Post- Election Results Open Thread

Big Tent Democrat's last election results thread is overflowing, I closed the comments.

Here's a new thread for tonight's elections and your analysis and thoughts about it and what comes next.

< Late Night: A Medley | The Day After >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Clinton doubled McCain (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by magster on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:51:16 PM EST
    and Obama is about 15,000 votes short of tripling McCain's totals.  Another victory for Dems.  McCain is going down.

    After living through 2000 and 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rebecca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:53:27 PM EST
    I'm not celebrating until the win is official.  As they said in Independence Day don't do your victory dance prematurely soldier.  

    Of course you're right (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07:03 AM EST
    but there was a lot of despair in the last thread about the inevitability of Pres. McCain.  He can be beaten.

    We need a united democratic party (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:12:49 AM EST
    That is the most important thing. Either Clinton or Obama at their present level of strength can take him down in November. But it'll be much more difficult if Clinton and Obama go nuclear on each other and drive up each other's negatives and weaknesses.

    The sooner this primary ends, the better. I hope it doesn't last much past March 4th, at the very worst right after PA. The DNC, Dean, Gore, et al. need to start butting some heads together.  


    I just don't see that the Republicans will (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:15:31 AM EST
    need the help of Democrats in "driving up the negatives" of the eventual Dem. nominee.  

    The longer and more contentious the primary (none / 0) (#38)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:29:34 AM EST
    The more unpopular Clinton will get with Obama supporters and the more unpopular Obama will get with the Clinton supporters. That's going to result in some damage to whoever the eventual nominee just in votes but in money, volunteering, enthusiasm, etc.

    I think McCain is going to be tough. We need all we have to beat him, and the paramount issue here is now which democratic president we'll have but that we'll have a democratic president and not a republican one.


    Yes he can be beaten (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:20:58 AM EST
    But not by assuming we have it beforehand.  

    As for McCain.  I am worried about him against Obama because Obama seems to think he's been vetted by his campaign against HRC.  He has stated that.  If he really believes that then he's seriously not ready to go against McCain and the media.  


    Add in the Weather Underground (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:18:18 AM EST
    alleged bomber who has contributed to Obama's campaigns in the past, is a friend, and serves with him on a community non-profit board; and a friend who advocates for Palestinian rights and holds the Edward Said chair at Columbia.  

    I Honestly Doubt (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:28:10 AM EST
    Most Americans have heard of any of those things in connection with Obama.  Precisely because Clinton is unwilling to really exploit them and the press has mostly left them alone.  

    So joy of joys, the American public gets to hear about them first in 527 campaign ads.  Which I'm sure Obama will have no trouble rising above.  He's not one of those losers like Al Gore or John Kerry.  He's a man of substance and accomplishments!


    I credit HRC campaign for not (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:30:50 AM EST
    exploiting this material; not that HRC campaign really could do so effectively; look at today's take on plagiarism:  HRC campaign "fingerprints" all over these allegations.  

    Not true at all (none / 0) (#93)
    by marcellus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:20:36 AM EST
    The Muslim name is really the worst negative, and by definition you can't argue that people haven't heard of that.  The madrassa story has made the rounds already, and the Clintons' weren't afraid to exploit it either.  On the right wing hate channels, the leading ones are 1) muslim name-apostate 2)madrassa secret terrorist-Manchurian candidate 3) anti-Christ.  On the left-wing hate channels, the main current ones are 1) Rezko 2) gay drugs 3) madrassa-apostate Muslim.

    If you look at the stories about the Clintons (none / 0) (#94)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:30:08 AM EST
    most of them were laughable.  Whether a story ends up in the media isn't a function of how laughable it is, it's a function of how well it fits into the story line the media develops about a politician.  So right now Obama has the media behind him and has a good story line.  Wait a bit.  Once the Republicans start in on him he may just end up with a different story line and any silly story someone makes up that fits their story line will get printed and talked about continually.  That's how it works.  I'm not willing to hope we get lucky this election season.  That's why I hope the media start to go after Obama.  He needs to learn to cope or show he can't before we're stuck with him.  

    Yes, and imagine Ayers and Dohrn (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    quotes against America in a GOP ad.

    If this had come up in Wisconsin, it could have hurt him -- Dorhn is from here, and memories are long of the things that she said, the '60s bombing that killed a young father in a UW building, etc.


