home

Obama Wins Maine Caucus

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:48:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

CNN declares Obama the winner of the Maine Caucus. He leads by 58-41 with 70% of the precincts reporting. As many of us expected, it appears Barack Obama will win another February contest.

As Jeralyn reported earlier, Maine has 24 delegates. CNN projects that Obama takes 15 to Clinton's 9 for a 6 delegate gain.

Clinton is very likely to lose every contest until March 4, when big states Ohio and Texas have their contests. What effect will this string of losses have on the campaign narrative?

Update(TL): Comments almost at 250, time to close this thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

< Hillary and Obama Ask Edwards for Support | Theories >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Wins Maine Caucus | 249 comments (249 topical)
    CNN just updated -- holding at 57-42 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    with 59% in.  Crowley is saying they don't know which possible strongholds for either candidate have not yet reported.  (Not good coverage, CNN -- that told me no more than the updated numbers on your site.)

    This seems the likely range (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    what we do not know is what the delegate breakdown will be.

    [ Parent ]
    If they breakdown proportionally (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:09:33 PM EST
    then it is 14-10 or so. Maybe 13-11.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks -- I was trying to calculate (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:20:25 PM EST
    that and decided I needed more caffeine.

    [ Parent ]
    Good Question (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    What effect will this string of losses have on the campaign narrative?

    The Obama campaign will run with the electability and inevitability theme.  I have a hard time thinking about what the Clinton campaign is going to run with.  How do you verbalize "Hey, just wait for Penn and TX" then I'll show you what I've got.  

    Texas and Ohio are in 3 weeks (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:04:55 PM EST
    It will be billed as Hillary's last stand and frankly it will be.

    My own take it this narrative is not that bad for Clinton.

    3 weeks of Obama being the frontrunner Hillary fighting back in states favorable to her.

    Expectations well under control.

    Not that bad for her at all.

    What worried me for Hillary was the money problem but that appears to have been solved.

    A new chapter of the campaign begins after Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]

    The more I think about it (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    The more I think you are right that Super Tuesday proved the meaninglessness of momentum.  Obama is building up a great head of steam right now, but so what.  He had amazing momentum going into Super Tuesday (South Carolina, Ted Kennedy, media narrative) and it didn't help him one bit in the big states like CA and MA.

    The reason why Iowa has momentum (and as we saw this year, even that has its limits) is because it's the only data point.  This far into the game, the narrative has been established that it's a close contest.  Public opinion in Texas is not going to wildly swing back and forth based upon what happens in places like Maine and Virginia.

    [ Parent ]

    And there are 3 weeks before voting (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    in Texas and Ohio.

    It is a new ballgame there. Indeed, with a more favorable OVERALL terrain for Clinton if you ask me.

    IF EVER the Media was going to turn on Obama the time is now.

    They get to vett him now as the frontrunner.

    [ Parent ]

    After thinking about it (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:09:41 PM EST
    I don't think the MSM is really helping Obama here.  For the next three weeks we're going to have the networks just dogging Clinton and raising expectations for Obama and look how that worked out last time (New Hampshire).  Should this happen again, and I'm not saying it will, will Obama get a rep for not being able to put the big one away?  

    [ Parent ]
    Hard to say (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    My Obama is a Media Darling theory will REALLY be put to the test these next 3 weeks.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:05:12 PM EST
    is now trading at 68.5 on Intrade.  That's not his all-time high water mark, but it's very close.

    So there can be no doubt that he has now become the front-runner in the public imagination.  He will be at something like 75 or 80 after Tuesday's primaries  (a great money-making opportunity for you, by the way!).  But despite what silly diarists at silly sites may write, the Clinton campaign is going to keep going until March 4!

    [ Parent ]

    Intrade (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    is useless. Always has been.

    [ Parent ]
    Not at all (none / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    It is a very accurate measure of conventional wisdom, something that is hard to pick up from reading a bunch of partisans on blogs.

    It is, of course, worthless as a PREDICTIVE measure.  But if Obama is at 95 in Maryland and Virginia (he is), that certainly serves to demonstrate that "almost everyone thinks Obama will win Maryland and Virginia."

    [ Parent ]

    Actually not (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:21:08 PM EST
    I do not believe CW has Obama with a 68% chance of winning.

    [ Parent ]
    Then there's money on the table (none / 0) (#115)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:22:54 PM EST
    you could make a killing :)

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (none / 0) (#188)
    by seand on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    And that's exactly why prediction markets works, as a measure of CW

    [ Parent ]
    I picked up a bunch at 55 (none / 0) (#92)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:08:44 PM EST
    On Saturday. Looking forward to cashing out on 2/20 at the height of everything.

    [ Parent ]
    Good thinking (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:10:05 PM EST
    Then you can root for Obama without worrying about your money.

