Category: Blogroll

Poll: Obama Got 12% of GOP Crossover Votes, McCain Got Zero Dem Crossover

Jon Ponder

Here’s potentially a bit of good news for November, unless John McCain can rally his party and call these stragglers home:
About 3 million of the 35 million votes for Democrats this year were cast by Republicans.

About 12 percent of Obama’s aggregate vote in presidential primaries came from people who normally align themselves with the GOP, based on a survey of 1,003 adults conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University.

About 5 percent of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s support came from Republicans.

The poll also found that Arizona Sen. John McCain, who won the Republican nomination in the early months of the primary season, received virtually no Democratic crossover votes.

What is unknown is how much of the Republican crossover was mischief-making:

“McCain didn’t need my vote since he already had the nomination locked up,” explained life-long Republican voter Jerry Maisel, 64, of Plano, Texas. “So I thought that this was my chance to be a spoiler with the Democrats. Barack Obama is the first Democrat I’ve ever voted for in a presidential race. Can’t say I enjoyed the experience.

…Other Republicans came to an opposite conclusion.

“I voted for Clinton because she’s a little less dangerous than Obama. He’s 180 degrees from what he pretends to be,” said Dan Curtin, 58, of Marblehead, Mass.”

About 3 million of the 35 million votes for Democrats this year were cast by Republicans, according to the study. This backs up Trish’s article that “Obama Republicans” may be a trend this year.

Obama Does Have Other VP Choices

Buck Banks

Mother Jones magazine is running an interesting article that explores Barack Obama’s other potential vice president candidates. It notes quite accurately that Hillary Clinton’s potential has been discussed ad nauseum.
vpseal.jpg
The essential question the article poses is whether Obama will “double-down” on his strengths and choose a youthful reform-minded political outsider or whether he’ll choose a running mate who compensates for some of his weaknesses, someone older, more experienced in the ways of Washington and perhaps from an important swing state.

I’m just supplying a list here. Go to the article for the thinking behind each one:

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.), 60
Gov. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio), 66
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), 62
Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pa.), 64
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), 60
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), 61
Gen. Wesley Clark (US Army, retired), 63
Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), 69
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), 52
Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), 65
Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.), 50
Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), 54
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), 55

Some Republicans are Switching to Obama. Trend?

Trish

The argument that Obama can’t win Reagan Democrats is getting some holes punched in it.

Along with notions that Obama won’t appeal to non-Neocon Republicans, also at risk are assumptions that McCain will take all his party’s votes

Beverly Fanning is among the campaign donors who’ll be joining President Bush at a gala at Washington’s Ford’s Theater on Sunday night, but she says that won’t dissuade her from her current passion: volunteering for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

She isn’t the only convert. A McClatchy computer analysis, incomplete because of the difficulty matching data from various campaign finance reports, found that hundreds of people who gave at least $200 to Bush’s 2004 campaign have donated to Obama.

Among them are Julie Nixon Eisenhower, the daughter of the late GOP President Richard Nixon and wife of the late GOP President Dwight Eisenhower’s grandson, David; Connie Ballmer, the wife of Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer; Ritchie Scaife, the estranged wife of conservative tycoon Richard Mellon Scaife; and boxing promoter Don King…

”There is a large block of Republicans, particularly economic conservatives, who just feel that the Republican Party in Washington completely let them down” by failing to control spending and address other problems, [Campaign finance expert Prof. Anthony] Corrado said. “The Republicans have really given these donors no reason to give.”

Along with notions that Obama won’t appeal to non-Neocon Republicans, also at risk are assumptions that McCain will take all his party’s votes. Unless he finds a way to distance himself from the Bush White House, and finds it soon, he’s carrying some heavy Samsonites.

Survey Shows American Workers are…Bitter

Trish

Who’d a thunk it?

In the Marlin Co.’s 14th annual “Attitudes in the American Workplace” poll, nearly 75 percent of workers said the American Dream was less attainable today than eight years ago. And 52 percent said it was unreachable for the average American.

The survey defines the American Dream as the opportunity to have a nice home, financial security and hope for the future.

Nearly half of the respondents said they are “bitter because the political system has caused a deterioration of (their) economic circumstances.”

“The Marlin workplace poll uncovered an attitude shift among U.S. workers who are more disillusioned and fed up than ever,” said Frank Kenna III, president of Marlin, which is a North Haven, Conn., workplace communications company.

McClellan Might Support Obama

Trish

If he wins the White House, I know where Barack Obama can find a press secretary.

That these guys are not jumping on the Straight Talk Express might explain the vehemence of GOP partisans, particularly directed at McClellan

In several interviews with media organizations Thursday night, the former White House press secretary hinted that he was strongly leaning toward the Illinois senator’s White House bid over his own party’s presumptive nominee.

McClellan, a former White House official who has angered several Republicans this week for his scathing critique of the Bush Administration, said he hasn’t made an official decision on which candidate he will back, but offered that he is “intrigued by Sen. Obama’s message.”

“It’s a message that is very similar to the one that Gov. Bush ran on in 2000,” McClellan told CBS News.

