Tsunami Tuesday: Polls and Delegates

USA Today/Gallup, CBS/New York Times and McClatchey/MSNBC have new polling results. The full CBS Democratic poll is here (pdf).

Nationally, Hillary and Obama are close to being tied. CBS says Hillary is substantially ahead in the Super Tuesday states:

Among voters in those states, she leads Obama, 49 percent to 31 percent, with 16 percent still undecided.

Clinton also holds a big edge on the issue of most concern to Democratic voters: the economy. Nearly 60 percent say she would do a better job of managing the economy than Obama. However, more than two-thirds of Democratic voters see the policy differences between the two candidates as minor.

McClatchy-MSNBC polled 9 states, and found Hillary ahead in all but Georgia. (Remember the maps showing the Florida counties won by Obama? All 9 were in the most northern part of the state, 7 bordered on Georgia and 1 on Alabama.)


Turnout could make a difference because of the way Democratic delegates are counted. Obama is hoping for a big youth and African American turnout.

Democrats award delegates based on the percentage of votes candidates receive in congressional districts across the country. As a result, placing second can still earn a candidate delegates.

On Tuesday, 1,681 delegates will be awarded of the 2,025 necessary to win the Democratic nomination.

While I think Hillary will win California and New York, Obama likely will pick up a lot of delegates and I expect he will win some other states besides Georgia, despite what the polls say.

Bottom line: Neither Hillary nor Obama may clinch the nomination on Feb. 5. Obama's got a lot of momentum and is getting a lot more media play than Hillary. But he also has a lot of ground to catch up. I think it will be very close.

< No Excuses, No Spin Open Thread | Jury Duty and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A National Town Hall (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ericrsiny on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:05:03 AM EST
    Tonight at 9 PM Eastern on the eve of Super Tuesday there will be a national town hall event that will be a conversation between Senator Hillary Clinton and the country.  

    This event will give Senator Clinton a chance to hear from all Americans about their hopes, fears, concerns, and vision of their future and will let Senator Clinton explain her views on how to help the United States to get back on the right track, to get us to true universal health care, to fix our economy, to get us out of Iraq with honor, to address the dangers of global warming, to combat poverty and hunger, and how best to protect the United States from future threats.

    From Hillary Clinton's Website
    On Monday, February 4, Hillary will answer Americans' questions in an unprecedented national town hall giving voters in Super Tuesday states the chance to make their voices heard.

    The town hall, hosted by former ABC News anchor Carole Simpson, will air on Hallmark Channel and be streamed online at HillaryClinton.com. Hillary will anchor the town hall in New York, while President Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and national and local surrogates will serve as hosts at events in the other states.

    By going to Hillary Clinton's website you can find locations that will be having this event live and will give you a way to enter a question for her to answer at this national town hall meeting.

    This will be a great opportunity for all of you to see Hillary Clinton and listen to her on her solutions for America and for her to have one final opportunity to ask for your vote prior to Super Tuesday.

    i like obama. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:28:32 AM EST
    as has been noted, ad nauseum, all over this and many other sites, sen. obama is a smart, well spoken, well educated, nearly "poster boy" kind of guy. great family; smart, attractive wife, cute kids.

    he's quite the rousing public speaker, eliciting an excitement among some groups that, historically, have been among the disenfranchised. the guy's a definite "comer" on the national political stage, no question.

    if this were a movie, will smith would be the lead, hallie berry his wife. pick any cute kid actors for them.

    this isn't a movie. some of us require substance; sen. obama mostly offers a thin gruel of "hope" and "change". at this point in his career, sen. obama has little beyond a facade; give him another couple of senate terms, he'll be a political dynamo.

    people who's lives are in the balance have picked up on this; they like the guy too, but sen. clinton is the one who'll roll her shirtsleeves up and get the job done for the whole country, much as she has done for her new york constituents.

    sen. obama will win or do very well in those states (georgia) with a disproportionately high african american population, as kennedy did in those with a large irish-catholic one in 1960; they'll vote for one of their own. nothing wrong with that, it's the american way.

    ultimately, sen. clinton will carry the day, her clear advantage of experience and knowledge of how the system works, to accomplish her/our goals will be the decisive factor.

    and doggone it, people like her! lol

    if this was a movie.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    apropos of actors playing politicians in movie roles, I read somewhere that Oliver Stone is considering Bill Paxton, David Morse or Tim Robbins for Bill Clinton is a movie he might direct. No word on Hillary but I think Glenn Close or Merly Streep would be great.

    The media is misleading (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:45:28 AM EST
    If you listen to ,any in the media they are making it sound like Hillary and Obama are tied in the race for Super Tuesday. They keep touting the national poll results when talking about tomorrow, so it sounds like that is what the polls are about. If she wins big tomorrow that would likely have an effect on her polls in later states.

    I wonder how much this important article by Paul Krugman in today's NY Times about Obama's weakness on health care will matter?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pa gewanted=print

    How sad that he has already punted on this all important domestic issue?

    yes, i saw that on this morning's news (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:57:48 AM EST
    broadcasts as well. what alternate universe does the MSM actually occupy?

    healthcare mattering (none / 0) (#19)
    by tek on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:06:25 AM EST
    Well, it doesn't seem to matter that lots of information has come to light about his corporate pandering, so we'll see.