    [ Parent ]
    You could be right... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:12:41 PM EST
    I dunno.  For national press I think you are closer to the truth; with local press the problem is that he isn't being portrayed yet as the front-runner per se.  He is being portrayed as a the little engine that could.  "Could" mind you, not shall.  People are still stunned and can't believe that he has gone toe-to-toe with Clinton (who dominated the press during 1st cycle as the inevitable party nominee) and the fact that he may have out-witted her has earned some begrudging respect here.  Folks think it  bodes well for dealing with Republican shennanigans in the GE.  Besides, I am not sure that a few weeks is really long enough for viewers/readers to get bored with the feel-good story that Obama is representing thus far.  

    Overall, my opinion is that Clinton still has the edge here, but I feel it's a diminishing edge, not one that is on the rebound in the interim between statewide primaries, etc., as many seem to hope for.  This is a kooky election, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt, but I think Clinton would do better here in TX if the election was held in a few days, rather than few weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    I live in Austin and I think you're right (none / 0) (#118)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:24:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Texas is (none / 0) (#49)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:56 PM EST
    a red state. It always has gone red for the last several elections. How can we argue that Alaska or Idaho don't count because their red states but Texas does?

    [ Parent ]
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Shawn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:31:37 PM EST
    Many actual Democrats live there.

    Like me. :)

    [ Parent ]

    There is a Democrat in every Red State. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    May you thrive and multiply.

    [ Parent ]
    Last I looked (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    htey are counting the delegates from Alaska.

    [ Parent ]
    I should (none / 0) (#89)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:06:24 PM EST
    have been more clear. I'd read that these caucus' Obama was winning involved very few voters and that the States would eventually go Red in November so they shouldn't carry much weight. Not much solace to the voters but the argument made sense to me. But Maine usually goes Blue and Texas always goes red, so when I hear folks say "don't feel bad about how Hillary is doing this weekend, just wait til Texas, OH and PA, it seems inconsistant since Texas is a red state.

    [ Parent ]
    I was talking about the nomination (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:10:52 PM EST
    We Dems ain't winning Alaska OR Texas.

    [ Parent ]
    This year. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    Or next.

    [ Parent ]
    Momentum As Long As You Don't Look Behind Curtain (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cdalygo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    It's inevitable momentum only if you buy the meme of caucuses equaling primary votes.

    (I"m not trying to hammer people over the head here. I'm merely pointing out the stance the Clinton people have to take.)

    Besides with the frontrunner comes a certain set of buyers' remorse. Even if the press doesn't want to start questioning Obama, other folks will be taking a closer look.

    The hardest fight in any political race or game or life is not giving up in the third quarter. We are in the third quarter folks and down. Contrary to popular belief, however, we are not in the 4th quarter with two minutes to go.

    But from now on the Clinton folks have to be ahead of the story. It has to be made clear that Wisconsin allows for cross-over voting and that the Republicans are pushing it. (That's what should have happened in Nebraska.)

    The other thing that needs to happen is that she needs to win BIG in the three big states. That will set syllogism/theme going into the convention.

    We may get discouraged in the very short time frame of instant communication. But the amount of money raised this week shows me that view is not shared by other folks. Further there will be two debates and the 60 minute interviews between now and the Big Three.

    aah. A football analogy. I like it. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    We will pretend we are the Giants.

    [ Parent ]
    After this weekend (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Coldblue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    I guess we will find out the depth of Hillary's resolve. Sure, she wasn't supposed to win Nebraska or even Louisiana, but Washington and now what appears to be a significant loss in Maine have to give her cause for concern. Changing the campaign manager is the first step in what I expect will be a different Hillary on the stump.

    And if she needs more money, I'll contribute my 'stimulus' money to her: what better way to help the long term economy?

    These strings of wins for Obama will (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ruthy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:33:08 PM EST
    continue if the Hillary team don't start attacking Obama.  

    It was so good when Bill Clinton attacked BO on his Iraq voting record in New Hampshire.  They need to start pointing out their differences again.  As of now, I perceive that most things Hillary says, BO picks up on and declare it for himself as a "change".  It is very difficult for me to listen to BO, especially when he starts to attacking Hillary.  He attacks and attacks and the Hillary team just let it go.  They have got to stop BO, but the only way they can do that is to start responding to his negative comments about her.  I believe the MSM has so intimidated the Hillary team, that they are afraid to speak.

    MoveOn will literally destroy Hillary if they don't start attacking BO.

    I am praying for a miracle for Hillary.  

    The more that blogs like TL (none / 0) (#185)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:09:03 PM EST
    counter the MSM bias, the more Hillary will be able to go on the offensive.  To date, it would only have worked against her, and it has.  The MSM environment controls a lot of what is possible in our elections.

    [ Parent ]
    Haha! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:34:37 PM EST
    Just realized that for those folks who have Clinton down as Svengali...well, this all plays into her masterful plan!

