Clinton vs. Obama: Who's Stronger Come November?

First of all, let's ask ourselves what states are key to victory in November for the Democrats?  If you're like me, you don't say Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Alabama, or the like.  Rather, states such as Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio probably come to mind.  Well, Survey USA just released some very interesting poll results, pitting John McCain against both Clinton and Obama in those three key states.

-Pennsylvania:  Building on what I said in an earlier post, Sen. Clinton has appeal to those so called "Reagan-Democrats", which make up a large portion of voters in states such as Pennsylvania.  Obama has yet to prove that he can appeal to those voters.  The latest polling from Pennsylvania confirms that indeed Sen. Clinton is stronger with working class voters that Obama; she would win against McCain.  On the flip side, Obama would lose by 5.  

-Ohio: Good news for Democrats concerning the state of Ohio.  In the latest poll, both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama lead McCain by 10%, a considerable margin.  It appears Ohio is finally going blue.  

-Florida: Perhaps the most notorious state in recent Presidential elections, Florida could once again prove decisive in 2008. In the latest polling, Clinton would beat McCain by a significant nine points.  Obama, in contrast, would lose to McCain.  

My conclusion is this: it's still way too early to say for sure which states are certain for which candidate, but these latest polls at least give us something to go by.  And if you go by them, it reinforces the point I've been trying to make which is that Clinton performs better in the swing states than does Obama. Why the inconsistency with national general election polling? Here's my explanation: Obama does do better than Clinton in some southern and mountain-west states, but still does not win them.  For example, in Utah, the latest polling has Clinton losing by 38, while Obama only loses by 11.  This means that in national polling, he may get more pure votes, but it's the electoral votes that will decide this election.  Thats why state by state polling for the general is so much more accurate than broad, national polling.  In addition, these are the polls Democrats should look at when deciding which candidate is more electable.  It's about winning the swing states, not almost winning the small states.   

To view all of the state-by-state polling I used in this post, conducted by Survey USA, please click here.  

The Daily Dose---2/27

And the Race Continues

It's two days later and I'm still shocked (and pleased) that Sen. Hillary Clinton pulled out three larger-than-expected wins in the Texas, Rhode Island, and Ohio primaries.  Although many Obama supporters are crying foul (I'm not sure why, she did win fair and square), the losses in these three states open up some serious questions about Obama's efficiency as a candidate.  First of all, with all the momentum and wind at his back, why couldn't Obama win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island?  Secondly, why did Obama perform so poorly in these states compared to how he was polling in recent days?  Most polls had Obama losing by only 5-8 in Rhode Island (he lost by 18), losing Ohio only by 1-4 points (he lost by 10), and winning Texas by 2-4 (he lost by 4).  This tells me several things.  For one, Obama is not a strong of a candidate as many claim.  Secondly, Obama performs poorly under attack.  And lastly, simply put, Clinton, not Obama, had the message which resonated with the voters.

Exit Polling and What it Portends in the Keystone State

Exit polling from Tuesday's contests tells the story on Clinton's success. For one, Clinton won over white men significantly in Ohio and Rhode Island, and by a little less in Texas.  That is a major improvement as she has been losing white men in almost all of the contests since Super Tuesday.  Clinton also expanded her lead among Latinos, which allowed her to run up huge margins in Southern and Western Texas.  Also important to note, Latinos are a key swing group in the general election.  They could deliver New Mexico and Nevada to the Dems.  Clinton can carry them.  Can Obama?  My feeling is that Latinos would vote Republican again, as they did in '04, if Obama is the nominee.  Clinton also won those blue-collar workers by a larger margin than almost any other contest to date.  These are the "Reagan-Democrats". They would vote for Clinton come November, but again I'll ask the question, will they vote for Obama?  Hopefully, but McCain does have appeal to them.  Clinton also won seniors and those over 55 by her largest margin yet.  

So what does this mean for Pennsylvania?  It means that if Clinton can do what she did in Tuesday's contests, especially Ohio, in Pennsylvania, she can win, and win big.  Pennsylvania is more Ohio than Ohio is, if that makes any sense.  Pennsylvania has fewer African Americans, many more seniors, less young voters, and is even more "blue-collar".  The Pennsylvania primary is also closed, which means no Independents or Republicans can vote on April 22. These statistics don't mean we should count Obama out in Pennsylvania, but it does mean that he has a tough seven weeks ahead.  If things continue on the current path, Clinton could win on April 22 by a significant margin.

A Personal Note

I must say that I'm really getting sick and tired of listening to Obama supporters on other blogs talk about how if Obama isn't nominated, millions of people who voted for him will sit the election out.  Therefore, in their logic, we must nominate Obama or face certain defeat.  

