home

Potomac Primaries Open Thread I

By Big Tent Democrat

I like Potomac Primaries better than "Chesapeake Contests." Other than that, my CW is that Obama wins the three contests (VA, MD and DC) by 20 points each and picks up a +35 delegates tonight.

He is the frontrunner now, but has one more important test - win a big contested state - he has 3 chances, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. Win any of these and he is the nominee.Lose them all and Hillary is the nominee.

This is an Open Thread.

Here is some interesting news, Hillary only down 11 in Wisconsin. I expected her to be done 20.

NOTE: Comments are closed. Some of you are incorrigible. I hope it does not require suspensions and bannings.

< The Sentencing of Sergeant Patrick Lett | SurveyUSA OH: Clinton 56, Obama 39 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Frontrunner (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    But  BTD,    I've  heard  Michelle  & Obama  repeatedly  tell me  they're   the  UNDERDOGS.  

    What is wrong with that? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    Everyone wants to be leading but also get to portray themselves as underdogs.  Americans like underdogs.

    Parent
    Obmamaland (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:36:48 PM EST
    I  see.   In  Obamaland,  he gets  to be  both  the  frontrunner  AND  the underdog.  

    It's  the  WORM  game  again,  as usual.  

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    Parent

    The underdog (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    with super powers who will win the GE.

    Parent
    Stella (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    But  of course.  Cuz   WE  are  the people  we've   been  waiting  for!

    ROFLMAO

    Parent

    Obama can legitimately claim... (none / 0) (#57)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    the underdog mantle.

    Similar to the NY Giants being +3 with :30 left on the gameclock. This is a come from behind race for the democratic nomination.

    Parent

    Here's how this works (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    You can either make vague assertions that have no meaning.  Or you can make clear salient points.

    So far you are choosing the former.

    Barack Obama didn't invent image management.  If he can manage to be portray himself as the underdog while at the same time actually be the leader, how is that a criticism of Obama?

    You think that Hillary isn't trying to spin her image to the best of her abilities as well?

    Some of the things you Clintonistas choose to get indignant over are truly amusing.

    Parent

    So it boils down to (none / 0) (#59)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:23:49 PM EST
    Life is unfair because the big bad media is out to get your candidate.  Ok.

    Not sure why that is Obama's fault. I guess he should refuse positive press?

    Parent

    Hawk (none / 0) (#76)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:31:01 PM EST
    No,    life  is unfair  because  the big  bad  superdelegates  are out  to get  YOUR  candidate.    

    LOL

    Parent

    Obama and GWB (none / 0) (#80)
    by thereyougo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    big promises, GWB taught me a lesson.

    Did  the electorate hear it?  What a candidate says and what he does, are 2 DIFFERENT things!

    The press controls the message. I still think O's being propped to be slammed later by the Republicans

    Parent

    Absolutely right (none / 0) (#87)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST
    The press  LOVES  John McCain.  

    If   they have  to  choose, they'll  throw  Obama  under  the bus, in a  heartbeat.  

    Parent

    Absolutely correct (none / 0) (#72)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:30:10 PM EST
    Oh, I know the answer to this one! (none / 0) (#89)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    You can either make vague assertions that have no meaning.  Or you can make clear salient points.

    Right! Obama is running on the former.

    What did I win?

    Parent

    echinopsia (none / 0) (#109)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    "We  are  the ones   we  have  been waiting for."

    Is  that    a  vague  assertion,    or is  it  a  clear,  salient  point?    

    I'm  with you........VAGUE  ASSERTION.  

    Where's  my prize?   LOL

    Parent

    This is what I want to know the answer to: (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    Why is Joe Wilson the only one asking this question:

    "How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?"

    Baltimore Sun via No Quarter.

    Parent

    I asked an Obamafan about that (none / 0) (#135)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    the other day and he accused me me (I quote) of "heaping calumny upon [Obama's] head."

    Whoa.

    Parent

    Kenyan Govt Calls Obama a "Stooge" (none / 0) (#151)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:30:23 PM EST
    Kathy, as always, informative and fresh. You are rock steady. This doesn't look good for Obama as the President to mend international relations does it? Good sleuthing.

