Can Obama Win The NominationTomorrow?

By Big Tent Democrat

Update [2008-2-4 21:1:50 by Big Tent Democrat]:

Jeralyn's buddy, Dan Abrams of MSNBC, is now talking about the anti-Hillary bias in the Media now. Good for him.


John Nichols of the The Nation says it is possible:

What would a sweep look like? Obama would not have to win every state or every delegate, but he would have to dominate the map in a manner that left no doubt that Democratic primary and caucus voters prefer his candidacy to that of the woman who not long ago was busy outlining her Democratic National Convention acceptance speech.

Fair enough, if rather vague. But Nichols outlines his vision of this sweep:

To do this, Obama would has to begin by winning California convincingly. That's possible. He's moved even or ahead most Golden State polls.

Fair enough. What though if Clinton wins Cali convincingly? Does that mean nothing? Nichols does not say.

Obama then must come close to Clinton in her adopted home state of New York. To do that, he needs to carry New York City and do well enough statewide to pull at least 40 percent of the vote and roughly that percentage of the state's delegates. . . .

And if he does not? A Clinton win no?

Next comes Illinois, Obama's home state. He needs to win with over 70 percent to keep Clinton's take of delegates from congressional districts in the suburbs and downstate from being worthy of note.

70 percent would be impressive no doubt. What if it is 60%? A Clinton "win?"

Once the touchstone states are out of the way, we move to the difficult-but-not-unimaginable part: Obama must carry either New Jersey or Connecticut, states adjacent to New York that had been seen as safe Clinton turf until recently. New Jersey seems the more likely prospect. . . .

Hmm, I would have thought Connecticut more likely but fine. And if Clinton wins Jersey by 10? A Clinton win then?

Also in the northeast, Obama needs to win Massachusetts. That would have been unimaginable not long ago, but with the Kennedy family pulling for him is such a high-profile manner, it is now required. . . .

I like that Nichols points out that the Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick endorsements SHOULD make this a good Obama state. Frankly, a Clinton win would be big it seems to me. This should be an Obama state. Why isn't it?

In the south, Obama should take Georgia and Alabama, states with large African-American voter blocs. The exit of John Edwards -- who was splitting the southern white vote with Clinton -- complicates things a bit. But if Obama does not take Georgia and Alabama, he's got no claim to a sweep.


Tennessee and Oklahoma look good for her. Count Kansas for Obama -- it's his virtual home state, by virtue of his mother's roots there. Obama should also take Colorado, where he opened his campaign offices last fall, and Idaho . . . Alaska as well . . .

Strange that Obama's failure to ignite Tennessee and Oklahoma has given no pause to the claims of Obama's wide appeal. Whither the heartland? Nichols gives Obama a free pass here that seems questionable to me.

Minnesota [for Obama], where Obama's Saturday appearance in Minnesota drew a huge crowd. Obama is also looking strong in North Dakota, where popular Senator Kent Conrad is solidly behind his colleague from Illinois.

Mark them up for Obama, so what if he fails there?

Missouri, where Clinton has some neighbor-state advantages but Obama has Senator Claire McCaskill and large, well-organized African-American communities in Kansas City and St. Louis. . . .

Earth to Nicholls, Illinois has a long border with Missouri. Arkansas does too of course, but currently Clinton is the Senator from New York.

Arizona, with a large Hispanic population and a white population that trends older, should be solid Clinton country. . . .

The Governor is an Obama supporter. Obama is supposed to prove he can win Latinos here. If he fails to win, it is a big loss.

New Mexico would be an even bigger coup for Obama, and he is fighting hard for it. . . .

Ok. Not sure why, but ok. Nicholls bottom line?

To recap: Obama should win California and Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota and North Dakota. Then, out of the northeast, he needs another state, preferably New Jersey. Out of the middle of the country, he needs Missouri. Out of the southwest, he needs Arizona. If he gets these, and if the delegate distribution plays right, he can claim to have dominated the day. If he adds New Mexico in the southwest and Connecticut in the northeast, and perhaps a surprise -- like Tennessee or Oklahoma -- he'll no longer be merely claiming a sweep. He'll have it, and a clear road to the nomination.

There's the bar for a big Obama night. Let's hold Nicholls and the Media to this. Oh btw, if Clinton wins similar numbers of states, can we call it a Clinton sweep? Course not, then it will be about DELEGATES. You know the drill.

< Hillary Hate In The Blogs: Krugman Notices | Hillary On Hallmark Channel Now: Town Hall Meeting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    HuffPo writer (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:09:13 PM EST
    just simply tells a falsehood. Says Obama has won all contested contests. NH and Nevada do not exist.

    bloggers are pathetic. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:31:57 PM EST
    That would be dailykos, Huffingtonpost, and Talkingpointsmemo.  Today, I didn't even see a mention of Hillary's town hall meeting on the front page.  You'd think they would have made a tiny mention.

    I have cleaned up my bookmarks... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:43:40 PM EST
    I feel like an old mafia vendetta: For me, they don't exist.

    It's gotten quite ugly at Big Orange-- (none / 0) (#112)
    by magnetics on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:06:02 AM EST
    People don't like it if you mention Krugman's column today on healthcare options -- I was instructed in one of the threads (I quote from memory) to 'take my healthcare equivocations and shove them.'

    That was in a pro-Hillary diary (yes there are a few over there still.)

    Anyhow, I am more than a little disappointed in the trend over there, but not yet ready to pull the plug altogether.


    Dkos (none / 0) (#123)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:40:54 AM EST
    has an interesting video where Obama clearly equivocates about the war.  "I think I would vote against it..."  Link

    That's the focus of the diary, but to me, the more important thing is what precludes that statement, which is they are talking about the resolution as something meant to buy the inspectors time to find WMDs.

    And the responders to the diary actually kind of aren't horrible.

