Obama leads Romney by 18 in Michigan, Santorum by 26...

[Drunken Irishman]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/NBC_News-Marist_Poll_Michigan_Annotated_Questionnaire_February_2012.pdf

Obama won Michigan by about 16 points in '08 against McCain - so, he's slightly over performing against Romney and absolutely destroying Santorum.

Yeah, Michigan is a Democratic state and it's unlikely Obama loses, but it's also a state Kerry only won by about three points in '04 and Gore won it by five in '00 - so, Obama is certainly outpacing the last two Democratic nominees. That's good news, because, as I've said before on this forum, states rarely act in a vacuum. When Obama is doing this well in Michigan, it probably means it will carry over to other states, potentially bumping his total one or two points more in states like Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.

[VWolf]

1. One should never be complacent, but

considering our President hasn't even started campaigning, and considering the pubbies will be eating their own for another few months, this is a very good sign.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. Obama is a stronger candidate than Kerry or Gore. They make a weak comparison.

A better one is Obama v. Clinton, since they both are incumbents and much stronger candidates. Obama and Clinton both face weaker challengers as well.

[politicasista]

4. Yep. That' what the media said

Gore and Kerry were snoozefests who couldn't connect. It's true!:

But if the media lies about Clinton and Obama, it's false, but if they lie about Gore or Kerry, it must be true.

Obama also had a strong DNC infrastructure than supported him (thanks to Dean). Something that Gore and Kerry didn't have (i.e. McAuliffe).

But Kerry's campaign sucked so bad that Obama had some of them on his staff. (More power to him)

Love it when people slam Gore and Kerry just to praise Clinton and Obama (and that may not have been the intent).

Gore and Kerry have more integrity in their bare hands than Clinton ever will.


Glad Obama shows more respect for both of them, too bad the Democratic Party, Democrats, and Liberals never do and continue to throw them under the bus.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

6. You are right on ALL points!!

[politicasista]

7. Wasn't trying to come that hard

but people talk how great a candidate Clinton was, but ignore that he had Perot taking votes away from Bush I, and a lousy economy.

Obama had a better war room than Clinton ever did because Obama had Kerry people on his team willing to learn from the mistakes of the past. Plus, Clinton had far more hours of DNC coverage and a fair media than Kerry ever did.

Obama had a rebuilt DNC infastructure (thanks to the Kerry team, Dean, etc), social networking, and inherited gigantic quagmires from the Bush years. Not to say that the Gore and Kerry campaigns didn't make mistakes (still blame Brazille and Shrum for the critical snafus), but that doesn't mean we should disrespect them and throw them under the bus because they "lost."

People will always blame Gore and Kerry and hope that history will them judge them harshly unlike Obama and Clinton because they were "stronger" and had no celebrities around, but Gore is doing his own thing now with CC and Current TV, and Kerry (whether people like it or not) is still supporting Obama and a respectable Senator (or he should be).

Just tired of seeing decent Dems be hated on because they didn't win and were perceived as "weak." They still have a lot to off to the Dem Party and to the liberal, progresive agenda.


JMHO. Peace.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. I hear you, especially on the Clinton points. But I still think that both Kerry and Gore were weak

candidates. Not because they "lost," which is questionable, but because I don't think they fought hard enough and allowed the wingnuts to set the narrative and get away with blatant lies.

On the Clinton issue, I totally agree!!!

[politicasista]

9. Interesting

The Boss didn't think Kerry was "weak."

And there are Kerry supporters that went to a celebration honoring the Senator said that no one dissed him for not being a fighter, but guess perception is reality now. And many thought Gore was not as bad as people thought, though missteps were made.


If Kerry was so "weak" as you claim, and couldn't connect, how did he draw big crowds? They came to see The Boss, Bill and others.


But me understands that no one will answer this question because there some (not all) Obama supporters that still hate him and will never forgive him for beating their favorite in 04. That's fine.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Well, I'm only giving you my opinion on this issue and perhaps perception is reality.

I'm a fan of both Kerry and Gore and now believe that they are important leaders in the Democratic Party. I do agree with you, however, that the Democrats treat their candidates who lose elections as pariahs after they lose.

[politicasista]

15. Ok.

Sounds fair enough. If the last two threads were over the top lol!, that wasn't the intent. Just doing a little venting.

Back to the OT, Glad President Obama is still doing well nationally and in MI. He should be (or is going to be) re-elected, but we can't let our guards down.


Peace.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Every Democrat has their pitfalls...

Obama is not the perfect candidate. Clinton wasn't the perfect candidate.

But I do think they're better than Al Gore at interacting with the crowds. I felt Kerry was a decent campaigner, a solid debater and a guy who was put in a tough position (defeating a sitting president whose popularity hadn't bottomed out, had been swiftboated by the media and struggled with past statements and votes - which happens with senators, unfortunately).

Still, Gore, I think, ran a very tepid campaign. I felt he needlessly accepted too much outside advice and didn't run as Al Gore until it was too late. The final 48 hours of his campaign in 2000, though, was masterful - maybe the greatest two days in campaign history. People forget that, up until those final days, Bush led Gore nationally 4-7 points.

He only closed the gap A) with Bush's DUI revelation and his comments on social security (that it wasn't a government program) and B) because he became Al Gore.

Gore and his campaign team bungled, badly, a great deal of that campaign. Gore deserves some blame, as does the media and, especially, his team.

Whoever told Gore to sigh in that one debate should have been fired the next day. Whoever told Gore to not use Clinton properly, should have been fired.

It's not attacking to point out the flaws in each campaign because I think we can learn from those flaws.

Because of Kerry's flaws, Democrats realized you needed to forego public financing to have any chance. Because of Kerry's and Gore's electoral flaws (focusing on such a narrow path to victory), we saw the 50 State Strategy from Dean and a far more broader electoral map from Obama in '08 (and we'll see it again in '12).

And I hope, in four, the Democratic nominee is looking at the successes and failures of the Obama campaign to help better their campaigns.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. Wasn't it Bob Frum who ran both Gore's and Kerry's campaigns? And yet, he continues to make

the rounds and counsel Democrats. I don't know why we should rely on what he has to say.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. Shrum...and yes, he worked on both campaigns...

Also worked on the failed Bob Kerrey campaign in '92, Gephardt's 1988 primary campaign and helped Dukakis prepare for his debate against Bush in the general that same year.

So, his track record is...well...awful.

Oh, and he was a speech writer for Teddy Kennedy in '88 - another loss.

[Arkana]

3. Michigan isn't "officially" a Democratic state--not enough, anyway, for people to stop calling it

a swing state.

It's getting bluer, though. Between the unpopularity of the current Republican governor and the general shittiness of the GOP, I think the numbers out of there will be eye-popping this time around.

[Johnny2X2X]

10. FOX NEWS

FOX NEWS will report this as Obama is near tie with Romeny and Santorum in Michigan, America ready to reject communist socialism?