Well, news flash to them, millions of people have also supported and voted for Sen. Clinton.  Is there any basis for believing that Obama supporters are more likely to be pissed come November than Clinton supporters?  It's almost as if, in their mind, they think that their candidate is so great, that if he is nominated no one will be hurt, but if he is not nominated, the whole world will be hurt.  

Listen, this isn't about me.  I prefer Sen. Clinton and I think she would be a better President, but if Sen. Obama is the nominee, I will support him and work my hardest for him.  But to imply that Clinton's supporters won't be hurt if she doesn't get the nomination is ridiculous.  At the end of this, we are looking at a 50.1-49.9% split for one candidate over the other.  That means that almost half the party won't have the candidate they supported as the nominee.  Trust me, I've talked to many people, especially women, who tell me they would be absolutely devastated and sit out the election if Obama is the nominee.  I try to tell them otherwise, but they are adamant, just as adamant as any Obama supporter. 

So my message to Democrats out there is this: One candidate is not going to lose any more support than the other would if nominated.  Regardless of who the nominee is, some will be hurt, but not a disproportional number for one side over the other either.  Our work, as Democrats and as Americans, is to unite this party and unite this country to elect the best person to the Presidency.  And although some of us may support Sen. Clinton, and others Sen. Obama, I think we can all agree that either of them would be better than McCain.  So let's have a great campaign and choose a nominee, but let's remember that there is always another view.  I think we would do ourselves and each other a great deal to keep that in mind. 

The Path to the Presidency in the Eyes of Ickes and Penn (from hillaryclinton.com)

Today, Clinton campaign members Harold Ickes and Mark Penn released a memo concerning last night's victories for Clinton and the race ahead.  To read the full article, you can click here. But here are a few excepts that I think contain some important, key points:

__________________________________________________

-Ohio is the barometer: Hillary was successful in Ohio, the state that for the last quarter century has picked our president. As everyone knows: As Ohio goes, so goes our country. Historically, it’s one of the bellwether states and it decided the last election. And the demographics of the upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky closely mirror those in Ohio. Hillary looks strong in all four states.

-In recent years, every President has won two of the three following states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hillary has already won two of those and, according to all polls, is leading in the third – Pennsylvania.

-In the primaries, Hillary has demonstrated that she is the best positioned candidate to carry the core battleground states essential to a general election victory -- particularly the large industrial states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the critical swing contests in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Jersey.

-Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor, elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same numbers.

-Steward of the economy: Hillary Clinton leads both John McCain and Barack Obama on the economy and healthcare. In the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll (1/22), Hillary leads McCain 52/28 on health care and 43/34 on the economy.

(NOTE: Bold emphasis added by me.)  

What a Night!

All I can say is wow.  I'll be back later tonight for a full analysis concerning last night's results, but let me just say that last night had to be the most thrilling night in recent history for any and everyone who loves politics.  Many doubted Sen. Clinton could win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, I admit I was one, but she came through from behind, and I couldn't be happier.  This race continues.  And until I come back later tonight, here is Sen. Clinton's victory speech in Ohio. Enjoy! (Note: the speech had to be divided into two videos due to the length)

Comeback Kid, Take 2!  

The Bush Administration: A Legacy of Incompetance, Arrogance, & Hypocrisy

As of this month, the United States has been occupying Iraq 5 years after the invasion over WMD that did not exist.  And as of this date, neither Bush nor Defense Secretary Gates can tell the American people when or how this war and occupation will end nor has there ever been a timeline set for withdrawal.

 

Now, as reported by the New York Times, Gates has urged Turkey's military to abandon its invasion of Northern Iraq in those area's controlled by the PKK.  Gates is concerned the invasion by Turkey could widen into a broader and bloodier conflict.  (Does that sound familiar?)  He also said the Turks should make this operation as short as possible.  He added that "as short as possible" means in terms of a week or two and certainly not months.  He also demanded a strict timeline for the Turkish operation to end. 

 

Can this administration be any more arrogant or hypocritical?  Bush and Gates are looking to extend our involvement in Iraq beyond 5 years.  Let's not forget, our invasion and occupation has already caused a wider war and lured al Qaeda in to Iraq.  This administration preaches one thing and does something else.  Now it wants a Turkish timeline to withdraw, but no U.S. timeline; not even talk of a timeline.  It is now impossible for this administration to ever claim any competence at all.