    (I got the link through Taylor Marsh, so I can't be blamed for clicking on it when I swore off Kos, right?)


    mccain can (none / 0) (#134)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:44:40 AM EST
    take obama down on this one issue of the iraq war authorization.  i know that sounds dramatic, but that's a contingency they are trying to set up.  

    that's a totally one sided match up on national security that they would exploit to win the white house.  

    "he was against the war before he was for it".  


    They need Media Matters (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:11:22 PM EST
    I would put them at A+ top of the list as the most biased of all the bloggers.

    Media Matters, where are you!


    Obama win and The Nation's new role (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by koshembos on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:57:44 PM EST
    If the Nation wins by way of Obama, progressiveness will be dealt a fatal blow and Carey McWilliams will be turning restlessly in his grave. True even if Obama wins only in California.

    As they say where I come from: the sea burned out and the fish now live on trees.

    Hope not, I am a Carey McWilliams and Cesar Chavez progressive.

    WAH! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    Can someone give me a snapshot of the Abrams thing?  Between pausing the town hall and taping Terminator (yeah, what's it to ya?) I couldn't catch it.

    I Find the Focus On Delegates Amazing (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    It's like votes don't even count anymore.  Forget Democratic party rules, how can people who claim to be progressives embrace a system that is inherently unfair, treating some folks' votes as more important than others.  Do they really not care if more Democrats vote for Clinton than Obama?  Shouldn't that matter?  If it's the other way, you can bet it will matter.  And it should.  

    I guess I am old school because I thought votes were supposed to matter.  That an electoral college system was unfair and was something liberals should be fighting to change and not embrace it whenever it favors their candidate.  

    When this is over, I think it would be useful to look at every value the left "blogosphere" professes to care about and how quickly those values have been left in the dust when they've conflicted with supporting Barack Obama.  It's not so much the support I disapprove of as the incredible intellectual dishonesty that's accompanying it.

    Obama viral momentum. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:51:55 PM EST
    It seems that the story the Obama blogs and campaign want to keep is that his support will be on a continues linear up swing. I am getting the feeling that many critical thinkers are falling off the Obama wagon. He is lucky the election is tomorrow, more time and he would see a drastic decrease. They are brilliant on using the viral buzz, but viral buzzes peak and crash quickly. So they need just the right window. I think what is most questionable about the blogs that chose sides is that they were used by the campaign to feed the viral frenzy. What will they get in the end? Loss of credibility. They got lots of new readers(or fans) but they have become embedded journalists for the campaign. I have to say, they figured out how to use the internet. My question is has he eaten into Hillary's support? No, he has added new ones and take some of the undecideds and some Edwards voters. But Hillary's support I think is solid.

    Yeah I agree Stella (none / 0) (#92)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:00:16 AM EST
    of all the polls I have read, most of the Hillary supporters say they will not change and alot of the Obama supporters dont say that....Of course time will tell, and tomorrow will be quite telling as well...Hillary's national lead, the last I read, had increased by a few points as well...I will really be glad when this nail biter is over....the general election is going to be bad enough....Tonite's town hall meeting with Hillary was fantastic for anyone to watch as it is all of her positions on the issues in a nutshell....For those of you that missed it, I am sure on her web site you can view it if you want to....

    Keep the faith. (none / 0) (#113)
    by magnetics on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:09:32 AM EST
    I also hope that the large absentee vote in California will give the lie to some of the Obama-gaining poll stories that have become so current.

    Sometimes I wonder (none / 0) (#96)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:08:23 AM EST
    if the some of the progressive blogs are back room managed...I vaguely remember some attacks on Markos a few years back that were repelled war-room style via the progressive blogs...and more and more blogs do these Obama conference call things...I wonder if it is more concerted...no proof...but no transparency either...

    If it is concerted, is that an FEC issue?


    speaking of (none / 0) (#106)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:41:25 AM EST
    backroom managed, this article about the endorsements of the newspaper is extremely telling about how very little endorsements mean since they are being manipulated so much...

    That is absurd (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:11:55 AM EST
    Having been in that backroom, I know you ae nuts on this.

    Please do not devolve into this silliness.


    Hey now....be nice (none / 0) (#120)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:29:42 AM EST
    I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying (maybe thats because I didn't clearly state that I was wondering aloud...not stringing together a conspiracy...)

    But I know specifically that "that" back-room I referred too what not what I wondered if possible...

    All I am saying is, "what if there was more coordination in message on the progressive blogs" and if there is, would there be an FEC issue...there are aspects that are already there, and a framework of sorts (Markos' attack a few years back...some consulting BS if I remember correctly)...


    Have you been in the (none / 0) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    backroom lately?  Things might have changed.

    I can't speculate about KOS, other than to realize that he is probably working for short term financial gain.  

    However, Aravosis, who this fall was appalled at Obama for his McClurkin support, suddenly decided that Obama was okay.  What changed?

    It was even more amusing when he then lambasted Log Cabin Republicans for being sell-outs.

    LOL!  Republicans-turned-"progressive" bloggers.  I'll never trust them again.


    since we're on sports analogies... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Turkana on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:56:51 PM EST
    valvano once said that if he took a team to an undefeated season, right up through the acc and ncaa tournaments, people still would have said- but can you imagine what dean smith would have done with that team?

    then again, i was a fan of the dean...

    Jimmy V. was funny (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:02:41 PM EST
    what part (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:06:11 PM EST
    of she was 20 points ahead don't you understand?  If it comes close he has momentum, he closed the big gap, it's win, just like her only winning by 3 points in NH was a big deal.  Also if he is still in it, he has more money to fight on.

    You are new to this, huh? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:14:44 PM EST
    Polls that are months out always show wide splits, before campaigns come to the particular states.

    As the date nears, the split narrows.  Undecideds decide, for one.  Add up totals then and now, etc.