    Parent
    Practically Lactating: Great Analysis/Writing (none / 0) (#144)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    Love your name and the term "Mirage Management".

    On the subject of "Mirage Management", I've been trying to get somebody, anybody, to respond to this item I posted elsewhere early this morning - hope it interests you:

    *Hatchet Man: The Rise of David Axelrod - Within the next 12 months, this political consultant just could become a kingmaker.
    By Grant Pick, Chicago Magazine, December 1987.

    I just came across a reference to the above article and I can only find it as a listing in the table of contents in the magazine in which it originally appeared. Can someone please help find the article itself? (As we know, Axelrod is currently Obama's campaign manager - but apparently the two go way back.) I expect this older article dishes a lot of dirt that wouldn't get printed about Axelrod at this point in time - now that he actually is a "kingmaker".

    *It is mentioned in another interesting article: "Obama's Narrator", by Ben Wallace, New York Times Magazine, April 1, 2007 (that one is easy to find).

    Thanks.

    Parent

    My new term (none / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:30:13 PM EST
    He who lives in the bullet-proof glass house.

    acronym:
    HWLITBPGH

    Parent

    Whatever happens (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    It will be a momentus victory for Obama. It will be declared as such and they will start asking Hillary to step down for party unity.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#30)
    by tek on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:58:42 PM EST
    That was in the air when Howard Dean announced Democrats have to choose on candidate and support that one candidate for the good of the party.   Yes, these people are soooo devoted to the good of the party. NOT!

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Turkana on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    i considered making my first post today:

    breaking!!! obama sweeps potomac primaries!!!

    The coronation (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    will begin at 8:00 pm EST.

    Parent
    Help Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by proud ydd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    Help support Hillary please.

    too no-win (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by demschmem on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    it's inevitable that they're seated.  both outcomes for him are bad, but the unfairness of voters' votes not counting is too contrary to the image he seeks to project.  

    his only hope is to garner enough delegates in the remaining states to render clinton's victory margin in fl & mi moot.  otherwise the supers have their justification to tip to clinton, and rightly so.

    ALL OF YOU (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    STOP THE JUVENILE FIGHTING!!

    I will close comments if I have to.

    This is an Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:15:29 PM EST
    so you can comment on whatever you want, but no more fighting and insults please.

    In non-Open threads, I will be deleting all off topic comments.


    Parent

    I think we (none / 0) (#134)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    need a Unity Thread again. Maybe if we have another one people will realize that there are thing more important than the candidates.... like issues... particularly... Dem issues.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#49)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM EST
    Which ones  are  juvenile?

    Parent
    See the ones I delete (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:23:32 PM EST
    I am cleaning up this thread now.

    Parent
    Please don't do that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:06:49 PM EST
    I know I'm not the ref on this site, but please play nice.  We're all friends here, Obama and Clinton and Edwards supporters alike.

    McCain vs Obama (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST
    No Quarter cited the Joe Wilson op ed piece in the Baltimore Sun.

    "But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you."

    Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one known face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground."


    TOUCHE, Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:27:23 PM EST
    Obama doesn't  "like"  confrontation.    

    He  wants  Joe Lieberman-like  "bipartisanship."

    Parent

    Yes, I actually am impressed (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by stillife on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    mainly by his caucus wins.  It was a very clever strategy on the part of his campaign and it's paid off nicely in terms of momentum.  I also give him credit for having an excellent fundraising machine, although I'm not quite sure that the small donor meme is true.  

    However, I'm not going to give him any props for "managing" media coverage when the MSM is blatantly biased against Hillary which I don't think has anything to do with anything that Obama has done.  He's just reaping the benefits.  

    Likewise, I can't credit him for "holding his own" in debates b/c I've found his performance to be lackluster at best.  I went into this campaign with an open mind and formed my opinion based on the debates, which is why I'm a Hillary supporter today.

    Xtreme (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    How can you say he is less polarizing when we cannot reach a consensus of support here?