    (see, we can spin a win, too!)

    Caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Eva on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    are actually really inspiring events. You not only cast a nomination vote, you contribute items to the state party's platform, etc. They're kind of party rallies and, at Dem caucuses at least, there are all kinds of folks from moms and dads with babies to seniors and all kinds of colors and classes. Very cool.

    Oh, and you can, in my home state at least, just walk in, cast a nomination vote, and walk out if you so choose.

    But disenfranchising (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    Because people who have family responsibilities or work, and can't show up (or people stationed in Iraq, say) can't caucus.

    For all the "party atmosphere" it's still an undemocratic travesty.

    [ Parent ]

    No-one has to be disenfranchised. (none / 0) (#150)
    by jnicola on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:45:56 PM EST
    Absentee votes are possible in the Maine caucuses.

    http://www.mainedems.org/2008AbsenteeRequestForm.aspx

    [ Parent ]

    The problem is more than whether (none / 0) (#248)
    by Lena on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:47:27 PM EST
    you have an absentee ballot opportunity... It's that the system is stacked against:

    mothers with young kids, especially poor ones who can't find babysitters
    introverts
    the poor
    those who work on caucusing day
    the disabled (depending on state)
    those who are easily intimidated
    those who are reluctant to reveal their political affiliations to their friends and neighbors

    I'm sure there's more...

    For example, my brother and spouse went to caucus in WA this Saturday, and one of them had to go home because their kids started acting up after the first 15 minutes or so. One lost vote.

    And what was described as a typical caucus sounds more like a Democratic party committee meeting, which are notoriously badly attended, and feature a few activists making decisions for a much larger community. That may be a way to run the day-to-day business of a party, but not a way to decide on a nominee, essentially doing so on behalf of the regular nonpolitical Democratic voters in the community.

    I have to admit that although I've never liked caucuses, I also never really thought about it much before this campaign season. It just sounds like a disenfranchising system, which a few people greatly enjoy, but which scares off the rest.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I think he just baited Bill Clinton. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:09:59 PM EST
    CNN just showed his speech and he went into all the losses the Democrats had during his administration. The House, governors, etc. He kind of dissed Florida and Ohio a little too.

    He said she can't get past the politics of the past fifteen years where you start out 47-47 and then "everything else is just Florida and Ohio I guess". He will appeal to Independents and disillusioned Republicans. Yuck.

    I don't know how Bill Clinton will have the self control to not answer that.

    "Just Florida and Ohio" (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST
    Did he REALLY say that?

    [ Parent ]
    The article I saw (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    said something like:47 to 47 and 5% undecided who all live in FL or OH I guess.
    I am looking for the exact quote

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, that's it. The other 5%....Thanks. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:28:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So winning 53-47 (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:48:00 PM EST
    not a win now?

    Obama is 60 or bust?

    Interesting. I wonder how serious he is about all that.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, he did say that (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:41:51 PM EST
    See, he gets cocky when he's winning.

    Just watched him on 60 Minutes, too, where he said that his campaign did not run negative, that wasn't the kind of guy he was.

    I wish someone would juxtapose the clips.

    (and I heard elsewhere that he was going to talk about his coke use, but he didn't; however, Katie Couric ticked me off trying to do the, "tell me about it, girlfriend" crap.  Who cares if she gets tired?)

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (none / 0) (#165)
    by lilburro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    I only caught the Hillary interview but I thought it was kind of dumb.  "Were you the girl who always raised her hand in class?"  Said like it's a bad thing.  So annoying.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes. It's his Alexandria speech I think. He said (none / 0) (#120)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:25:32 PM EST
    Ohio with a kind of snarky laugh. Maybe his arrogance will do him in. He refers to himself as Barack and that bugs me.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM EST
    If someone can lead me to the clip, I would greatly appreciate it.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by zyx on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    reminds me of George Bush.

    I really hate that.  Gives me the willies.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't find the laugh (none / 0) (#134)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:39:30 PM EST
    snarky at all. He was being funny, I guess it's all in how you receive it.

    [ Parent ]
    What was funny in that line? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    Maybe I missed something.

    [ Parent ]
    funny as in irony (none / 0) (#170)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    acknowledging that the prior elections came down to close votes in Ohio and Florida. 47% of the country in one direction, 47% in another, and 5% undecided, that all live in FL or OH, I guess.


    [ Parent ]
    Um (none / 0) (#214)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    That is not funny. That is fact. Here is a hint, it is a fact THIS YEAR too.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not arguing that (none / 0) (#230)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    I just felt that Teresa completely mischaracterised what he said. He did not dis FL or OH, he did not say "everything else is just Ohio and Florida, I guess" (her quotation marks, not mine). Let's be honest, BOTH candidates have their faults, and things that turn off certain people. I find the quest to bash him for everything by some posters a little off putting. I realize plenty of Clinton supporters have the same complaints about the Obama supporters.
    How will we come together and elect a candidate in November? Or will we just let the GOP dictate what America looks like?

