mocking SoCalJustice and the ridiculous premise that somehow Chelsea needs to consent to an interview, or that any information gained from an interview is important (i.e., she is supporting her mother for president, what could you possibly ask her that would undermine her campaigning?).
For the record, I agree that Obama has benefitted from sexism in the media, although it is not clear if it is strictly sexism, or that sexism is most easy (natural?) way for them to express their bias against everyone named Clinton (or Gore.)
columbia, I don't think you mean to respond to me, or are misinterpreting my comment.
I was mocking SoCalJustice and the ridiculous premise that somehow Chelsea needs to consent to an interview, or that any information gained from an interview is important (i.e., she is supporting her mother for president, what could you possibly ask her that would undermine her campaigning?).
For the record, I agree that Obama has benefitted from sexism in the media, although it is not clear if it is strictly sexism, or that sexism is most easy (natural?) way for them to express their bias against everyone named Clinton (or Gore.)
dtm - I would argue that it's less credible after the primaries are over. It's a little sorry to show leadership when the battle is done.
As a woman, I'd like the democrats to stand up for us no matter what the circumstances. Not just when it is easy. If sexism is wrong, than it is wrong - even in the middle of a primary. So he should say so.
Andruw - you're right. I meant to respond to colin. My bad!
Andruw, she's a 29 year-old, high profile campaign staffer.
It is sheer cowardice and hubris to refuse to have her talk to the press.
Another strategy that's not working out well for the "inevitable" democratic nominee.
Mock away. I don't care.
How's 0-9 (soon to be 0-10) feel since Super Tuesday?
If lame mockery is all you got... Cheers.
"Andruw, she's a 29 year-old, high profile campaign staffer."
Staffer.
And yes, of course, 29-year old staffers do interviews with the media all the time.
Columbia,
Barack and Hillary need to speak against all kinds of prejudice. Although racism has been more low key than the sexism that HRC has been experiencing, it is still there. People need to realize as democrats and liberals that as we apporach the general election HRC and Obama are gonna need each other to fight the right wing who love to denigrate women and blacks.
columbia,
Well, he hasn't been silent, but I didn't intend to argue about that.
Instead, I wanted to suggest a broader point, which is that I do think you need to be careful what you wish for. If you actually want to improve conditions for women, particularly professional women, it may not be a great idea to turn this issue into the centerpiece of a political campaign. Among other things, political campaigns tend to get wrapped up in partisan feelings and individual personalities, and I suspect women would be ill-served by those connections.
Good point, Andruw.
I'm sure in Chelsea's spare time from traveling the country to give speeches and campaign in states where her mother doesn't go herself, to banking major hours calling super delegates, she makes a lot of copies, and goes on coffee/donut runs for local campaign office outposts.
Why, she's just a regular, run of the mill, random member of Team Clinton. Clearly.
Just so you know, this is one of many reasons your side is getting waxed, the sheer disingenuousness of it all.
I agree with all of your last post Columbia, and I've heard the sentiment too. I've also *seen* problems -- as I said, the NH debate performance was not his finest hour. And to add evidence to your case, the WI exits, in which Obama wins men 61-35 and women 51-49, also indicate that he has some repair work to do.
SoCalJustice: "Just so you know, this is one of many reasons your side is getting waxed, the sheer disingenuousness of it all."
Actually, I think it is mainly because Obama is great candidate, she does not have high negatives among Dem voters.
That's going to change rapidly if she doesn't stop her negative approach. Her speech tonight was not a good sign.
Micheline - don't disagree with anything you said. I just felt that this view (which I hear a lot off line) has not really come up here.
Dtm - of course it's a political issue. So are poverty, civil rights, the war, et al. A campaign is when we're supposed to be able to measure the mettle of the candidates and hear their priorities. So far, rather than say "sexism is wrong - stop it" obama seems to be benefitting from it (and a throw away line about suffragetes is not gonna cut it). If someone is a leader, then they confront this crap because it is the right thing to do.
But more than that, it bugs me when folks say, "it won't improve conditions." I assume you mean because it's directed at HRC and she has other negatives. But I hear it directed at pretty much every major female dem from nancy pelosi to diane feinstein to barbara mikulski. And no one ever says, "boo" about that either. how's doing nothing gonna improve anything? How's it worked out for women so far?
Again, I've been a democrat my whole life. Have never considered voting for a republican. Won't this time either, but this entire campaign has been very demoralizing for me to see how rampant - and accepted - sexist language is in the media and the progressive blogosphere. And how easily it is shrugged off by those same elements. I just don't have a lot of respect for a lot of folks in my party any more.
And, to end on the "realist" message - it's bad politics. Dems can't win without women. So they need to start fighting for us.
Matt: "My prediction: Surprise Clinton win as complacent Obama supporters don't bother to turn out in the cold. This will pave the way to the ultimate vindication of my "Clinton will win" prediction of a week or so ago."
Well, so much for that!
Still don't want to retract your "prediction"?
Hey, it's Iraq all over again, dude!
Don't you dare retract your prediction!
columbia,
Again, I don't intend to get into an argument over the correct characterization of what Obama has done.
But to clarify one point, I was not suggesting that Democrats in general, or Obama in particular, should not address this issue in a higher profile way. I was just suggesting that Obama doing so before the nomination was decided might be less than ideal for this cause from a strategic point of view. Of course, reasonable people could disagree.
As a Wisconsinite who voted today, I can tell you that it wasn't nearly cold enough to make an impact on turnout. Most people here don't record going out in the cold as either virtuous or unusual behavior.
Comments closed March 04, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I cannot help but suspect that you are using some kind of reverse psychology here - and if so, as I am an extremely and pathetically superstitious man (when it comes to sports and politics), I applaud your efforts! Kudos!
Posted by Augie | February 19, 2008 5:57 PM