    Super Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by tek on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:04:55 AM EST
    Good news! This morning on Yahoo! News, for the first time ever, Hillary is the featured candidate. There are two stories with her picture, one says she's the candidate on everyone's mind, the other is "Candidates On the Rise," and her picture is featured. I hope it's true that she's well ahead. I am nearly ill thinking about another inexperienced, petulant, opportunistic man in the WH. Good Luck, Hill!

    Snip (none / 0) (#27)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:46:37 AM EST
    Save for later use.

    I am nearly ill thinking about another inexperienced, petulant, opportunistic man in the WH.

    The Brilliant folks at DailyO (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:56:08 AM EST
    were just certain that Oprah and Maria would be splashed on every newspaper today.  Little did they know that the Giants would win the Superbowl.

    I chuckle at their extraordinary foresight ;-).

    The Giants win the pennant! (none / 0) (#42)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:28:19 AM EST
    The Giants win the pennant!

    Sorry -- was that off topic?


    Well, there's a nice frontpage picture (none / 0) (#43)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:34:40 AM EST
    in the LA Times today of Michelle, Oprah and Maria.

    The Giants did good. ;)


    larry, i hate to break (none / 0) (#85)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:20:39 AM EST
    the news to you, but there is no pennant in football, and the baseball giants moved to SF decades ago.

    dang baseball fans watching football! lol


    I just said to a friend of mine (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:03:52 AM EST
    Ya know, Hillary has worked dang hard to get where she is.  She paid her dues in the senate.  SHe has stood up to the republicans.  She has rolled up her sleeves and gotten things done.

    And now, a good-looking young man with virtually no experience and half her credentials waltzes in and suddenly he is the Messiah come to save the masses.

    What woman has not experienced that in her lifetime?

    I have a problem with that line of thinking and (none / 0) (#82)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:15:21 AM EST
    I've always had a problem with it because it brings up the 'entitlement' theme: It's hers by right and anyone who presumes to challenge Hillary is an nervy upstart.

    I also have a problem with the reverse 'pretty young thing' argument: Barack is a "good looking", "young" man. Barack is 46 or 47..hardly a kid by any stretch of the imagination. JFK assumed the office of the Presidency when he was younger than Obama.
    He's really not so good looking either.


    JFK (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    Was a war hero and had many years in public office behind him.

    I don't see this as an entitlement issue.  I see it as an issue of sexism.  She is more qualified, she has worked harder and she has done more, yet he saunters in and gets the nod from the establishment--and establishment, I might add, that is completely controlled by older white men.

    I have often wondered if, in fact, she wins the White House, will she have to take a pay cut?


    Kennedy's opposition hummed the same tune (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:35:03 AM EST
    and even more. They painted him as an inexperienced, rich, dilletante, playboy who was running only because Daddy Joe had the dream of one of his sons being President, lots of money and connections(and there is a lot of truth to all those). A good argument could be made for whose experience topped the other.

    According to your logic,if Obama doesn't win, is it because he's African American?
    Not all choices can be neatly packaged into racsims or sexism.


    Give me a break (none / 0) (#109)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST
    Were you around when Kennedy was running?  He was young, but he was also a war hero as well as a well-known politician with many wins under his belt.  In short, he had spent more than one day in the senate before deciding to run.

    I don't really respond to race baiting, so you'll have to debate yourself in that department.


    He had 12 years in the Senate (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:39:29 PM EST
    so it ws easy to discount the experience line.

    Vs. 2 years in the Senate, almost 40 percent of the votes missed in the first year alone by Obama, who also doesn't bother to call meetings of the committee he chairs . . . etc., etc.

    Above all, Kennedy -- and I remember that campaign, even worked in it as a kid and watched it closely from the first state with a primary then, the state where his campaign began -- above all, he was a straightforward Dem.  

    JFK called for unity when the country needed it -- "ask not," etc. -- but not for unity because his campaign needed it, as BO does.  Big difference.


    Almost (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:50:30 PM EST
    House for 6 Senate for 6.

    Sorry, yes, I meant Congress (nt) (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:56:48 PM EST
    "saunter in?" No. Tthey drafted him. (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:38:40 PM EST
    if you insist (none / 0) (#94)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:25:48 AM EST
    on resurrecting that old chestnut, then sen. clinton is "entitled", by dint of her experience, knowledge and proven ability to get the job done, none of which sen. obama has.

    if by "entitlement", that's what you meant. by comparison to almost everyone else, of both parties, sen. obama is a youngster.


    cpinva (none / 0) (#96)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:27:43 AM EST
    thank you so much for explaining to me what I meant.  I had no idea, what with me just being a silly ol' feminist.

    kathy: (none / 0) (#106)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:44:08 PM EST
    you're welcome, glad i could help you out there.

    when you define yourself solely by an intangible, i can see how you might get confused.


    No one is entitled to the Presidency, (none / 0) (#102)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:43:13 AM EST
    if so there are many other Democrats who have done more, accomplished more, had more experience and gotten the job done..whatever that means.

    JFK was younger than Obama is now when he took office. Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he became President. There were other President's in their forties when they took the oath. This age thing is annoying. Is McCain better suited b/c he's 70?