    You ignoring the media (none / 0) (#66)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:25:47 AM EST
    He has campaigned with the media very favorable to him while HRC has had to fight to get her message out.  When you have the media amplifying your message and dampening your opponents you really haven't been vetted in an adverse environment.  The big question is will the media continue to give BO an easy ride or will they turn on him as they have every single Democrat for decades.  It wasn't HRC he needed vetting from it was the media and he has barely been touched compared to what HRC has had to deal with.  If he gets to be our candidate he will very probably find out just how mistaken he has been by stating he was vetted by HRC's campaign.  

    Just look at the difference between the racist vs sexist story lines in the media.  The difference in how the media dealt with them is stark.  Obama won't be able to shame the Republicans into shutting up like he did Bill Clinton.  He'll have to learn to deal with people who don't give a dmn.  Party manners will not be used by the Republicans and more than likely the media will give McCain a pass because they'll have more fun with McCain than they will with Obama.  That's the level of professionalism we have in our media today.  They have a habit of looking to Drudge and other rightwing sleaze merchants for their story lines and they aren't going to lose that habit just for a brief infatuation.  


    The media did love (none / 0) (#95)
    by marcellus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:32:10 AM EST
    John McCain 2000.  How is John McCain 2008 going to look?  100 years in Iraq, bomb-bomb-Iran (this seems likely to be the main late night talk show talking points).  Then there's flip-flop on torture and taxes and backhanded support from the right wing talk radio.  Plus, when has the American media been known to give respect to elders?

    It all depends doesn't it? (none / 0) (#97)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:45:08 AM EST
    Just remember that GWB had tons of deficits.  They were well documented especially by 2004.  What did our media do?  Did they report on these deficits or did they have a story line about how real GWB was and how phony Gore and Kerry were?  

    So if the media continues it's pattern of taking right wing talking points from sleaze merchants like Drudge and favoring the Republican against the Democrat we're not going to hear very much about those stories since they go against the story line the press has built up about John McCain.  

    One other point to think about.  I've read that Obama is standoffish to the media and doesn't allow them much access.  That's not going to compare well with McCain who is very open with the media.  They have protected him for a long time.  He's been a favorite of theirs for a long time.  Which side do you think the media will land on when it comes time to choose?  Read about how the media behaved with Gore on the Daily Howler.  We're not talking about professionals here.  We're talking about a bunch of spoiled, self-indulgent brats.  

    So is BTD right and the media are going to continue their favorable treatment of Obama?  Will they go against their long time favoritism of McCain for their new favorite?  We'll have to see won't we if he wins this?  Maybe we're starting to see a change right now as he takes on the definite front-runner status.  I do know I don't trust our media at all.  I'm hoping that we find out before we're stuck with him if he can handle the media.  


    Don't trust it -- hug crossover (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:19:41 AM EST
    of GOP to Dems becoming more evident now, as we get county totals.  Just one example: Waukesha County, just west of Milwaukee -- fourth-reddest county in the country recently, and one of the fastest-growing counties in the country in the '70s and '80s owing to white-flighters from Milwaukee.  The Dems there are so few that they have had to take out ads to find someone willing to run and lose local seats.

    Today, Waukesha County gave almost twice as many votes to Dems as to the GOP -- in the presidential race.  Not in local races.  These are not Dems, they will not be there in November . . . and they do all they can to keep African Americans from living there, going to school there, etc.  

    As I map this out across the state, it's stunning to see how much crossover occurred.  Some may stay with the Dems -- but overall, don't trust it as having a long-term effect for whomever is our nominee.

    Is Ohio an open-primary state?  If not, maybe long-term trends will become more clear.


    Make that huge crossover (nt) (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:19:59 AM EST
    I deemed myself a conspiracy (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:22:43 AM EST
    theorist for repeatedly asking if the Republicans have been gaming the Dem. primaries.  Maybe so, huh?

    Open primaries (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:26:24 AM EST
    what a scam.  I think the whole game they are playing with Rush et. al. is that he is not conservative enough is sort of a performance art to convince those Indies and Moderate dems to vote Republican.  Notice what he does, speaks up against torture then votes for it, what is left?  People think he is against torture.  He does that all the time.  Moderates and Indies truly like this guy.  It's scary.  

    I repeatedly said that they always do (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:26:57 AM EST
    whenever it doesn't matter on their side.  See back posts on the largest paper in the state encouraging, on its front page, crossover -- as did conservative talk radio here, a very significant voice here.

    And historically, we always have seen crossover in this crazy open-primary system and same-day registration -- which meant 50% turnout in Milwaukee alone today.  It often is very significant crossover that has changed national as well as local outcomes before, as it may well have done again today.

    Obama is the one the GOP thinks it can beat.  Let's hope that they're wrong.  