    I think the "polarizing" thing is a myth.  If it were the case, then Clinton would not have  beat him by wide margins in the most populous states with the most varied demographics.  You cite the poll about him beating McCain, but those are the same polls that had Obama beating Hillary in NH and MA.  As for better judgments, we don't really know what his record is because he doesn't seem to have much of one.

    And saying the well-educated support Obama is rather polarizing in and of itself.  I am painfully well-educated and I do not support him.

    I am not sure (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    where you are getting your information, but as far as I know, subjective remarks from a complete stranger who ends the argument with, "The Clintons are a national disgrace" carry little water with me.  If you want subjective evidence, then tell me why Obama, the great uniter, is not able to unite his own party behind him.

    As to your other remarks:

    Poor people and the middle class can be highly informed voters, just as wealthy, well-educated people can be uneducated, easily brainwashed patsies.  

    Statistically, what you say about Obama simply needing time to woo voters does not hold up.  He had more press, more money, and more endorsements in California than Hillary did.  His name recognition was on par with hers.  Why did he not win?  It can't be just because of the great unwashed being uneducated in the ways of the Great One.

    And I find it hilarious (and a tad insulting) that you consider me an older woman.  I am firmly in the statistically "young" range.  As far as the demographic these older women make (and let's assume you mean over forty) then I suggest you look at the exit polling from the Super Tuesday.  Women made up, on average, 58% of the voters.  Hillary won the large states.  She won MA, Kennedy and Kerry's state.  Surely, you are not suggesting that MA is overrun with non-educated, non-English speaking idiot savants who handed her the race?

    Just because you think women are irrelevant does not make it so.  We are not the minority here.  You do yourself no favors not to recognize that fact.

    I was going to give you a well-thought-out (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:03:45 PM EST
    answer, but then I read all the way to

    The only people supporting her at this point are low information voters (i.e. those who haven't looked at either that closely) and old bitter women.

    and I realized that someone who is this ill-informed about Hillary Clinton, her accomplishments, her leadership, her courage, and her popularity (not to mention her supporters) is probably not worth the time.

    May be you should do a little more research before you toss things like this off.

    Let's see - how about if I said: the only people supporting Obama at this point are really clueless politically naive kids, blacks, and latte-drinking Volvo drivers.

    Exactly. Last time I checked (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jen on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    RKF, Jr, Wes Clark, Joe Wilson, and Senator John Glen were neither low information voters nor bitter old women. Who'd a guessed? :/

    Parent
    low information voters (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:24:17 PM EST
    "Many of the people who supported her were low information voters (english as a second language, high school grads, working class and the elderly). These people go for name recognition, and will vote for a Dem regardless. "

    Boy are you ever clueless.

    I can't (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:47:23 PM EST
    wait until this dreaded day is over. Obama can rack up his wins base mostly on racial lines that the media wont talk about, but after today we will be back to a level playing field. The majority of Americans still support Hillary.

    Another test: Can he win in November (none / 0) (#2)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:27:58 PM EST
    Can he win in November if he doesn't support seating the FL & MI delegates?

    Will it affect the campaigns in those states if they aren't seated?

    It seems like a big deal to me.  But maybe it won't matter either way?

    Another test (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:37:41 PM EST
    Can  he  win  in  November  without  seating  Florida  and Michigan?

    NO

    Parent

    So why is it an issue? (none / 0) (#11)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    (Maybe) she needs the delegates to win the nomination.  But he needs them to win the election.  

    So if we're counting delegates -- FL & MI delegates have got to be counted.  I think.

    I don't really see how we can require those states to have a re-vote.

    This is a total screw up.

    Parent

    Total screwup (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    YUP.   But  Obama will block  reinstatement, because if it  happens,  he  LOSES.  

    Thus,  he is  FOR   disinfranchisement  for his own   political purposes. Anything to win.  

    Some   "unity," eh?    LOL

    Parent

    Classic dilemma (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by blogtopus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:54:06 PM EST
    he can solve this all by winning so many delegates that he can still seat FL and MI without it affecting his nomination chances.