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't this the 50 State strategy though? (none / 0) (#109)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:19:34 PM EST
    If every election comes down to the dems needing to pick up FL and/or OH to win, we are going to keep losing the presidency.

    Which candidate can do that is of course an open question. But I think it's a valid point that the Dems need to play offense and find a way to go after red states; make the Repubs play defense.

    [ Parent ]

    Not if we win FL and Ohio (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    Interestingly WISHING that it was not the elctoral map does not make it so.

    We are not going to win Idaho, Alaska or North Dakota this year. Or Texas.

    [ Parent ]

    Well... (none / 0) (#183)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    we did lose the last two elections, because of Ohio and Florida. The last two elections had us playing mostly defense. I'm not saying we have to win Utah or anything, but starting to pick away at borderline Republican strongholds in the Mountain West, Southwest, and maybe a border state or two would be a good start.

    [ Parent ]
    Elections happen one at a time (none / 0) (#211)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM EST
    So the first time, we lost the election in Florida.

    The next time, we lost the election in Ohio.

    We don't know where this one's battleground will be -- but I bet that the Republicans are planning it.  And plan to take that state by surprise again.  So expect it to be in yet another region.

    Watch the swing states.  And watch the Midwest along the Mississippi (excluding Illinois.  I fear it will be the closest state last time, my state. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    We've ALWAYS had a 50 state strategy (none / 0) (#223)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    for presidential elections...what Dean's 50 state strategy was rolled out to do, was start winning state legislatures, governorships and congressional districts and senate seats that we normally wouldn't do...
    Part 1, rebuild infrastructure
    Part 2, recruit candidates that can win...in many cases candidates that are more like a Republican than a Democrat (think our version of Mike Blumberg).

    But it doesn't mean suspension of disbelief in a presidential election...some states no matter how much $ we pour in, or people we put on the ground, we aren't going to win (think Utah) and some states can go either way...states that are trending purple have a lot less to do with changing minds (which is actually very hard to do) and a lot more to do with economics and job creation, there is often more "science" behind political science than people recognize...it ain't all about wearing a Obama "Che" shirt and getting your friends to do so too...

    [ Parent ]

    Its the West they are after (none / 0) (#231)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:55:42 PM EST
    The West, NV, NM, AZ etc many have Dem Governors it is the Hispanic Vote that will move the Party the South is a loss and the NE has turned Blue.  But thats going to take a more professional approach then what we are seeing from Party leadership, they dont seem to have their act together at all.he South is a loss and the NE has turned Blue.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well Good (none / 0) (#204)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    ..Luck if he thinks he can win a GE without either but he is correct Ohio will not support and Obama, LOL.  He is not winning any big states and for a reason women and Hispanics are not going to move to him period.  But your are right he is playing the victim against the establishment and he has started laying the ground work to charge his opponents are swift boating him all this along with targeting  the delegate rich caucuses is exactly what Axelrod and Patrick did in Mass.  The vote there shows the same problems Obama would have if he were the Dem nominee, slipping in is different then winning support across demographics. And we already had the victim card once I don't know about any of you but it wont move me inflame the believers maybe but my guess their maxed out.

    Ohio is not that far off..hang in there and dont read Huff Post ..And if you hear any Clintons are being meanies poor little Obama dont play along.


    [ Parent ]

    SORE losers (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by northcoaster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:19:46 PM EST
    I don't get it. Obama has obviously pulled out more supporters in almost every state for his rallies than Hillary has at hers. And he has more show up at the cacuses. o why do you all seem to want to diss the system?

     I went to our local caucus in Minnesota and I have never seen so many people show up in past. years.  Obama won 6"1 in our caucus and we elected Keith Ellison  to Congress - so liberal is our middle name.
    Many of them were neighbors that I know have always been republicans - they have had it with the GOP, Bush and the Iraq war. They truly wanted Obama. What part of this is so hard for die hard fans of Hillary to get? She is great in her own right but she just doesn't light the same fire.

    Because Fewer Dems Participate in Caucuses (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:40:59 PM EST
    More democrats vote in primaries than will participate in a caucus.  Caucuses are not designed to bring out large numbers of people and usually don't.  This year they've brought out more but still not as many as primaries have.

    They're great for folks who can go and for folks who like standing up and showing their support.  Not everyone can go because of work and other commitments.  Not everyone likes standing up in a room full of people and talking about their candidate or showing support.  I don't think we totally understand the social dynamics of caucuses and how they might affect various groups.

    And keeping down the number of participants is by design. They  can say party building all they want, but this is about democratic party activists having control of the delegates and other issues and not wanting to give it up.

    I'd also add that winning a primary in a state like California is much more like the kind of organizing and effort a nominee needs to win the GE than winning a caucus.  So it's not terribly telling about a candidates' strengths.