    The Saddest Thing (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    The saddest thing about this race is that our nation was poised for honest to goodness democratic agenda. Obama and Axelrod, chose to make it about a personality. The patriarchy, aristocracy, MSM and the needing to be inspired, fell into the Axelrod virus. So, what do we have today? The prospect that our democratic agenda, will be diluted by a promise, that a man, Obama, holds a magical power that will make the corporations and the right wing embrace our democratic agenda. But rather, we will get 3-4 years of process, apeasment, events, talking, comfort in the meantime, our agenda will be put on the side and marginalized. The magic of Obama, is not defined, not articulate how it will manifest that change. In this process they have demonized the democratic base and two public servants. I hope that the people show us that they are the level headed ones.

    in fairness (none / 0) (#98)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:30:45 AM EST
    I think both Clinton and Obama have made it about Clinton and Obama. Compare their campaigns with John Edwards'. I can quickly tell you what John Edwards was campaigning on: poverty, health care as a human right, fighting the good fight against corporate greed and corporate power. I think Hillary generally has good policy, but she's been campaigning on experience and leadership, just as Obama is running on hope and unity. The difference is that, as you point out, Obama has been selfish in the extreme in rhetorically sabotaging a progressive agenda.

    Please read this (none / 0) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    Axelrod Read about the Axelrod strategy. Its the story.

    All ABout Obama (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM EST
    Tomorrow is all about the Obama campaign.  I say that because Obama probably can't knock Hillary out even if he somehow squeaks out a win in the popular vote in California.  However, Clinton could end Obama's campaign tomorrow, if the polls aren't completely whack and everything breaks Clinton's way. She could be up 300 delegates, maybe more and that's without Michigan and Florida.  That would pretty much be the end of Obama's campaign, especially factoring in her Super Delegate lead.

    I agree if Obama's behind less than 100 delegates, we would still have quite a race.  Same thing if Clinton is (and that's probably Obama's best case scenario).  

    Things start to get trickier for Obama, IMO, if he starts to get 200 delegates down (without Michigan and Florida).  There are still paths to the nomination, but it's a lot harder for him.  It will also mean that Clinton won California and a lot of other big states, making it harder for him to claim to be the choice of most democrats, regardless of the delegate count.  Plus, it's really hard to see how he has a better couple of weeks than he's had leading into Super Tuesday. The media and establishment could not have been kinder to him.

    If he's 200 delegates down, he's going to have to decide if he wants to risk being a spoiler.  I've said all along, the worst thing for Obama isn't losing the nomination, it's losing it after being seen as weakening Clinton.  The last thing he wants is to be seen as a contributing factor if Clinton loses the General Election.  He need look no further than his endorser, Ted Kennedy, if he wants to see what happens to spoilers.  Kennedy didn't come close to being the nominee in 1984 after taking Carter to the convention in 1980.

    Obama Should Consider Folding (4.00 / 0) (#47)
    by bob h on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:43:15 AM EST
    his tent if it is anything like a 55-45 delegate split as discussed above.  Hillary should help him along by offering him #2 with a big portfolio.  All prolonging things now will do is squander scarce resources and exacerbate intra-Party resentments at a time when the Republicans are basically finished and gathering strength for the big push in the Fall.

    Looks like our caucuses (none / 0) (#1)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:46:42 AM EST
    in WA state this Sat are going to count so I spent the day calling and emailing, IDing my Dem elist for Hillary and checking for rumors of breaking endorsements from uncommitted super delegates.  So far, Gov. Gregoire hasn't committed...we'd like to keep her uncommitted for now...she has a huge reelection battle to face this year and I fear she might go Obama if she decides now.  Rumor has it some legislative Dems including Senate Majority Leader will announce for Obama tomorrow.  Ugly.  My ex boss House ML still uncommitted (both ML are female).

    Chewing my fingernails off!  It's years 'til Tuesday.

    I'm in Nebraska. (none / 0) (#3)
    by phat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:08:02 AM EST
    And we're chewing our fingers off too.

    We've taken to calling Feb 9th Super Saturday.

    The Democratic establishment here seem to have jumped on the Obama bandwagon.

    It's assumed that Clinton hurts down-ticket races here in November. That may be true. But it's pure speculation. I'm not convinced, though, that any Republicans in Nebraska will vote for any Democrat. I'm also not convinced that Independents will vote for Obama in sizable numbers to effect the race. The insiders may have access to numbers I don't have.

    We haven't had any relevance in any national race in at least a generation, if not more. so things are getting a little crazy. I can't wait to write this book. It's funny to see what being close "big time" politics do to people.


