home

Obama Wins Maryland

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:15:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Obama is winning Maryland handily but the questions remain the same for me in terms of whether he will win the nomination. The demographics are my point:

(%age of vote) Clinton Obama

White Democrats

(43%) 55% 42%

Black Democrats

(33%) 16% 84%

Latino Democrats

(4%) 56% 44%

That demographic breakdown on voting margins loses Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania handily for Obama. Obama still has a lot to prove in terms of winning contested large primaries. And yes, this is important for the general election as well.

NOTE comments are now closed in this thread

< Hillary on Passage of FISA Bill Today | Delegate Count After Tonight >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Wins Maryland | 158 comments (158 topical)
    I'm Amazed (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:17:15 PM EST
    That we're this far into this thing and neither has really been able to break the other's base.  This thing is every bit as close as it looks and so far neither side has been able to pull away for good.  

    Agreed, and it can't help that (none / 0) (#2)
    by doyenne49 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:18:31 PM EST
    the press is starting its "unstoppable momentum" story again. How many premature coronations can one candidacy survive? After New Hampshire, after California/Massachusetts, what will happen if Obama loses Ohio and Texas by double digits?

    Parent
    Media Darling v. Media Antitoxin (none / 0) (#7)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:22:47 PM EST
    We may have two almost equal forces at work.  The Media Darling who gets pumped up by the MSM narrative.  The Media Antitoxin who is immune to the tear down by the MSM narrative.  Each balancing the other.  

    I have to say, even if Clinton turns out not to be the nominee, I'm incredibly impressed by how strong her base is.  I wouldn't have thought it at the outset.  But even with her initial crappy campaign strategy and hostile press, she's still there.  She's tough, I'll give her that.

    Parent

    'That is what (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:26:16 PM EST
    I totally underestimated.

    It is not just that I underestimated it, it is that women, white women in particular are coming out in droves and little is shaking them.

    Obama wins big in primaries where he has a sizable A-A vote. When he doesn't he loses wide are it is close (see MO.)

    Nothing much has changed.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Grey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:36:39 PM EST
    And take a look at the estimated delegate count:

    MSNBC: Obama 1,017, Clinton 942
    CBS: Obama 1,223, Clinton 1,161
    CNN: Obama 1,195, Clinton 1,178
    ABC: Clinton 1,178, Obama 1,175
    AP: Clinton 1,164, Obama 1,154

    After a string of 8 victories, it's still so close.


    Parent

    Notice..... (none / 0) (#28)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    MSNBC  is  the outlier.    Of  course.  

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#30)
    by Grey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:43:05 PM EST
    Yes.  That is truly shocking...

    Parent
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#38)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:46:23 PM EST
    ... you should look at the reasons.

    MSNBC does not include super delegates in their count, which is why the numbers are so different.

    Parent

    Maybe, mindful (none / 0) (#59)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    You  should  realize  that  MSNBC  is  too LAZY  to make  calls  and  find out if  SD's  are   committed  already.  

    CNN  does  that.  They INCLUDE  the committed  SD's,  but  don't  include if  not   committed.  

    CNN  does  more  thorough  work than  MSNBC does.

    Parent

    I do not understand the logic for that (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:07:07 PM EST
    IF they flop they flop, but right now they have announced their commitment.

    To NOT include it is to ignore the fact that they have committed to voting for someone.

    Parent

    Well, yes (none / 0) (#89)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:15:42 PM EST
    But  by  NOT including  the  committed  SD's,  MCNBC   willfully  misleads   its  viewers.    

    I wouldn't  trust  ANY  numbers  coming  out  of  MSNBC.  

    Parent

    Not including SDs (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:50:56 PM EST
    Does not matter much.

    I imagine Obama may be ahead in pledged delegates even if Hillary wins TX, OH and PA. But not by much and the issue becomes can Obama win and Hillary will have the popular vote lead.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#61)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:58:54 PM EST
    And  THEN  we  deal  with  Florida  and Michigan.  

    Parent
    One Area Where Clinton Got Good News Today (none / 0) (#70)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:03:56 PM EST
    Julian Bond, head of the NAACP, asked Howard Dean that a resolution be found to the Florida and Michigan situation that would respect the will of the voters.  Letter is here.  

    Julian Bond would, of course, know exactly how it feels to not be seated.

    Parent

    I Know I've Been Shocked (none / 0) (#50)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:52:46 PM EST
    at how moved I've been by her campaign and how strong my support has become.  And the MSM has helped immensely in this process.  It's like the more they tear her down, the more determined I become to try to win this thing for her.

    If they'd played this thing straight, I'd probably be a tepid Clinton supporter at best.

    Parent

    My feelings exactly! (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:01:57 PM EST
    I want that woman to win this thing badly!  I'm not even that committed a Democrat but the campaign which has been run against Sen Clinton, by Obama and the god awful MSM, has made me so mad I could bite nails.

    HaHa, committed Democrat. I left the party in 2000 when they wouldn't stand up for Gore and have never came back.  Guess you could say they left me?

    Parent

    Ralph (none / 0) (#94)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:17:57 PM EST
    They  left you?  

    I'm  feeling  the  same  way  about  the  FISA  vote  today,   with   lotta  Dems  crossing over  to vote  with   George  W. Bush.  

    Parent

    Yep, they left me when (none / 0) (#114)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:33:17 PM EST
    it became apparent that Democrats were more worried about offending the Washington Post editorial page than do the right thing.  I've never seen a more spineless group.

    The FISA vote today just reinforces my low opinion of them.  If more of them were like Feingold, it would be worthwhile to be a Democrat.  But as it stands, I'm just gonna stay an Independent and not waste time or money on the DNC.

    Since Texas is fully open, I will be voting for Hillary in the primary and at the "closed" caucus.  It's closed only in that you have to have voted in the democratic primary to participate.