    We're stuck with them this year.  I understand that.  But we shouldn't be stuck with them in 2012.  And, yes, I'm still angry that my vote was worth 1/4 the number of pledged delegates as a Washington caucus participant because so few democrats participate in the Washington caucus system.  

    [ Parent ]

    I did not lose (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    I hate to break it to Obama supporters but I have hated the caucus system FOREVER!!

    The funny thing is I am sure you folks would hate them as much as I do if Obama did not perform well in them.

    My dislike of them is not situational.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you ever read before you post? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:49:33 PM EST
    Sorry, but we have been over this again and again. You can find the reasons caucuses are disenfranchising if you really look.

    Rallies aren't debates, and they aren't votes. Caususes are not primaries, they appeal to a certain demographic - the same demographic as Obama - and leave other people out of the process.

    There are more important things in a democracy than "Yay, my guy won!" Things like fairness, equality, everyone's right to vote. Caucuses give extra weight to certain votes and none at all to others.

    [ Parent ]

    Not sore, but tender (none / 0) (#149)
    by ROK on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    Both sides seem to be "sore" losers and I think this is because the Dems have been burnt so badly in the past two elections, that any loss needs to be denied and every win needs to be overplayed.

    Obama has had some huge wins and I think it's sad that Hillary supporters choose to reduce it to something other than that. Both are running very different, but very effective races.

    I've been a TL reader for years and this is the first time I have seen fellow readers act like such children.

    BTD has it right, a win is a win and they both are doing it well...

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (none / 0) (#189)
    by dwightkschrute on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    I think Clinton supporters here feel as if this a haven from unfair treatment by the press and other prominent blogs (a la Kos) and sometimes get caught up venting those frustrations. And I think the Obama supporters on here sometimes feel things veer too much into slanted partisanship in the other direction (a la Taylor Marsh).

    [ Parent ]
    Not Sore (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    Hillary will come back in Ohio then Tx..

    [ Parent ]
    Are you Hillary folks pounding absinthe... (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    because Kool-aid isn't strong enough to prompt this level of denialism.

    I want to make sure I've got everything clear:

    1. Caucuses don't count

    2. States with lots of black people don't count

    3. Obama has not won any primaries...except for South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, and Missouri. (How are Maryland, DC and Virginia looking? Whoops, they don't count b/c of #2)

    4. Obama can't win white voters, except in Iowa, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, Washington, and Maine

    5. Obama's having received the most votes as of Feb. 10 doesn't count because Democrats who live in red states have no rightful say in picking their party's nominee

    6. Conversely, plebiscites that don't meet minimal standards of legitimacy have to accepted as valid elections...just because

    7. Hillary planned on campaigning long past Feb. 5, firing her campaign manager, loaning herself $5 million, and trapping Obama in Ohio and Texas. Everything is finally falling into place....

    8. States like Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Colorado are deep red states that will never vote for Democrats under any circumstances, and can't be part of a winning Democratic coalition, so results there are irrelevant

    9. Hillary's big-money donors would like to do nothing more than throw good money after bad; what fundraising problems could she possibly have?

    10. States like OH and PA that have virtually identical demographic breakdowns to MO in terms of race, education levels, and median income, are guaranteed wins for Hillary Clinton. On demographic grounds. Gua-ran-teed.  

    11. An acolyte of Dick Morris and Mark Penn is the greatest champion working people have ever known

    12. A multimillionaire senator is a woebegotten victim

    I look forward to more proof that everything that happens is actually good news for HRC. Meanwhile, maybe she can "loan" herself some more money from central Asian dictators.

    Wait, there's more (none / 0) (#221)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:35:41 PM EST
    Almost forgot:

    1. The result in Maine is meaningless even though the Clintons were expecting to win it as recently as this morning

    2. Clinton spending more time in Washington than Obama means she didn't contest it


    [ Parent ]
    Look (none / 0) (#224)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    Be civil. And don't gloat.

    BTW, I do not believe you identified even a single theory correctly.

    [ Parent ]

    We (none / 0) (#227)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:47:21 PM EST
    but true believers of the collective We are the We we always wanted we to be, are generally irrational in their fervor when confronting factual data.

    [ Parent ]
    Grape or Cherry Latte Hmmm? (none / 0) (#234)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:57:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Caucuses: Obama = Romney (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    Romney won almost all the caucuses on the Republican side.  If you have money to burn, you can win these things.

    The only reason Romney had to drop out is because of winner-take-all states.

    Obama is Romney with better hair.

    The Democratic Party cannot nominate a candidate who lost California by 10%.

    The Obamafans are going to be surprised once again, when Hillary wins easily in TX, OH, and PA.  Let them have February.  March will be ours.

    or Mass by 15 (none / 0) (#232)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:56:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think it's over. (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    I have no good feeling at all left in this. Every well known male is jumping all over himself to stand in Obama's shadow and endorse him. It seems pure pile on to me given the lack of difference in the two. I expect John Edwards to be next and I'll be so disappointed in him because of healthcare.