    I would think that any midwestern state (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:13:55 AM EST
    like Nebraska would not be a Clinton stronghold....Obama might do well there...do you have any poll numbers....Obama is truly backed by the establishment....which is the opposite of what his youthful supporters think...lol....

    the economy! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:27:16 AM EST
    she wins on the economy.  i can't for the life of me understand why people are not seeing this.  people are confident that she will manage the economy effectively.  she will balance the budget.  i mean, has obama pledged to balance the budget?  who knows.  with clinton, it is understand that a principle of sound government is a balanced budget.  welcome fiscal conservatives who feel betrayed by bush!  

    checkmate hillary.

    this is a no brainer.  on the economy, clinton puts obama and mccain to complete and utter shame.  bush was able to barely win by peeling off a sliver of people who were doing well under clinton but were susceptible to the whole "morality" play apropos lewinsky.  

    those same voters know they were taken advantage of and i feel are strongly resentful of bush and the republicans for failing to take care of the economy.  this dissatisfaction runs deep across the country.  

    on the economy, clinton is a known.  notice that obama stays away from this, only highlighting the "divisiveness".  but he's whistling past the graveyard.  most people know it from paying their bills and recognizing they were better off eight years ago!  

    they trust hillary to bring it back because a: she will fight, and b: it ain't rocket science, it's just good government.  

    in rural areas the first clinton administration was very good on farm policy.  in fact, farmers love clinton and yes they are going to vote for clinton.



    The economy isn't a strong point (3.00 / 1) (#16)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:49:19 AM EST
    for her if she keeps insisting she'll freeze existing interest rates for five years.  This would torpedo the housing market.  I'm not exagerating when I say that is the worst idea I have ever heard.  I'm okay with most of her other proposals but that is foolish.

    torpedo the housing market? (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    bush's darn budget torpedo's everything, everyone! the clintons cleaned up after the last reagan bush financial screwup and they have to clean this up now. obama clean up this mess? that thought gives me no confidence. hot air doesn't balance check books.

    what is foolish (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    is obama supporters acting like the first clinton did not give us the best economy in the history of this country.

    what is foolish is obama supporters trying to throw cold water on the clinton economic record in the primary when it is such a huge win in the general.

    what is obama's experience with the economy?  mccain?

    bill gave us the best economy in the history of this country.  is obama claiming otherwise?  

    why should anybody trust him on the economy?  because he was against the war before he was for it?


    freezing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:03:52 AM EST
    interest rates on existing homes is a great idea.  People who bought their homes and could pay at seven percent are now being forced out of their homes at fifteen percent.  It is much better for the mortgage companies (who are fixed at three to four percent) to have these people pay off what they can rather than just walk away.  We are in a crisis, and these companies are price gouging.  There is no reason for a mortgage interest rate to be in the double digits in this current climate.  It is unconscionable.

    If you feel otherwise, that kicking them out on the street, flooding a soft market with foreclosed homes and draining tax resources from the community is a better idea, please explain.


    Is Hillary (none / 0) (#25)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:41:08 AM EST
    guaranteeing a balanced budget?  I would love to hear that.  Of course I think she is low balling her socialized health care costs on purpose.  

    a balanced budget (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    is part of the democratic party platform.  all democrats by definition run on the policy of balancing the budget.

    maybe we should ask obama whether he is comitted to this policy or whether this will be one of those areas where he "reaches out" or "unites" with the republicans to continue a stupid policy of deficits which are bad for the economy, and debt which is out of control.

    but i guess since obama's only been on the scene for three years he hasn't had time to read up on what democrats are supposed to do or what the democratic party's platform is.  

    balancing the budget is a fundamental goal of the democratic party.

    bill left a balanced budget and a budget surplus which bush has destroyed.  

    clinton will win on the economy.

    what has obama done?  he was against the war before he was for it.  that's it.  that's his qualification to be president.  


    Clinton's WSJ op-ed (none / 0) (#50)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:01:42 AM EST
    Great Plains states, really (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    more than Midwestern states, which are and historically have been quite split politically.  

    (The Census Bureau distinguishes the 12 Midwestern states as Great Lakes states vs. Great Plains states -- although what we call the "west coast" of the Great Lakes states, along the Mississippi, tends to historically include many communities on its west side, on the east sides of Iowa settled early by Illinoisans and Minnesota settled early by Wisconsinites.  And by early, that means when they still were under the flags of France and Spain.  As we saw in Iowa, that state often splits east to west, which can be more like Nebraska, Kansas, etc.)


    Just saw this (none / 0) (#115)
    by phat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:05:30 PM EST
    I'm looking at demographics where I live and I think the numbers favor Hillary.

    Age and gender, anyway.



    here in ms (none / 0) (#7)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:17:03 AM EST
    ronnie musgrove is running way ahead over roger wicker to take lott's seat for the dems.  yet, obama hasn't campaigned here.  

    obama wasn't on the ticket in 2006, yet dems took back the congress.

    more than a dozen gingrich counterrevolutionary republicans are stepping down.  not because of obama.  

    hillary kicked his but in florida.

    the whole argument is phony.  if the same people who are wringing their hands about why hillary can't help these candidates would be arguing her record we could have our hillary landslide.  instead, they try to figure out how it can't happen.  

    he's trying to take credit for something that's going to happen anyway, while preventing a much better and more qualified person from being there and running with it.  

    basically, the guy is an ass with a giant ego.  


    does anyone know (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:45:09 AM EST
    what time polls close in CA?  Because I am on eastern time, so that's an extra three hours I have to wait.



    8 p.m. PST (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:58:35 AM EST
    So, we should know around 11 or midnight where it stands.

    This reminds me of when I was a kid and my dad would have parties and dems would stay up late into the night waiting for phone calls to come in with vote counts.  Very exciting!


    Many, many absentee ballots, so (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:05:51 AM EST
    not sure when the CA race will be called.  

    they seem to (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    give exit polling results as soon as polls close, so at least we'll know something about those polls.