    Is that possible, mathematically?

    Parent

    Or he could Rise Above it and say (none / 0) (#26)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    "This could cost me the nomination, but we MUST seat those delegations.  And I'll still win."

    He'd be a hero.

    Parent

    katiebird (none / 0) (#54)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:21:30 PM EST
    But of  course  he would,  katiebird.

    But I don't  see  Obama's  supporters  ALLOWING  him  to  do that.  

    They want  to  win,  whatever it takes.

    Parent

    Or what the cost -- even to him.... nt (none / 0) (#60)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    Katiebird (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    Exactly,  katie.   BIG  costs  in November.  

    But  they couldn't  care  less.    

    I've  seen the  Democratic Party  do  this  before.  

    Large part of  why  we  don't  win.

    Parent

    Too much flare... (none / 0) (#86)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:38:59 PM EST
    Back to reality. We all KNOW...short of a major scandal, there is no way McCain can beat Obama in the GE.

    Can anyone seriously claim that America will continue GWBs policies 4 more years. When Americans go to the polls a DEM will be elected regardless.

    Parent

    I couldn't imagine losing in 2004 (none / 0) (#88)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    Can anyone seriously claim that America will continue GWBs policies 4 more years.

    I couldn't imagine losing in 2004, so don't ask me.

    Parent

    2004 vs 2008 (none / 0) (#91)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:43:19 PM EST
    Lets be serious.

    Parent
    Serious? What makes you think I'm joking? (none / 0) (#100)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:52:55 PM EST
    I don't particularly like being brushed off like that.

    Parent
    Which is to say, in BushWorld, anything's possible (none / 0) (#92)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:43:26 PM EST
    I don't want a stupid mistake to cost us the election.

    Parent
    But this I don't get: (none / 0) (#16)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    How does he campaign in MI & FL if he doesn't speak-up?

    Does he think this won't be headlines?

    Does he understand the potentially viral nature of anger if it happens to click as an issue?  He can't count on it not affecting people who live in other states.

    It might not click -- it might not be a big deal.  But interest in the primaries is HUGE and it seems to me people will notice this.  

    And it doesn't look good.

    Parent

    Click? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    Katiebird,  Obama   has  magic powers, his  supporters  say.  

    You  have  to play the WORM  game  to understand  him:  that  stands  for  What  did  Obama  Really  Mean?  

    Pages  and pages  of  erudite  pundits  help  us   translate  his   mystic  language  so   those  of  us  who CAN  balance  a  checkbook   can  "grasp"  his    GREATNESS.  

    Like   Oprah  said,  "He  is the  ONE!"

    Ok,  that's  all snark.  :)

    But  indeed,  his  choice  will  have  reverberations  ALL OVER   the  Democratic Party  in  November.     Hide  and  watch.

    Parent

    The thing is I'm a rule follower (none / 0) (#25)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    The thing is I'm a rule follower -- so on one level I get the frustration of Obama supporters that things worked out like this.

    But the rules are wrong -- because they are not enforceable in the real world.

    Enforcing the rule that keeps FL & MI from being seated will (I think) cost us the election.

    The DNC messed up by letting this happen.  AND both Edwards (my guy) and Obama messed up by taking their names off the MI ballot.

    And they should have all campaigned.

    But we can't punish the voters in those states -- This is NOT their fault.

    Parent

    katy (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    But of course  you're  right,  katy,  and  I agree  completely.    

    We  disenfranchise  Florida  and  Michigan  voters,  and  we  flat  LOSE  the  general.    

    And  any games  Obama  plays  to  make  sure  they  ARE  disenfranchised , will cost him  a  lot of  base  Democratic  votes.    

    Especially  since   before those  elections,  he  told  those  voters  he  supported  their  reinstatement.  To  go  back on that  now,   because  he  lost  those  primaries,   will not reflect  well on his    character   OR his  "judgement."  

    Parent

    Good Point. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by tek on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    So focused on Hillary running in the GE, I hadn't thought of this.