    Spinning this as wow, look what happened since months ago is just naive.


    Well see (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:18:23 PM EST
    She was 50+ at some points a few months ago.  This isn't undecided picking a side. She has either lost support, or is not picking up any former undecideds.

    She has not lost much support (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    Obama has gained support mostly, in the polls anyway.

    Let's count the votes and see where we are.


    ok (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:29:50 PM EST
    but getting the most votes or delegates does not mean she won the nomination, she just did better in feb 5 states, on feb 5th.  she was the front runner before feb 5th, she will remain it after.  Obama has not been the front runner except for a short time after Iowa, so if he wins it is a huge story because he is the front runner.  If she wins, she is still the front runner,  unless she seals the deal there is nothing new.

    So if he wins more votes and delegates (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:33:02 PM EST
    what does that mean? Something different?

    it means (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:49:07 PM EST
    she has more votes and delegates, since there isn't a single state, you can't "win."  for Barack if he has more votes and delegates he becomes the front runner, that why it is a "win,"  if she makes it virtually impossible for him to win, then she won the nomination.  She is already the front runner, it isn't a win for her to be the front runner after.

    If she wins as Nicholls proposes (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:53:23 PM EST
    Obama might, then she wins the nomination tomorrow.

    My point is that Obama will win the nomination with that type of result too.

    Both of them can win the nomination tomorrow.

    It may be unlikely in both cases, but Nicholls chose to discuss only an Obama winning the nomination scenario.

    Wins and losses were not relevant to Hillary in his world.


    It goes on to the convention (none / 0) (#38)
    by Rojas on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:51:28 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:11:38 PM EST
    When does winning matter?

    Heh (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:14:50 PM EST
    when she wins the nomination, when she gets enough delegates to win.

    But you know i guess half way through if Hillary likes the number you will support her calling all other votes irrelevant.


    i think (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:23:13 PM EST
    he's just pointing out that you have to give some statistical weight to the older polls which show a solid lead for clinton.

    he's pointing out that there's some basis to think obama may have made huge gains.

    but the truth is more likely in the middle.

    problem is, obama supporters have set up a win win on the spin.  as long as obama is not mathematically out of the race, he wins.  

    its just spin.

    it is equally possible that hillary could blow him out in some of these places, as she did in florida.  but that never gets mentioned.

    but the obama campaign has to claim a victory even if he loses because the only issue he is running on now is his own momentum.  

    it's ridiculous, imho.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:16:49 PM EST
    What is that supposed to mean?

    22 states vote tomorrow, including Cali, NY and Illinois. Winning does not matter them?


    two points (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    the idea that after these states vote we will seal up the nomination is ridiculous.

    second she was not supposed to have to fight like this.  I remember being told repeatedly to get over it because she was my nominee and their was no path for anyone else.  So the fact that that was CW, before means that the standard for her winning is always sealing the deal. At this point he just has to keep the fight going.

    That isn't Clinton bias, that is a consequence of her running as inevitable and not being able to fulfill that.


    Told by whom? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:26:47 PM EST
    Whoever told you that was a fool.

    How does that excuse media bias now?


    please see my (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:31:39 PM EST
    above post about how front runner remaining front runner not a big story.  That isn't media bias, that is how life works.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:36:22 PM EST
    I do not understand that comment.

    uh (none / 0) (#34)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:40:48 PM EST
    You realize these votes count, right? Iowa and New Hampshire were mostly symbolic. 2/5 is the real deal.

    Though I'd say if you're looking for a story going into Saturday and beyond, it's all down to who wins California (and by that I mean who *actually* wins). Obama has been making steady gains since Iowa. This is not a new story; he hasn't been a real underdog for a long time now, so you can't possibly spin losses as wins.

    what's with the "we" (none / 0) (#21)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:28:59 PM EST
    We hope the dems win.  Is that what you mean?

    with supporters like you... (none / 0) (#4)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:08:54 PM EST
    who needs enemies? For someone who says they're an Obama supporter you certainly seem to knock him a lot. And yes, I know you take your shots at Hillary as well. Just getting that "fair and balanced" feeling.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    Yep, my support is not worth a hill of beans. I write what actually think, not what spin would be most favorable to Obama. shame on me.

    I'm not trying to attack (none / 0) (#23)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:29:58 PM EST
    Just saying that you go at him pretty good. And since the commenters here are for the most part pretty rabid Hillary supporters clearly they love getting thrown the red meat. Perhaps it's to prove that you're not biased.

    To me this post isn't even impartial, it reads very negative. I don't think anyone should put "spin" on things to make them "most favorable to Obama" - but it just seems that with this post (and quite a few others in the past) you almost go out of your way to knock him down.


    I think this needs a wider view (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by rebecca on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    I can go from blog to blog on the left where I used to read interesting stories I now get Obama love and Clinton hate.  So why is it that at the very few blogs that don't fall into that pattern you Obama supporters try to pressure them into the same pattern?  

    One thing about BTD is that he will give his opinion with clear eyes.  I may agree or disagree but I know he's not allowing love for a politician to get entangled.  As he says they are all pols.  I'm very disappointed with the netroots in how they have forgotten what their goals are and are now working against the very things they were for pre-Obama.  Quite frankly Obama embodies many of the problem characteristics the netroots was railing against not so long ago.  When he triangulates it's explained away.  When he throws constituencies under the bus it's denied.  I would much rather have a pol like Clinton in there that the netroots don't love than one that they are too in love with to see his faults.  


    I do not have to prove anything (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:32:08 PM EST
    I write what I think.

    You judge it anyway you like.

    At this point, who cares?

    Judge the arguments. That is what matters. Not my motives.


    fair enough (none / 0) (#31)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:34:09 PM EST
    That's more than reasonable.