    Cannot verify it with a poll or statistics... (none / 0) (#40)
    by sumac on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:40:43 AM EST
    ..but I have heard a lot of talk in Texas of crossing over. Our oh-so-confusing open primary is a dream to Rovian tactics.

    To Cream...

    I bought the fabulous brown signature shirt. :)


    Obama won Dems (none / 0) (#106)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:32:28 AM EST
    Sorry... you can complain about open primaries all you want, but Obama won among Democrats yesterday.

    It wouldn't have mattered.


    I live here, and I'd like (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    coattails to win our legislature and local races. I can figure out the crossover vote here yesterday, and it won't be with us in April -- or in November.

    We may win the White House.  We may not win much more -- and we need to win more to truly change Wisconsin.  


    From the exit polls (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:00:14 AM EST
    Who attacked unfairly?


    Only Clinton  (26%)

    Only Obama    (6%)

    Both          (28%)

    Neither       (36%)


    Only Clinton (21%)

    Only Obama   (4%)

    Both         (25%)

    Neither      (45%)


    Only Clinton (26%)

    Only Obama   (5%)

    Both         (21%)

    Neither      (44%)

    McCain has a track record in the Senate, (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:24:27 AM EST
    even though we may not like what he has accomplished and many Republicans don't either.  But he does have that record, which equates to experience.

    That ain't experience... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jr on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:02:21 AM EST
    ...it's ammunition.

    A sea change in (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by mg7505 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:32:25 AM EST
    media coverage is required for Obama to lose now. It seems that Americans love the candidate who has less perceived baggage, and magically endow this person with previously-overlooked leadership potential. Arguing that someone isn't as awesome as they claim still concedes that they are awesome to begin with, and those are the Obama criticisms that get airtime. It's too late to change the narrative, even though his dealings with lobbyists, legislative impotence, etc etc are coming out now. A country that RE-elected Bush clearly doesn't give a hoot about phonies; it's all about having minimal baggage and creating meaningless debate about "issues." The Obama campaign has played both these games admirably, first by channeling anti-Hillary hate, then loading her with baggage (partisan rancor! Bill Clinton! past vs future!), and finally playing the worst kind of personality politics since 2004 (Hillary is divisive!). I'm simply amazed at how people completely overlook the legislative records of these two candidates and latch onto artificial media narratives about their personalities. Of course, the Clinton campaign is also to blame for not directly taking out the personality low-blows, ie telling us unequivocally why she's not "divisive" or the other rhetorical mud being slung her way by Obama surrogates.

    Unless the media changes coverage and/or voters change their thought process, we're looking at McCain vs Obama in November. Makes me sick, scared and angry. It's the Democrat version of Bush versus the non-phony Republican version of Obama. Might just be TOO many good choices.

    Obama's narratives are just better than Clinton's (none / 0) (#44)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:47:52 AM EST
    Clinton has been trying to play the experience and substance cards about Obama for literally over a year now. The reason they don't work is that Obama IS NOT Bush, but precisely the person MUST UNLIKE Bush you could possibly imagine. He is a extremely intelligent and serious person, well versed in all the issues, and perhaps most importantly has the sense of himself, intellectual curiousness, and ability to synthesize and judge between different viewpoints that our current President completely lacks.

    It probably also doesn't help that Obama's legislative record is actually more impressive than Clinton's is. As a Senator Clinton has gotten a lot of earmarks for her state but not much done in the way of national issues. Which isn't to say Obama has accomplished all that much either, but he did get stuff passed on ethics, government transparency, nuclear proliferation, etc. in his first two years there. Plus he has a bunch of really high-profile stuff back from Illinois.


    Chris Matthews humiliates a Texas (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:01:35 AM EST
    Legislator who endorsed Obama:


    That was pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:44:19 AM EST
    I can see a 527 doing a commercial with that though.  It wouldn't look good.  Tweety of all people too.  Has that tingle up his leg gone away?  

    Occulus, you beat me to it (none / 0) (#55)
    by BluestBlue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:12:58 AM EST
    I had typos in my HREF to deal with!!

    Isn't it hysterical!


    Can you tell I'm checking Hufff Post (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:20:46 AM EST
    frequently?  Has the worm turned?  Stay tuned.

    This is the beginning (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:47:02 AM EST
    of the general election strategy.

    Oh, your comment is so much more (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:21:54 AM EST
    of a teaser.  I couldn't bring myself to type "Tweety."

    This Picks Up A Fox Attack (none / 0) (#58)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:15:20 AM EST
    Hannity has done this a couple of times.  I don't think it means much, but it is very effective when you see it.

    Eww (none / 0) (#82)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:48:03 AM EST
    Next time Obama should get a surrogate that is not completely retarded and ignorant.