    Parent
    Hillary... (none / 0) (#78)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:32:28 PM EST
    Never complained about seating delegates until it appeared that she may not be the clear winner like she once thought.

    If she had complained waaaay back when, then I could take her at her word. Since she waited, she forfiets her claim to seat the delegates.

    Parent

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:36:27 PM EST
    never complained  about  superdelegates  until   she thought  they might   not   support  her  precious  Obama,  either.    

    Wanna  play  this  dumb  game  all day?  

    Think of   the PARTY.

    Parent

    I mention Hillary (none / 0) (#95)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:45:59 PM EST
    you bring up Donna Brazille.

    Besides, whose debating superdelegates? They'll fall in line with whomever wins the elected delegate race.

    Parent

    I look forward (none / 0) (#112)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    to    Kennedy  and  Kerry  endorsing   Clinton,  then,   since   their  state   went  for  Hillary.    

    Will  there  be  a press conference?

    Parent

    Either you can't read... (none / 0) (#122)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:35:36 PM EST
    or you choose not too.

    The remaining superdelegates wouldn't override the winner of the elected delegate race.

    Is that clear enough?

    Parent

    I'm NOT talking about the candidates claims (none / 0) (#83)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:37:47 PM EST
    I'm NOT talking about the candidates claims.

    I'm talking about the citizens rights to representation at our convention.  Most people in MI & FL had no say in any of this.  They had one opportunity to vote and those who wished, voted -- the rest didn't.

    Don't you see that Not Seating the FL & MI delegations is a losing issue for Candidate Obama?

    As a Hillary supporter, I could sit back and say nothing -- but as a Democrat, I've got to say:  Seat the Delegates.  Ask your candidate to Seat the Delegates.

    We can't afford to write off two states this November.

    Parent

    As a Floridian... (none / 0) (#99)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    it was made quite clear from the DNC our votes would not count.

    Besides, there was major turnout from OLDER voters due to the fact the homestead exemption amendment had been on the ballot. What about the YOUNGER voters?

    If they decide to change the rules, then a re-vote is in order. Then seat the delegates.

    Parent

    Thank you. That's what I wonder (none / 0) (#101)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    Thank you.  That's what I wonder -- will there be repercussions?  And you think not.  That would be nice.

    Parent
    There is much... (none / 0) (#106)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:59:55 PM EST
    contention because we have no clear front runner. The democratic party will solidify and come together against republicans once a winner is declared. Hopefully...

    In my opinion, all of this bloodletting is preparing us for the race in the GE. We'll  be battle-tested and ready to fight when we turn to face our Republican adversaries.

    Parent

    katiebird (none / 0) (#113)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:17:46 PM EST
    There  are other  Floridians   voters  on this  board  who   think  otherwise,  katie.  They  tell of    deep  anger  from   the  Floridians  they know  of  being  disenfranchised.  

    And   OTHER  Democrats in other  states  will be  watching  Obama's   choice  to   disenfranchise  those  two  states  for his own  gain.  

    It's not  just  about  Floridian  voters.  

    He  will  be  judged  for   his  choice.

    Parent

    Obama... (none / 0) (#126)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    did not choose to disenfranchise...he followed the rules.

    Now if the rules are changed, then a re-vote is in order. The delegates should then be seated.

    Parent

    Sorry if I missed an earlier conversation (none / 0) (#107)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    But according to these mind numbingly detailed analyses, the decision whether to seat FL and MI is made by the delegates other than FL and MI.  Therefore, if:

    (1) Obama doesn't get enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination;
    (2) Obama leads in overall delegates w/o FL and MI, but
    (3) Hillary leads with them,

    then it's up to Obama's delegates whether to seat FL and MI.  But any super-delegate who supports seating FL and MI with the result that Hillary gets the nomination might as well support Hillary directly.  So the decision will be made by the super-delegates, one way or another.  The question of seating FL and MI is just an argument for them to consider in making up their minds.