    Nail-biter (none / 0) (#13)
    by zyx on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:19:00 PM EST
    I am a Clinton supporter.  I wouldn't want to put casino money on her right now, but most of those calls are best-case scenarios for Obama.  I've been watching the polls, anxiously, and I don't see him winning Massachusetts and New Jersey and Arizona.  Not too sure about NM.  Oklahoma?  That would really surprise me.  I have no feel for TN, and I don't think there are many polls there.  North Dakota would hardly be a big deal, because it must have about six delegates (being sarcastic), but it also doesn't have a lot of young voters, does it?  

    Everybody's on the Obama train.  That's all you hear.  I hope I hear something else tomorrow night.

    ha (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by zyx on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:36:34 PM EST
    When I said North Dakota has about six delegates, I wasn't so far off.  There's a Super Tuesday delegate table at Wikipedia.   ND Democratic delegate total: 21.  But only 13 are "pledged".  In fact, there are almost more categories of kinds of delegates than they HAVE delegates.

    48th in population, as I recall (nt) (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:43:16 PM EST
    Tennessee polls are solidly Clinton. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:26:58 PM EST
    There is no way Obama can win the nomination (none / 0) (#29)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:33:16 PM EST
    tomorrow. I haven't read a more unrealistic nor ridiculous scenario for Obama than Nichols has envisioned. Talk about raising the bar impossibly high. Hillary has been ahead double digits in most of the Super Tuesday states from the beginning, the fact that Obama has closed the gap in many of these states means that she won't win the nomination tomorrow either. The goal for Obama is to win as many delegates as he can tomorrow until the next round of primaries where he is more favored...then on to the battle of the superdelegates.

    Actually I agree (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:35:16 PM EST
    Buuut, Nicholls is saying IF this happens, Obama wins the nomination.

    My qwuestion is what if Clinton does something like that?


    I don't want to malign Nichols but he sounds (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST
    like a dunderhead. But, from Nichols' idiotic point of view, if Clinton chalked up all the wins that he dreams for an Obama 'win', Clinton still wounldn't win the nomination.
    But, honestly, I don't think anyone but the completely insane(and, I admit, there are a few)thinks this will be wrapped up tomorrow.
    I'm worried about tomorrow for Obama..all this hype is too much like the night before New Hampshire.

    but where is the sober (none / 0) (#35)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:41:47 PM EST
    analysis?  that's what you are pointing out right.  it's just as likely she wins ca by ten as it is he narrowly wins it. i mean based on sober analysis of all the data?  but he's breathlessly about only one of those possibilities.  which is too bad because i like john nichols.  he's done some good work.

    Yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:47:10 PM EST
    That is my point.

    It is cheerleading, and in a way, lousy cheerleading, but cheerleading nonetheless.


    At TPM (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by zyx on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:30:42 PM EST
    they admit that SurveyUSA's polls are the most recent, and that THEY show a solid Clinton lead.

    Mass: Clinton 56%, Obama 39%
    Alabama: Obama 49%, Clinton 47%
    Missouri: Clinton 54%, Obama 43%
    California: Clinton 53%, Obama 41%


    holy smokes! (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    Next thing you know, dogs will be mating with cats!  These polls are as corrupt as our media.  And I am buying into it because I click on those pages just like every other idiot.  At least I stopped reading Huff and DK and TPM.  No way are those goobers getting my "click" dollars to count toward charging for ads.  I don't listen to Michael Jackson songs or watch Woody Allen movies for the same reason: my money and time are not going to support these people.

    Coming soon: a Zogby correction along the lines of, "yeah, that's what I meant when I told you so!"


    Yeah, well (none / 0) (#54)
    by zyx on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:41:37 PM EST
    I'm annoyed with HuffPo, Kos, and TPM, but I tried to access the Survey USA polling site myself, and it seems to be a bit oversubscribed at the moment--couldn't get on.  But I like the numbers, even if I had to get 'em from Josh.

    Lets be more fair to TPM (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:31:47 PM EST
    Out of all the usual suspects, TPM really tries to stay unbiased...they believe they are doing so...even though it is clear they have a horse in the race...

    Compare them to HuffPo which is almost like a gossip rag at this point and often some pseudo-intellectual bankrupted by bias article that preaches how smart so-and-so is...bleah, and DKos which we should have a bit of empathy for Markos...the inmates have taken over the prison there...he tries too (not hard enough in my opinion)...but really it has become mob rule, a very unfriendly place to be...


    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:16:30 AM EST
    TPM has been especially egregious BECAUSE it cultivates a neutral image.

    TPM is the MOST like the Media.


    Do you really think he "cultivates" (none / 0) (#125)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:45:28 AM EST
    the image?

    I think he tries to be neutral, but just falls short...you're suggestion is that he intentionally tries to create a neutral image in order to legitimize his non-neutral stance...if you're right about about that aspect, then I'd say TPM a bit bankrupt intellectually and progressively...


    hey (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:54:05 PM EST
    wasn't bashing you, okey doke?  Just venting about how annoyed I am with all of them right now.

    When I say I'm going to (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:04:09 PM EST
    have some koolaid, you'll know which blogs I'm visiting ;-).

    Almost made a Jonestown reference, but that's WAY too morbid.


    Nichols still is based in Madtown (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:28:02 PM EST
    correct?  Aka Mad City aka the Free State of Madison in Wisconsin.  Etc.  They're mad for Obama there -- and the rest of us see Madison as removed from reality, if in wonderful ways. . . .

    Yup (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:29:09 AM EST
    couple blocks from me, but in a different ward.

    We're I think, tho only CD in the Country (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:38:13 AM EST
    with 8 delegates.

    What if. Clinton wins.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:00:52 PM EST
    the parts of the equation you're not addressing is Obama's out of this world fundraising combined with his youth turnout.  

