Does It Smell A Little Like New Hampshire?

By Big Tent Democrat

Triumphalism has returned to the Obama supporting blogosphere and the Media. Everyone is dying to call the race for Obama.

Now I was one of those ready to declare Clinton dead, twice in fact. Once before New Hampshire. And again on Super Tuesday. But I will miss this parade. I expect Obama to win comfortably tomorrow in Wisconsin. But I see no signs of the type of demographic shifts that will give Obama popular vote wins (we may discover how important the "will of the people" remains if Clinton wins handily in Texas and does not get the lion's share of the delegates) in Texas and Ohio on March 4.

Are any Obamaniacs in the blogs and the Media worried about the lay of the land here? Doesn't look like it. Time will tell if their confidence was justified.

Update: This thread is now closed, we're over 200 comments. Thanks for your thoughts.

< Barack Obama - Deval Patrick Thread II | Soft Judges >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wisconsin is (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:20:09 PM EST
    Collegetowns USA so I doubt Clinton will come closer than 10 points but I'd sure like to be wrong.  Their moms could deliver it for Hillary.

    I am talking TX and OH (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:22:19 PM EST
    After Michelle Obama's gaffe today... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ineedalife on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    saying that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud of America, TX and OH may get tougher. If they hear about it, that is.

    But does she put her hand over (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:41:53 PM EST
    her heart when she says the Pledge of Allegiance?

    She wasn't (none / 0) (#225)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:18:23 AM EST
    When Bill Clinton ended genocide in Bosnia?

    Wisconson (none / 0) (#13)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    seem more like New Hamshire than TX and OH.  They're too far out to judge.  Obama campaign is already trying to lower exsoectations for Wisconson

    Too late (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:29:49 PM EST
    Hillary will do well in WI (none / 0) (#114)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    I think that WI will be like NH for Hillary.  It will be close enough that it will help her in TX and OH.  TX worries me a little bit.  The Latino vote is not measured in the same way as the Dallas vote.  Now why would Texas Democrats do that?

    On dkos (none / 0) (#227)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:20:40 AM EST
    Obama supporters have been posting with glee that b/c of low turnout of latinos in '04 and '06, their districts don't have that many delegates, and therefore their votes will count for much less.  

    Hurray for democracy!


    I've given up on trying to predict (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lepidus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:35:16 PM EST
    I was convinced that Hillary Clinton would lose both New Jersey and California. At this point, I'll believe what's happened once it happened, but I'm not playing the expectations game any more.

    Everyone (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by tek on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    meditate for good weather in WI!

    Too Late (none / 0) (#219)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:22:03 AM EST
    It may not snow til later but right now it is cold, cold, cold (2 degrees with a wind chill of -15)  and given that we had rain day before yesterday there is now ice underfoot everywhere!

    It's hard walking for the young, nimble and healthy. For us old coots it's sheer lunacy to attempt to walk very far. Unless broken bones are your thing. Oh and stores are all out of ice melt as is the ever prescient city of Kenosha.(SE WI) I'm spreading table salt. As well a gloom. But I am increasingly glad that I voted for Hillary by absentee ballot last Friday and thus to not have to go out today at all.


    that's not good. (none / 0) (#228)
    by ghost2 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:22:44 AM EST
    Students will be bused to the polls.  Hillary voters are not densely packed in one area, and therefore, have to mostly make it to the poll onr by one.  

    Latina Granny 63 Was an Imposter (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:42:48 PM EST
    The poster pretending to be a grandmotherly, Latina Hillary supporter turned out to be an Obama supporter who posts as Xtreme Fupa.

    Both have been banned and all their comments deleted from the site.

    jeez (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:49:58 PM EST
    Xtreme Fupa

    omg I'm embarrassed by that name, thats terrible, can you ban IP's or just names?

    Thanks. Those exclamation points (none / 0) (#188)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:37:55 PM EST
    were making me about ready to bash my forehead with my keyboard.

    Getting back to the original (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by mg7505 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:52:38 PM EST
    issue, I'm going to disagree with BTD on this one. Obama will take WI by probably as big a margin as he took Minnesota. The residents of the two states are quite alike, as a few people have pointed out.

    Of course I still "hope" that HRC wins (I'm trying not to plagiarize BO, who invented, copyrighted and patented that word).

    News Flash (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:37:36 AM EST
       Hillary will win Wisconsin. All the talk and opinions about Wisconsin will be over in just a few hours.

    Link? (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:44:50 AM EST
    P.S.  I hope you are right.

    Hoping (none / 0) (#220)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:25:29 AM EST
    Your crystal ball is working better than all the crystal balls that say otherwise. Actually I wish everyone with crystal balls would just be quiet and let the voters vote, the votes be counted and the results announced. Sometimes I think that all the speculation and the polls skew the vote one way or another. Not saying this is true, just the way that I feel.

    New Hampshire revisited (1.00 / 2) (#20)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST
    How many states has Obama won since New Hampshire? How many has Clinton won? Oh, I forgot, the states where Obama won don't count nor do the thousands and thousands of voters. Clinton has 35 years of experience, 7 as a Senator. Does living with a surgeon for 8 years mean a spouse can perform operations? Feel the love for the Democratic Party when the Clinton's want do-overs in FL and MI. Rules is rules. Wishful thinking? Don Quixote?

    This is hilarious (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:37:12 PM EST
    Do Obama supporters deliberately miss my point or do they not read the post?

    Thanks for the comedy.


    I am beginning to think (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:42:34 PM EST
    that the missing of points might be deliberate, otherwise they would not keep talking.

    BTD, how you do this every night is beyond me.  You have the patience of...well, I can't even think of anyone that patient.  You are definitely doing the Lord's work here.


    I am convinced some Obama (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:24:29 PM EST
    supporters just plug in a pre-written comment regardless of the post.  Especially late at night.  Obamaspam.

    The odor from New Hampshire (1.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:13:30 PM EST
    This is what we know about New Hampshire. In the very partial recount the Secretary of State didn't allow the examiners to compare the votes versus the roster at polling places. The memory cards weren't ever produced for examination. The Diebold machines are eminently and demonstrably hackable.

