New Yorkers to Obama: We'll Throw Our Own Bums Out, Thank You

A poll by Marist College in New York suggests that voters of all stripes think that President Obama overstepped when urging Governor David Paterson to not run for election in 2010. New Yorkers apparently aren't afraid to tell the Gov himself to take a hike, with 63% of all voters (D, R, and non-affiliated) believing Paterson should not seek the office in his own right.

Important takeaway: 65% of Dems, 1% more than Repubs, believe Paterson should not seek election.

(HT to TPM)

Big Ten shock

The Big Ten poll has some shocking numbers, so shocking that Matt Drudge won't touch them, putting Barack Obama ahead by double digits in all of the states they polled.


Big Ten Battleground Poll

So say we slide those Indiana EVs away from John McCain and to Barack Obama and we have Obama winning 348 to 190. And thus we have a bonafide landslide in the works. Add to that Quinnipiac having Obama up by 5 in Florida, and we move deeper into landslide territory: Obama 375, McCain 163.

If that's what it is, I think that's Obama's maximum potential for this election cycle. It will be hard for someone to make further inroads in places like Georgia, Texas, West VA, until that someone has 4 years of good leadership under his belt. I wish I could see the future, but I can safely predict November 4 will be a good night for America.

UPDATE:

Now with fancy-pants map.


-rl

I have a question that I would like to pose to my fellow bloggers on the right and the left: will this election be a national re-aligning election?

I believe that it will be. Barack Obama has strong appeal even in the quaintest and most remote areas of Georgia, giving me hope that it may be true generally in the South, hopefully ending the nearly 40-year long Southern Strategy of the Republicans. In fact, the states that I believe will remain reliably Republican for this election are as follows:

• Utah


• Arizona


• Wyoming


• Oklahoma


• Texas


• Idaho


• Kansas


• Nebraska


• Alabama

These states total only 83 electoral votes out of the 270 required to be elected to the Presidency.

These are the states that I think will be doggedly Democratic come November:

• California


• Washington


• New York


• Vermont


• Massachusetts


• Rhode Island


• Maryland


• Illinois


• Hawaii


• District of Columbia

Those 10 states total 154 electoral votes, over half of the required 270. Every other state, yes, even Alaska and Mississippi, are in play. I believe that this is not necessarily coming from a disapproval of the central "issues" of the Republican party, but rather the inability of the Republicans whom red states have elected to follow through on their promises, id est: the damaged Republican brand. Thus, I don't think that Barack Obama's election to the Presidency will constitute an endorsement of Democratic policy (for the time being), but rather will constitute a repudiation of the Republican party's inability to function as a government ethically. Now come 2010's midterm elections, we will be able to judge then whether or not the American public does accept a leftward shift in policy...

Undoubtedly the Republicans will suffer legislative losses as well and fall into an even smaller minority in both the House and Senate (55 Ds, 2 Is voting with Ds, and 43 Rs) and potentially having as few as 185 seats in the House. Potential for Republican losses may be even greater.

So, all that said, I throw the question to y'all once again: Will this be a realigning election?

-rl

Who is Governor Brian Schweitzer?

Donklephant asks the same question and posits an idea which I have previously mulled.

Governor Schweitzer is a very popular Democratic governor in an otherwise very red state (Montana) and, as Justin notes, he's pragmatic and can walk the bipartisan walk like he talks it. While it can be said that he'll just be the VP were he Senator Obama's choice as running mate, I think Governor Schweitzer would provide valuable advice to candidate and President Obama.

As for this talk of Senator Webb, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with him just on the basis of having two legislators on the ticket. I'd rather have one person with legislative experience and one person with executive experience (see Clinton/Gore) as a ticket. It provides a balance on the ticket that goes beyond simple demographic balance, but also reflects a balance in leadership positions.

Those are my thoughts.

-rl

Unity and Uniting

As I sit here in my office I wax mildly philosophical regarding the state of this great nation of ours and how I just felt like lobbing out a vitriolic post re: Hillary Clinton's speech last night. Then I read some things that Jill had to say regarding the whole matter and I found my center. Ultimately, if one believes what Hillary says, Hillary does want to work to ultimately fight for the ideals she espouses. Her record in the Senate echoes that by and large, so her words do not ring entirely hollow.

Over the course of an intense and exciting electoral process, people tend to exhaust themselves in their words, sometimes causing them to sound like they've run out of ideas (so put by Mary Matalin about Barack Obama this morning on CNN) or that they've lost tact (RFKgate on Hillary's end). Ultimately, though, the two minds behind the words ring full of ideas that will work to better serve America. Can the same be said of John McCain? Probably, but I disagree with his ideas, because I feel that a market left to roam freely will be a market that cannibalizes itself. That continuing to occupy Iraq isn't the best way to bring this conflict to a reasonable and successful conclusion. President Bush has certainly done enough to keep that from happening.

Whether the folks who read and author pieces for websites like HumanEvents and Newsmax wish to admit it or not, whether a President Clinton or Obama were elected, America will not become a new Socialist Republic of Badtopia, Israel will not be annihilated by Iran through the willful ignorance of the American leader, and they certainly won't take your ball and go home.

Let us then unite behind our candidate. I forgive Hillary for all of her statements, though I still wonder what compelled her to say many of the things she did (and more importantly did not) say, forgive her support of the gas-tax holiday, and forgive her support of going to Iraq in the first place. I will forgive you Senator Clinton for your supporters effectively threatening to rend the Democratic Party if you were not the nominee, looking out for you instead of the general goals of everyone else. And I can forgive you for calling Barack Obama misogynistic without giving pause to the words coming out of the mouth of your husband, the ex-President.