    Does CA use electronic voting?


    Not for this election. Secretary of State (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    sd. no.

    go for Obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by tek on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:11:04 AM EST
    Yes, I'm afraid my other Senator, Dick Durbin, will come out for Obama tomorrow. Of course, Illinois is already squarely In Obama's corner, but Durbin does carry some weight. He's on important committees and he's managed to keep himself distanced from the corps for the most part.

    One has to wonder what is going on with the Dem Establishment. I can't understand that some of the more powerful women in the party haven't come out for Hillary and I worry that it's another Rovian thing where a certain faction has gotten control and they're threatening careers if Dems don't line up for Obama. They've gotta see how unready he is, just like "W."


    they want Obama (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:23:29 AM EST
    because they know that they can control him.  Plain and simple.

    Do you see Pelosi-or any of them-running over Clinton?  Not going to happen.


    I Agree (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:39:33 AM EST
    This is exactly what is going on. Obama can be controlled because he is weak. In fact the Conservatives may decide to support him and abandon McCain in the GE.  We will know based on who the MSM supports if Hillary loses.

    I will not support Obama in the GE if he wins the Democratic slot. I don't care what anyone on this site thinks about party loyalty and all that cr@p. I will not vote for McCain but I will not vote for Obama either. I am disgusted by the actions of Shiver, Kennedy and every other women who has endorsed Obama. If I were a man, I would be nodding my head and smirking because women as a whole can be counted on to shaft any woman who dares to try to break the glass ceiling. No women can do so unless men (or a man) allows it. I've heard comments that women should not vote for Hillary just because she is a women. I would agree with this only if she was clearly not qualified. Given that she is obviously qualified, any women who does not support her will never get my support.


    there is real truth in that. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:20:25 AM EST
    i read i think on left coaster that kennedy has numerous people he wants to get jobs. and the clintons already have their group. obama being new doesn't have that yet.

    I agree: Wes Clark (none / 0) (#40)
    by felizarte on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:25:39 AM EST
    They know that Obama will have to rely on them until he gets his own feet.  By then, the direction has been set.  I think Mitt Romney would not want to face Clinton which is why he has an ad in Calif already targeting her.

    I'm surprised that Durbin's (none / 0) (#29)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:56:05 AM EST
    support for Obama isn't well known in IL?  Durbin has been helping Obama behind the scenes for months and is now openly campaigning for him.  

    Durbin lying low as Kennedy did (none / 0) (#108)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:13:36 PM EST
    so they can pretend they didn't draft Obama to take on the Clintons.

    Cynical.  It's politics!


    probably would be (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:52:22 AM EST
    smarter for them to wait till after Tuesday, but I am sure the Obama campaign is pushing them to do it now....I cannot get over this obvious manipulation....If you had asked me a few months ago if I thought the republicans had any chance at all, I would have said hell no, but now, they have a great chance of being in there for 4 more years and that is too depressing....Karl Rove rides again .....

    What do they gain (none / 0) (#5)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:55:38 AM EST
    I have a hard time understanding what some of these people think they are going to get out of endorsing Obama. If he were a runaway favorite in the polls, it might end up doing them some good. But why would they want to piss off the person who has been leading the polls for almost a year? It is beyond belief.

    Maybe they (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:42:25 AM EST
    are doing it because they like him and feel inspired.  Not everyone endorses based on some cold calculation of political gains.

    They don't believe it (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:05:22 AM EST
    People are not believing the polls.  It's like one of those "viral"  internet things.  Dems want to vote for the winner and they have been convinced with the momentum he can win and get the Indies.  
    They hear the sound bites and word of mouth.

    My question is will it be a movement or a flash?  


    beyond belief (none / 0) (#23)
    by tek on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    It is a mystery. I think the big Dems are determined A. they aren't going to have a woman, B. they don't want a strong Executive. I'm beginning to believe they have bought into the neocon thing, the old veterans who have no chance to ever be president (Cheney/Kennedy) latch onto a young, inexperience, egotistical candidate whom they push onto the public, then they are the power behind the throne pulling the strings. I can't think what else is behind this.

    it goes back to having more allegiance (none / 0) (#38)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    to their inside the beltway dim buddies. i have recently altered my spelling for beltway insiders to dims and not dems. it seems more fitting.

    Wow (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:45:50 AM EST
    Did y'all see Kennedy's approval rating?  Or should I say "lack of approval" rating?


    Obama would be happy if he's within 100 (none / 0) (#21)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:19:13 AM EST
    delegates by the time all Super Tuesday state votes are counted.

    If he's within 5-10 points in CA, that's perfectly okay.

    If he's within 20 points in NY and 15 points in NJ, that's okay too.  I'm hoping he can get within 10 points in Massachusetts, but that's looking tough.  He got blown out in Southern NH, which bodes extremely ill for Massachusetts.

    He should win IL, GA, plus some smaller ones like ND, AK, ID, DE, MN, CO.