    Oh, and in some locations Clinton got a hundred or two extra votes as compared to the actual ballots. How does a couple of hundred votes just show up? I'm not saying that Clinton or anyone in her camp is responsible. I'm saying that this is what is. Something or someone is responsible those extra votes.

    Does this prove that there was a statewide election fraud? Of course not. It proves that there were repeating inexplicable errors at some polling places that favored Clinton. The polls, including the one MSNBC exit poll that Matthews let slip, suggested an Obama victory. No one else released their exit poll information (that's peculiar). Exit polls are how observers judge elections as fair or fixed all over the world, except, perhaps in New Hampshire.

    In short, there has been no full recount, or actually, there has been no actual count, unless you trust the hackable Diebold machines. The majority of the ballots in New Hampshire haven't been counted by a human being.

    So when someone says that a primary smells like New Hampshire it suggests hackable machines, no counting the votes, and weird vote swings that don't show up in the polls (sorry, even Zogby didn't see enough to change what he was predicting).

    Until and unless there is a true and full count of the votes in New Hampshire the results of that primary have the same authenticity of the results of the Republican primary in Washington State. That is, unless the Republicans finally got around to counting the last 13% of the votes there, in which case it has less authenticity.

    oh for the love of God (none / 0) (#134)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:16:30 PM EST
    to bed!

    Jeez, what a bummer. (none / 0) (#140)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:22:47 PM EST
    Not according to excellent posts (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:29:24 PM EST
    by observers on the ground there, who really understood the issues and posted at DKos . . . when I still could stand to go there.  The NH recount showed it was clean.  But thanks for reminding me of yet another story trumped up by media doubting Clinton could win.  That ticked me off, too.

    Won't it take a demographic shift (none / 0) (#1)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:13:51 PM EST
    For Obama to win comfortably in WI?

    No (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:23:03 PM EST
    Sigh (none / 0) (#18)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:32:26 PM EST
    Exit polls from 2004 primaries.

    89% white
    6% A-A
    52% female
    45% with college degree

    81% white
    14% A-A
    52% female
    37% with college degree

    52% white
    24% Latino
    21% A-A
    53% female
    42% with college degree


    Your point? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:36:02 PM EST
    Obama cannot win comfortably in (none / 0) (#25)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:37:41 PM EST
    WI without winning whites, and staying close with white women and white working class men.  That would represent a demographic shift.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    Wel, I do not agree.

    With all due respect, then (none / 0) (#48)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    if you really were ready to call Clinton dead before New Hampshire and Super Tuesday, then I would be inclined to believe the opposite of what you believe as a good possibility.  ;)

    sorry if you have explained this elsewhere (none / 0) (#57)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:06:42 PM EST
    but I am really curious as to why you think WI does not have very favorable demographics for Hillary?

    Primary - she does well. Low AA, high working class pop. Seems ideal for her, no?


    There are other factors (none / 0) (#63)
    by Shawn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    But this might explain it a little.

    you mean people (none / 0) (#71)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:19:02 PM EST
    who are relatively near Obama's constituency, and thus know him better than the rest of the country, would be more inclined to support him?

    Or do you mean that people who are relatively near Hillary's hometown are less inclined to like her?



    So, why "inclined to support" re Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    but "inclined not to like" re HRC?

    BTW:  I notice today AP has changed its campaign story so that both Obama and HRC are, in fact, running to be President of the United States.  Earlier that is what he was running for but she was running to be Commander in Chief.  


    i didn't want to (none / 0) (#86)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:31:44 PM EST
    plagerize myself, by using the same line twice.

    It's PLAGIARIZE (none / 0) (#95)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:38:23 PM EST
    Good point. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:47:10 PM EST
    I have a dream, air castle, bubble*, chimera, daydream, delusion, emotion, fancy, fantasy, hallucination, head trip*, idea, image, imagination, impression, incubus, mental picture, nightmare, pipe, pipe dream*, rainbow, reverie, romance, specter, speculation, thought, trance, vagary, vision, wraith

    Neither. He really wasn't on the radar (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:07:33 PM EST
    up here until this campaign -- at least for Wisconsites who live and work here.  But see downthread for how many people work in Illinois and live in Wisconsin, or have homes in both states (the ones who call Wisconsin the 51st state, "Up North"), or come from Illinois to go to college in Wisconsin, etc.

    Yep. Southern Wisconsin (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    has become increasingly a burb of Chicago; there has been much local media on that in Wisconsin, where it is more affordable (although it also means Illinoisans, used to their price level, don't bargain down as much, driving up southern Wisconsin prices a lot).  This is so even all the way north to Milwaukee's trendy Third Ward condo district.  And Lake Geneva and environs have been Illinoisan for more than a century, with luxurious second homes (so Illinoisans could conceivably have evidence of residency, by Wisconsin's loose rules, register tomorrow, and vote in both).  And many, many students from Illinois go to Wisconsin schools -- lots at UW-Madison and UW-Parkside in Racine/Kenosha near the border, and many at smaller schools such as Beloit College on the border.  

    Similar de facto burbs of the Twin Cities are in western Wisconsin, many students as well with tuition reciprocity between the states, and you saw how Minnesota want.  And you also saw this immense impact of Illinoisans in Iowa, on their western border (and with even looser rules about residency in Iowa caucuses).  

    All this will make it hard to measure tomorrow.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#139)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:21:56 PM EST
    That's helpful.  So I'll still be worried even in Obama wins.  But I'll take it!

    Youbetcha. And your research on (none / 0) (#170)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:01:51 PM EST
    the demographics here is good, too.  But as I've noted elsewhere, keep in mind that this is a very segregated state, and most AAs in the state live in one Congressional/delegate-allocating district . . . although it is not mostly an AA district, as I recall (I've got to look up the recent revised stats -- the census redid Milwaukee last year, based on a challenge, that boosted us to more than 600,000 population, so also look for the up-to-date stats).

    That could skew matters on delegate counts vs. popular vote.