    I can see it now (none / 0) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:52:45 AM EST
    when Obama wins the primary, thanks in part to the huggy-doveys at MisNBC, Matthews will say, "but I wanted Hillary all the time.  That interview shows how hard I was on Obama delegates".


    (kind of the way he cheered all over the Iraq war then later said he was really against it.)


    Tweety Humiliates Obama Supporter TX State Senator (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by BluestBlue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:11:43 AM EST
    the media is starting to tune up their instruments (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:14:07 AM EST
    for the full scale attack on Obama....Look out, incoming!!!

    Tune up? Hope not. (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:26:02 AM EST
    Cognitive dissonance is what we are aiming for here.

    And, of course (none / 0) (#75)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:34:17 AM EST
    the Texas state senate Rs will take note and target that seat for takeover.  Shouldn't be difficult with that clip....duh...

    Nightline tonight (none / 0) (#84)
    by mexboy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:49:54 AM EST
    They were discussing the Obama cult!
    Make what you want of it, but it is a change.

    Obamania...ABC Nightline (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:44:17 AM EST
    does a segment on "Obamania."

    "A massive and fervent following," thanks to soaring rhetoric, according to Terry Moran.

    Reporting fainting...a visit to an Obama rally "is a pilgrimage."  "The looks on their faces, they're yearning to hear stuff like that" (talking about hope).

    "Those outside the Obama bubble just don't get it."  "As baffling as the bobbysoxers once were, screaming for Frankie"..."as Hannah Montana is today."

    "People's hopes have been raised so high...hard to see how any politician...a mere human....can achieve all that."

    Yes indeed.

    As an outsider ... (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Rainsong on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:09:27 AM EST
    .. and non-American, I apologise for butting in, tho' I suspect many millions of us are watching, we did not like being bullied, threatened and forced into Bush's "Coalition of The Killing".

    But the Democrat primaries so far, has us worried. To some of us Obama is "Republican-Lite", and to the right of Clinton - just one of many examples, his health plan alone, will only provide subsidies for the HMOs, ie it is blatant corporate welfare. Very much to the right of Edwards/Clinton and other Dems, I would have thought.  

    The other thing, is this Repub cross-over primary vote. Some percentage must be gaming the Dem system, just on stats alone. Given the amount of anti-Clinton vitriol in the media, some percentage must be just rabid frothing-at-the-mouth Clinton-haters on a "Two-For-One" deal, voting for Obama in the Open primaries (to get rid of her), then switch back in November (to get rid of him)

    Even if we say very conservatively, that its 3% of Obama's support - add to that, the disappointed, demoralised Clinton supporters, say another 2% just opt out, and of the majority who grit their teeth and still vote Dem in November, they opt out of doing the hard-slog volunteering on the sidewalks, shopping malls, leafletting etc in those final weeks, (which can be so critical in swing-states) - you're still losing a critical amount of support in November.  Add another 1-2% of first-time voters who got caught up in the Obamarama media hype in the primaries, then get switched by the Republican machine hype in full swing. If they can get sucked in by one lot of media hype, they can be sucked in by another.

    Then the pressure on the super-delegates to come out now and support the "popular vote" - if they are just rubber-stampers, why bother with them at all?

    Republicans must be peeing themselves laughing, even with Republican-Lite Obama scraping through, they still win :(  

    Dude (none / 0) (#96)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:42:53 AM EST
    You can't just make up numbers with no basis in anything other than your own imagination.

    Who is this "us"? (none / 0) (#103)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:24:09 AM EST
    I have plenty of left leaning non-American friends living in several different countries, and every single  one of them believes we're doomed if we don't elect Obama.

    Point here is not whether they're right or wrong, but that one person claiming to represent what the rest of the world thinks is a bit silly.


    Obama as Republian-lite? (none / 0) (#107)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:33:57 AM EST
    What in the world are you talking about?  Talking about health care at all is already way to the left of the GOP!  Is wanting to shut down the Iraq debacle Republican-Lite?  Is reversing tax cuts for the wealthy Republican-Lite?  Is voting against raising the debt limit Republican-Lite?  Is voting against the wire-tapping laws Republican-Lite?  Is supporting an end to crack-powder cocaine disparities Republican-Lite?  Was supporting the renewal of the Voting Rights Act Republican-Lite?  Is having plans to combat climate change Republican-Lite?

    (And, a note about cross-overs.  There are some disenchanted GOPers who actually do support Obama.  Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of the former president is one such person.  I'm sure she's not the only one.  The last presidential candidate who enjoyed large cross-over appeal was Reagan.  He did pretty well in the national elections.)