One difference, Scotty. Bush didn’t know what he was saying in 2000 and, as he would many times in the years since, he mangled his words. He meant to say he was a divider, not a uniter. And he believed in dispassionate conservatism.

Former Bush pollster and strategist Matt Dowd, who left the White House in 2004, is also rumored to be backing Obama, not McCain.

That these guys are not jumping on the Straight Talk Express might explain the vehemence of GOP partisans, particularly directed at McClellan. But I suspect McCain calls up too much deja vu all over again for the people who once believed and followed a sociopathic liar before painfully discovering the truth.

Internal Email Urges Obama Supporters Not to Demonstrate at DNC Rules Meeting

Trish

The Hill:

Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) campaign is urging its supporters not to demonstrate at Saturday’s highly anticipated Democratic National Committee (DNC) meeting on how to handle the delegates of Florida and Michigan.

Even with just Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd competing on the Michigan ballot, Clinton received only 55 percent of the vote. Yet HRC math still concludes she is entitled to 100 percent of Michigan’s delegates.

In an internal campaign e-mail obtained by The Hill, the Obama campaign states, “We look forward to the meeting proceeding smoothly — and we’re asking our supporters not to show up to demonstrate, passionately as they feel about this campaign.”

…the Obama campaign wants to avoid heated intraparty confrontations that would attract national headlines and be replayed on the cable news networks. Saturday’s potential public relations nightmare comes as the Obama campaign is taking steps to unify the party as the Democratic primary process appears to be winding down.

…In a Q&A section of the e-mail, a question reads, “Sen. Obama has such a large lead that the outcome of this nomination is all-but academic. Why not just seat the delegates as they voted so that Sen. Clinton has one less reason to continue her campaign?”

The answer states, “That’s not Sen. Obama’s decision to make. The rules for this nomination contest were designed and are enforced by the Democratic National Committee. That’s why our campaign is working to forge a fair agreement that will ensure Democrats from Florida and Michigan will be able to participate in our convention.”

…The DNC bylaws meeting is seen as Clinton’s last-ditch effort to make up significant ground on Obama in the delegate count. Clinton won both states easily, but Obama pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan and, like the former first lady, did not actively campaign in Florida.

The talking points memo provides some answers to potential questions about Saturday. One reads, “I don’t think that any of us are in a position to speculate about possible outcomes at the meeting — but what I do know is that the Obama campaign is as eager as anyone to see this situation resolved fairly, which reflects the desire of these delegations to be seated and the fact that we and all the candidates competed under rules in which there were no delegates to be awarded and no campaigning took place.”

Interesting factoid: Even with just Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd competing on the Michigan ballot, Clinton received only 55 percent of the vote. The other candidates whose names appeared took a total of 5 percent, and “Uncommitted” got 40. Yet HRC math still concludes she is entitled to 100 percent of Michigan’s delegates.

Poll: Obama Leads McCain By 7 Points in California

Jon Ponder

From the new Los Angeles Times poll:
The big names in California politics are all Democrats. There is no Republican other than Schwarzenegger with statewide appeal who could help deliver California to McCain in November. If the governor can’t do it, it is exceedingly unlikely that it can be done.

Overall, [Barack] Obama led [John] McCain 47 percent to 40 percent among registered voters, while [Hillary] Clinton led McCain 43 percent to 40 percent.

McCain has insisted that he will compete to win California in the fall. But California has gone to the Democrat in each of the last four presidential elections. Most of the state’s political professionals consider it to be reliably Democratic — and too expensive to prompt a full-throated effort by a Republican candidate who could amass electoral votes more cheaply elsewhere.

Clinton remains popular in California, but her supporters here are ready to support Obama:

Gregory Sanders, a Democrat from West Hollywood, said he “avidly” supported Clinton in the primary but would now back Obama.

“I accept that she lost the nomination,” he said in a follow-up interview, adding that he still has “reservations” about Obama because of the controversial comments made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Another bad omen for McCain in the poll is the fact that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s job approval is sinking again — from 60 percent in January to 43 percent now. (It was in the low 30s at the end of the governor’s disastrous first term.) Unlike his earlier troubles with voters, when he was loathed by Democrats and independents, this time the governor appears to be losing support among members of his own party:

Republicans, too, were negative, with 73 percent saying the state was on the wrong track and [only] 52 percent approving of Schwarzenegger’s tenure. The governor has clashed repeatedly with fellow Republicans on a range of policy issues.

The big names in California politics are all Democrats — the senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Gov. Jerry Brown. There is no Republican other than Schwarzenegger with statewide appeal who could help deliver California to McCain in November. If the governor can’t do it, it is exceedingly unlikely that it can be done.

Still, let’s hope the gap between Obama and McCain widens into double digits and stays there. In 2004, John Kerry beat Bush by 10 percentage points, 54 percent to 44 percent. Obama should be able do at least that well.