    Oh, also re your exit poll stats (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:35:04 PM EST
    They suggest that the pollsters following that model tomorrow could be off at first (until they make their usual adjustments to reflect realities).  Those stats are more than double the actual educational level attained by residents of the state, so if the less-than-college Wisconsinites turn out more like their share of the population, that could have an effect.  And the model also seems off in terms of women voters, in a state with one of the highest women's voting rates in the country.  Also, the youth vote that with a great GOTV effort was second in the country in 2004 actually was first in the country in 2006, with another great GOTV effort in some UW towns to win back the legislature (and it worked for the Senate but not the Assembly).

    Of course, those exit polls also were for a day that was at least 50 degrees warmer than it will be tomorrow in Wisconsin. :-)


    Next only counts in horse shoes (none / 0) (#122)
    by Prabhata on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:03:05 PM EST
    I don't think that being next to another state has any significance.  CA votes very differently than all the states next to it.  There are some similarities because they are in the West, but not enough to correlate.

    Shawn, my post downthread (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:04:15 PM EST
    as it turns out, was affirming yours.  The map matters, with the proximity of the Flatlanders (their state now is renamed, so they're Obamalanders, I guess).

    Don't the (none / 0) (#38)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:47:29 PM EST
    52% women and 6% A-A numbers both seem low for this election cycle?  I think with those demographics it could easily go either way, depending on turnout.

    Probably (none / 0) (#43)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:54:18 PM EST
    Since 6% of WI is A-A and most of those are Dems, stands to reason it will be closer to 10% in the primary.

    Still, I draw two conclusions:
    (1) Obama is unlikely to win comfortably tomorrow.
    (2) If he does win comfortably, that would represent inroads into Hillary's base.

    Which is why I think WI is more important than a lot of people realize.


    What makes you think (none / 0) (#152)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:33:55 PM EST
    that Obama appeals only to African Americans?

    If that were true he wouldn't have come this far.

    Am I missing something?


    Yup, you're missing something (none / 0) (#175)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:11:57 PM EST
    Nobody's saying Obama appeals only to African Americans, but he has consistently won a higher percentage of African-Americans than non-African Americans and there have been other demographic patterns as well: he does better with men than women, non-Latinos than Latinos, and the college-educated than non-college educated.  Demographics matter.

    Texas (none / 0) (#49)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:58:32 PM EST
    demographics are probably not as important as on would think because of the way the delegates are allocated.  See Burnt Orange Report for an breakdown.  

    Wisconsin has an open primary and the Independents/Republican crossovers may be more of a factor there.


    Demographic shift? (none / 0) (#149)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:31:38 PM EST
    Can someone tell me the demographics in Idaho, Washington State and Idaho?

    I said it earlier (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:14:55 PM EST
    but, what I am seeing in the news reminds me a lot of how the media were acting right before the polls closed in NH.  Their language went from ecstatically Obama to very couched "wait and see" rhetoric.

    I'm not saying that I think Clinton will sweep WI (though Cream is doing her best to make it so!) but it does appear that the Obama tide is waning.

    My theory: they have stopped coddling the press.  You don't make make the press stand outside in zero degree weather for an hour.

    Politics is personal.

    Kathy, here's an interesting column by (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:18:30 PM EST
    Howard Kurtz on media coverage of Clinton.

    Washington Post.

    I've become a pessimist and I expect Obama to win easily but not by too much delegate wise.


    Howie Kurtz is defending Hillary now? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:22:05 PM EST
    Another stopped clock, I guess.

    Fixed your link (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:41:29 PM EST
    Thanks...I forgot to check it. I think I had an (none / 0) (#104)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:45:07 PM EST
    extra http in there.

    Yeah, a little over the top (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:15:52 PM EST

    Have you seen this? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:22:16 PM EST
    My memory is hazy. Was the Dean campaign as pathetic during its "implosion" stage as the Clinton campaign has behaved the last week or two?

    I'm trying to figure out if this is normal behavior for a desperate campaign or if the Clintons are reaching new heights of idiocy.

    That's what BTD and I are talking about (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:24:50 PM EST
    What a dumb a**. I always read the links (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:31:07 PM EST
    before I post but I was so disgusted with that I posted before reading it.

    kos is positively begging (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    to be wrong about this.

    I'm positively begging him to be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:43:37 PM EST
    too. I can't decide if I want Clinton to win this bad because of her or because of behavior like that.

    Don't be too hard on yourself. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    But be grateful BTD didn't notice your goof before you did!  (I speak from painful experience.)

    More than a little over the top (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:36:08 PM EST
    Closer to MSNBC's version of dancing on her grave.  I guess I take this too personally because of the amount of time I have spent on many of these sites over the last 4-5 years but I never thought I would see it get this nasty toward another Democrat.  

    Pride goeth before destruction (none / 0) (#61)
    by badger on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:10:29 PM EST
    and a haughty spirit before a fall.

    King James Version? (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:29:37 PM EST
    Doesn't sound right any other way (none / 0) (#91)
    by badger on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    See, now (none / 0) (#120)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    That is such a contrast from the discussion we had here. Both sides and many arguments represented, and I actually learned a few things and was exposed to different points of view. Some of the ridiculous, of course, but some valid and almost all thoughtful.

    Over there is like a monkey house.

    And for the record, I don't like the completely pro-Hillary blogs either, though there is less feces-throwing.


    I'm an Obamaniac, (none / 0) (#6)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:20:17 PM EST
    I guess (though I prefer to be called an "Obama supporter"), because I think Hillary's support for the Iraq war authorization disqualifies her and because I think her negative's indicate she'll attract rightists who'd otherwise sit out to come to the polls. And I, for one, am indeed worried about the lay of the land because I have not heard a convincing argument why she shouldn't win WI. Polls in this season have been notoriously off-track. Why shouldn't she win?

    I'm worried, indeed.

    Worried too (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:00:16 PM EST
    The "vibes" don't bode well for Obama.

    I phone banked for Obama in WI tonight, and I had seven Obama supporters to two undecideds (aka Clinton supporters too nice to hurt my feelings), 10 phone messages, and 23 wrong number/do not answer (is it common for campaigns to have such a high number of bad numbers).

    We shall see.