    Digby congratulates Obama, but (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST
    says of course she is not encouraging HRC to drop out.  Why?  Because Dems. are fighters and that is what we want them to be.  

    Tom Hayden, on the other hand, places the crown on Obama's head tonight.

    Quote of the night (none / 0) (#3)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:51:55 PM EST
    "... I will fight every moment of every day in this campaign to make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people. ... .."   -   John McCain

    Rather well said.

    false promises of a failed policy? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:54:15 PM EST
    Sheesh -- he's talking about himself and the GOP there.  That's like shooting fish in a barrel.  I mean, c'mon, McCain wants to lower taxes more (as if that's going to balance the budget?), stay in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it takes . . . sheesh!

    The Repubs don't think it has failed (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:41:57 AM EST
    not the hardcore Repubs.  They really don't; see Bush's approval rating -- how can more than a fourth of Americans still approve of him?  But they do.

    If McCain picks up more of them, if the Dem nominee makes missteps . . . we will have to wait and see.


    And modesty is atractive to voters (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:44:34 AM EST
    Even if it is false modesty.  Contrast these two victory speeches tonight:

    Obama, a "perfect vessel" vs McCain, "I have been an imperfect servant" (but one always proud of my country, a hit at the Other Obama, and there will be many more, unless she learns to be more careful).


    Didn't he say "imperfect vessel"? (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:06:50 AM EST
    yesm, of course he did (none / 0) (#57)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:15:08 AM EST
    this Obama bashing, and Dem-chances trashing is getting really old.

    I really am beginning to wonder about Clinton supporters. Do they really want a Dem to win in november, even if it isnt Hillary?


    Now, now, I must have misheard (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:26:43 AM EST
    as after all, I'm too old for his demographic, so I'm probably getting hard of hearing.  Plus, I have a life and was trying to deal with distractions, so I couldn't stay totally attentive to every phrase in  45-minute speeches.  I heard it somewhat, I saw it written elsewhere as "perfect vessel," so I didn't guess that others also heard it incorrectly.

    But keep it up with the supporter-bashing and see where it gets us.


    Obama in 2008? (none / 0) (#120)
    by diogenes on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:04:27 PM EST
    If Obama loses in 2008, then Hillary says "I told you so" and is the repeat frontrunner in 2012.  Just like what happened in 2004 (remember the New Republic cover with all the upset Dems except Hillary who said "it turned out just fine...")

    Hope so -- not what I heard or (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:22:18 AM EST
    others here.  Maybe we have to see a transcript?  Or I imagine it's already up on Youtube.  I'll look -- when I can stand to hear another hour of speechifying.

    If so, though, that's even more interesting and eerie, almost "shared language," in the term used here last night.  But no chance that McCain was copying Deval Patrick's speeches, so this tendency by both Obama and McCain to use sort of Biblical references may be some sort of code.  I didn't get the decoder ring, though -- I  never was drilled in the Bible in my childhood denomination, I never have been an evangelical sort, so it will just be more that won't resonate for me with these candidates.


    Have your own way, Lord. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:36:40 AM EST
    Have your own way.
    You are the potter.
    I am the clay.

    Phrase from a hymn popular back in the day.


    Huffington Post caught it too (none / 0) (#87)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:54:33 AM EST
    Sen. Barack Obama introduced a seemingly new line in his campaign speech on Tuesday, an acknowledgment of sorts of recent criticism that his supporters have painted him as a quasi-messianic figure.

    "As aware as I am of my imperfections," he told the crowd, "as clear as I am that I am not a perfect vessel, I would not be running if I did not believe that I could lead this country in a new direction, that we have a unique moment that we have to seize, but I have to tell you Houston I cannot do it by myself. No person can."


    Not sure I would use bibical language to address criticisms of being a quasi-messianic figure.


    Kind of quaint though. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:00:24 AM EST
    So (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07:50 AM EST
    It looks like McCain is going to try to run the same campaign against Obama that Clinton did. I doubt he will be very successful with that line of attack, though. Unlike Clinton, McCain isn't exactly the most well-informed and wonky person. Attacking someone who clearly is smarter and more knowledgeable than him as "empty" will backfire horribly.

    I'd suggest he would do better trying to draw idealogical distinctions between the two of them, but unfortunately McCain is one of the wrong side of all those issues both substantively and politically. His one winning narrative against Obama is probably the experience card, but that is meager stuff.


    He won't be chided by his party.... (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by CathyinLa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:14:35 AM EST
    ...or the media to knock it off.  Already it's "McCain goes after Obama."  When it's Hillary, it's "OH MY GAWD, DUCK! ATTACK! ATTACK!"