    Parent

    Ralph (none / 0) (#132)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:53:02 PM EST
    I'm   basically  an  Independent, too,  but  in  our  Texas, to vote in a  primary, you have  to register  as  "Something."   lol

    I'm  a  registered Dem, but  I fall in  the  middle-right  category,  centrist  type.  I voted  for   Ronald  Reagan  (I  admit it),  would never  vote  for  a Teddy  Kennedy. Fiscally conservative  (loved  Clinton's  ability to  balance  a  budget, couldn't  care less  if  he  got a bj);  socially ,  Libertarian/Democrat.  Terri  Schiavo  incident  made  me  swear  never  to vote  Republican again;  basically,  none of the government's  damm  business.  Universal  healthcare  is  a  MUST  do, in  my  opinion--no  compromises.  

    Vote  for  a  Hillary Clinton in  a  heartbeat.  
    Mistrust   a  "hopeful"  Obama  with no concrete plans.   I've  already been to the prom ,  thank you  very  much.

    But  it  does   help  me  understand  all the  male,  Reagan  Democrats  who will find  Obama  and  his  "Hope  thing"   too  idealistic   and  too  vague.  

    And  I  just  don't  believe  for  a  second  that  Obama  will gather  up a lot of  white  male  voters    based on  Hope.  

    They   want  experience,  competence,  results.  

    Hype  won't  do  it  for them.  

    Just  my   2  cents.  :)

    Parent

    The all party breakdowns were (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    Whites - 52-42 Clinton.

    A-A- 84-15 Obama.

    Latinos - 55-45 Clinton.


    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:22:43 PM EST
    White men 48-45 Obama
    White women 56-38 Clinton
    Black men 86-11 Obama
    Black women 82-17 Obama


    Parent
    I Was Going to Post That (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:24:18 PM EST
    He's got to do something about white women.  And I don't mean dragging Oprah and Caroline out for another tour.

    Although perhaps they're Hillary's version of African American voters, they aren't so much voting against Obama as they are for Hillary and so there isn't much Obama can do.  

    Parent

    Pick Hillary as a running mate (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:27:01 PM EST
    in a GE.

    And vice versa.

    Parent

    I'm still not convinced on Hillary as running mate (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    That would almost make me like him less, for some reason.  I don't think I could take it.  I don't say that to be a sore loser, I mean I find the optics of a woman running with a man 15 years her junior as a way of convincing me to forgive him for his sexist dog whistling - well that isn't going to work for me.  And I don't want to watch her torn down every damned day to become Vice President.  Or to listen to Obama supporters talk about how she's their impeachment insurance.

    It's not the criticisms of Hillary I mind, it's the repeated right wing attacks from Obama himself and his supporters.  Their use of old smears and the media's hatred.  That she would have to stand next to him as his second and smile - that just makes me angry all over again.  And when this is over I don't want to be angry.

    Let her campaign on his behalf and rally her voters that way.  

    Let him repair the damage the old fashion way, by actually trying to win women's votes and pandering to them instead of letting some surrogate do it.  Bill Clinton was big enough to go to Central Los Angeles.  Obama can do the same thing.  

    Parent

    YES (none / 0) (#33)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:44:31 PM EST
    Once  again,  your  analysis  is  spot  on.  

    Exactly how  I feel.  She  shouldn't have  to  "buck up "  the  junior  Senator   as his  VP.  

    Parent

    I fear it would be a setup (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:04:08 PM EST
    for her to take the fall for whatever would go wrong in an Obama administration.  It's just so easy to keep blaming a Clinton. . . .

    Parent
    Yeah, it just struck me as stumpy (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:21:42 PM EST
    These Demographics point to losses elsewhere.

    Stupid autocomplete! (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:21:59 PM EST


    Parent
    Stumpy? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:24:08 PM EST
    The funny thing is these demos are staying pretty consistent in all primary states. Though Obama has improved somewhat with white men.

    More than ever, it seems clear to me he will need Hillary as a running mate. And vice versa as always.

    Parent

    Not Sure About Hillary as VP (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:27:16 PM EST
    I still think the optics on that hurts Obama more than it helps him.

    But I do think Clinton would be very wise to offer Obama the VP slot on her ticket.  I'm not sure that's the strongest ticket in terms of winning votes, but it is the strongest for uniting the base and driving turnout, which I think is how we should be trying to win this year.

    Parent

    Not with white women (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:28:41 PM EST
    and to some extent, A-A women, it doesn't.

    Notice the gender gap between A-A men and A-A women.

    Parent

    I Can Tell You (none / 0) (#22)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:39:10 PM EST
    that this white woman has a very intense negative feeling to seeing Hillary Clinton run as Obama's VP.   It's not rational, but it makes me want to cry.  It does not make me want to vote for him.

    It's the opposite of what my reaction should be.  But there it is.

    I'd like Obama a lot better with Joe Biden as his running mate.  Now maybe I'm the only one, but that's how I feel and it's a very strong feeling.  Again, not necessarily rational, but strong.

    Parent

    Seems nuts to me (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:39:57 PM EST
    But you are a white woman and I am not.

    Parent
    Seems Nuts to Me, Too (none / 0) (#25)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:41:23 PM EST
    Frankly, I'm shocked at my depth of feeling on this issue.  It seems to be the one thing I cannot approach rationally.  

    Parent
    Don't be shocked (none / 0) (#64)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:00:36 PM EST
    Many of us  feel  exactly  the  same.    

    Parent
    Agree totally with you BDB (none / 0) (#26)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:41:49 PM EST
    being his VP doesnt sound right to me at all since he has been attacking her non stop...

    Parent
    It's More Than That (none / 0) (#41)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:48:54 PM EST
    Politicians attack each other all the time and then make up and work together.

    But there's been an arrogance about Obama and his team about Hillary.  The "likable enough" stuff.  It would feel to me like his selecting her was designed to humiliate her, not win me over.   Or perhaps I'm just thinking about the commentary I'd have to hear from the Chris Matthewses of the world.  