The Daughter Factor: Presidential Wildcard

Trish

In my lifetime, daughters have had a higher profile in their father’s presidencies than sons. Let’s look back:

  • John Kennedy: Caroline
  • Lyndon Johnson: Lynda Bird and Luci Baines
  • Richard Nixon: Tricia and Julie
  • Gerald Ford: Susan
  • Jimmy Carter: Amy
  • Ronald Reagan: Maureen and Patti
  • Bill Clinton: Chelsea
  • The Current Occupant: Barbara and Jenna

And while there are notable exceptions — George H.W. Bush, whose sons need no discussion — most of these presidencies were shaped in no small part by the White House daughters. Yes, Carter, Ford, Kennedy, and Reagan had sons too, but it’s their daughters we most recall, and their daughters who help develop our perception of them as people.

So what effect, if any, does the Daughter Factor have on the current race? That’s hard to say. Barack Obama has only girls, two totally cute small ones. And while Meghan McCain, whose blog has helped her dad with youth cred, is the best known, she has a passel of siblings.

Meghan McCain

There are the children from his first marriage – Doug and Andy, from his first wife’s former marriage – whom he adopted when they were young, as well as a daughter, Sidney. Then there is the second family: Meghan, Jimmy, Jack, and the McCains’ adopted daughter, Bridget, 16, who became a target of dirty campaigning in the 2000 presidential race when she was portrayed as the child of an illicit union.

Meghan, 23, seems like most Republican 20-somethings, or at least a whole lot like the Bush twins, which is to say vacuous and self-absorbed and heavily made-up. Her blog is mostly pictures, filled in with little posts about travel, who wore what, and her iPod.

The Obamas — Malia, 9, and Sasha, 6 — have spent most of the campaign with their mom, Michelle. If a recent ABC interview by Robin Roberts is any indication, the girls would be a source of frequent “Awww” moments in an Obama White House. After taking to task Republican-backed ads which questioned Michelle’s patriotism, the Obamas discussed their daughters’ desire for the family to have a dog. The exchange can only be termed charming.

The Obama girls

Robin Roberts: “Have the girls, Malia and Sasha, have they gotten their dog?”

Barack Obama: “No dog yet. The dog — ”

Michelle Obama: “The deal on the dog is a year from now. Because what we know about raising a dog is you have to be pretty stable so you don’t drive your dog crazy. So we had a conversation around the dinner table about a month ago because this came up, ‘When is the dog coming?’ So we figured a year from now, in the spring, we would be settled one way or another and we shook on it.”

Barack: “And that we also had a year to test whether they are sufficiently responsible —”

Michelle: “They are responsible. Malia is responsible.”

Barack: “They’re responsible, for a 9- and a 6-year-old they’re responsible, but whether — ”

Robin Roberts: “That’s a daddy talking.”

Barack: “Whether they’re going to be responsible in the middle of winter to go walk that dog — ”

Michelle: “I’m going to take care of it.”

Barack: “— When it’s cold outside.”

Michelle: “We’re getting a dog. The dog is a done deal.”

Barack: “The dog’s a done deal. Who’s walking the dog, that’s what we’re concerned about.”

Michelle, looking at camera: “Babies, you’re getting a dog.”

You can watch the whole interview here.

[…]

If Obama’s Past Drug Use Is Fair Game So Is Bush’s

Jon Ponder

The issue is no longer simply how and why Bush has successfully dodged the topic for his entire political career. The story now should be why the press has treated him with kid gloves for so long.
— John Seery

The folks at Fox News were discussing Barack Obama’s admission in a book 11 years ago that he’d used drugs in his youth when the show’s hostess went off script and brought up Pres. Bush’s use of cocaine in his youth:

Their conversation took an unusual turn, however, when Fox reporter Kirian Chetry said President Bush had also admitted to using cocaine.

Obama “talks very candidly, as did our current president, who admitted to using cocaine, correct? [Others demur] Well, who wrote, somebody wrote in a book — well, he admitted that he had an alcoholic, he had a drinking problem. Who was it who said they witnessed him using cocaine? It was somebody who wrote a book…”

As her colleagues tried to talk her down from the line of discussion, Chetry responded, “Okay, okay, fine, but there were questions about the current president and whether he used cocaine or not as a young guy, but there’s something about turning your life around…that people can accept.”

John Seery, who wrote about Bush’s cocaine-abusing past back in the 2000 election, has this take on the Fox segment in the Huffington Post:

Whew, that was a close one! Fox News surely didn’t want to open that door into Bush’s creepy closet, and they tried to slam it shut. Maybe the stress of the Iraq War, compounded by the growing abundance of Afghani poppy plants, is triggering memory flashbacks. Whatever the reason, the “cocaine issue” is back in the news–it just won’t go away.

What amazes me is that here we are, six years into Bush’s presidency, and the press still refuses to treat the longstanding stories about Bush’s cocaine use with the severity and scrutiny that such charges surely deserve, given the high level stakes involved. The issue is no longer simply how and why Bush has successfully dodged the topic for his entire political career. The story now should be why the press has treated him with kid gloves for so long.

The cocaine story came up in August 1999. Here’s a CNN article from the time that sums up events around Bush’s non-admission:

[…]