    If Hillary pulls this out now, she and Bill really do have some kind of magic in winning political races. The momentum and media coverage is just too much to overcome.

    I still have hope (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    that Edwards won't endorse the losing ticket for universal health care...I am hoping he will stand for the working poor etc. and that he is smart enough to see that big states all have gone for her....We will see I guess ....If he endorses Obama, then I have no more respect for his word...it will be a travesty....I bet Krugman would be quite upset too...

    [ Parent ]
    Hope ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    Krugman has always supported Edwards  on Health Care (smart man). I'm hoping Krugman's influence will help take Edwards to Clinton's side.

    If Edwards supports Obama?  Well, I won't say it's over, because endorsements don't mean anything, do they, but I will say I'll wonder a bit more.

    [ Parent ]

    athyrio, Obama is a movement, a fad right (none / 0) (#7)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    now. Some people I know, don't care or know about policy. All they know is that he is like an American Idol craze and they want to be part of it. I don't think there is a way to stop it after Tuesday unless the media decides they don't want the race over and starts giving more balanced coverage.

    She needs to destroy him in a national debate that is on national TV. She needs to point out his negatives but she can't. She isn't allowed to criticize Obama.

    We just need to hope that he wins big enough in November to get us decent healthcare and out of Iraq.

    [ Parent ]

    That's only if he has coattails to take (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:56:08 PM EST
    a lot more Dems into Congress.  And I have to wonder about that -- whether in the states that don't require straight-party voting, all those Indies for him will go Dem farther down the ticket, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Wins in November? Look at the white vote? (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    and working class vote?  Remember drivers license for illegals...remember McCain is good for Latinos.

    Don't think for a minute Obama will win in November.
    Not going to happen.  If Obama is the nominee, we will have a disaster.  And wait until you see what they do with partial birth abortion and Obama.

    This will be a nightmare of epic proportions.  McCain is not perceived as radical.  He is perceived as moderate.

    But one can always hope.  The problem is that he has not been vetted. Democrats never learn.  Never.  And progressives always think they know it all.  The arrogance is breathtaking.  Take Frank Rich and his disgusting trash talk.  Compare with what he did to Al Gore.  Why does this man have any credibility?  Bob Somerby of DailyHowler.com is right.  The progressive media destroys electable Democrats.  And the blogs are following merrily along in unison with the MSM.  I really wish someone would explain the psychology of this sickness.

    [ Parent ]

    Barak defined the race in 2004 (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:26:43 PM EST
    He positioned himself early as the candidate that is "above it all" well before he declared for the race. Nobody paid attention to his votes in the Senate, or inaction on his subcomitte, etc...Barak was always positioning himself...

    He basically laid groundwork for a campaign that was immune to criticism. Any critique is "more of the same"...you bring up his past and you're anti-hope...you compare your experience to his lack of experience and you are "typical Washington"...you bring up civil rights and you're a racist...you bring up your role as a mother and you're playing the gender card...Obama built his defenses well...the problem is, most of the people that support his campaign have not yet realize there is nothing to defend except the "campaign" itself...no substance, no policy outlines, not "direction" for the "movement"...no nothing...his campaign is purely built on upon just being a campaign...

    I'll vote for Barak in the GE, but over the last 10-12 weeks and investigating each candidate, campaign, goals, etc. more and more, I've come to the conclusion that he would be a disaster as a president...sure he'll keep the rhetoric up...but I just don't think Barak is capable of both tasks that lay before our nominee

    1. changing the path of our Nation

    2. but even more important and daunting; cleaning up and repairing the laws of the land after Bush.

    Barak may be able to do one (I think it would be hard, because Bush has expanded the power of the executive branch so vastly that someone without any national or executive leadership experience may be completely corrupted by the power, the "I can do so much good if I keep this power for myself" sort of thinking that leads to disaster), however, I have no doubt in my mind that he cannot accomplish #2, and to be honest, I don't think he thinks there will be much to clean up...Habeas corpus doesn't seem to be on his radar

    [ Parent ]
    I was starting to think I was the only Obama (none / 0) (#241)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    supporter left. And over the last few days, the hyperbole about his candidacy has only gotten more heated. Thank you so much for helping point out the obvious: Democrats like Obama AND Clinton. Something like 70% say they'd happily vote for either. I'm thinking that the 15% who are Hillary only are really well represented here. They flat out don't like him on here. It's too bad.

    Thanks for showing some love, ObamaMama.