    Bad Numbers (none / 0) (#119)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    In my experience phone banking for Clinton out here in California, there were a fair number of "bad numbers."  I don't know if I had it that high, but if Obama is focusing on college students and younger folks, it would stand to reason that many of them change numbers fairly often.

    I've had almost 20 robocalls today (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:10:05 PM EST
    in Wisconsin.  I'm not kidding, I knew they were coming, so I decided to count them.  And I've many in previous days, too.  I usually just don't answer (thank you to the God Calleridus:-) but also decided to tally who was calling the most (and talk back, so much fun!).  We went through this as a swing state in 2004, too, so we're battle-hardened.  Sorry 'bout that.

    Btw, I got one human candidate's voice today, too.  My choice for local alderman.  I told him that even if he didn't already have my vote, he would have won it just for calling me himself, instead of the machines that called me many times for other aldermanic candidates (there are seven of those!).

    And there might have been more calls, because I got a lot of beeps -- when I was trying to do business . . . and yep, when I was doing phone-banking, too. :-)


    I'll Give You a Reason (none / 0) (#117)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:56:40 PM EST
    Open Primary

    Obama has lost Democratic voters overall by more than 1/2 million votes, but he still leads in the popular vote because of Republicans and independents and both have a history of participating in the Wisconsin primary.  

    I think there's a very good chance that Obama loses among Democrats tomorrow, but I still predict him to win the primary.


    I think you're correct (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:11:49 PM EST
    so observers, don't think all the votes for Dems tomorrow will be there in November.  We were the closest state in 2004.  And there have been open campaigns for crossovers on conservative talk radio, in addition to the subtle front-page encouragement of the conservative paper that's the largest in the state.

    Cream City, I'd (none / 0) (#138)
    by hvs on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:20:23 PM EST
    be interested in your reaction to my reaction to the matter of the "I have a dream" speech.
    I don't think either borrowings from allies rose to the level of what people think they mean by "plagiarism."

    I commented earlier in those threads (none / 0) (#168)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:58:07 PM EST
    -- and as one who has been plagiarized, as well as now teaching and part of a crackdown on it.  So I think you can imagine my reaction, or you can go read it.

    Aside from the definitional discussion, though, there's no question this was not good for Obama -- not the news that ought to have dominated the agenda the day before caucuses and a primary.  Of course, it may have worked well to distract from the even more problematic (in terms of perception) comment of his spouse here today.  The media honeymoon may be over.


    CNN's new poll has Texas 50-48 HC. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:25:05 PM EST
    That's getting pretty close and with the caucus later that night, that doesn't look too comforting.

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:29:22 PM EST
    It  is a different poll. IT does not reflect it is "getting close."

    If there was a trend in the same poll, that would mean something.

    Right now it ia a datapoint. Might as well be worried about the ARG poll that has Obama up 6.


    looking for a trend (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:57:39 PM EST
    Have you seen the aggregation of polls at pollsters dot com?

    The one for Texas is here.


    If Obama can get (none / 0) (#158)
    by coigue on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:43:34 PM EST
    a good solid bite out of Hillary's Latino base, I think it's pretty convincing evidence that he will sweep the general against McCain. It may convince some of the superdelegates, as well.

    True, I think I'm looking for anything to (none / 0) (#41)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    reinforce my negative feelings right now.

    Also, I think TPM had the (none / 0) (#132)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:15:51 PM EST
    Confidence level at 95% on that poll (i couldn't find the methodology elsewhere when I was searching earlier) which in my mind, may not produce the best survey results...I'd like to see some consistently lower CL polls with a low error rate and larger samples...many of the polls are a result of samples JUST large enough they can go to print and "keep up" with the race

    Nm (none / 0) (#136)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    it was his posting of the Gallup national poll...

    Does anyone have a link to the methodology on the CNN/ORC poll?


    Can't find demographics for the CNN poll (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:42:56 PM EST
    so I don't know what to make of it.  If I had to guess I'd say you could average it with the Rasmussen poll for the same time and come out with Clinton +10.  That's probably not far off.

    I expect her to win the primary here but, with the weird evening caucuses on election day, an 8% win in the primary could result in a 5-6 delegate loss.

    I hate everyone who had a hand in putting this crap together!


    Hi, Ralph-- (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:45:07 PM EST
    Sorry, where is "here" for you?  WI?

    Austin, TX (none / 0) (#50)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:59:11 PM EST
    in the only county which went blue in '00 in this reddest state.  We were also blue in '04, but I think Hidalgo in the valley joined us then.

    I have hopes for a Hillary win here because of her local history in registering voters for McGovern and some strong ties to the Hispanic community.


    Very nice town, Austin (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:02:24 PM EST
    Except for the bats.  Y'all are getting the debates, right?  Can you tell me if it's true that they are closed to the public?  And if so, why?

    Also, a tad off topic (or on another topic): just saw this on another site vis-a-vis plagiarism.  This is going to be HUGE once it hits the media tomorrow.  Stealing from children?  The shame!  The horror!

    Bob the Builder


    Yes, the debates are closed to the public. They (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:04:49 PM EST
    do have a lottery for some tickets, about 100-200, I think.  Debate is being run by CNN and the Texas Democratic Party, so probably all the fat cats will be there.  And I think it is going to be in a smallish venue.  They have set up a $50 per person ticket event for the public.

    sends a bad message (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:09:00 PM EST
    I think, and leaves out a lot of college kids in a heavily college-kidded town.

    I wonder if this was something the Clinton folk asked for as an antidote to stacking the audience?  As I recall, the debate was originally going to be in Houston, but then was moved to Austin.

    I'm always fascinated by all these behind-the-scenes maneuverings.


    What I heard was that because the debate would (none / 0) (#66)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:13:50 PM EST
    be on University of Texas property they didn't want to seem political and said that it couldn't turn into a campaign event.  So I think that had something to do with it.  But there will be some college kids there because UT did say that they thought it would be great for some of the kids to participate.  Austin is the capital of Texas and a VERY political town.  So anybody who is anybody in Democratic politics will be there.  Sort of like the California debates where all the movie stars showed up.

    Except the TV viewers (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:24:07 PM EST
    won't recognize them.  :-)

    Which is why you must promise (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    to live blog the debate!   Now, at the lower left corner of your screen in the white Stetson is . . . .