    Again, I know much of this isn't rational.  I don't think it's fair to view Obama's motives that way.  But that's how it would feel.  And I honestly don't want to feel badly towards Obama if he's the nominee.  And if Hillary's not the VP nominee, I don't think I will.

    I don't have nearly the same negative feelings about him as the nominee the minute I don't see her as the VP.  It's like suddenly he's the first African-American president, which would be a huge and great thing, and he's not John McCain, which is another huge and great thing.

    I don't know, I don't think I'm being very clear because I'm surprised by the depth of my own feeling about this.

    Parent

    Please stop apologizing (none / 0) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:01:00 PM EST
    for what many of us feel.  

    This election (and the media) is bringing out the truth about sexism.  And it's ugly.  And it's not our fault for personally rebelling against it.  

    It may not be personal to men.  But, it's personal. to. us.  And it should be.

    Parent

    "Stumpy" was my browser (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:25:57 PM EST
    being too smart and auto-completing the subject from another comment.

    And I agree, the demos are static.

    Parent

    I wonder if Hillary (none / 0) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:42:41 PM EST
    would take a VP spot....I personally don't think she owes much to the Democratic party after this election.  I hope she puts her own interests above party (dis)loyalty.

    Interesting that they would decide to vote this FISA bill both under the wraps of the Potomac primary and when Obama could be there and Clinton couldn't.

    Parent

    Be careful (none / 0) (#37)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:46:21 PM EST
    about  his improvement  in  white  men.  

    In some   states, like my Texas,   they'll   bolt  to  John McCain   instead.  Kind of  a  "not  a  woman"  vote.  

    So  the  white  men   demo,  given Independents   breaking for McCain,  is not reliable.

    Parent

    Remains to be seen (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    if this is a trend for Obama.

    What is clearly a trend is Hillary's 14-16 point lead among white women.

    Parent

    Not a surprise, really (none / 0) (#69)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:03:15 PM EST
    Women   roared  into New Hampshire  and kicked  the  media's  butt.    Makes  perfect  sense.

    Parent
    You keep saying... (none / 0) (#43)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:49:12 PM EST
    ... this like it is relevant.

    But Texas is not going to go Dem in November.  So it really doesn't matter.  

    Parent

    White men (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:51:36 PM EST
    exist in all 50 states.

    Parent
    Sure it does (none / 0) (#53)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    Texas  is going to help  give  Clinton enough of  those  pledged  delegates you're  always  talking  about ,  to take   the nomination.  

    Texas  matters,  darlin.

    Parent

    That was for mindful. Sorry (none / 0) (#54)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:55:04 PM EST


    Parent
    ugh... (none / 0) (#120)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:39:22 PM EST
    You may be right about Clinton getting enough delegates to win.

    But what does that have to do with McCain stealing men from Obama in November?

    Parent

    Mindful (none / 0) (#135)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:56:58 PM EST
    In the   primary,  white  men  are  voting  against  Hillary.  

    In the  general,  white  men  will vote  FOR  McCain.  

    That  simple.

    Parent

    "General Election" (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:31:40 PM EST
    Are you saying that Obama has to prove that he won't lose the votes of white DEMOCRATS to John McCain?  
    And all these numbers are only DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS, who are more liberal even than most Democrats and have nothing to do with general election voters, many of whom are Independents who don't get to vote in these primaries.
    Obama will of course win California and New York, and Massachusetts in the general election despite losing the primaries.  

    He has to prove (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:36:28 PM EST
    I THINK, that he will not get swamped with whites against McCain.

    As a veteran of the campaigns of David Dinkins, I know first hand that white Dems are not the most loyal when it comes to an A-A candidate.

    Parent

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#44)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:50:15 PM EST
    White  male  demo  is  not  dependable.

    Many  are   "Reagan Democrats" coming  back,  but   won't  see  Obama  with  enough    experience  to be  Commander in Chief.

    They're  MODERATES  who  hate  Bush,  but  don't  necessarily   like  Obama.  

    Not  reliable.

    Parent

    dotn follow the logic here (none / 0) (#56)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM EST
    If they doubt Obama's CiC cred, then why would they come back to the Dem primary to vote for him rather than voting for the war hero on the GOP side?

    And I do believe that a very large majority of white male Democrats are Democrats, period.

    Parent

    Hillary Hate (none / 0) (#60)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:58:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Or Second Reason (none / 0) (#62)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:59:32 PM EST
    They like Obama now, but won't like him after the GOP finishes their smear.  There's a reason why Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry are all polarizing you know.

    Parent
    For a sneak preview (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:10:54 PM EST
    google Obama, Ayers, Dohrn, Weather Underground, terrorist ties -- and see what is being talked about already in Illinois.  Despicable, Rovian, and just the thing to feed Reagan Dems into a frenzy.

    Parent
    Because McCain is already the GOPnominee (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    But you knew that already.

    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#138)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:58:50 PM EST
    So....any post  that   describes  what  Obama  himself  said  at  the MSNBC  debate  gets  pulled.  

    Ooooooh.  That's  fair.

    Parent

    By this logic... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bear2000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:35:08 PM EST
    Hillary can't win the general because she doesn't do well with African Americans, only marginally well with white males, not well with affluent professionals or young people, not nearly as well as Obama with independents, etc etc.

    I mean, come on. Obama is winning everywhere, and slowly eating into Clinton's base. The trendlines are moving inexorably in his favor everywhere.  Do you honestly think those white women coming out to vote for Hillary in a democratic primary are not going to vote for Obama?

    There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about Obama, but electability is not one of them.

    This from an NRO Corner Poster.  They're debating whether Republicans should vote for Hillary in open primaries in order to have a somewhat easier candidate in the general. I am NOT endorsing this post, but it does give some insight into who conservatives think has a better chance of winning. Of course, you could argue this is simply "mind games," but I don't think so. They genuinely fear Obama, and some are actually beginning to argue that in terms of policy Hillary might be preferable.