    Parent

    You are probably right (none / 0) (#18)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    That Obama will have to win at least one of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to win the most delegates.  However, it is possible that he loses those states by a small margin and still wins the most delegates.  In which case he will have earned the nomination fair and square.  Winning "big contested" states is not the test.  Delegates are.

    We had a long discussion about this last night (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    Just read it (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    And if I may be allowed to continue the conversation -- since it is on topic -- I basically agree with you.  As I said, it's about delegates.  It's not about pledged delegates.  If Hillary is behind by a small margin in pledged delegates but ahead in the popular vote, she has a reasonable argument to make -- to the super-delegates -- that she should be the nominee.  But if Obama wins the most pledged delegates, he also has a reasonable argument for their support, even if he loses narrowly in Tex-O-vania.  And who ever wins the most delegates, pledged and super, wins the nomination fair and square.  

    Parent
    Well said! (none / 0) (#47)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    I've been trying to figure out how to voice that very thought.

    Parent
    NOPE (none / 0) (#31)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    Popular  vote   is  what   reflects  true  wishes  of   Democrats  voting,   and  the larger  states  represent  the  base of  the party.    Alaska, Kansas, and Idaho  DON'T.  

    We  wanted  Gore  to  win   with popular  vote in  2000,  didn't  we?  

    Or  do you want  to deny  that that  matters?

    Parent

    NO (none / 0) (#34)
    by tek on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    I just want to deny the nomination to Obama.

    Parent
    tek (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    I  don't  want  to   deny  anybody,  really.  

    But  if  red  states  like  Idaho, Kansas, or Utah  are  given more weight  than  California , New  York,  or  New  Jersey    in   judging  what  the MAJORITY  of  the popular  Democratic  vote  actually wants,  there  will  be   rebellion in  the party.  

    And  once  again---as  we  Dems  always  seem to do---we   will have   snatched  defeat  from   the  jaws  of  victory,   in  the very  year  we  stood to    sweep in  a  landslide.  

    It's  really  pathetic.

    Parent

    Aren't delegates apportioned to the states (none / 0) (#45)
    by katiebird on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    Aren't delegates apportioned to the states partly based on the Democratic votes in the previous election?

    So (I think), Kansas doesn't get as many delegates as another state of the same size population that votes Democratic???

    I know things are messed up because turnout in Urban areas is so much heavier than in corresponding rural areas.  But that's pretty hard to predict, isn't it?

    I'm speaking as a survivor of the Kansas Caucus.

    Parent

    Red states (none / 0) (#46)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:13:52 PM EST
    Let  me  give  you   examples:

    The  Alaska  caucus's  total  turnout  was  only  9,000  voters.   Win: Obama

    The  Nevada  caucus   had  120,000  voters.   Win:  Clinton

    North  Dakota's  total  turnout?   18,000  voters. Win:  Obama

    Now  compare  those  two  little  red  states  to  the MILLION AND  A  HALF  voting in  Florida,  and   find  numbers  on New York, New  Jersey,  or  Massachusetts.  

    The  POPULAR  VOTE  should  decide  the  candidate.    

    And   disenfranchising  Florida  or  Michigan  will tear  our party  in two.  

    Parent

    Total delegates for Alaska (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    13

    Total delegates for New York

    232.

    We have a delegate system.  If we wish to change it we certainly can, in 2012.  

    Parent

    Hawk (none / 0) (#61)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    I'll hold  you to that  "change  the rules  later" concept  and  assume   you   won't  support  changing  the rules  about superdelegates,  either.  

    Parent
    Abolsutely not (none / 0) (#119)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:34:37 PM EST
    I haven't heard anyone suggest that the rules be changed regarding superdelegates.  Both campaigns are jockeying to get as many superdelegates as they can.  

    Parent
    At least your honest<nt> (none / 0) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    I am tired of talking you folks down (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:22:59 PM EST
    I am deleting comments without warning and explanation. If your comment is missing, think about what you wrote and why it might have been deleted.

    I hate doing that, but the lot of you have left me no choice.

    BTD (none / 0) (#65)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM EST
    I  accept that.