    All Obama needs to do is show that he's got mo' to keep up the enthusiasm and donations, and this is done as long as he's a lot closer than he was 2 weeks ago.

    I think Clinton has lost the expectations game, and Obama would really have to underwhelm tomorrow for Clinton to "win".

    A long way of saying that the opposite of what Nichols is stating is not necessarily a Clinton win.


    The Media game (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:09:53 PM EST
    was never a fair contest.

    IF that is what you mean by winning the expectations game.

    Frankly, he has LOST it but he will get a do over based on the results.

    Heads Obama wins, tails, he also wins. The game is rigged.


    Not in the real world, but maybe in yours (none / 0) (#55)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:42:03 PM EST
    I am not convinced of a few thing (none / 0) (#86)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:45:40 PM EST
    1. I am not so sure the youth vote is so significant in the primaries (not sure about the GE either). I think this is getting over-played. It was significant in Iowa, because out of state college students were allowed to register to caucus in Iowa...that is where a lot of this "youth turn-out" story started...but I don't think it is statistically playing out to be as big a story elsewhere. Does anyone have some data to support increased youth voting (outside the normal standard deviation) in the other contests so far?

    2. I am also not convinced of the Obama message on small dollar donations. Yes, theoretically small dollar donors have cap space to give more money later. But the assumption the Obama campaign is pushing is that their supporters can afford to give more donations...has there been any breakdown to see if this is the case? If small dollar donors are continuing to give, or are they spreading the wealth, or are they tapped out of what they can afford before a nomination? I'd like to see some stats on repeat donors...is there such data? The converse is true for the Clintons...is there data saying they are tapped out? (by 2007 #s it sure doesn't ring true).

    3. If Clinton comes out ahead tomorrow, she wins. Obama's campaign has spun every loss so far as a victory (and a Clinton loss), but I think 22 states is too many for spin. I am not convinced that a loss is a win for Obama, and that a win is a loss for Clinton...this is "boy who cried wolf" territory for Obama...at some point, he facts pile up to high and he ends up falling that much farther. We'll have to see, so far their spin has only been rivaled by Ari Fleisher (this is not meant as a slam on Obama...but a comparison of message manipulation).

    Re: (none / 0) (#108)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:49:32 AM EST
    There was nothing unique about Iowa, other than the fact that the campaigns had 6 months in the state to design a GOTV program, which obviously serves to inflate turnout.

    Virtually every state allows college students from out of state to vote in its elections.  The only reason there was publicity in Iowa is that the election took place over winter break, which meant students had to be induced to actually come back early from break in order to vote.  But in most elections, out-of-state students vote at their campus precincts with nary a complaint.


    No, other states require (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:55:22 AM EST
    more, from what I could find, such as six months' worth in Wisconsin, which is considered really "loose" on that -- plus there is a requirement for several sorts of evidence for registration.  My niece (see above) had to show an Iowa college ID -- no drivers' license (which still was from out of state), no utility bills with local address, etc.  
    Btw, I could get you a fake ID in about an hour.:-)

    But Iowa is like Wisconsin and some other historically populist states -- fewer all the time, though -- in having same-day registration.  I hope we get to keep that, although it's under attack.

    And, of course, both of our states have open caucus/open primary, also increasingly declining.


    Re Iowa, its registration is really loose (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:50:25 AM EST
    -- had a niece participate in caucuses there (for Obama), and I was amazed by what she reported of registration, so I checked it out.  I have not found any other state with such wide-open registration rules, so that may be curtailing participation.

    Essentially, in Iowa, you just say that you're an Iowan, which makes it very open to college students. My niece had been there 2 months and transferred out to another school a few weeks later -- but she was an Iowan on caucus day. :-)


    Thanks...thats (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:39:01 AM EST
    very reassuring about the fairness of our primary system...



    Youth Vote 25% (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:09:23 AM EST
    Young voters will play a critical role in the 2008 elections. Not only are they turning out to the polls in increasing numbers, but young people (18-31 year olds) represent one-quarter of the national electorate.  


    Not a small number and most dems are for Obama. Everyone I have spoken to in NYC who is under 30 is voting for Obama. Actually everyone I have asked, period, is voting for Obama.

    NYC is hardly representative....  I have been surprised by the number of Obama supporters here.


    Most Dems Under 30 (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:10:29 AM EST
    That is

    Many are for Clinton (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:47:21 AM EST
    among that age group with whom I talk, out here in the heartland.  And I talk with a lot of them -- with my children in that group, so I see a lot of their friends (who started talking politics with me in 2000, knowing what a wonk I am), plus I teach and talk with a lot of students in that age group.

    I have been surprised by some I thought would be for Obama for sure -- but some are gay, and strong sorts who are real opinion leaders, while others in that age group are not but very good on gay issues.  It is a different generation that way, thank heavens. And Obama really has created problems with them.


    Final Calif Poll (none / 0) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:55:37 AM EST
    Ok, said never again but TPM show a Final Survey Poll California Hillary 52, Obama 42%.....confused yet?

    Roy Sekoff: Journalism 101 (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:24:56 PM EST
    Wow, what does he know about Journalism.

    BTD (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:27:25 PM EST
    PLEASE can you compare these "predictions" Wednesday morning?  Either we will all be laughing or we will all be crying (and in Stellaaa's case, the cry will be "REZKO!!!")

    Not predictions (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:30:43 PM EST
    But a bar for judging Obama's performance.

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:32:46 PM EST
    Bar, then.  Let's see how he measures up to the bar.

    (and we know that if he doesn't, the bar will be moved, right?)


    Yes we do (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    The bar will certainly be changed.

    And we will call them out for doing it.


    Now there you go again!! (none / 0) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:52:36 PM EST
    BTD as an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:08:13 PM EST
    at an Obama rally would play the role of Debbie Downer.