    Risky Business   [Stephen Spruiell]
    This Robert Bluey post reminds me of a question I meant to ask Corner readers a while ago: Given the choice between a 100-percent chance that Barack Obama wins the general election in November or (let's say) a 66-percent chance that Hillary Clinton does, which would you choose? (I know it's depressing to think about, but for the purposes of this question, those are the only two options.) In other words, how many conservatives find the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency so unappealing, they would guarantee a four-year term for Obama rather than risk it?

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:37:36 PM EST
    White Dems have not proven as loyal to Dems as A-A Dems.

    Parent
    True... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Bear2000 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:45:24 PM EST
    ...but there are plenty of white independents who are also looking for a new home this year. Also, increased AA turnout (it will be historic and breathtaking) may give the margin for Obama.

    I just think it's impossible to determine electability on the basis of exit polls from these states.  Obama will win Maryland.  Virginia's a long shot. But there's no reason why he can't win Ohio but Hillary can, or any other set of states necessary for 270 votes.

    Here's a guess: After February 19, Obama breaks 50 against McCain in a general election poll.  McCain moves ahead of Hillary.

    Parent

    McCain was not his opponent (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:47:53 PM EST
    To project White Indies going big for Obama remains an iffy proposition.

    For the record, I think Obma is more electable than Hillary because he is a Media Darling.

    Parent

    Media Darling (none / 0) (#75)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:06:35 PM EST
    But Obama  won't  always  be the  media   darling, BTD.   Media  LOVES  John McCain.    

    Watch  it  happen.

    Parent

    I agree, but disagree (none / 0) (#92)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:16:17 PM EST
    Its true that the media LOVE McCain. Its a personal thing - he has cultivated them for decades.

    Obama as media darling is a very different phenomenon. They do not have that persoanl relationship with him. He is a darling because he is a great story. And he is a great story because of what he is doing out in the country.

    If he stops attracting people, they will turn on him. If he continues attracting people they will continue to chase him. In other words, it is the Obama phenomenon that is their attraction - it makes great copy.

    So I kinda disagree with the implications of what I, at least, take from BTD's comment. Namely that he is a media creation. That is really not true. They add fuel to the fire by covering him, but the heart of the phenomonon is what he is doing out on the stump, with the people.

    Parent

    That is NOT my implication (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:19:51 PM EST
    My STATEMENT is that Obanma has gotten as favorable Media coverage as any politican in my memory.

    And he will continue to get it.

    Which is why he is the most electable.

    Parent

    ok (none / 0) (#117)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:37:05 PM EST
    sorry for the misunderstand...

    reminds me, actually, of the coverage Reagan used to get.

    Parent

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#102)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:22:40 PM EST
    Did  you see   the  Obama-loving  MSNBC  cut off  his  speech to go the  the   McCain  speech?  

    You'll  begin to  see much, much more  of that  sort  of thing ,  Tano.  

    But  don't  ask  me  for  sympathy.  

    Parent

    dont worry, I wont (none / 0) (#119)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:38:59 PM EST
    I saw the speech through to the end. I thought I was on MSNBC, but I was switching around so...

    Did you see that contrast though - between Obama speaking and McCain? Geez, I was thinking to myself, if I was a Republican, I would be googling hari-kiri instructions about now...

    Parent

    Tano (none / 0) (#139)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:00:15 AM EST
    Did you  hear  the points  made  by McCain   that  show  the   PLAN  to  attack  Obama?  

    They  will  be   quite   convincing  to  the  white  male   voters.    

    Parent

    oh, you are an expert of white male voters now? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:19 AM EST
    sorry, but I heard boilerplate Republican nonsense, mixed in with some of the Bob Dole like military honor rhetoric.

    Its an attempt to appeal to certain men, but hey, guess what, we are a pretty diverse set of people us white men. We dont all just drool over an old Navy pilot who speaks of honor and courage. Some of us actually think there is more to being president than just referencing those virtues.

    Parent

    Yes, a ton of those white women won't vote at (none / 0) (#91)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:15:57 PM EST
    all with Clinton not on the ticket.  By the way, a VP slot for her is a ridiculous idea.  There's no way she should take it.


    Parent
    Your data is not shown at your link at CNN (none / 0) (#20)
    by kid oakland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:36:42 PM EST
    and Sam Stein is not showing your data at all.

    Which makes sense given the overall numbers...Obama at 64% in VA and 62% in MD.

    Fwiw, when you spin a 64% win in Virginia as "troubling"...my common sense radar starts firing pretty loudly.  

    BTD, what's Obama got to do to impress you, win 70% in a primary? (He did that tonight, too, btw...taking 75% in D.C.)

    This post is CLEARLY about Maryland (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:39:13 PM EST
    That you can not turn the page of the CNN exit polls does not surprise me KO.

    Nor does your implication that I am making this up.

    You are a bad joke in this primary season. No need to stop that now.

    Parent

    hehehehehe (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:43:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Kid Oakland is one of the greatest bloggers (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    EVER.

    It saddens me greatly that he has become a complete hack this campaign season.

    Parent

    I remember (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:48:11 PM EST
    SusanHu has the same problem. It's like a switch flips one day and. . .extreme candidate partisan.

    Parent
    True enough (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:52:43 PM EST
    Susan Hu is KO's mirror image.

    But honestly, no one could touch KO as a blogger. No one.

    So the loss I feel is deeper than with Susan, who is a fine blogger as well.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:55:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Hey, no need for that. (none / 0) (#76)
    by kid oakland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:06:37 PM EST
    It just reflects on you when you make comments like that. My browser didn't show the arrows, that's all, thanks for pointing out that there was more there!

    So, Sam Stein is right on VA.

    Obama wins Whites 52-47. Blacks 90-10. and Latinos 54-46 in VA.

    That makes sense given his 64% total.

    Now, Ohio is Semi-Open. Texas is an open Primary, Closed Caucus.