    Splitting the delegates 55-45... (none / 0) (#26)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:44:06 AM EST
    ...would be an okay outcome for Obama.  His minimum threshold on vote percentage is probably around 40%--if some of the superdelegates broke his way he'd wind up around 200 delegates behind, which is the upper limit of the deficit he's capable of overcoming.
    If the gap is only 100 delegates, he can actually wipe that out by doing well in the remaining February states, and they'd be about even going into the Texas-Ohio March 4th primaries.  If no one is dominant there, this thing then goes on into the Pennsylvania primary in late April.  At that point, if nobody's within a few hundred delegates of winning, we're looking at going all the way to June.

    I kinda wonder what their respective financial situations will look like after tomorrow...


    Obama's got a BIG advantage in money (none / 0) (#28)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:49:43 AM EST
    and volunteer resources this stage.  He outraised her by $20 Million in the month of January.

    If she doesn't exceed expectations on Tuesday, it's hard to see her competing in terms of field staff and air time.  

    And, if she somehow manages to lose California after leading it by 20 points a month ago, she's done and might as well withdraw.


    Hillary Will Meet that Money Advantage (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by cdalygo on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:12:53 AM EST
    There is no reason for Hillary to withdraw if he makes it close in California or even if she loses. It will not be enough for him to win the nomination.

    Hopefully as we move onto the other states, folks will pay closer attention to the election. The MSM will only play the hype game so long before they turn on him. That will increase her ability to raise money.

    Though it truly annoys me that even a loss for him gets spun as a win. Yes she had a lead but then she   placed it against the power of the MSM (and its news blackout), the upper class liberal wing of the Democratic party, and the more hysterical elements of the blogosphere. Frankly she pulls this out tomorrow it's a major testament to her electability in the fall


    Bill in SC (none / 0) (#37)
    by magster on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:21:01 AM EST
    changed the overall momentum of the campaign, and Hillary looks like she's just hanging on. That's how Obama can spin a close loss into a win, because he'd be favored going into "overtime".

    Where is your data? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Grey on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:19:56 AM EST
    The Clinton camp has not released any figures for the month of January at all, so your claim that her campaign was "outraised" by Obama's is not backed up by data.

    The data we do have show that Clinton outraised Obama in the last quarter.


    Don't you think Clinton would have released (none / 0) (#39)
    by magster on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:22:09 AM EST
    January numbers to counter Obama if they had been comparable or better?

    There is no data (none / 0) (#48)
    by Grey on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    No.  My point is that there is no data for the month of January, which is contrary to the assertion made by Greekesque above, who speculated that Obama outrased Clinton for the month.  No one knows that.  It's speculation, not fact, and it's worth noting.

    To add (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Grey on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:59:03 AM EST
    Campaigns often keep numbers to themselves to use later.  I can just as easily speculate that Clinton raised as much or more than Obama in Jan. and the campaign has decided to keep that quiet for now for strategic purposes.  We've all seen that before.

    I simply prefer to deal with facts.  It is a fact that Obama has raised 32 mil in Jan.  It is not a fact that he has outraised Clinton and it won't be a fact until we see numbers.


    You may be right (none / 0) (#64)
    by magster on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:42:38 AM EST
    but based on the facts we do know about January's fundraising, and you had to put money where your mouth was, would you bet Obama significantly outraised Hillary in January, or would you put your money on Hillary equaling or exceeding Obama's fundraising in January?

    No bet (none / 0) (#67)
    by Grey on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    I would put my money on neither because I don't have all the facts.

    Good call (none / 0) (#113)
    by magster on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:21:23 PM EST
    Per TPM: Obama 32 million, Hillary 13 million.

    I saw at least one report (none / 0) (#46)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:40:32 AM EST
    about Clinton raising about $10 Million.

    Timmeh said yesterday that it was $10 Million or so.

    Shuster this morning said it was $10-15 Million.

    If Clinton doesn't meet expectations, that funding gap will not get any better.

    Moreover, the February 12 states are all Obama country.


    which 12 Feb states (none / 0) (#92)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:24:37 AM EST
    are you saying are Obama country?

    Virginia, DC, and Maryland. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:26:31 AM EST
    The DC metro primary, you could call it.

    Hawaii is also a mid-February state.


    hillary and (none / 0) (#44)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:35:20 AM EST
    her people will fight this fake, phony, empty suit diletante all the way to the convention.

    do you really think hillary is going to roll over for this chump?

    and what if he loses, and loses badly?

    what if all the momentum proves to have been so much hot air?

    what issue is it that he represents that is so vital that he would have to stay in the race?  

    why continue to divide the party when it is obvious that he won't win?

    why stay in the way of a unified party behind our most experienced candidate taking the fight to the republicans?

    what purpose does he serve, other than to bash a clinton and tear down the record of our last successful democratic president.

    obama is bordering on becoming a major pariah.

    he offers no other reason to vote for him besides he is not clinton.  

    he is doing the republicans dirty work for them, tearing down the front runner and trying to weaken her so that mccain won't be totally destroyed in the fall.  

    after super tuesday the question on my mind will be why is obama still in the way?  


    Financials (none / 0) (#31)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:58:26 AM EST
    would be clearer if HRC would release January's totals.  There's nothing there for her to brag about, we won't see those till after Tuesday...

    that's kinda what I'm getting at... (none / 0) (#33)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    ...when your opponent brags about raising 32 million in a month, and you say nothing in response, there are two possibilities: one, you raised as much or nearly as much, and want to conceal your strength in order to mislead your opponent; or two, you didn't raise anywhere near that and have little money left to put ads up past 2/5, and you don't want any negative publicity to come out before then.