 

In the meantime, Americans are still being killed and wounded in Iraq.  23 of our Troops died in December 2007 and 38 were killed in January 2008.  Sadly, the administration is still talking about how the death toll is dropping, but they don't mention the escalation in January.  Gates replaced Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, but nothing has changed concerning Bush's incompetent war policy in Iraq.  And sadly, the front runner for the Republican nomination, John McCain would continue this failed and incompetent policy, possibly for another 100 years.  Our men and women in uniform deserve better. America deserves better.  Our people deserve better.

The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best? (Recap and Conclusions)

Most reasonable people would agree that 20 years is enough time to put one's fiscal house in order and develop a real broad based economic plan that puts the country on a solid economic foundation.  Yet Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 were given that amount of time but failed this country and its people big time.

 

The Republicans are caught in a time warp.  They still talk of Reagan reducing spending when in fact he accomplished the opposite.  John McCain talks about reducing spending on the campaign trail, yet he was part of the Republicans who controlled Congress and rubber stamped Bush's massive increase in deficit spending and debt year after year.  These people out right lie.  Lets look at what this massive spending and debt has cost our country and taxpayers.

 

The National Debt from when Reagan took office to February 22, 2008 increased $8.956 trillion.  That includes the $660 billion projected additional debt that Bush will produce in fiscal years '08 and '09.  84.5% ($7.564 trillion) of this debt was the result of deficit spending by Reagan and both Bushes.  

 

Interest that the federal government has had to pay on the debt since Reagan took office through fiscal 2007 was $7.261 trillion.  That is wasted taxpayers money that could have been used for needed programs and to extend social security, medicare, provide universal healthcare, etc. If those three Republican presidents would have balanced the budget and created surpluses as Bill Clinton did, this country would be in much better shape today.  Clinton did it after the 12 year fiscal disaster of Reagan-Bush and paid down $453 billion of debt. 

 

Had Bush 43 followed Clinton's fiscal discipline, the national debt would have been paid off.  But his deficit spending not only blew the $5.6 trillion projected surplus, he denied the country and its people an avenue to increase the quality of life, and fund needed programs.  The following is just one example how debt has eaten away at our ability to pay for these programs. 

 

Medicare cost the federal government $437 billion in 2007.  General revenues financed $179 billion or 41%.  Dedicated taxes and premiums paid the balance, $258 billion.  The Secretary of Health and Human Services said that by the year 2013, general revenue will go up to 45.1%.  Since this is the most recent medicare cost lets use this as a measure of what the federal government could do if it was not for the massive debt Regan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 added to.  

 

Interest paid on the national debt for fiscal 2007 was $429.9 billion.  Interest paid for fiscal 2006 was $405.8 billion.  Yea, you read right.  That is almost a total of one trillion dollars of interest paid in only a two year period---wasted money.  That $835.7 billion of interest paid that could have extended medicare 4-1/2 years.  Then when you consider all of the money paid in interest that was required by this massive debt, it comes to $7.261 trillion since Reagan took office.  Interest paid on the national debt during president Carter's 4 years was a total of $219 billion.  That should knock your socks off.  Thats $7.261 trillion in interest paid on the national debt because of deficit spending that did not go to educate our children or to pay for other needed programs.

 

Interest paid to finance our debt is the fastest growing part of the federal budget and much of that interest is paid to foreign debt holders and is taken out of the United States.  (source:  U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt.)  Those Republican presidents liked to talk about the cost of social security and medicare (which are solvent), but have you ever heard them talk about the interest paid on the debt that they created because of their reckless fiscal policies?

 

It is past time for the American people to wake up to the Republican's scheme.  The federal government has the ability to pay for needed programs and services that are required if only our presidents were fiscally responsible and balanced the budgets.  No more excuses.  And if there is really any true conservatives out there, get your head out of the sand before it is too late.  A presidential election will be held in 9 months.  If the people blow this one, our country may never recover. 

 

Footnote:  It is hard to believe that not one question has been asked about this massive debt to any of the presidential candidates in any of the debates. 

 

Final Conclusion: President Clinton's fiscal and economic policies put America and its people first.  Conservative Republican Presidents, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43, put America and its people last with their warped ideology.

Barack Obama; Food for Thought

Obama says over and over again on the campaign trail and in the debates that the problem is Washington.  Does that mean he himself is the problem?  After all, he serves in Congress and should he be the Democratic nominee, and win the White House, he would surely want four more years in Washington.

 

The problem is actually not Washington but the elected officials themselves, including Obama.  Mr. Obama certainly has not distinguished himself with any major legislation he has sponsored or passed and in fact has been rather silent until he decided to run for the nomination.  Can anyone really remember any thing Obama has done since being elected to the Senate?  Every candidate should have to face that test; Obama has yet to.