    Now, what was your argument again? That Obama would lose if you project the MD numbers into Texas and Ohio because he did not win the majority of Whites and Latinos in Maryland and Clinton got 52% and 55% of those demographics per the CNN exit poll? (Obama won white men in MD 48-45...Clinton remained strong with white women 56-38%...in fact white women made up over half of her total vote.)

    So, I guess that's not how I understand Texas or Ohio.

    Parent

    Come on (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:09:55 PM EST
    You came in to this post to attack me.

    The title of the post tells you it is about Maryland.

    you do not like those demos for some reason.

    Now VA is interesting but is it a trend or an anomaly?

    Since it stands alone right now, I call it an anamoly. Need more data.

    Indeed, if VA is the harbinger, then Obama will win the big states and that will be that.

    Parent

    No I didn't (none / 0) (#124)
    by kid oakland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:42:12 PM EST
    come to attack you.

    I just wanted to point out some common sense. I'm not the only one who sees MD different than you.

    Parent

    Matt Yglesais? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09:43 AM EST
    On POLITICS? Might as well cite my cat.

    Parent
    ouch (none / 0) (#155)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:13:44 AM EST


    Parent
    Cats are wise (none / 0) (#156)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:13:49 AM EST
    and Matt is not stupid.

    Parent
    And I do not understand what you think (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:14:13 PM EST
    the significance of your Texas link is.

    It is aracne sure. But unless you are predicitng the voters will will be frustrated, the A-A vote will likely be under 20% of the vote.

    Latinos will likely be at least 25% and the rest whites.

    If Hillary carries white and Latinos by 15%, I think a conservative estimate, Obama loses Texas.

    Parent

    Here is the link (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:42:12 PM EST
    to the actual page since you seem challenged by the exercise.

    KO remedial link.

    It would be nice if you could EVER address the substance of my arguments.

    Parent

    Page 3 of the Exit poll (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:43:36 PM EST


    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:45:06 PM EST
    Sam Stein seems unable to read a poll either.


    Parent
    What about some other demos (none / 0) (#48)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:52:33 PM EST
    like:

    Obama wins ALL income groups, with his best showing in the 30K-75K groups.

    Obama wins Democrats (59%) nearly as well as he wins independents (62%)

    Obama wins union households by the same margin as non-union households

    Obama wins all age groups - except sorta tied in 60+ (different small leads for each depending on how exactly that group is broken down)

    Look (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:56:57 PM EST
    If you want to ignore the A-A component of those breakdowns, you are welcome to play the ostrich.

    Parent
    excuse me BTD (none / 0) (#71)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:03:57 PM EST
    I wasn't trying to ignore anything, just expand the conversation to encompass other slices. You've made your points I dont have any argument with them. They are not the whole story though.

    Parent
    Demos (none / 0) (#79)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:08:12 PM EST
    Obama  won't  get  white  women,   seniors,  or  veterans,   either.    

    Parent
    I think those slices (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:15:19 PM EST
    are not meaningful when the A-A votes is what gives Obama his "improvements."

    Parent
    well, I know this is the MD thread (none / 0) (#99)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    but he did win the white vote in VA. What do you make of that?

    Parent
    He won white men (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:28:01 PM EST
    I need to dig a bit and see. Need to see what type of white men.

    High income? Young?

    Need to match it against demos in TX, OH and PA.

    I suspect that he had a high turnout in his best demos, high income, college educated white men.

    Just looked. Exit polls do not provide that detail.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#141)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:01:56 AM EST
    Maybe,  but  any  slice  he  DOESN'T get ,  reduces  the  value  of  his  "meaningful."  

    Parent
    The White Vote (none / 0) (#51)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    Obama won the white vote in VA.  He is expected to win it in WI.  He lost it by a fairly narrow margin in MD.  If he keeps that up in OH and Texas, he retains his lead in pledged delegates.  Hillary will need to win 70% of the white/Latino vote in OH and TX to take the lead.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    losing it by 10, and by 13 among Dems is not a narrow loss. Losing Latinos is a big deal.

    But ignore it as you wish.

    Parent

    He's running against a white woman! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:07:23 PM EST
    BTD,

    I don't know if you realize this or not but Obama is running against a white woman. There is no way he is going to win the white woman demographic in the primaries while Hillary is still in the race. That has very little bearing on whether he will win that demographic in the general election.

    I understand that you're worried that whites won't vote for a black in the general election. (I guess your in the same camp that Rendell is in.) And there is a fraction of people that won't do that. But Obama has shown that he is able to win the white male vote (and the total white vote) in a number of states. You have to take into account who he is running against before you try and extrapolate primary results into the general election.

    I see nothing in the data that would indicate that there will be a mass defection of white women from Hillary to McCain in the general election.

    Parent

    Hillary voters (none / 0) (#82)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:10:26 PM EST
    They  might  just  stay home, given all the   Hillary  hate   espoused  by  Obama  and his  supporters.  

    How  will  Obama  make up that  loss?

    Parent

    And what Hillary hate has Obama expressed? (none / 0) (#86)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:14:30 PM EST
    There's plenty of stupid statements from both Hillary and Obama supporters on the various web sites to go around. But what specifically has Obama said that could be interpreted as Hillary hate?

    Parent
    A lot of Hillary contempt (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:15:51 PM EST
    at the least.

    Parent
    Examples please (none / 0) (#105)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:25:38 PM EST
    I'd like to see examples of things Obama has said, not something that has popped up on dKos.

    Parent
    Oh please (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:29:04 PM EST
    YOu do not believe it I suppose and nothing I show you will convince you. You will just say "oh that is not bad."

    Just remember, Clinton supporters, ESPECIALLY women, do not agree with you.

    Parent

    Give me a quote (none / 0) (#118)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:37:51 PM EST
    If you can show me, fine. If not, then don't make the statement.

    Parent
    That you need a quote (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:08:52 AM EST
    says it all.

    You claim to be unfamiliar with any negative quotes about Clinton by Obama.

    Why should I take you seriously when you say that?