    They will be relentless and will not let up, they will go places Hillary nor any Democratic challenger would ever go.

    If he makes the experience argument about security he could win on experience.


    He loses me.... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CathyinLa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:10:49 AM EST
    ...and should lose all progressives with this:  "...no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people."

    This is an attack on progressives and Democrats, on their philosophy, on their promises, and an indictment of their prescriptions as proven failures.

    Hillary should never go there.

    I wish Obama would go there in reverse against conservatism.


    Now that is talking... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:53:01 PM EST

    HRC should hire away McCain's (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:55:49 PM EST
    speechwriter ASAP.

    Nah (none / 0) (#9)
    by AF on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:03:46 AM EST
    Just steal it. :)

    I think theres something called... (none / 0) (#13)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07:22 AM EST
    Job security.  In the speechwriting business, I imagine it's a pretty important consideration.

    Joke. HRC says (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:47:18 AM EST
    candidates should write their own speeches.

    I thought obama's phrase that (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:06:38 AM EST
    he is not a perfect vessel was quoteworthy also. Pretty biblical, once again.  

    Someone said that Hillary was winning (none / 0) (#10)
    by hairspray on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:05:47 AM EST
    the Washington State Primary.  I thought they hgad a caucus and that Obama won that.  How does that work?

    They also have a primary (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:08:49 AM EST
    Go figure, people thought that voting counted and not the caucuses.  And we are teaching people how to have a democracy.

    WA Caucus & Primary (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:09:59 AM EST
    We had our Caucus here about 10 days ago which apportions all of our WA delegates, and then we have a primary (mostly or all absentee I think?) that...doesn't count for anything on the dem side, but is worth 1/2 the republican delegates.

    There's a huge disparity in the caucus results, and the primary results on the democrat side here in Washington...

    WA Primary: (62% counted)
    Obama: 50%   214,250
    Clinton: 47%   197,980

    WA Caucus:
    Obama: 68%
    Clinton: 31%

    More evidence we need to get rid of caucuses?  A 37% spread as opposed to a 3%?  And this wasn't due to early voting, the absentee ballots were sent out only a few days before the Caucus.


    Yep (none / 0) (#22)
    by Korha on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:14:39 AM EST
    That is more evidence. Caucuses are a terrible idea.

    That doesn't really say anything (none / 0) (#32)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:23:08 AM EST
    The fact that people knew the caucus counted and the primary did not influences the results. I personally would have thrown my primary ballot away if I knew it didn't count.

    But More Than Twice as Many Dems (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:01:51 AM EST
    Voted in the primary than participated in the caucuses.  There were other reasons to go to the polls and they did, more than half a million of them.   The primary was added by referendum because voters wanted more say and the Democratic party said no, we'll stick with our latte-sipping elitist caucuses, thank you very much.  And many folks in Washington may have been confused and thought they could vote in either and have it count, for the Dems, not so much.  But at this point, I don't know why a democrat who received a ballot in the mail would assume it COUNTED for something.  

    The Republicans split their delegates between the caucus and the primary.

    So yet more votes that don't count towards any delegates at the democratic primary convention.  Nicely done, Democrats!


    But if you wanted to find a lesson (none / 0) (#33)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:23:58 AM EST
    It's that our primary system is a confusing patchwork nightmare. Even more so when some elections count and others don't.

    So, you wouldn't have voted in FL? (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:25:22 AM EST
    Apparently not for the school bond (none / 0) (#50)
    by badger on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:04:00 AM EST
    that was on my WA State ballot too.

    The Dem. party can ignore th primary (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:07:48 AM EST
    vote at will or could select some delegates in addition to those already chosen at the earlier caucuses.  

    Washington state primary results (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:11:01 AM EST
    Oh duh (none / 0) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:17:05 AM EST
    Sorry I didn't see the other post about the Washington primary result.

    I'll add to their post by saying that the primary result more closely tracks the SurveyUSA poll taken a few days before the caucus.

    Survey USA Washington

    And I've seen on other boards where folks have said, "but people knew the primary didn't matter!"  Well, why, then did 85% of Washington residents say they'd vote in the primary...

    Survey USA, vote in the WA primary?
    Survey USA, vote in the WA caucus?


    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:18:56 AM EST
    It seems not everyone got the memo that if you voted it did not count, but if you caucused it did.  Apparently, there was loads of confusion.  

    Loads. of. confusion. (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:55:36 AM EST
    And the education/advertising campaign didn't seem to help.

    (for next time) Why can't the Dems just agree to take half the caucus and half the primary for the Washington result?