    But the  next time  a  coupla  posters  hijack  a  thread  talking  about  their  gambling  debts  and  Las  Vegas,   will you  delete  THEM,  too,  please?  

    Thanks

    Parent

    I just said I would (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    No more off topic comments. This is an Open Thread so it can not be hijacked.

    Parent
    WOW (none / 0) (#69)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:28:13 PM EST
    This is remarkably similar to the Giants/Patriots seasons.

    Clinton had the perfect season leading up to the finale while Obama had to fight on the road and it looks like in the end she's being overtaken by the underdog.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#84)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:38:35 PM EST
    BTD    says  Obama  is not  the underdog.  

    He's  the  frontrunner  now.  

    Get   with  the program.  

    Parent

    There is no CLEAR (none / 0) (#90)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    front runner until someone wins by a large enough margin.

    If Obama pulls it off, the story will be written that he was the underdog.

    No need to slant the obvious.

    Parent

    As I tell people over and over (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    If elections were based on number of states won, Democrats would almost always lose the general.

    Real estate doesn't vote.

    Obama has not won more votes (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    And if Clinton wins TX,OH and PA, it is VERY likely that Clinton will have won MANY more votes than Obama.

    Parent
    To the Clinton supporters... (none / 0) (#85)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    ...to be fair, aren't you at least a little bit impressed by how well Obama is doing?  I mean, he's managed the media better than Clinton, organized better for the caucus states, raised more money(and more from small donors), held his own in debates, nearly beat Clinton in her first two "firewall" states, scored a draw in her biggest firewall(super tuesday), is now moving into a lead even counting superdelegates, and all of this against someone with the benefit of nostalgia for her husband's administration, lots of establishment support in state parties and in DC, a well-established fundraising machine, and experience running two successful presidential runs.

    From a pure campaigning standpoint, you have to admit that's an impressive achievement.

    I'm sorry, but (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:55:48 PM EST
    aren't you at least a little bit impressed by how well Obama is doing?

    I could never be impressed by a Dem who uses RW talking points against another Dem, who benefits from unfair media treatment by not taking a stand against rampant sexism and misogyny, who says he's not about tearing his opponents down but does it anyway, and who says his opponent had no responsibility in her husband's administration, but wants to use it against her anyway, and who threatens to take his supporters and go home if he's not the nominee.

    This is not how a Democrat acts.

    Parent

    I'm not impresed by Obama at all. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    I'm impressed (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:48:59 PM EST
    that he got Axelrod away from the Clintons and that he has listened to him.

    I'm also impressed that the Daley, Kennedy, Kerry and Daschle machines melded forces for Obama as seamlessly as they seem to have done...for fundraising, volunteer lists, mailings, organization/dividing up the chores, etc.  Couldn't have done it so well before laptop computers!

    And impressed beyond words that the Obama campaign has somehow kept the fiction going that this nice new young senator from Chicago woke up one day in his first year in the senate, turned to his wife and said, "Honesy...campaigning was so much fun last year, I think I'll do it again...and run for president!  I'm pretty sure I can raise over $100M and get the endorsement of the major establishment congressional Democrats!"

    Can't wait for the movie...

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#96)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    34 elections will have been held. If Obama sweeps tonight, he'll have won 23 of the 34

    Some of those were caucuses, not elections.

    Learn the difference.

    I read that (none / 0) (#111)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:12:17 PM EST
    But   even  without  a  scandal,  there  are   LOTS  of  ways  Obama  can lose  to McCain.  

    You're   just  not paying  attention.  

    You  DID  see  the AP  poll  that  showed in  a  McCain/Obama   matchup,   it is  MCCAIN   who pulls  the  Independents,   didn't  you?  

    You    need  to  get out more.

    Polls had Clinton up.. (none / 0) (#118)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:33:23 PM EST
    30 points nationally. You should get out more and not place so much faith in polls. That's the same error Hillary made.

    Parent
    one poll (none / 0) (#131)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    Yes - one poll last week showed Clinton with a slight advantage over Obama vs. McCain.

    But every other recent poll has shown Obama with the advantage.