    Parent

    Hillary hate (none / 0) (#108)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:27:26 PM EST
    I  WATCHED  Obama  MYSELF  admit  at  the MSNBC  debate  that  he    had  ALLOWED  his  staff to use  the  race  card  after his  New Hampshire  loss  to buck up  the  Black vote  in  South Carolina.  He APOLOGIZED  for letting  them do it,  which means,   he  admitted  he  had.  

    Don't  pee on my foot and  tell me it's  raining,  dear.

    Parent

    And this is Hillary hate how? (none / 0) (#125)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:42:44 PM EST
    Look, both Hillary and Obama have conducted themselves well. There's been some sniping at the edges but that's to be expected in a primary. And to be honest, the discussion around race and gender could have been much more in the gutter than it has.

    Parent
    you keep saying that, but (none / 0) (#126)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:44:10 PM EST
    all I remember was that the Obama campaign started compiling a list of instances where they felt the Clinton campaign was using race-tinged comments. And it was that - compiling the list, the four-page memo, and thinking about using it to expose the Clinton use of the race card - that is what I remember Obama turning away from.

    Parent
    But this isn't Hillary hate... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:57:29 PM EST
    it's campaigning!

    Look, if Hillary distorts Obama's position on Iraq, is it Obama hate? If Obama distorts Hillary's health care plan, is it Hillary hate?

    Now some of the stuff that appears on the various websites can definitely be considered hate but I don't think either campaign is putting that out.

    Parent

    Campaigning (none / 0) (#149)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09:10 AM EST
    Just  politics,  right?  

    But  Obama  is the one  who   wants  to  CHANGE  all   that  and  raise  the dialogue.  

    Or  that's  what  he  says  in his lofty, hokey  speeches.

    What  he  DOES  is  not  the  same  as  what  he  says.  

    It's   just the  same  ole  same  ole  dirty politics, isn't  it?  

    Parent

    Campaigning (none / 0) (#150)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09:40 AM EST
    Just  politics,  right?  

    But  Obama  is the one  who   wants  to  CHANGE  all   that  and  raise  the dialogue.  

    Or  that's  what  he  says  in his lofty, hokey  speeches.

    What  he  DOES  is  not  the  same  as  what  he  says.  

    It's   just the  same  ole  same  ole  dirty politics, isn't  it?  

    Parent

    Hell hath no fury (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:15:38 PM EST
    like a woman scorned.  Don't be so confident that Obama will automatically get women's vote in the general in high enough numbers to offset MCCain, especially in the states that went to Hillary.

    I'm just saying, not predicting, if he wins the nomination, this may be the year of unprecedented female non-participation.

    Parent

    And in a GE (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:16:36 PM EST
    he will be running against a WHITE MAN!

    Come on, do not play these games.

    Parent

    And that makes a difference? (none / 0) (#115)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:33:34 PM EST
    Look, if you're going to play that game, then Obama is the better candidate since he won the white male vote in both Maryland and Virginia!

    You have to take into account that both Hillary and Obama distort the demographic picture in the primaries. To assume that Obama can't win the Democratic white woman vote in the general election without taking into account that he's running against a white woman is simplistic. And the opposite is true, one shouldn't assume that because Hillary isn't winning the AA vote in the primaries that she wouldn't pick up the majority of that vote in the general.

    Parent

    you really believe it doesn't? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:41:52 PM EST
    Heck a Republican white man!!

    Any Dem is gonna get swamped with white men.

    the question is will Obama get MORE swamped and also lose margins with white women.

    I think Obama is more electable but please, let's not live in a dream world.

    this is gonna be a 6 point election AT BEST.

    Parent

    You're not getting my point (none / 0) (#131)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:52:03 PM EST
    BTD,

    Maybe I'm not conveying my message properly. As I understand your argument, because Obama is losing the white woman vote, he is fighting an uphill battle in the general election but Hillary isn't. I'm saying that using that data without taking into account that Hillary is a white woman is fraught with errors.

    There is a portion of the electorate that will not vote for a black man. Just as there is a portion that will not vote for a white woman. It's just not possible to determine the size of either group from looking at the Democratic primary results when you have a black man and a white woman running against each other.

    Parent

    An uphill battle? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:07:51 AM EST
    Actually my MAIN argument is about the nomination.

    But neither has a cakewalk in the GE. MY argument has been for a week or so now they need each other.

    Parent

    Thanks for this (none / 0) (#134)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    I really worry about all the people who seem to think this election is gonna be some huge blowout by the Democratic candidate.  Just not realistic, even this cycle.


    Parent
    Ralph (none / 0) (#152)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:11:10 AM EST
    Well said,  Ralph.  

    Dems  better  not  think  they  can  just  surfboard  into  the  White  House.  

    We'll  need  every  vote  we  can get....including  Florida  and Michigan.  

    Parent

    I'm not ignoring it (none / 0) (#63)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:59:44 PM EST
    I'm just saying he can keep it up and still win the nomination.  Obviously, he'd rather have more white and Latino votes, but he doesn't need them in the primary.  He will obviously need them in the general, but I really don't see how you predict whether he will get them based on the primary results.

    Parent
    No he can't (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:00:44 PM EST
    unless you believe that the popular vote loser who can not win a contested big state will be the choice of super delegates.

    I do not.

    Parent

    The time to parse them was always (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:53:50 PM EST
    This issue is not new for me.

    But you can try to act as if it is.

    Ignore it at your peril.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#73)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:04:12 PM EST
    Thanks BTD. You wouldn't know it by watching the tube since all they can think to find to say is how much Obama improved in those demos so now "the walls have been broken down" and his problems are over. I don't believe that is true.