    Not after I drank the kool aid (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:11:02 PM EST
    Then I would be like the rest of you.

    That's why I stay away from the rallies.


    Not doing the raves? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:24:48 PM EST

    Oh yeah!! (none / 0) (#51)
    by magster on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:36:15 PM EST
    You know you wanna drink the Kool Aid

    Heh, (none / 0) (#58)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:49:40 PM EST
    you did make me chuckle.

    predictions (none / 0) (#53)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:36:51 PM EST
    But  OF COURSE  you're  right,  Big  Tent.  

    If   Obama  wins  20  of  22  states,  they'll claim  landslide.  

    If  Hillary  wins  20  of  22  states,  they'll   say    "delegates,  delegates."

    I  wandered  over  to  Daily  Kos  today--hadn't  wanted  to for  about  a  month and  a  half.  

    There  was  Markos,   winding  down  expectations,  explaining   that  St Obama  can  still  win   with  100  less  delegates  than  Hillary,  and  why   and  how  that  could   be  called  a  definite  win.  

    Made  me  laugh out  loud.    

    My old (none / 0) (#56)
    by zyx on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:46:13 PM EST
    politics discussion forum, where the Obama supporters have become too obnoxious for me--and I thought I basically enjoy a good brawl--has gotten chatty with (okay, I still peek, though I don't participate) suggestions for high-ranking posts for Obama within a Clinton administration.  They are cocky with the good polls, and given Obama his halo and wings, but they aren't calling him "Mr. President" yet.  

    Toobin says she'll appoint him (none / 0) (#66)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:10:33 PM EST
    to the Supreme Ct at the first opening.

    Makes sense to me, if he'd take it...get him off the political stage.

    Of course, that would be a demotion from the goal...the decider!


    I don't think thats how Markos read at all (none / 0) (#88)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:52:03 PM EST
    I think he was being realistic...I don't think its fair to say he's trying to drop expectations, when his projection is optimistically realistic...nothing like the BS bar lowering the Obama campaign put out today..."We'll win nothing...Hillary will take everything...but if she doesn't...then she loses.." (exaggeration, I know)

    You guys sound like Republicans (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:46:28 PM EST
    The constant whining about how unfair the mean media  reminds me of townhall.com

    Some of you on Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:13:42 AM EST
    sound like Republicans.

    That may be so (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:51:34 AM EST
    But complaining about the media is the loser's lament.  

    And you guys seem to go out of your way to demean the Obama supporters.  I have no problem with people voting for whomever they want.  If that means Hillary or McCain or Nader, that's fine with me.  

    IMO, Hillary is a troubling candidate because I believe she will act out of political expediency when in office and not conviction.  If you believe otherwise that's fine.  But calling me a fanboy because I choose to vote for Obama is fairly insulting but par for the course here.  


    The Loser's Lament? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:57:44 AM EST
    Are you serious?

    Do you plan on keeping quiet if Obama gets unfair press in a GE?

    You are really being silly.


    It's like complaining about the refs (none / 0) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    Sure they may suck but they are generally trying to do the right thing.  

    The thing about complaining about media bias you can find it to support ANY BIAS you want.  You can cherry pick pundicrats that prove your point.  

    While I find Krugman's irrational distaste for Obama  annoying I do feel any need to complain about media bias.  

    Republicans have made complaining about media bias an art form.  It is so entrenched in their psyche it is simply impossible to shake their belief.  That doesn't make it true.

    The media is incredibly fickle and tends to reflect popular beliefs whether they are true or not.  


    Yeah, but you can see larger (none / 0) (#132)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:20:11 AM EST
    trends.  The larger trend is Obama is their golden boy.  

    I laugh when Krugman, whom everyone has seen as a voice of reason for so long, suddenly becomes "irrational".  Who is really being irrational?


    And this is the kind of response (none / 0) (#133)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:32:17 AM EST
    I am talking about.  

    GoldenBoy?  What does that mean?  It is a purely subjective observation by you based on your own pre-conceived biases.  The media is too harsh on Hillary, in your opinion, and not harsh enough on Obama, in your opion.

    Paul Krugman has spent a considerable amount of his column attacking Obama and in particular one aspect of one plan.  We get it, Paul.  You think we need mandates.  Great.  How bout we get bogged down in the details after the election when an actual policy needs to be implemented.  Do you really think that Obama won't accept mandates if that is what needs to be done?  Do you really think that Hillary will demand mandates if they don't need to be done?  

    Krugman is an economist who is generally politically savvy.  Yet on this issue he feels the need to write SEVERAL commentaries about how horribly terrible the Obama plan.   You know what the really horrible plans are?  Every single one offered by the Republicans.  

    I don't think that Krugman is terrible because he is shilling for Clinton.  He has his beliefs and that's fine.  I don't feel a need to attack him or ridicule him or accuse him of secret agendas.


    Ah, "details after the election" (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:46:09 AM EST
    But I want to get "bogged down" on details now.  Once every four years is not asking too much of me to ask the candidates what the heck they mean.

    I don't vote for vagaries.


    Oh come on (none / 0) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 09:53:49 AM EST
    IF you think there is any real reason to argue about having or not having mandates right now other than political posturing, I must question how much you follow the law making process.  

    We aren't talking about vagueness.  We are talking about one of the very aspects of their policies that differs in any sort of way.  Anyone who claims that they are voting for either person based on their views on mandates is not being honest.  They already knew who they were voting for.


    "We'll work that out" is what I heard (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    from him.  So I ask, work it out how, to what end?

    This is not too much to ask of a candidate for president -- a candidate who says he'll work out all of the issues by working with the Bushies who brought us to this point, the low point in my country in my lifetime.  


    Not to much to ask? (none / 0) (#144)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:14:28 PM EST
    He's supposed to have all the answers regarding a massive policy debate that hasn't happened yet?