    Which seems more likely?


    the modern political (none / 0) (#41)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:25:44 AM EST
    graveyard is already full of people who underestimated the clintons.

    but i guess since obama's only been on the scene for three years he must not know that maybe somebody should tell him.  


    maybe literally... (none / 0) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    So what is the percentage (none / 0) (#63)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    of actual votes, you know from voters, that Obama can lose by and still declare that he has won? This whole process is absurd. Hillary must win by what at least 30 percentage of actual voters to eek out a win? lol! And if Obama wins by like two percent it's a great win. Hahahahaha--I've just jumped over the moon. Or is it following Alice down the rabbitt hole. Maybe I'll meet Obama at the mad hatter's tea party.

    So, in effect (none / 0) (#59)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    Super Tuesday really doesn't matter that much. Obama wins whether he wins big, small, or loses small, or big. You are talking losing double digits, but still saying how happy he would be. wow. Must be great having a candidate whose winning isn't dependant upon actually winning a vote. Is there any result where obama loses? What 40 point loss? 50? or is that within expectations also? You really are into disenfranchising voters aren't you?

    Overall, the magic number would be (none / 0) (#69)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:45:52 AM EST
    staying within 100 delegates.  Super Tuesday was going to be where Clinton tried to land a knockout punch--CA, NY, NJ, MA, AR.  Starting February 6, the terrain is much more friendly to Obama.

    Fwiw, I think Clinton will win CA by 7 points, NY by 19, NJ by 15, AR by 23, and MA by 13.


    But what percentage point of actual voters? (none / 0) (#76)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    That's why this whole process seems phony. Obama can win by 20 percent of actual voters throughout the primary and still lose. Hillary too. Look at what you've said. 10 to 15 point losses are ok. If that is true, the whole process is a joke. Why vote. It really doesn't matter. You can let insiders weight the result, and determine the outcome just by delegate selection.

    Obama wins a small state (Iowa). Yay!!! Hillary should quit now. Obama loses by 15 percent on Tuesday. Yay!!!! He won. Hillary should quit.Pffft.

    Obama comes out of Tuesday behind 100 delegates and lost the popular overall vote by 10%. Yay!!! he won.


    It's all about delegates. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:25:40 AM EST
    And, crucially, the rest of the month of February will be much more friendly to him than February 5.

    finally don't underestimate (none / 0) (#45)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM EST
    the various corporations saying to the estabishment politicians, we will contribute big time to your campaign if you support Obama...waving that catnip under their noses...anything to torpedo HRC...wow I am more impressed with her than ever, cause the establishment is terrified of her...Kinda funny really if it wasnt so sad...she is our only hope for this generations "new deal"...really interesting that other democrats dont support her...that tells me alot about them and it isnt good...Go Hillary!!!!

    She's Done (none / 0) (#53)
    by xjt on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:05:51 AM EST
    And, if she somehow manages to lose California after leading it by 20 points a month ago, she's done and might as well withdraw.

    You got cocky and arrogant like this before New Hampshire, too. How'd that work out for you?

    I said "IF" (none / 0) (#70)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:46:48 AM EST
    If she had lost NH, she would have been done.

    Similarly IF she loses CA, she is done.  But, I'm 95% sure she's going to win CA by a fairly comfortable margin--5-8 points.


    I don't think either of them (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:57:13 AM EST
    will give up no matter what happens tomorrow.

    Remember folks saying that, going into NH, her campaign was out of money, she was in trouble, blah blah blah?

    The fact is, we don't know anything.  All we do, really, is repeat rumor and innuendo.  It's like the Richardson endorsement that wasn't an endorsement, or people saying where the Edwards folks will go.

    We won't know until we know.


    She won't give up. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    But, she'd be in for a whale of a tough time.  February is set up nicely for Obama.

    Btw, imagine if Michigan and Florida had scheduled their primaries for Feb. 12.


    Even if she maintained parity in delegates and (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:21:52 AM EST
    led nationally? Geek your bias in applying different rules to Hillary and Obama seems intellectually dishonest. If Obama is behind he wins. If Obama is ahead he wins.

    The Feb, 5 lineup is more pro-Clinton (none / 0) (#91)
    by Geekesque on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:24:34 AM EST
    than pro-Obama.  New York, New Jersey, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and California have all been considered Clinton country.  

    February 12 is three states that will go heavily pro-Obama.

    And he has more money and resources.

    Obama is playing for a tie or close loss tonight. Clinton is playing for a BIG win.


    I was referring to NH (none / 0) (#100)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:40:14 AM EST
    Be that as it may. Tell me if post super tuesday, on Feb 12, if Obama wins the popular vote by 2 per cent but loses delegates will you trumpet that as a loss?

    Likewise if Hillary loses Feb 12 by 2 percent, or 15% but eeks out a delegate delegate lead from that voting time will you trumpet it as a win?


    yes let's (none / 0) (#105)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    spin ourselves silly so obama can stay in no matter how badly it hurts the party.  

    that 32 million has to be spent somewhere, and after all his fawning supporters love pretty shiny media 'cuz they are so being part of something donate now!


    l (none / 0) (#55)
    by ajain on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    i have bad, bad feeling that obama is gonna take california.