    I do think Obama will win Wisconsin, HI, etc., that will be on the strength of his positive press and democratic party demographics in those states. I even think he has a better chance than Clinton to win the nomination, (even if he does lose OH, TX and PA). But winning the Dem nomination is not the prize (not for me anyway), to be president he still needs to win the general election and he can't do it with the demo he has. Sorry, Obamanauts, ain't gonna happen. That dream of independents and Republicans getting swept up in The Dream? Don't make me laugh. The rabid quotient of his supporters have no idea how bad the Republicans (and the press) will make it for nominee Obama. He simply can't win the presidency on some kind of vacuous dream platform he has run so far, or on the enthusiasm of his core supporters, or on the unanimous support of black voters. To win he will have to give the people in the other demographics a REASON to SUPPORT him which will have to be large enough to offset the HIGH NEGATIVES he will start accumulating due to the efforts of the Republicans and media elements that are gleeful enough over Clinton's troubles for now but once they know she is fully toast, will turn their attention to Obama. Does anyone really think they will start attacking McCain?

    Obama has to put forth a POSITIVE reason for Hillary's support base to support him, he hasn't done that yet. He also has to stop insulting our intelligence by implying Republicans and independents will support him in the GE, he hasn't done that yet either. Obama has positioned himself very well to win the Dem nom, but IMHO, very poorly to win the presidency.

    Let's can the Obamanauts stuff (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:05:17 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#116)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:35:37 PM EST
    I should have clarified. There is a vast difference between strong Obama supporters and people who I would call Obamanauts who blindly think that there is no problem here.

    I didn't mean any offense to the first group which includes close friends.

    Parent

    General election (none / 0) (#84)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:13:18 PM EST
    This has  been my point  for  weeks.  

    The  GOAL  is not  just  the primary;  it is  the  GENERAL,  and  the  best  candidate  to  win  that,  with a  mandate, on  behalf of  the  Democratic  Party, without  disenfranchising  and offending  Florida and Michigan.    

    So  far,  Obama  doesn't  have  the  demographics  to do  it.      

    Parent

    You're making a mistake here (none / 0) (#103)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:23:24 PM EST
    As I indicated earlier in the thread, people make a big mistake trying to extrapolate demographics from a primary election into the general when the two candidates have two very strong and distinct bases of support. Just as it's foolish to assume that since Obama is picking up the vast majority of African American votes that Hillary wouldn't get any of those votes in the general, it's as foolish to assume that Obama won't get the majority of the Democratic white woman vote either.

    The only demographic that you can reasonably do this with is the Latino vote. Since neither one is obviously Latino, there's not a natural base for either candidate. If you want to argue about the general election, this is the area to do it.

    Parent

    Then you (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:29:50 PM EST
    cna hardly extrapolate white men and indies for Obama by that logic.

    Parent
    kjblair (none / 0) (#112)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:30:22 PM EST
    But Obama  himself  said  he  wasn't  sure  Hillary    could  carry   HIS  voters.  

    Was  he  lying?

    Parent

    I believe he was referring (none / 0) (#129)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:48:28 PM EST
    to precisely those indies and repubs that he si winning, not his core dem support.

    And that, of course, is the argument for Obama, whether you believe it or not. Both will have solid support from Dems. Obama can do better winning indies and disillusioned moderate repubs.

    Parent

    Maybe now (none / 0) (#136)
    by herb the verb on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:57:26 PM EST
    that he is the media darling of the Dem campaign who hasn't faced the withering fire of the Republican smear machine. But this is only February.

    The GE is in November. It is impossible to predict anything except that things will be different after months and months of relentless hammering.

    McCain is the media darling of the Republicans (Huckabee was the flavor of the month for awhile, but is wearing out his welcome, just watch that dynamic as a warning). For Media Darling in the GE just like The Highlander, "there can be only one".

    Parent

    Tano (none / 0) (#154)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:58 AM EST
    But  you don't  really  KNOW  what   he meant,  do you,  Tano.  

    Nobody  ever  really does.  

    Parent

    yes, I think I do (none / 0) (#159)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:20:42 AM EST
    know what he meant.

    If you are having some problems with that, try a little harder. It would help maybe, if you stopped trying to prove to the world that he isnt being clear about his positions. Once you drop that project, maybe you will be able to hear what he saying a little better.

    But lets face it. You want Hillary to win. You dont really care about understanding what Obama is saying, isn't that true? Except to the extent that maybe you could find something in there to criticize? And if you cant, then you fall back on that he isnt saying anything?

    Parent

    I think he was talking about independents (none / 0) (#140)
    by kjblair on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:00:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Independents (none / 0) (#157)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:14:02 AM EST
    Too late  for that.  

    Exit  polls  are showing Independents  will go to  John  McCain,  not   Barak  Obama.  

    So   does  this  mean  Hillary  COULD  get  all of   Obama's  voters  now?

    Parent

    herb (none / 0) (#122)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:41:32 PM EST
    Last   paragraph  is spot on.  

    Burned  too many  bridges. Now  he  needs  to cross  them and  can't.

    Parent

    He won't be the popular vote loser (none / 0) (#80)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    If he keeps up those numbers.  Say he loses the white vote 52-42 in Ohio.  In 2004 10% of Ohio voters in the general election were black.  Say 20% of the Democratic primary voters are black.  If Obama picks up his usual 80-90%, he wins Ohio.  Similarly, 12% of the voters in the general election in Texas were black in 2004. 20% were Latino.  Again, Obama can lose the white vote by 10 points, the Latino vote by 13 points, and win or be be very competitive in Texas.  

    Show your math (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    If he loses whites and Latinos by 15% and whites/Latinos  are 80% of the vote, he loses and pretty handily.
     

    Parent
    the Math (none / 0) (#107)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:27:13 PM EST
    Say Obama loses 58-42 among whites and Latinos and they make up 80% of the voters.  58% X 80% = 46%.  42% X 80% = 34%.  So it's 46-34 not counting A-A's.

    Now say Obama wins 85% of African Americans, and they are 20% of the voters.  Obama picks up 85% X 20% =  17%.  34% + 17% = 51%.  He wins narrowly.