    Maybe he could discover cold fusion in his spare time.


    the debate (none / 0) (#147)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    has been going on for yours and he doesn't know the basics of it!

    or, if he does know the basics of it, then he has already undermined the historic position of his party.


    If mandates don't matter (none / 0) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:02:56 AM EST
    Why did he give them up already? Is this how you negotiate?

    Krugman isn't shilling for Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    He is "shilling" for a proper healthcare policy.

    And he's right.  I've seen how politics work.  Obama has thrown healthcare under the bus by invoking "Hillarycare".


    Right (none / 0) (#146)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    And when he wrote this article he really was concerned about Obama being a closet Reagan supporter.  I'm sure it was just coincidence that this article coincided with the ill-conceived Clinton attack plan.  Maybe Mr. Krugman really believes...

    Now progressives have been granted a second chance to argue that Reaganism is fundamentally wrong: once again, the vast majority of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track. But they won't be able to make that argument if their political leaders, whatever they meant to convey, seem to be saying that Reagan had it right.

    personally I find it hard to believe someone as smart as Mr. Krugman could be that naive.

    And I can't even properly comment on the silliness  of this article which is arguing that we can't vote for Obama because Bill Clinton was too nice a guy.  

    Krugman clearly is in Hillary's camp.  That's fine.  But let's not pretend otherwise.


    Well (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    we'll hold you to that.

    And expect you to attack Obama supporters when they start to complan about the Media.


    No problem (none / 0) (#145)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:19:35 PM EST
    However the websites I read that are pro-Obama haven't really shown the propensity to blame the media or ridicule Clinton supporters(i.e. Moderate Voice, ObWings).

    But I will certainly tell them the same thing if they blame the media for Obama's failures.


    Even republicans aren't wrong about that! (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:57:50 PM EST
    the media sucketh big time

    The republicans made a fine are out of it though (none / 0) (#89)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:53:13 PM EST
    the media sucketh, because they are gun shy from the Republican noise machine...

    I know (none / 0) (#59)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    one thing for sure...If Hillary has a decent Tuesday, and Obama insists on dragging this fight out to the convention anyway, alot of old line democrats will resent the hell out of that and he wont have a chance in hell in the future for our support...so he best not be burning his bridges...doubt his ego will listen tho

    Better prepare for the worst (none / 0) (#61)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    and (dare I say it?) hope for the best.

    why do I feel like (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:05:32 PM EST
    some (not all) Obama supporters are like kids who, having failed most of the course, think they're going to walk into an "A" on the final?

    1 million voters in Florida can't be wrong.  At least, not again.



    "Hope" springs eternal? (none / 0) (#65)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:07:44 PM EST
    You can quote me....

    Funny... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:56:23 PM EST
    I see them as the kids I went to college with that would yell and scream about how they were SO right and the idiot professor was wrong...just to have the professor throw the proof up on the blackboard proving the student to be a mouth-off...and after class, the same student would go off to tell his friends how he was right, and the professor was wrong, thus "smarter" than the professor...ugh...I relive the dislike even as I type this...

    No street smarts (none / 0) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST
    totally (none / 0) (#143)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    and not accustomed to failure in any shape or fashion.  Having your parents fix your t-ball game is not, after all, an exercise in character building.

    I bet they just slink off in their private jets and go home.


    oh, so thats the standard? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:28:52 PM EST
    IF Hillary has a decent Tuesday, then Obama should be under some obligation to end his candidacy?

    Gee, thats easy!

    Does it work the other way? If Obama has a decent Tuesday, will Hillary drag this thing out?


    Both will have a "decent" Tuesday. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:36:37 AM EST
    Nearly all the CDs with even numbers of delegates will be a wash.

    I am feeling (none / 0) (#67)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:12:54 PM EST
    cautiously optimistic.....

    Don't get carried away... (none / 0) (#68)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:15:39 PM EST
    remember these three words:

    election -- Chicago -- Kennedy


    Funny Syracuse Post Standard headline (none / 0) (#72)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:32:48 PM EST
    "Obama rally falls short".

    A rally at Syracuse University drew 19 supporters and 11 media.

    At least he had 11 of his "activist base" there.

    Here's what Obama's page says (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:08:08 PM EST
    Fairy Tales (none / 0) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:11:53 PM EST
    Fairy Tales can be true it can happened to you.......~~

    LOL (none / 0) (#81)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:29:05 PM EST
    his page is about "spinning" about that as the paper says 19 supporters and his page says 40 "at the peak" .....they are spinning their support...not good.....

    Did you see the picture (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:02:54 AM EST
    of the BO rally today that claimed 8k turnout, in an arena that held 13k? The arena was 70% empty...not even close to 8k...

    BO IS NOT BUSH...but these are the sorts of things Bush's campaign mangers perfected...controlled events, and press releases that tout the significance of those events, and turnout at those events to be much greater than what it is...its astro-turf politics at its finest...


    I'm in Milwaukee, no calls from Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:41:57 PM EST
    campaign, no sign of anything here yet.  I heard an office opened here, but haven't heard or seen a sign  -- a sign of it or signs.  We have had some Obama (and McCain) ads. . . .  But no polls in the state in many months to give any indication -- and this was the blue state closest to turning red in recent elections, so I hope there is something soon to start working at keeping Wisconsin blue.

    More re Obama "youth vote":  In my family, two of us work at the two largest campuses here for a total of 42,000 enrollment -- same as Madison campus -- and another goes to another college here also with a huge enrollment, all drawing from the metro Milwaukee area with something like a fourth to a third of the entire state's population.  

    None of us have seen activity on campuses here yet, and a story this week in the major paper said the same about campuses across the state.  With a primary only two weeks away -- and in a state second in the country for youth turnout last time, one of the tops in the country for women voters' participation, etc. . . .