    Lots of anger as well as (none / 0) (#61)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:19:44 AM EST
    confusion from average, unpolitical voters.

    About 16% of them in our WA primary today sent in ballots but instead of voting wrote snotty, furious notes to ... whomever ... when all the votes are counted in 10 days, and certified in the Dem. primary, nearly a million voters will have stated their preference.

    In the caucuses, Obama won all 39 counties.  In the vote reported so far, Hillary won 18 and some additional counties are still too close to call.

    It's a nightmare of stupidity.


    WOW this totally proves BTD's theory about (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:25:53 AM EST
    the validity of caucauses....

    Yes indeed. Ready made post for the am. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:26:44 AM EST
    Yup. To plagerize (none / 0) (#85)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:51:07 AM EST
    and slightly rewrite a now famous phrase...

    "We are the voters (primary voters) we've been waiting for" here in Washington.

    Afraid that the pro-Hillary voters would blow them out in the primary, there has been a big push to get Obama people to send in their ballots.

    Now, let's see if they actually show up at the county and congressional district conventions where the delegate selection really begins.  It didn't end at the caucus...


    I kind of like the message on the (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:24:48 AM EST
    primary ballot concept.  Hope the Dem. party in WA reads those.

    From LA Times analysis: (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:44:34 AM EST
    "Her coalition just is not holding," said Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for the Study of Politics and Governance. "This could be -- I wouldn't say her Waterloo, but maybe the battle before the Waterloo."

    Clinton has tried to stop Obama's momentum in Wisconsin by suggesting he borrowed speech excerpts inappropriately from his political ally, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. The New York senator also opened a TV ad attack on Obama in Wisconsin that slammed him for refusing to debate in the state.

    In the end, that charge "insulted people's intelligence," said Wisconsin pollster Paul Maslin, a Democrat watching the nomination battle from the sidelines.

    "Do they think people in Wisconsin don't watch MSNBC or Fox or CNN? People know there have been plenty of debates."

    The plagiarism question (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:04:24 AM EST
    did not have impact in Wisconsin -- it came up too late, it wasn't even reported in the largest paper in the state, in Milwaukee, or other media here.

    The debate debate did have resonance here and angered many Milwaukeeans, where talk of the debate engendered excitement.  So I disagree with the pollster who hasn't been in Wisconsin very long, and only in Madison.  The debate debate just didn't resonate sufficiently.  But it hardly was seen as an insult -- except maybe with Madison types, with whom could do nothing right, anyway.

    There are going to be far better analyses of what happened here, and where, than this one.  I've mapped it out, county by county, and there were some surprising results in a few places that could have meaning for coming contests.  Watch for more analyses that rely on more astute context -- of events, of areas of the state bordering others, etc.  

    But especially watch for a graphic I suspect is being designed right now by the best local media -- a graphic overlaying the primary vote today, county by county or at least by congressional districts that will suggest the impact of the immense crossover vote.  I.e., counties and districts where a Dem cannot get elected dogcatcher but that Dems won today.  But not tomorrow -- and not in November. . . .  


    The believer people (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:26:06 AM EST
    believe that the magical Obama will get all those crossover votes in the fall because...well, because they are real...

    And because they don't have a clue about crossovers.


    Cross over vote (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:23:59 AM EST
    is a good thing.....Polling in Wisconsin shows Obama up ten over McCain...

    The data so far shows Obama doing well in Wisconsin--across the board.  


    Two to one for Dems (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:31:07 AM EST
    in Waukesha County?  Not a good thing -- a Dems-for-a-day thing.  A Dem can't get elected dogcatcher there.  Those votes won't be Dem in November, and there will be no coattail effect for local races.  Living in Wisconsin, we win little with this.  We need to win our legislature, but this will not do it.

    We were never picking up Waukesha Assembly seats. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:29:52 AM EST
    Its all rural seats in play come November.

    Exactly. Yet look at that county's share (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:03:57 AM EST
    of his margin.  Yesterday was meaningless for real change in Wisconsin.

    Your 2 sentences don't connect. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    At the least, voting's now 'hip' among the young.

    Another tidbit I notice going ovber returns, the Ron Paul youth vote seems to have vanished. Something like 1% of the TOTAL vote in student wards in Madison and Stevens Point. His 19,210 compares not so well with my 51,000 in a much smaller electorate in 2006, or Ed Thompson's 210,000 for Governor in 2002.


    Here's the warm up guy for HRC (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 12:53:34 AM EST


    Hawaii (none / 0) (#74)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:33:51 AM EST
    Reports from caucusgoers at Kos say way-record turnout and 3:1 to 4:1 margins for Obama.