    Parent

    Your math is off (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:30:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Here's my math (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:39:23 PM EST
    For Ohio - link

    Nothing recent for Texas, but here are the exits for Cali - link

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#128)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:45:31 PM EST
    I wasn't arguing that the Ohio poll results weren't what they are!  I was arguing that today's demographic breakdowns are perfectly consistent with  Obama winning the nomination.  

    Obviously -- as I've said -- if Hillary wins whites by 30 points (as in the Survey USA poll) she wins Ohio.

    Parent

    MY math... (none / 0) (#133)
    by zyx on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:53:19 PM EST
    Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are huge in the GE.  The candidate that generates enthusiasm there is the horse to be on.

    Obama's wins today have ONE that might be of a little interest in the general--Virginia.  In 2004, it was 51%-48% for Bush, and in 2006, of course, it went for a (conservative-ish) Democratic Senator.  It MIGHT swing blue in 2006.  MIGHT.

    VA has 13 electoral votes.  PA has 21, Ohio 20, Florida 27.

    Parent

    The math is correct (none / 0) (#143)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:02:45 AM EST
    The assumptions are assumptions and obviously may be wrong.  But they're the ones you asked me to calculate!

    Parent
    AAs are 12% of Ohio, so (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:18:37 PM EST
    I don't see them comprising 20% of Dems there.  Above 12% of those voting Dem, possible.  But can you explain how AAs become 1 of every 5 Dem voters there?

    Parent
    It is possible (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:22:03 PM EST
    SUSA projects it at 16%.

    But AF's math is horrible.

    Parent

    TX general numbers bear no relation to the primary (none / 0) (#104)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:24:05 PM EST
    I'd have to look up the numbers on the general, but I know that 21% of the Dem primary vote in '04 was black and 24% was Latino. Given the interest in this election, plus the attention lavished by the campaigns, the Latino numbers will almost certainly be higher this time.

    Parent
    latino voters were only 4% of sample (none / 0) (#97)
    by popsnorkle on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:19:34 PM EST
    so with a total sample of 1245 that's only 50 people.  The margen of error on that has to be huge.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:21:24 PM EST
    Hillary could have won them by 25 really.

    Which would be more in line with results from other states.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:44:18 PM EST
    You have demeaned me personally every time you come here.

    And I do not appreciate it.

    Apparently you seem to think because YOU wrote it it could not be demeaning of someone else. It can.

    And I mean what I say, I find you have become a hack in this election.

    Big Tent - (none / 0) (#130)
    by keylord on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:50:10 PM EST
    Where are your demo stats from? Here's what CNN.com reports:

    According to exit polls out of both Virginia and Maryland, in both states Obama won roughly 60 percent of the female vote -- a demographic that has carried Clinton to success in past primaries.

    Clinton fared even worse among men - more than two-thirds in both states chose Obama.

    Meanwhile, the Illinois senator scored his highest percentage of African-American support to date -- winning close to 90 percent of that voting bloc in each state. And the two evenly split the white vote in Virginia, while Clinton slightly beat Obama among the white vote in Maryland. In most past primaries, Clinton has held an edge among white voters.

    Obama even beat Clinton among Latino voters, a group that has heavily favored Clinton in most past primaries. In Virginia and Maryland, Latinos went for Obama over Clinton by 6 points, though their support was not decisive in either contest - only 5 percent of Democratic primary voters in Virginia, and 4 percent in Maryland, were Latino.

    The only demographic Clinton won was white women, who broke for her over Obama by 10 points in Virginia and 13 points in Maryland. But that margin is significantly smaller than the national average on Super Tuesday. She beat Obama among white women by 25 points then, according to national exit polls.

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:06:15 AM EST
    I checked the exit polls.

    You DO realize this post is about Maryland no?

    Parent

    Yes, I do - (none / 0) (#148)
    by keylord on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:08:58 AM EST
    Please note that Maryland data is included in my previous post.

    Parent
    An incomplete argument, with bad assumptions (none / 0) (#142)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:02:20 AM EST
    Currently, as of today, Obama is approaching a lead of 150 in pledged delegates.  May easily be 170, after next Tuesday.  

    If you take California numbers as a baseline, Hilary's lead in pledged delegates was 56% to 44%.

    The total delegate count for March 4, PLUS Pennsylvania is 632

    (161+32+228+23+144)

    At a 56 to 44 rate, the delegate would work out to be:

    a. Clinton - 354
    b. Obama - 278

    That's only a difference of 68 delegates.  Obama is still 100 delegates ahead.  Plus, Missippi and North Carolina haven't been counted, which will go big for Obama.  (as will Oregon).

    You can make a claim (without any numbers) that Ohio will go for Clinton, larger than California did.  But given Texas's strange numbers (primary plus caucus), it is doubtful that Texas will be that high.

    If Obama is 100 delegates ahead, the uncommitted supers will vote for him, and not Hillary.  That is the bottom line.

    You are unfamiliar with polls (none / 0) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:05:30 AM EST
    I take it?

    Clinton leads by 17 in Ohio in a poll released today.

    You also ignore the polling of Texas and of course you ignore Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico.

    Clinton wins those and she is within 50 and is the clear popular vote winner.

    SDs will go to her in that scenario.

    Parent

    SD's (none / 0) (#158)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:19:43 AM EST
    Not  to mention  that    234  of  Clinton's  superdelegates  are  already   pledged  to her, regardless.  

    And  156  of  Obama's  SD's  are  already  pledged  to HIM.    That  would  include  Kerry  and  Kennedy ,  who have   REFUSED  to   vote  with  the  will of  their  state's  delegates.    

    And  there  are still  26  John Edwards delegates  out there in the   fog.  :)

    Parent

    One Thing We Have to Note (none / 0) (#160)
    by bob h on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:04:50 AM EST
    about all the Potomac primaries is that Obama's margin of victory came from blacks voting on the basis of skin color.

    How is Hillary or her campaign to blame for this?
    Not in any way, and I just shot her a Jackson for the March fights.

    Obama Wins Maryland | 158 comments (158 topical)