    [ Parent ]

    yes, my feelings are similar. (none / 0) (#247)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    I am with you on this point.  Most Dems, including myself, would happily vote for either candidate.  I understand a lot of Clinton supporters' frustrations, having seen my own first choice of candidate die a slow death.  But I completely do not understand the anger and hyperbole.  Not to mention, there is still some hope for her.  If she can eke out a win in Ohio and Texas, then she'll have regained a fighting chance.  Without them, I think it will be over.  People are coming to realize this and it is freaking them out.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's hope it's not a guy thing. (none / 0) (#117)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:24:39 PM EST
    If he endorses Obama it's probably over...and it may be too late anyway to turn it around for Hillary.

    Just don't know but feeling...depressed and angry at the Dem establishment who drafted Obama to get rid of the Clintons by taking down Hillary.  They could have backed Edwards, but didn't.  He must have figured that out but who knows how genuine his political views of Two Americas and healthcare really are.

    We may be about to find out what John Edwards is really made of.  Frankly, I've never bought the product...I like my corn flakes without sugar coating but that's just me.

    I'd love to be wrong about him and I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.  To me, his professed interests match Hillary's lifetime interests re "It Takes A Village."  Most poor people are women and children and she gets that.  Remember Clinton's 'work hard and play by the rules?'  Hello?  Poverty...two Americas...it's still the economy, stupid!  Not to mention Clinton's Hope Scholarships....biggest program since GI Bill.

    [ Parent ]

    Not following your despair frankly (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    For Hillary, she must win on March 4th, Texas and Ohio.

    Obama will win Hawaii, Wisconsin and the Potomac primaries. He'll be up about 75-100 delegates.

    And then you campaign like crazy in Ohio and Texas.

    Then on to Pennsylvania and Indiana and so on.

    Nothing is different today than what was expected on Friday. Maybe a 10 delegate position worse than I would have expected for Clinton but even that is speculation on my part.  

    [ Parent ]

    I just don't think she can stop his momentum. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    People go with the winner and I just see it coming.

    Maybe it's just reading Frank Rich's column and realizing how much those people actually hate her. BTD, she isn't even allowed to have a halfway decent analyst on after these primaries. Do you have any doubt that every single one of them supports Obama? Roland Martin is fine but Paul Begala is a partisan hack. She has too much stacked against her.

    With McCain wrapping up the nomination pretty much, there will be even more people crossing over to vote for him now. I think he has it in the bag.

    [ Parent ]

    This was NOT a momentum win (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:13:39 PM EST
    This is what people do not understand.

    Momentum had nothing to do with ANY of the results this weekend.

    Caucus state. If New Hampshire was a caucus state, Obama would have won THAT too.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree... (none / 0) (#28)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    I think that it will be read as showing momentum in Obama's direction.

    No matter what way you look at it, Obama is going to sweep this weekend, caucuses or not.  And I do not see how the media and the general public will not see that as momentum.  

    [ Parent ]

    No voting for 3 weeks (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:17 PM EST
    ends momentum.

    This is no longer a momentum campaign.

    And after Tuesday, it is a new chapter.

    Texas and Ohio become everything.

    Obama can win the nomination on March 4th, that is for sure.

    [ Parent ]

    Why won't Wisconsin matter? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:33:52 PM EST
    I also have to ask, as it's my state -- and we're seeing that there will be an ABC debate (if Obama agrees, and if he doesn't, that's interesting).

    We don't have a lot of delegate votes, but enough -- and we are a swing state, the most purple state, with the closest election in 2004.  Won't all this make Wisconsin at least interesting to watch?

    [ Parent ]

    yes indeed it will be. What is your take on how (none / 0) (#71)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    it's going to go?

    [ Parent ]
    I was confused (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    I thought Wisconsin was Tuesday.

    It will matter more than I thought.

    Great chance for Hillary to turn it around frankly.

    [ Parent ]

    And there may be a tv debate (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:41:25 PM EST
    if Obama agrees, and as noted before, if he doesn't, it will be interesting -- and not happy here in Milwaukee, where most of the Dem votes are (although it's an open primary. . . .).

    So far, he has not confirmed for the previously announced speech at the big annual Dem event next weekend; Clinton will be in Milwaukee for that, too.  So far, Obama is only coming to Madison.  

    He will take Madison, second-best in the state for Dem votes -- with many East Coast faculty and many East Coast students as well as many from Illinois and Minnesota.  And with same-day registration.

    But there are far more students in Milwaukee, with so many campuses.  UW-Milwaukee with 30,000 and Marquette (site of the debate) alone combine for more than 40,000, as much as Madison.  Plus 60,000 students (of all ages and many AAs) at Milwaukee Tech, plus a dozen other campuses in Milwaukee and its burbs -- it's one of the major campus hubs in the country.  And many more nearby along Lake Michigan, from Green Bay down through Racine and Kenosha, increasingly with Chicago commuters.

    The major newspaper in the state, in Milwaukee, is doing all it can to help him, too -- although, of course, it likes McCain.  But why isn't Obama confirming that he'll come where most Dems in the state are, where almost all AAs in the entire state are?  Watch this.