    What's funny is that they think EVERYBODY knows (none / 0) (#96)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:38:26 PM EST
    who they are!

    Michelle Obama won't approve. (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:31:47 PM EST
    In the Newsweek cover story it was reported she strongly told Obama's handlers not to ever let the audience be stacked against him at a debate.

    She was right (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:12:13 PM EST
    when the crowd is with him, as it definitely was in SC, he really does well.  When it is not with him, or when it's divided equally, he tends to do poorly or, at best, place.

    But, I would assume Bill Clinton is saying the same thing about the debates.  I wouldn't say it's a bad thing to note that if the crowd is with you, you do much better.  What worries me is that Obama does exponentially better when he has the room.  Again, all politicians have egos, but if Obama makes it to the GE against McCain, and finds himself in a tough room, what's going to happen?

    I must say, the kind of crap Clinton stands up to, all the while still smiling, just floors me.  It's one of the reasons I am such a firm and exuberant Clinton supporter: she just will not be stopped.


    Did you catch the new, improved version of (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:15:02 PM EST
    Michelle's interview in the Newsweek profile?  

    If they think I'm going to a $50 debate (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    watch, well you know.

    I tried to get tickets to the debate as soon as I (none / 0) (#70)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:18:00 PM EST
    heard about them.  I have a friend who is connected to UT and he is the one who told me all this.  I will stay at home so I can scream and throw things at the TV when BO states a falsie or disses HRC!

    Sounds like the optimum idea! (none / 0) (#84)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:30:01 PM EST
    We love the bats because they eat mosquitos! (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:12:18 PM EST
    Yes the debate is here in one of the smaller venues at UT that holds ~7000.  Why the small venue?  Security?  

    After all the fat cats got their tickets, the venue was essentially full so they closed it to the public.  Thanks to a loud and persistent outcry, the lovely party decided they would give out 100 tickets via a drawing of some sort.

    Texas Democratic Party  -  for "some" people.

    Ripping off kids is a travesty.  Where's the outrage!


    Failed linkage. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    the bats (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:43:00 PM EST
    It is a bit freaky, when you walk out to your car at night and they are flying all around.  I grew up in SA and there are lots of bats their too.

    AS for tickets, they are giving out 100, and 20,000 people have signed up so far.


    Austin (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:48:18 PM EST
    is pretty favorable Obama demographics.

    Didn't Clinton (none / 0) (#82)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    Didn't the Clinton camp have any interest or have any say in the delegate process in the years leading up to this? Word from the Clinton camp suggests that they didn't even know or understand how the Texas primary worked.

    I can believe that since there hasn't been (none / 0) (#89)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:32:21 PM EST
    a caucus actually held since 1988, or so I read locally.  I doubt if anyone thought it would ever get this far.

    Most democrats I talk to here in TX were also clueless about how this worked.


    I heard Bill explaining (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:37:17 PM EST
    it in speeches. Most people had no idea there is a hybrid system here.

    Caucus (none / 0) (#162)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    We caucused in my precinct inAustin in 2004.

    That is based (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:34:08 PM EST
    on a paragraph from a Wapo article:
    Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended.

    so . . . first they decide that (none / 0) (#102)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    first they decide that (using the Rudy 9iu11iani strategy) Texas and Ohio will be their firewall, and then after that they are surprised at how Texas works?  (That a large part, perhaps up to 1/3) get decided by caucuses?

    Chorus: if she can't run a campaign, (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:50:32 PM EST
    how will she be able to run the executive branch?

    Well it isnt just that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:50:57 PM EST
    Many of her best districts don't have many delegates, because it is best on passed turnout.  The delegates are split proportionally in each senate district, and senate districts have between 2 and 8 delegates.

    They are pretty much at the mercy of that (none / 0) (#137)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:19:21 PM EST
    It does seem odd that Dallas would have lots of delegates since it's been one of the reddest parts of the state until '06.

    When I lived there you had to turn over a lot of rocks just to find a democrat.


    Bush (none / 0) (#166)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    barely won Dallas County, so it had good Dem turnout.  The county went blue in 2006, but there were intense GOTV efforts before that.

    I'm worried too (none / 0) (#14)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:25:16 PM EST
    But a comfortable win in WI will comfort me a lot.  I don't get why WI is seen as so much better for Obama than Ohio and TX.  

    Hillary could well win Wisconsin (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:41:34 PM EST
    Events have gone in her direction the last 24 hours....The polls are close, and in 1988, the white vote collapsed.....

    I would not be surprised to see a narrow Hillary win.....

    Texas and Ohio are frankly too far off to tell clearly what will happen.  

    What do you mean the white vote collapsed? (none / 0) (#97)
    by hairspray on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:38:33 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson's white vote (none / 0) (#185)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:36:18 PM EST
    collapased in the 1988 Democratic Primary in Wisconsin......Check the Wikipedia article on the "Bradley Effect."`

    Was Jesse Jackson's appeal as broad as (none / 0) (#189)
    by hairspray on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:48:27 PM EST
    Obama's is now?  Seems like racism was more an issue in 1988 then, but I live on the west coast which is different than the midwest.

    Huh? It;s almost all white voters (none / 0) (#143)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:25:07 PM EST
    in Wisconsin, but for one Congressional district, mine.  And I don't see signs of collapse around me.  The white people are looking darn sturdy here, if a bit cold.  (Wind chill of minus zero again, sigh.)

    See my post above about (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:37:00 PM EST
    the Bradley effect.

    Yes, now I see what you mean (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST
    And Milwaukee has change a lot, a majority-minority city now.  But Wisconsin, it doesn't change fast.  

    On the other hand, Obama does well in areas where there is little racial conflict -- as there is not in most of Wisconsin, with almost all AAs in the state living in Milwaukee.  So we will see.


    BTD (none / 0) (#35)
    by tek on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:44:53 PM EST
    From your lips to god's ears!