    I don't think he'll take California (none / 0) (#58)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    too many early ballots have been cast.  It will be close enough to keep the race going.  Obama will probably do better with the upcoming primaries.  Smaller states and less states voting at one time gives his money momentum a chance to work.  If head to head polls were to continue to show him beating Mccain while Hillary loses, he may be able to carry the fight all the way.

    and those polls showing him (none / 0) (#60)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    beating McCain mean nothing because the GOP slime machine hasnt been turned on yet...and when it is. look out....he will be toast...

    "it will be (none / 0) (#68)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:45:35 AM EST
    enough to keep the race going."

    that says it all.

    that's all he is about.

    now that he has sucked up all those millions, they have to be spent somewhere!

    can't spend millions on advertising if your guy faces reality and realizes he's not going to win.

    the guy is a cash cow for the media.

    he has no integrity.

    there is not a single issue he is championing that justifies staying in the race.

    she has a plan to get us out of iraq.  she can be trusted to fight to get it done.  

    obama is being used because people are making money off of him and all he is doing is using that attention to run against the person we obviously need to do the unbelievably impossible job of cleaning up after bush.

    he generates millions which buys advertising which gives him attention.  

    he uses all that attention to implicitly or explicitly bash the clinton record and the fact that bill gave us the best economy in the history of this country.

    and he prevents us from taking the fight to the republicans.

    he produced a glitzy video.  he purchased ad time during the super bowl.

    the guy is a complete phony.


    Calm down (none / 0) (#74)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:57:29 AM EST
    you're starting to rant and panic.  I know you want this to all be over tommorow but it's not.  

    what is the (none / 0) (#77)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    issue that obama is running on to justify staying in the race?

    You don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    Obama can't lose. He can lose the popular vote by 20 per cent, be down 100 delegates after Tuesday, and Yay!!! he still wins. Hillary can win by 15% maintain her delegate lead and still lose. By those rules this primary is a joke. votes, actual you know democratic party members votes, don't matter-- only delegates. If the election can be won by double digits by actual votes cast and you still lose, it's a joke.
    What Obama's supporters don't want to realize is this whole approach diminishes the integrity of any win he might get also. It all becomes bs.

    You right, I don't get it (none / 0) (#97)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:28:16 AM EST
    I have no idea what your point is. Being down 100 delegates would not be a loss for anybody.  According to some, the rules for this primary were actually set up a while ago to favor Hillary.

    The point is bias (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    If Hillary can win by 15% and lose while still maintaining a delegate lead, and Obama can lose by 15% and be still out by 100 delegates, and that be considered a win then the voting is just a joke.
     Winning or losing doesn't have much meaning. For Obama either. "Momentum" is flatus.

    Can you really say if Obama pulls out a win in the popular vote by 5% but is out by say 110 delegates it won't be touted as a "huge surprising win"?

    Biased criteria makes evaluating meaningless or at least dishonest.


    Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    apart from a few differences on details the same ones as Hillary.  Are you really against any of these?

    I read (none / 0) (#56)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM EST
    I think at myDD, a comment that said the recent CA polls underestimate Latinos, where they represented only 6% of those polled but make up 12% of voters.  I imagine this is good for Hillary.

    I also wonder if they underestimate the Asian vote, which is also good for her.

    I'm nervous about CA, and it seems we won't know until Wednesday, but I'm going to continue to think positive!

    NJDem-me, too. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    I think that we're all very nervous for our respective candidates.  As a woman, I feel like the more qualified, more senior woman is being cut off at the knees by the jovial, back-slapping young man who is fresh out of college but has absolutely no experience, yet gets the promotion.

    Does anyone know what time the polls close in CA?  


    this article (none / 0) (#66)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    says it all for me about Hillary and this race...

    It looks like.. (none / 0) (#73)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    Obama still has his momentum. The Clinton campaign's problem is that, while they have a strong base, they are not attracting more support. Undecideds and former Edwards voters seem to be going for Obama.

    If Clinton comes out ahead in delegates at all, it'll be because of NY. The only other state where she appears to be clearly ahead is TN. I suspect she won't come out ahead in delegates, because Obama will take California by some margin. Which will give him more positive press, more momentum, etc.

    It looks like Obama is the clear favorite, and I don't see a way for Clinton to turn the tide. The debate was the last chance, but it looks like it didn't have a net positive effect for her.

    In the debate (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    Hillary never told voters why they should pick her over Obama, and Obama made that argument twice in the debate. He said up front "you should vote for me because . . .". Hillary never did that, and if I noticed a lot of undecideds may have noticed too. The MSM and Barack's machine boxed Hillary into a corner. Anything she could say would be deemed 'racist' by Barack's spin masters.  It will be interesting to see how well this plays in the GE if Hillary loses.  And as much as I hate to say it, it does look like Hillary will lose.  Even if she is close or a little ahead after tomorrow, the Dem leaders will take it from her.  

    momentum (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    I think Huckabee provides a stark example of how fleeting "momentum" can be. It's probably a bad idea to confidently project further increases based on current trends. Didn't we learn something from NH and NV?

    a great article by Riverdaughter (none / 0) (#81)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:11:25 AM EST