    Btw, also watch for the first candidate to speak up for the Great Lakes compact, with our lovely lakes' woes.  Richardson got KILLED in the local press for saying he would drain our water for the Southwest.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    She has a week to make it close. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    We know that BTD, but people who don't (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    follow politics as closely as we do just see wins stacking up. They don't see the difference.

    [ Parent ]
    Nobody votes for 3 weekis. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    What about WI? (none / 0) (#40)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:20:32 PM EST
    Wouldn't that make it more like two weeks?

    [ Parent ]
    HI, WI (none / 0) (#45)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    both vote/caucus on the 19th.  Which will make it one week after the DC area elections.  

    Then two weeks later we have TX, OH, RI, and VT.

    [ Parent ]

    Inreresting (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    Maybe Hillary can do better in Wisconsin than I thought.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn;t Wisconsin on Tuesday? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    Is it the 19th?

    Interesting. Maybe Hillary can do better in Wisconsin than I thought.

    [ Parent ]

    WA (none / 0) (#161)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:52:59 PM EST
    Washington's primary is on the 19th.  If Clinton won there or came very close, that would be very interesting.

    I've said before I want Obama to win the WA primary just so we don't have more messes to decide at the convention, but then I realized the mess won't be at the national democratic convention, it'll be at the state convention and I think Washington democrats deserve some grief after insisting that only the caucus counts and that they'll ignore the primary.

    [ Parent ]

    That is the only helpful thing I see at this (none / 0) (#44)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    point. I don't doubt that she'll perform well as an underdog.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly. (none / 0) (#39)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:20:28 PM EST
    Sure... there may be a three week lull in voting, which will limit some of the momentum.  

    But people will still know and see that Obama swept February.  Shoot... people will see on Tuesday that Obama swept this weekend, which will probably help Obama win by more than he may have.  

    [ Parent ]

    Teresa (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    speaking as another woman (I am assuming you are a woman) I understand your despondency.  With all that has happened with MSNBC, and the piling on by TPM and the such, and the horrible anti-woman rhetoric spinning around, it is very easy to feel defeated.

    Let me tell you this: I can guarantee you that Hillary Clinton is not feeling defeated.

    BTD is right: she is only slightly behind in the delegate count.  She has the money and the support to keep going.

    Further, she will have three weeks of Obama as frontrunner, and we all know how arrogant he gets when he's winning.  There have been cracks in his facade lately, and maybe time will bring more.  The press is going to be rooting for McCain more and more, especially as nutball Huckabee chips at his lead.  The kid reporters embedded in Obama's campaign are going to get tired of hearing him say the same speech day after day, and they're going to look at the crying audience members with derision.  And they are going to write about it.

    So, don't give up.  Don't get despondent.  Don't let them kick you when you're down. This is a marathon, not a sprint.  Women are used to this kind of uphill battle.  We can do it so long as we don't lose faith.  And I, for one, will help you stick together.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks Kathy. I started out an Obama leaner and (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:57:24 PM EST
    now I ask myself why it bothers me so much to see HC lose. It's three things: the media, healthcare and sexism in that order. As I see the endorsements of establishment men line up behind Obama and the media coverage, I think sexism has jumped to number one.

    We've been there haven't we? Not too many years ago, I was one of two Assistant Controllers for a decent sized retail company. The other one was male and a good friend of mine. We were at the copier one day and a male executive outside Finance walked up and asked me to make copies for him. During this same time, we shared a large office together. Every single time a bigwig male from other parts of the company came into the office, I was referred to as his secretary.

    It is still a man's world out there and anyone who doesn't see that hasn't worked around a majority male workforce. My boss once called me into a meeting in his office with other guys and told me he needed to show me something on his computer. I swear to God, it was a very graphic porn site. What a kick they all got out of that!

    So, to sum up? Do I want a women to win just to show them? Yes I do. Plus she's smarter, more qualified and has a better healthcare policy and she know that Republicans won't compromise in anyway that will benefit us.

    [ Parent ]

    I started out as an Edwards supporter (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:18:37 PM EST
    but now I'm in the Hillary camp.  I know it's illogical, but for every attack on Hillary, as a woman, it's an attack on me.  I'm only 43 therefore I haven't had it as hard as Hillary but as a 20 year vet of the Navy, I know exactly how hard it can be to work in a mans world.  Everytime I hear the MSM make some kind of snide remark about Hillary I feel like they are making it about me.  They're insulting half of their audience every time they do that.  What a bunch of idiots.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, they are saying it about you (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    and me, you bet.  And you really have braved a male-dominated workforce and deserve better.

    (I certainly have had my experiences in male-dominated fields, but at least the guys didn't have guns.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    I feel it, too (none / 0) (#152)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:48:13 PM EST