 

Why is the news media pushing Senator Obama?  Like Bush in 2000, Obama is the least experienced candidate in the race.  If a lack of experience impresses the American voter, then why not Ralph Nader?  He has no political record or political experience, but a pretty good record on standing for the changes some seem to want.

 

If the people really want good government, how can people like Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd get only 1 or 2% of the vote?  Those two senators are capable leaders.  I have said before that the people have a right to choose and I would not want it any other way.  However, there is a disconnect somewhere.  Voters think it is in our best interest that our leaders should talk to the leaders of other countries even though we may not like them, yet they hesitate to vote for some candidates just because they are disliked.

 

The voting public needs to think this thing through.  Obama, during the last debate, said it was more important to inspire people than talking about policy or the issues.  Am I the only one who heard that statement?  Being an American and having the opportunity to vote is what inspires me.  I remember President Kennedy well and how he inspired the people, but he spoke to the issues and informed the people on what he would do if elected President.  He thought the people had a right to know.  He did not run and win just because he was inspirational.  Besides that, he had more experience than Obama does at that stage.  Kennedy was also well versed on the issues and he beat a sitting Vice-President.

 

My first choice to be the Democratic nominee when this process started was Senator Joe Biden.  I still wish he was in the running.  Now we are down to just two: Senators Clinton and Obama.  I thought Joe Biden had the most and best experience to handle the problems the country will face when Bush leaves office, and I still feel that way.

 

So now my choice is between Clinton and Obama and it goes to Clinton.  Both candidates have pluses and minuses, but I believe Clinton has more plusses, more experience on the problems this country faces, and has been more candid as to what policies she would follow if elected President.  She is the candidate more likely to make the changes necessary to advance America and its people.  I have no doubt that if she is the Democratic nominee, she will beat John McCain in the general election in November; I can't say the same about Obama. 

Bravo For The New York Philharmonic

On February 26, the New York Philharmonic performed a concert in North Korea that was broadcast live on radio and television.  What a great opportunity for our arts and entertainment to be exposed to the North Korean people.  President Kennedy promoted the Arts and Science and was very active in cultural exchanges because he knew the value of bringing people together.  He honored many  who gave their talents for the good of mankind.

 

The U.S. should be promoting the same thing with Cuba, instead of hanging on to worthless sanctions.  Sanctions have not changed Cuba in the last 50 years, just like the sanctions against Iran have not changed that country.  We should be promoting the Arts all over the world instead of promoting arrogance and so called "tough talk".  Arts and Science, if promoted with respect, will be accepted by all people, because everyone has a thirst for joy, entertainment, and education.

Many of our leaders today are detached from reality.  We invoke the name of Democracy and try to implement that with war and military might.  We have leaders who have failed to take that first step and show the world our true strength and value as a nation.  No nation or people will ever reach their potential nor will humanity reach its highest level of achievement without the Arts and Science.

 

So, to the New York Philharmonic, I say once again: BRAVO!  You have hopefully lifted the spirits of the Korean people and planted the seed to understanding America.  Hopefully, this cultural exchange will continue and spill over into other countries.  It is way over do. 

The Daily Dose---2/27

The Final Debate

I must say, I really did enjoy last night's debate.  I though the questions that NBC prepared were much more substantive and diverse than those picked out by CNN last week.  It's those questions that ordinary people don't think much about---like Kosovo, and Putin's successor---that really say a lot about the candidates running for office.  No offense meant to Sen. Clinton or Obama, but how much skill does it take to debate Iraq or healthcare these days?  They have debated them 100 times before and I think the American people get where they stand.  But these unexpected questions, which highlight the challenges facing the next President, give us a great insight into these candidates' minds.  One thing I will note, and maybe it's just me, but when Tim Russert asked about Putin's successors, he did, in fact, ask it openly---giving both Sen. Clinton and Obama a chance to jump at the question and answer it first.  The look on Obama's face said it all---he didn't have an answer, or, atleast, a decent one.  Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, paused, and then, dare I say, when Obama didn't answer, came to his rescue.  Now, if I was in Sen. Clinton's shoes, I would have said something like, "I think we should let Sen. Obama answer."  But she didn't, she took the question and then allowed Obama to, in essence, copy her answer, almost exactly, and pass it off as his own.  That could have been the moment where Obama slowed his momentum, not being able to answer a very important foreign policy question.  But she chose to help him...make of that what you will, but I find it interesting to say the least and I'm surprised the MSM hasn't picked up on it.  Other than that, the debate was, as I said, very substantive and very formal.  I thought that both Sen. Clinton and Obama performed well and both, I can confidently say, would beat McCain in a debate this fall.  