    The point of the post (none / 0) (#39)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:48:14 PM EST
    is to signal that some Obama supporters are feeling triumphant over on Kos's site. I read the 400 plus comments over there and all I saw were hilarious examples of Hillary being caught using other candidates lines. Lots of rah rah and go Obama, nothing any different than this site does for Clinton. Ginning up a fake controversy has been most entertaining.

    Are you reading the same TalkLeft (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:54:58 PM EST
    I've been spending way to much time reading?

    Yes, Daily Kos (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by xjt on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:03:37 PM EST
    Is definitely the place to go for a clear and unbiased view of Clinton versus Obama, 1jane. Did you just discover it? And I agree. The comments over there are usually hilarious.

    Some days (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:22:33 PM EST
    I think it's a satire site.

    last night there was a diary (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:10:10 PM EST
    about pending Rezko trial.  Diarist implied, w/o outright saying it, that the prosecution was politically motivated.  That Patrick Fitzgerald, such an apologist for the Bush admin.

    Jeralyn, please... (none / 0) (#52)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:01:41 PM EST
    ...note that while you say "it is a site where all are welcome", there are many of us that don't feel very welcome here.  See, e.g., the post further on down about Obama Talibans.

    (I say this sadly, because this had been one of my favorite sites since the start of the Libby trial.)

    Please note (none / 0) (#121)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:03:00 PM EST
    that people who don't necessarily support your candidate are not happy about that language, either.

    thanks (none / 0) (#123)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:05:04 PM EST
    I was glad to see that.  (Although it was only one of many examples -- otoh, that was the only bad one that appeared in this thread).

    Nevertheless, thanks.


    Note back (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:28:44 PM EST
    I don't read all the comments. If one is offensive, someone needs to email me. I read sporadically. I'll go look for the Taliban one now.

    Found it and it's gone now (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:31:23 PM EST
    I'm Torn (none / 0) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:31:02 PM EST
    Having one site on the lefty internet where Obama supporters aren't coddled might be good for them.  

    Otherwise you're right about the language.

    But I never liked Clintonista either.  You know?  When I made a comment about that, I was told by your OBAMA SUPPORTERS that I was being a crybaby.

    Maybe I was being just that.

    Some things to think about, hopefully it cause no real discomfort.


    Hey, BTD calls us Clintonistas. (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:48:04 PM EST
    BTD (none / 0) (#212)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:25:11 AM EST
    Is not a role model.

    He's a ____ to everyone in the world.


    And that makes it okay? (none / 0) (#221)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:41:11 AM EST
    Oh Please! This is nothing like dkos (none / 0) (#192)
    by hairspray on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    from which I recently escaped. If anyone said anything positive about Bill or Hillary there were at least 15 comments citing a litany of GOP talking points and the same old bag of greviances. At least one or two of the comments were obscene. As far as I can see Obama has had some support, but it is tempered as is the Clinton support.

    Good call (none / 0) (#68)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:15:59 PM EST
    Get her (or more likely him) out of here.

    done (none / 0) (#159)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:46:26 PM EST
    see my comment below, she was an imposter and Obama supporter.

    Thats funny (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    becasue in the previous post, most people here think that because Hillary Clinton accused Obama of plagiarism, his campaign is going to implode.

    Now I was one of those ready to declare Clinton dead, twice in fact. Once before New Hampshire. And again on Super Tuesday.

    No my recollection is you declared Obama dead on super-tuesday, and accused people of Obama bias for not doing the same.

    the actual quote from (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:23:35 PM EST
    Obama's Bad Night:

    Of course anything can happen but I think Hillary Clinton stopped Barack Obama for good tonight. I know a lot of bloggers and the Media will go on and on about delegate counts but the point is Obama had his fair shot and he did not deliver today. I do not think he will have another one.

    He said ON Super Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by AF on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:30:51 PM EST
    Not after.  Here's the link where he predicted an Obama blowout.

    So Big Tent has a lousy prediction record (none / 0) (#141)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:22:56 PM EST
    He not only missed the states Obama won and lost on Super Tuesday, he also was wrong about writing off Obama after Super Tuesday.

    So this means what? That BTD is right about what? I certainly wouldn't go to the track with him.


    That was after she won CA & NJ. Earlier (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:32:02 PM EST
    when Obama was expected to win, he said that would put her away.

    Maybe someone can refresh me (none / 0) (#144)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM EST
    but I don't remember any surveys saying Obama was going to win either California or New Jersey. He closed the gaps somewhat, but I don't remember him being favored in either.

    Zogby had him ahead ... (none / 0) (#218)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:39:25 AM EST
    .. by 13% in California and tied in New Jersey.



    Barack Obama for Good stopped, (none / 0) (#105)
    by magster on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:46:22 PM EST
    so its been Barack Obama for Evil ever since. Plagiarism is evil.

    @#$%@$ exclamation points, again. . . . (none / 0) (#213)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:11:11 AM EST
    I'm gonna need a new keyboard, bet on it.

    Two too many -- and my aversion (none / 0) (#233)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    already was well-developed from grading papers by sophomores.  They also think "lol," "omg," and :-) are now words in the English language, like, y'know!!!

    There is a reason for the phrase "sophomoric writing style."


    That's pretty funny (none / 0) (#108)
    by jibeaux on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:47:14 PM EST

    This (none / 0) (#156)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:39:22 PM EST
    most people here think that because Hillary Clinton accused Obama of plagiarism, his campaign is going to implode.

    Is a rather gross misrepresentation.

    What I saw was that most think it is something not easily dismissed. It calls his character, integrity and authenticity into question. It could make people wonder what else about him is phony and borrowed. It is something the media could get behind because it is easily communicated and clear and the media is sensitive about plagiarism. And the "creative class" that O is supposed to be so attractive to does not admire or appreciate plagiarism. Everything he says from here on out could be examined more closely than it has been in the past.

    However you spin it, it is not good for him. But few people think this single incident means his campaign will implode.


    I just listened to Aaron Copeland's (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:50:08 PM EST
    Lincoln Portrait, with Andrew Young reading Lincoln's words.  As I listened, I was speculating if Obama's speeches might someday be set to music and performed on Presidents Day.  What do you think?  