    As for the Clinton campaign, there are Clinton events starting now, and I got a call today from the Clinton office now opened here.  We are hearing that Chelsea Clinton will be coming to town . . . and we probably are in an for an onslaught of activity starting on Wednesday.

    Btw, closer to the southern border -- Kenosha, Racine -- there may be an Illinois spillover effect, as there was in Iowa.  Some Illinois workers live there (cheaper than Chicago and its burbs).  And there is same-day registration here . . . although we require six months' residency and evidence of it.  In Iowa, it essentially was sufficient to say "I am an Iowan"!

    Thanks -- and yes, it's a mistake (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:56:31 PM EST
    as Wisconsin, being so on the edge of red, will be an even more difficult state than usual.  And that is saying something -- it's massive (from Chicago to Canada, from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi), and it's complex.

    Gore and Kerry did okay here by understanding the state's complexities -- especially the need to focus on the blue belt along the Mississippi while also hitting across the state to Madison and especially Milwaukee . . . while also getting up to Green Bay.      And there is more to the story for us old pols here, but I'm not giving it away to you for Obama. :-)

    It is a bigger mistake for Obama, though, I think -- Clinton has been here many times for many years, and again, that campaign is getting going.  Obama has been here a couple of times, although his base was closer in Chicago.  And of course, in the second-best state for the youth vote in the last GOTV drive, it would seem to be a natural for him.  Maybe his campaign is just counting on that.

    But that wouldn't be wise, not in Wisconsin.  Not the state that likes its mavericks like Russ Feingold -- who keeps us happy by getting to every one of the 72 counties every year.  And never misses a vote in Congress.  We also like the work ethic a lot here and want the candidates working here!


    The bottom line (none / 0) (#85)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    Time is not on Clinton's side. Anything that doesn't put her over the top is a loss tomorrow.

    And the reason is simple: the more time Obama spends introducing himself to voters, the more people like him and get excited about him. In contrast, the more people hear from Clinton, the more they get wary.

    Then there's the fundraising. Clinton's donor pool is drying up, while Obama's is just getting started.

    Oh, the time thing can swing both ways (none / 0) (#93)
    by zyx on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:00:39 AM EST
    For one thing, gloomy economic stats make a lot of people think about those Clinton years in the nineties in a way that isn't going to help the guy offering unity ponies so much.

    Besides, he's just got to come up with more.  "Change...hope...hope...change" sounds hokey and stale after awhile, he's running out of Kennedys, and it's tricky to keep your balance when you've been ensconced on a pedestal.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#95)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:04:46 AM EST
    I think he can ride that to the nomination...but that message would get destroyed in the GE...I also think BO has a team capable enough to shift gear in the GE...I am just worried weather that gear is a progressive gear or a conservative one...my gut says the latter...

    first of all, (none / 0) (#101)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:28:36 AM EST
    he has no chance in the general election, but i wouldn't worry about that.

    obama is going to take a big hit tomorrow.  his vote total i predict will show very little real gains.  

    but he just raised 32 million.  

    and the media wants a race.

    think about it:  if hillary seals it up tomorrow, this race is over.  there won't be millions spent on a general elelction campaign.  it will be over.  

    obama is a cash cow.  unless he gets completely crushed tomorrow, which he very well may, they will spin some reason to keep him going.  

    because then they have to talk about the issues.  or compare hillary to mccain.  see?  once obama is out of the way, it's missing white girls and stranded coal miners till november.


    do english teachers understand (none / 0) (#114)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:47:34 AM EST

    "if hillary seals it up tomorrow, this race is over."

    gee, I guess I'll "think about it".


    the media coverage (none / 0) (#115)
    by english teacher on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:19:47 AM EST
    ends.  you know that's what i am saying.  

    Reading this post reminded me (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:25:46 AM EST
    of Abraham bargaining with God regarding God's plan to destroy Sodom:

    In Genesis 18, God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy the city of Sodom because of its gross immorality. Abraham pleads with God not to destroy Sodom, and God agrees that he would not destroy the city if there were 50 righteous people in it, then 45, then 30, then 20, or even ten righteous people. The Lord's two angels only found one righteous person living in Sodom, Abraham's nephew Lot. Consequently, God destroyed the city.

    From Genesis, per Wiki.  

    Spin doesn't matter anymore. (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:40:39 AM EST
    It is all about delegates.

    I expect Clinton picks up a few more than Obnama Tuesday, and the calendar grinds on.

    The Science Fiction of progressive media (none / 0) (#116)
    by lily15 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:06:14 AM EST
    No way to explain it.  We have been deceived by the progressive blogs and media. Intellectual dishonesty is rampant. Bob Somerby has been documenting it at DailyHowler.com It is real and it is deliberate.  

    The next question is how do we fight back.  The problem has been identified.  Now is there a cure?

    Is not No Country for Old Men the perfect metaphor for this existential crisis?

    We have only the awful word: boycott (none / 0) (#140)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    We don't read the big players in the so-called Progressive Media(tm).

    Zogby (none / 0) (#124)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:41:45 AM EST
    is not calling Obama's lead in the teens in California.

    God, I can't stand that man.  I don't trust a word he says.

    I've heard rumors (none / 0) (#126)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:49:04 AM EST
    to the affect that Zogby (and his polls) is for hire...do you (or anyone else) know of anything to back that up...actually I might have read that here...

    woops (none / 0) (#127)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:56:00 AM EST
    meant "is now."

    I only dislike Zogby because I saw him interviewed and he was so arrogant and...grrrr.  Just could not stand him.


    a really cool website (none / 0) (#137)
    by kberly7568 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:32:41 AM EST
    Hi everyone!! i found a really great website that has a ton of presidential election coverage.  It's www.campaigncircus.com.  And, here's a link to an important and inspirational music video that supports obama.