But now, will you forgive us? Will you forgive our screeches of racism and four-and-five letter words? Will you forgive us for our stunned disbelief with your repeated stating that you had won more votes than did Senator Obama, rendering all votes cast in caucuses meaningless? Will you forgive us for our equally stunned disbelief at your insistence that you could compete in a general election in purported swing states because you had won the primary elections in those same states? Will you forgive us for our anger when your supporters insist that they will be voting for you via write in instead of, again, looking for the greater good by combining forces with Senator Obama in electing a Democrat against Senator McCain in November?

I will forgive. Will you, will your supporters?

-rl

Hillary Clinton, epitome of class...

... will not answer Barack Obama's calls. From the New York Post:

Singling her out for praise for her stance on universal health care and poverty and calling her campaign "barrier-breaking," he said, "Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton."

He tried to call her twice following the speech - but got her voicemail. She finally returned the call as his plane was about to fly out of St. Paul to Washington.

Well, at least not until later.

By the way, in the speech last night, Hilldawg, by invoking 9/11 you went to further prove that you are shameless in continuing the fear-mongering that current administration has engaged in while condemning those who do the same against you.

Let's put all this talk of "dream ticket" aside. For Hillary Clinton to be vice president is insufficient in her eyes, as last night's speech went out of its way to prove. At this point it's more likely that Joe Lieberman would be Obama's running mate than HRC... and as vice president, she wouldn't be one to trust. She should stick to her job in the Senate until the fine Democrats of New York wise up and pull a Ned Lamont on her in 2012.

That's all for now.

-rl

What do the Jayhawks and Hillary Clinton have in common?

Nothing.

But that's not what Clinton wants you to believe:

Crossing paths with rival Barack Obama at a union event Tuesday morning, Hillary Clinton compared herself to the come-from-behind NCAA champion Kansas Jayhawks.

“A few of you were up late watching that game last night,” she told a gathering of the Communications Workers of America in Washington, D.C. “Great comeback, right? My kind of outcome.”

The Jayhawks tied the Memphis Tigers with just 2.1 seconds left to go in regulation before scoring an overtime victory Monday night.

She said that the union members knew what it was like to go up against big odds: “You know what it’s like to be told to go away, to quit. I know a little something about that too,” she said, to cheers from the crowd.

"My kind of outcome"

The problem, of course, is that Hillary Clinton still holds a lead in Pennsylvania and that even if she wins the contest in PA, she can't accurately portray herself as a comeback. It's like when she says she's the underdog... how can you be the underdog when you were the heavy favorite going into the Democratic primaries?

Feh to you, Hillary Clinton, you lying Liarly McLiarson. FEH.

-rl

A really random find...

In an usual show of an attempt at transparency from the Bush administration, just over two months ago the TSA launched a blog to "inform" the travelling public what goes on with the TSA and to spread propaganda (not necessarily being a negative connotation in this instance) on the government's activities. They seek to dispel the "myths" set forth by various news agencies, namely CNN, and convince the travelling public that things are safer than ever.

Like I said... an interesting find.

I found it via Blogger's featured blogs Blogs of Note while meandering online.

In other news: A PPP poll (or as Drudge had it labelled: SHOCK POLL) has Obama up by 2 in PA. McCain sits by and grins as the Dems go at each other's throats... but in an odd way, I think this extended process will actually help the Dems, it keeps the news focus on them, and as long as they kiss and make up at the end of it all, Obama will have no problem beating McCain in November.

That said, I'm now rooting for Bill Richardson to be the Secretary of State. I think Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer - or if he wants to reach out to ex-Hillaryphiles -Indiana Senator Evan Bayh might be good choices to fill the Vice Presidential slot and Hillary can finish out her Senatorial and political career rather ignominiously. Go team Billary!

-rl

Florida, the demise of Giuliani, and a Clintonian "victory"

For those in the blogosphere who have been living under a rock or in Iraq for the last week, in particular the last twenty-four hours, brace yourselves:

Florida had a primary yesterday and a "New Yorker" won.

To the surprise of no one, however, it wasn't the "real" New Yorker. Rudy Giuliani came in a weak third place, just barely edging out Mike Huckabee for fourth place, in the the Republican primary. Arizona Senator John McCain took 35%, slightly ahead of Mitt Romney, to take all of Florida's Republican delegates.

Of course McCain is not from New York, so that leaves the other "primary" to parse.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton took 50% of the votes cast in Florida's symbolic primary. Much like the Michigan primary, Clinton pandered to disenfranchised Floridians in order to score a victory of zero delegates. For those unfamiliar with the situations of Michigan and Florida, use Wikipedia, because it's not worth explaining the stupidity of front-loading primaries.

That being said, I disagree with the DNC's decision to strip both states of all delegates, I disagree with the states' unwillingness to comply, and I disagree with Billary Rodton Clinham's campaigning in both states despite a so-called moratorium on campaigning in them. All in all, it's a disagreeable situation.

WSJ has an article on A4 today on how former President Jimmy Carter waxes sympathetically for Barack Obama, but still has not issued an endorsement. On the same page, another article also looks into how the primaries have become "racially divisive" - though I could not disagree more with that meme. The only matter divisive about these primaries are the Clintons and how they will stop at nothing to get Bill a 3rd and 4th term via Hillary's proxy. Barack Obama is the Great American Hope and there's nothing racially chraged about that.

-rl

One Hundred Hours

Democratic leaders of the legislature have an opportunity to make good on several campaign pledges.

O, furies, lay your arms at rest.