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:03:56 PM EST
    It already is...have you not seen the "Yes I can" video? (only slightly snark)

    I've managed to miss it so far. Please (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:29:56 PM EST
    warn me if its coming soon to a concert venue near me.

    World tour starts next month (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:14:57 AM EST
    I think they kick off in Idaho, then to Utah, then Alaska...

    I think you owe me a keyboard (none / 0) (#184)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:36:08 PM EST
    Well, I'm not too worried (none / 0) (#106)
    by jibeaux on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:46:28 PM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter, and I think the odds are definitely in his favor.  One reason it doesn't "smell like New Hampshire" is that there aren't 47 states left.

    Armando is missing the point about "the will of the people".  When there are rules, they can't be undone after the fact.  Texas has some really weird, arcane, apportionment rules.  But they're their rules.  The DNC took MI and FL's delegates after warning them they would take their delegates.  Probably not the best decision, probably taking half like the RNC did would've been more palatable.  But everyone knew that was going to happen and everyone knew those were the rules, and everyone agreed to abide by the DNC's decision.

    As far as I'm concerned, the superdelegates can do whatever they think is best, because there are no rules about how they should vote.  The vote in their district, the overall popular vote, or their own gut, they can do whatever they want.  Both candidates are engaging in persuasion to make the superdelegates think they should vote a certain way, and that's o.k., too.  Persuasion isn't against the rules. I happen to think the existence of the superdelegates itself is a dumb idea, too, but it's the rule.  It's really fairly simple.

    An Obama supporter (none / 0) (#129)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:13:03 PM EST

    who actually knows the rules of the Super Delegates.  Good to see one, finally!  Your presence is very appreciated by this Clintonista.  :)

    And the supers (none / 0) (#151)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:33:37 PM EST
    And the supers can pledge, renege on the pledge, whatever.

    There is a presumption that the superdelegates, the wise men and wise women of the Democratic Party, will guide the more hot-headed delegates to a wise choice.

    Presumably, the supers who are also officeholders also pay attention to their constituents and also consider how the top of the ticket will help him/her farther down.


    Ben Masel? Cream City? (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:53:45 PM EST
    What's your prediction now?  How is the weather?  Did Obama "sneak" back into WI?  

    C-c-c-c-old, not "Dem weather" (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:35:31 PM EST
    in Milwaukee, where it will get to maybe 10 tomorrow, but that's about a 1-degree with wind chill.  There are lots of folks lined up to drive, though, I hear (Tuesdays aren't a day I can do that).  It may be even colder in Madison, as it often is, so I'm waiting to see reports on how Clinton did there tonight.  (Reports from her three previous stops today are good).  Beloit may be balmier, away from the Great Lakes and well south of Madison -- Beloit is on the Illinois border -- so Obama ought to have drawn well there tonight when he came back to the state.

    But roads still are awful from the storm, and we're all spending a lot of time still digging out, so that could curtail crowds.  It's just wearying here.

    As for tomorrow -- I head to the polls in the morning with my progeny for another one of our favorite family moments (yes, we always vote together, I've taken them to the polls with me for decades; the difference is that now they go in their own polling booths).  I'll see what the count is then and try to get a sense of turnout there, in the Congressional district most likely to go for Obama (the one with most AAs in the state).

    But it's a busy day.  Best bet for turnout reports  statewide will be jsonline.com -- and for weird Wisconsin stories, and for inevitable charges of vote fraud by our crazed ADA Biskupic and the Repubs.  Count on it; there will be such charges . . . unless the Repubs do want Obama to win for their own nefarious reasons!


    Reports coming in on tonight's crowds (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:24:58 PM EST
    and with the wind chill so bad, this is interesting.  The Journal Sentinel headline -- atop a conservative reporter's story at a conservative paper, largest in the state -- is "Clinton aims at the middle class/
    Whirlwind tour sees crowds grow at every stop."  

    And he reports an SRO crowd of 5,000 jammed Clinton's last stop tonight, in Madison.  I didn't expect that turnout in Dane County, called here for Obama for weeks now, especially since the governor's endorsement. On the other hand, three very respected women based in Madison endorsed Clinton -- Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton, and Dane County executive Kathleen Falk.  This is not a state that elects women, until lately, when Baldwin became the first woman ever in Congress from Wisconsin, Lawton became the first elected woman lieutenant governor, and Falk was the first woman ever on a major-party ticket for governor in this state.  

    Those races energized women in Wisconsin immensely.  Maybe this one is doing so, too.

    (No reports yet on Obama event at Beloit College.)


    Obama's Beloit crowd (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:07:38 AM EST
    reported at a couple thousand by one paper -- interesting that most are almost studiously avoiding (i.e., not following the formulaic journalistic style) reporting crowd size there . . . and on the Illinois border.  But the crowd was screaming a lot in anticipation, the story says. :-)

    I'm looking forward to your primary day (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:21:29 AM EST
    observations.  Through snow, through sleet, Cream City gets the story.  

    a couple thousand attendees, (none / 0) (#201)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:03:10 AM EST
    or a couple thousand fainters?

    On MSNBarrack ... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:20:31 AM EST
    I saw report from an Obama event, where the reporter said it was "standing room only."  But there were empty bleachers behind him.

    Now it might have been a VIP area, but still I found it amusing.


    During the general election that blog (none / 0) (#115)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 09:54:51 PM EST
    KOS will be something to behold when the incoming starts from the GOP...

    Egh... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:33:31 PM EST
    one of two things is going to happen there; (primarily because of its size, and mob rule)

    1. it will collapse under its own weight, and become meaningless in the conversation (in some ways it already has this election cycle), although a significant number of journalists check it out to get the "left perspective" on things (although that is probably not the best place for that, and I suspect has skewed some reports)

    2. it will remain status quo (basis now) and get surpassed by some new young exciting web community (in some ways this is already happening too)

    But make not mistake, DailyKos won't be what it set out to be after this election cycle, and it won't have the power or influence it had in 2004 or 2006's election cycles...its waning...

    i agree! arrogance never leads to (none / 0) (#165)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:50:39 PM EST
    better things!

    Yes, indeed (none / 0) (#160)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:47:22 PM EST
    If Obama proves as ineffective as Kerry in fending off the swiftboating, it will be very interesting to watch how dailkos deals with the fallout.