    Same as WA was... (none / 0) (#76)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:35:35 AM EST
    ...it's a caucus.  

    Yet another of Obama's home states. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:48:40 AM EST
    77-23 with 8% reporting (none / 0) (#88)
    by magster on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:57:11 AM EST
    Where he was born, grew up, went to school (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 03:20:33 AM EST
    and where he graduated from High School....His only other home state is Illinois.....

    PS: Can you please at least try... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Rainsong on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:15:26 AM EST
    ... to get rid of Obama Girl? She is flooding media in other OECD countries, driving us nuts.
    McDonalds health care and Obama Girl? sheesh come on guys, asking nicely, give the world a break, huh?


    HI (none / 0) (#98)
    by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:49:18 AM EST
    Is a blood bath!
    thats 10 losses in a row. All of them double digit  (all or most?) OUCH.

    CNN call HI for Obama (none / 0) (#99)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:57:27 AM EST
    half the vote in (4AM ET)
    76% -23%

    Obamas speech (none / 0) (#104)
    by AnnL on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:58:05 AM EST
    Oh my, he really does like the sound of his own voice.  Even these Houstonites sound half-hearted in their applause.  I love this whole business about togetherness.  He's pretty bad without a teleprompter.  Promises promises for 45 mnutes, but don't fault me if we can't get it done right away.  Oh boy, no wonder we old ladies (the over 50) crowd aren't impressed.  

    Delegate Count (none / 0) (#105)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:11:12 AM EST
    Anybody know exactly what the delegate count is right now after Wisconsin and Hawaii.

    delegate count according to CNN (none / 0) (#108)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:40:13 AM EST
    here is:
                  Obama         Clinton
    pledged:    1140          1005
    sd's             161           234
    total:         1301         1239

    AP has fairly similar numbers, Obama leading 1319 to 1245


    Terrible speech (none / 0) (#109)
    by esmense on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:41:00 AM EST
    Obama's speech was terrible. It went on and on and on. Even I, as liberal as you can get, winced at some of his over-the-top pandering. I got calls from some of my more conservative (than I am) friends, who consider themselves "independent" after the speech. This was the first Obama speech they had watched and they were outraged at his graceless pandering (the woman with "two blind children" who bought a house she couldn't afford was a frequently mentioned sore spot.)

    I think his tone was so off because he's been told he has to address policy. But Obama talks about policy as if he doesn't really understand or respect anyone's interest in it. He also doesn't seem to trust his audience's intellect. He's much more comfortable pushing rhetorical buttons to elicit BIG emotional responses from an audience, than he is with making an argument or telling a simple story. So instead of using a story to simply illustrate the need for a specific policy solution, he gussies it up, like he did with the two blind children story, into something meant to make his listeners sigh and cry. The result is embarrassing bathos rather than good argument.

    so, let's see (none / 0) (#110)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:54:45 AM EST
    we have those who say that Obama is nothing but words and pretty speeches, and now a number of people in this thread that say his speeches are awful, boring, etc.

    However, that the fact that he has won 10 straight primaries, most by a fairly sizable margin, show that these observations apparently are in a minority.  There must be something that is attracting all the votes, and is attracting all the new voters.


    Not saying all his speeches are (none / 0) (#115)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    Saying this one was. Comprendo?

    a couple of observations/comments: (none / 0) (#111)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:41:49 AM EST
    1. will someone please tell michelle obama to just STFU? she's a well educated, bright, articulate and astute woman. she's also a political danger to herself and others in public. so, for the sake of the party and your husband, please just STFU in public!

    thank you.

    2. if sen. obama truly believes he's been fully vetted during the primary season, he's far more naive' and dangerous than i thought. he ain't seen nothing yet. the right-wing smear machine has yet to get its hooks in him. it will, come the GE, bet on it.

    this is the group that brought down gore and kerry, and kept clinton busy with independent prosecutors for 8 years. facts don't matter, rumor and innuendo rule the day. truth is the first casualty of politics. anything and everything is fair game, most under the guise of "single-issue" non-profit groups.

    and, should sen. obama somehow actually be elected in nov., he'll be damaged goods well before he takes the oath of office. assuming he's the democratic nominee.

    In case anyone is interested... (none / 0) (#114)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    Here's a link to the election results from my little corner of the world. That would be the most SE county in Wisconsin.

    I saw that -- closest county to Chicago (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:06:04 AM EST
    and yet look how close it was.  I thought Kenosha would be one of the wider wins for him.  Good for you, Marge!  Are unions still strong there, after all -- after all of the devastation of this economy?  That could be a sign for Ohio.  Or what was it?