For Once, I Have Something Nice to Say...to a Republican

Yep, that's right, but I must warn you, don't get used to it.  I just want to take this time though to commend Sen. John McCain for decrying the actions and words of Bill Cummingham, a conservative radio host, who had some less than appropriate things to say about Barack Obama.  I just hope that McCain keeps his attacks up on those who engage in these type of tactics.  They are completely unnecessary and McCain needs to keep up the pressure on them.  Let's have a clean campaign based on the issues and facts at hand, not dirty tricks and falsehoods.   

Speaking of Dirty Tricks...

I'm really get sick and tired of this whole Barack "Hussein" Obama and Muslim thing.  Number one, Barack Obama is not a Muslim.  Number two though, it shouldn't matter if he was?  Seriously, does someone have to be a white, male Christian with a simple 1-2 syllable name to be President?  Maybe America should just focus on electing the right person for the job, regardless of gender, race, religion, or anything else.  Sure, Obama isn't a Muslim, but the religious right is practically insulting every person who isn't a Christian, essentially saying that they're unqualified for public office.  What's that document that says there shall be no religious test for office?  O, yea, that's right, it's the U.S. Constitution, the document our entire democracy is founded on.  Maybe the Republicans should take a look at it once and a while.  With that being said, this is my request for the religious right (even though they couldn't care less): 1) Stop lying about Barack Obama's faith and 2) stop demeaning people who might not follow the Christian faith----news flash: there's nothing wrong with that.  

The Daily Dose---2/25

March 4: How It Looks As Of Right Now

March 4, the date when voters in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont cast their votes for the Democratic nomination contest, is shaping up to be a split decision, at least according to new polling released today.  In Texas, which I predict as of right now going to Obama, a new CNN poll has Obama up by 4, while a new Rasmussen poll has Clinton with a 1% lead. Vermont, as expected, is heavily expected to go to Obama and it is the one state I can 100% say will go for him.  Rhode Island, on the other hand, is a state which I can confidently say will go to Clinton. She has maintained anywhere from a 10-15% lead there, depending on which recent poll you look at.  Ohio also appears to be leaning towards Clinton, but in the same way that Texas is leaning for Obama---meaning neither candidate really has a significant lead in either state and the races are still too early and close to call.  But, if I had to say right now, Clinton would win Ohio and Rhode Island.  Obama would win Texas and Vermont.  That's just how I see it currently.  Ask me about the race on Friday, and I'll probably be able to confidently predict the winners in all 4 states.

Am I Losing My Mind?

As I was eating a snack this afternoon, I tuned in to MSNBC's Tucker, where Tucker Calrson was interviewing Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader.  To my shock and horror, I actually found myself agreeing with Ralph on all the issues discussed, especially energy.  With that being said, I still disagree with Ralph on several of his positions that were not discussed, but it was a little shocking to find myself actually nodding in agreement with Nader.  But, let me be clear, this does not mean in anyway that I would support Nader in the election.  I firmly believe that a vote for Nader is a vote for a Republican.  It's that simple and I hope America realizes that this time around.

Absolutely Ridiculous Memo From Obama

I'll admit, Obama is growing on me, probably due to the fact that he will be the nominee, but today his campaign released a completely idiotic memo that blamed the Clinton campaign for distributing a photo of him wearing traditional Somali dress.  They accused the Clinton campaign of "fear-mongering" and said that they should be ashamed of themselves.  This is such a ridiculous thing because, for one, the picture wasn't even that bad, and two, why does it have to be the Clinton campaign who sent out the memo?  Obama needs to wake up and realize that he's not just facing the Clintons anymore, he's facing the right-wing slime machine.  As Maggie Williams said in a press release,

"Enough.  If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted."

In Defense of  Hillary...

Hillary has been slammed on the blogosphere for "mocking" Obama's message of change.  But, at least in my opinion, she has a point.  I have yet to get an answer from an Obama supporter about what exactly Obama will do to solve all our problems.  Sure, Obama is an excellent speaker and knows how to get thousands of people fired up, but what about when this campaign is over.  What about when Obama sits down in the Oval Office, and the friendly crowds are gone, and it's time for Obama to be President, to be Commander-in-Chief.  Can he handle it?  I certainly hope so, but I honestly don't know.  In fact, I can draw another potential comparison between Obama and Deval Patrick.  Patrick was a great speaker and knew how to energize a crowd, but as anyone in Massachusetts can tell you, when it came to get down to business, Patrick fell a little short in his first months as governor.  His inexperience prevented him from being ready "on day one".  With all the challenges America faces, I just can't help but feel that we need someone to be ready, "on day one".