    I don't think that it matters.  I think general election polls this far out mean little.

    But don't try and pretend that the polls show Clinton with the advantage vs. McCain, because it simply is not true.

    Parent

    Hey all you Obama supporters... (none / 0) (#120)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    this republican explains why the republicans have been voting for Obama...Wake up before it is too late and we have to say hello to President McCain.....link

    HERE IS THE LINK (none / 0) (#123)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    OMG we better vote Hillary (none / 0) (#128)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    Your link should scare us right into voting for Hillary.

    Parent
    OH NO!!! (none / 0) (#138)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    One Republican chose to vote for Obama for a few different reasons.  

    Therefore we need to wake up and vote for Clinton?

    Umm... ok.  Whatever you say.  

    BTW... what of his reasons are scary?  Because I didn't see anything scary.  I just saw someone who didn't seem to know much about what Obama was about.  

    Parent

    Baltimore Sun (none / 0) (#140)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:03:02 PM EST
    "But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you.""

    "How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?"

    link

    Parent

    how is that... (none / 0) (#145)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    ... at all relevant to what I said?

    Parent
    It would help (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:28:47 PM EST
    if there was some sort of details regarding what he did in Kenya.  

    I guess a junior Senator should simply flip the bird to one of the most senior senators in Congress?  

    Parent

    is anyone following this crap (none / 0) (#127)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    about the Cuban flag with Che Guevara's face on it hanging in an Obama office in Texas?  Obviously, he has a lot of young kids on staff who have no idea what that could signify.  Talk about non-issues.  Does anyone know who started spreading this around?  It's right up there with the Muslim thing.  I mean, it's stupid, but it's not news.

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    Kiss florida goodbye.

    Parent
    it's just stupid (none / 0) (#139)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    Stupid kids who made a stupid mistake.  I guess there's a downside to having an army of teenagers.  Honestly, I'm sure as soon as an adult showed up, it came down.  Even some of the most avid Hillary lovers here cannot think that this was an "official" endorsement.

    Though, on the other hand, welcome to a little bad press.  Let's see how he plays it out.

    Parent

    yea... (none / 0) (#136)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:55:34 PM EST
    ... it started with a news clip here.

    And Hot Air ran with it here.

    Parent

    so... (none / 0) (#130)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:45:46 PM EST
    ... I take if that Texas won't matter either, as it is a red state, and will go red in November.  

    but it won't go red maybe (none / 0) (#141)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    if Hillary is the nominee...

    Parent
    haha... (none / 0) (#148)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:23:17 PM EST
    ... do you have evidence to support this assertion?  My guess is that you don't, and it is just wishful thinking.  

    If I was a gambling man, I would bet significant money that Texas will be won by the Republican candidate in November.  

    Parent

    According to (none / 0) (#143)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:12:49 PM EST
    Tweety ... Sen Clinton will not be going to WI. She will make some satellite appearances.

    Maybe she should consider champaining in WI since the recent poll is only 11 point down.

    since this is an open thread (none / 0) (#152)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    does anyone know how to find out if there is a class action suit filed against
    Bosch for their tankless water heaters??? I dont know how to find it and I wish to join it if they have one....

    Clueless again... (none / 0) (#153)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:31:20 PM EST
    "Both had no intention of reaching out to the other side of the aisle to get things done"

    Where are you getting your talking points from?  Clinton has a record of reaching across the aisle to get things done in the Senate.  That's probably why some Democrats don't like her.

    And as far as the amount of money that each candidate has been spending on polling and messaging:
    According to year-end research tabulated by the Center for Responsive Politics, Obama has spent more than $2.55 million so far in the campaign on "Polling/Surveys/Research," six hundred thousand dollars more than Clinton's $1.92 million.

    Get some facts before you spew.

    The Daily Alexa graph (none / 0) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:16:41 PM EST
    Cuz I don't have anything else to do with my time except look at graphs.

    This one shows 3 months worth of data:

    Alexa link

    Lot of flatness going on with the exception of MyDD, TPM (tabloid pablum megagagamus) and TalkLeft.