    They're rooting for a Lieberman (none / 0) (#169)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:00:27 PM EST
    that they think is a Lamont...regardless of Obama winning the primary or winning the GE...at some point reality will set in...and they'll either pivot and completely abandon progressivism, or they'll revert back to progressivism and decry Obama for misleading/betraying them...either way reality will eventually catch-up...its political pop-culture

    i should hope so (none / 0) (#202)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:05:48 AM EST
    that, once elected, they will turn on Obama.

    That should be the function of progressive blogs, keep 'em honest once they are entrusted with power. Push him from the left.


    Obama might not need "swift boating" (none / 0) (#217)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:22:07 AM EST
    They should be able to attack him with facts.

    Push him FROM the left, or TO the left? (none / 0) (#226)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:18:26 AM EST
    Thats one of my worries about Obama frankly...I feel like his record says that he won't champion DEMOCRATIC causes...I think TO the left is what will be needed

    This is one election where we can truly bring the rest of the country along on our issues and agenda, and a President Obama may squander that opportunity in the name of compromise (which means give the Republicans what they want when they obstruct us)


    Will Obamacans disappear ini November? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cliff in WA on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:56:52 PM EST
    I think once Hillary is disposed of the issue of qualification, competence and experience will result in another republican victory. Many democrats do not have the excuse of youth in believing polls suggesting Obama has the better chance. We should all know the most pressing concern come November will be who is best qualified to be commander in chief and McCain is already staking claim to that moniker.

    Republicans are counting on it. (none / 0) (#180)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:30:45 PM EST
    The campaign may be in the bag for them at that.

    well, they don't feel too confident about that (none / 0) (#203)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:09:34 AM EST
    no doubt they will push the CiC cred, for that is all they got. But most of the smart ones over there know that that will hardly be sufficient.

    The general population is not in the same head-space as the Republican party. The people really do want a president who can do more than command the military.

    At least you better hope so. You may think Hillary is a more beleiveable CiC than Obama, but if that is the deciding criterion, she won't stack up against McCain either.


    Looking Toward November (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cliff in WA on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:21:28 PM EST
    I think republicans are salivating at the prospect of Obama over Clinton, but are holding their cards close to the vest. Bashing Hillary serves two purposes: weakening her and diverting attention from the issue of Barak's lack of experience and gravitas that McCain will exploit.
       I laugh at republicans on TV saying they will be energized against Hillary, as if we have not seen a year of apathy and dejection over the prospect.

    I visualize McCain holding his breath, fearing people will catch on that Obama is his best hope of winning. Nothing will motivate the right like the prospect of retaining the White House.

    But, of course now is not the optimal time to reveal just how Barak will be diminished and made to look less than presidential. McCain would love democrats to get rid of the strongest candidate!

    Without Clinton universal health care as an issue will be minimal, she trounces McCain on economic issues and Hillary will not be tagged as weak and naive on international affairs and terrorism.

    If health care is not mandated the legislation will fail. Republicans will argue a cost cutting alternative knowing partisan politics and compromise will gut any plan once the principle of universality is relinquished.  They might just ignore the issue.  Clinton is the only one who can drive it through.

    Who is going to be swayed across party lines if UHC looks DOA, Obama is challenged on the economy and McCain takes the commander in chief mantle. Sen. Clinton is ready for McCain, no one can doubt that.  

    We could have had Al Gore instead of Bush if competency was not under-valued, let's not make that mistake again.  Imagine; inspectors instead of war in Iraq and our full might in Afghanistan and/or where the terrorists hide!

    You are starting to use this site (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    to shill for your candidate. Stop or you will no longer be welcome.

    excellent question. (none / 0) (#211)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:24:15 AM EST
    it would seem hard to deny that there be a whole lotta shillin' goin' round here, every day, on every thread, and largely for one candidate.

    Read the comment policy (none / 0) (#231)
    by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:48:44 AM EST
    It says that people who hold "opposing views from those expressed by TalkLeft" are not allowed to shill.  It's Jeralyn's blog and that's her policy.  She treats us Obama supporters very courteously and gives us plenty of leeway to make our case as long as we're polite, on-topic, and not repetitive.  There are plenty of other places to be have a food fight.  

    Thread Cleaned of (none / 0) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:55:57 PM EST
    off-topic bashing of another liberal blog. Don't make it personal, please.

    Here's some late-night (none / 0) (#195)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:09:38 AM EST
    reading material from David Brooks/NYT:


    He's perceived as being in the lead now (none / 0) (#223)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:52:20 AM EST
    Thus he now begins to get the kind of coverage that Hillary Clinton has been getting all along.

    Being a maniac is fun? (none / 0) (#222)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:51:00 AM EST
    I do wish people would find a better way to use the English language than to tarnish perfectly good words with perfectly good meanings into some silly sloganeering. And yes I do mean that to include any silliness coming from either candidate or either party.

    I was a Dean supporter in 2004 and resented being called a "Deaniac". I was a Dean "supporter" then, as I am a Hillary "supporter" now and refer to Obama people as Obama "supporters". Civil and competent use of the English language? Yes we can.

    Triumphalism defined: (none / 0) (#229)
    by Seneca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:26:05 AM EST
    n.   The attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, especially a religion or political theory, is superior to all others.

    So, the Obama campaign is not engaging in any kind of "triumphalism" here. They may, indeed, be overconfident, even hubristic.

    Wisconsin will be closer than people suspect, and never discount the power of the Clinton machine to muscle its way into power - that's what they do best.

    Wait a sec (none / 0) (#230)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:32:58 AM EST
    If Obama wins its triumph, if Clinton wins they are "muscling their way into power."

    Are you serious?


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#232)
    by Seneca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:56:08 AM EST
    If Obama wins, I will count it as a genuine triumph, because positive campaigning and movement-building will have prevailed.

    If Hillary wins, she will have muscled her way into power with months and months of negative campaigning, Machiavellian tactics, and the benefits of incumbency.


    Comments are Closed Here (none / 0) (#234)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:57:28 AM EST
    This thread is closed.