home

Obama's Bad Night

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:21:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Hillary Clinton appears to have won a substantial victory in California capping off a very bad night for Barack Obama.

The three most highly contested states on Super Tuesday were Massachusetts, New Jersey and California. Obama was blown out in each of them.

Some bloggers and the Obama Network (NBC) will try to spin this away. But the respective speeches given by each of the candiates told the real tale. Clinton was ebulliant. Obama flat.

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

< Tsunami Tuesday: First Democratic Results Thread | Hillary Wins California >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Bad Night | 212 comments (212 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Chango on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:51 PM EST
    Obama's bad night?

    Obama flat?

    Are we watching the same election?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:51 PM EST
    You are watching the one in Obamaland where "California is unimportant."

    NBC is your network.

    The disappointment is palpable.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually BTD, Kos just said that the big (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:01:16 AM EST
    win in Alaska puts him up 14-10 in states and that Obama actually managed to make California irrelevant. If my head didn't hurt so bad, I'd laugh at his spin. He really writes with his heart instead of his brain sometimes.

    [ Parent ]
    California is important, but (none / 0) (#40)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:41:04 PM EST
    but not dispostive.  We are not nominating a President of California.  

    [ Parent ]
    It is important (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:48:05 PM EST
    The NEXT most important was? Massachusetts. Why? the Kennedys.

    The next? New Jersey. Why? Because Obama strongly contested there.

    He got blown out in the three most important races.

    Look, despite what NBC is trying to tell you, this is no longer heads Obama wins, tails Obama wins too.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought his NJ stop yesterday was interesting (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:52:54 PM EST
    especially since he "endorsed" the patriots...then the day after they lost, he was comparing himself to the Giants...:) just thought it was funny...

    [ Parent ]
    NJ was not a crucial race. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:24 AM EST
    For gawd's sake.  That was always Clinton country.  No one in the Obama campaign thought he would win it.

    You might have thought so, but you were wrong.

    Again, he was not supposed to win MA.  It wasn't going to happen.  Clinton had all the local pols locked up, and that's who turns votes out.

    You threat Kennedy's endorsement like it was some kind of magic.  It wasn't.  Endorsements get you media attention, not votes.  Ask Howard Dean.

    [ Parent ]

    I did not treat it like that (none / 0) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:05:41 AM EST
    THE MEDIA did. And Obama DID.

    See, you can not unring THAt bell.

    [ Parent ]

    The same media that is calling this (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:09:21 AM EST
    at best a draw for Clinton?

    What's the next state Clinton is going to win?

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary will win PA on Apr 22nd (a biggie) (none / 0) (#121)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:19 AM EST
    but she'll win others (smaller states) before that

    [ Parent ]
    Anything in the month of February? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:03:15 AM EST
    This coming Saturday:

    Louisiana
    Washington
    Nebraska

    Sunday:

    Maine

    Tuesday:  

    Maryland
    D.C.
    Virginia

    February 19:

    Wisconsin

    If Obama wins all eight of those states, he will have huge momentum.

    [ Parent ]

    14 to 8, 16 to 10... (none / 0) (#200)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    ...and a very good chance it'll be 22-11 at the end of February.  He may still wind up slightly ahead in pledged delegates, since the final margin in Cali was closer than it first appeared.

    But, you know, Obama "blew it".

    Never mind that he's got more money and will have a lot of positive media coming out of the rest of the month going into March 4.

    Ridiculous spin.  This IS a race for delegates.  You win by getting the most delegates.  

    The criteria for a clinton knockout blow was, what, a 200 pledged delegate margin?  
    And now Obama may actually wind up ahead in the pledged delegate count, going into Saturday?

    How the blue bloody hell is this a "bad night" for Obama?

    He won 14 out of 22 states.  The margin of victory for Clinton in the remaining 8 states was significantly lower than what she had been polling at just a couple weeks ago.  He's won 16 out of 26 official contests.  Illinois and Georgia are large states.  Virginia next week is a large state.  I'd give him a decent shot in Ohio, too.  Texas and Pennsylvania seem like the only good Clinton states left in the process.  I doubt she can win most of the remaining states.

    Those 14 states he won have uncommitted superdelegates who have to make a decision.  I think most of them will break for the guy who won their state.  Clinton already has most of the NY and Arkansas et al superdelegates pledged to her, so her pickups may be limited to Cali and a couple other states.
    The superdelegates aren't going to be breaking 2:1 for her anymore, which is a problem for her, since she's not going to win most of the remaining primaries.  The more of those she loses, the more evenly they will break between the candidates.  

    And we've barely even addressed the issue of money.  She doesn't have as much and can't raise it as quickly.

    I just don't see how this can be spun as a defeat for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    They openly were saying they (none / 0) (#98)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:12:51 AM EST
    were trying to steal NJ from her...they wouldn't have tried if they didn't think they could...that simple...they didnt....

    [ Parent ]
    So, if he tries to win a state and doesn't succeed (none / 0) (#114)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:21:32 AM EST
    that's a catastrophic defeat?

    Poppycock.  It should never have been as close as it was.

    [ Parent ]

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:29:07 AM EST
    Its fairly simple...no grey area...BO lost NJ...you're suggesting that he wasn't really playing for keeps, so it doesn't count as a defeat...it was a defeat...just like BO defeated HRC in ND....

    losing MA, NY, NJ, CA, are big defeats for BO...regardless of whether or not he expected to win...obviously he was trying to cut into her lead, and try to take those states, otherwise he would'nt have had such a big push in NJ the last number of days, or worked so hard to get Kennedy/Kerry endorsement...You really need to look at this with a bit of logic, there is cost benefit that goes into this...

    Clinton knew that ND, ID, etc...weren't worth her money/time...so she didn't put much or any resources there...she gave them up to BO...on the other hand...BO put resources into NJ, MA, CA (he sent Oprah there and they had the headline grabbing Kennedy endorsement there, etc.) if you can't recognize that then you have been blinded by Obamalust/Clintonhate

    [ Parent ]

    To be fair to both candidates (none / 0) (#137)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:35:29 AM EST
    let us remember that putting effort into a state does not equate with trying to win the state overall.

    Delegates are often chosen at CD level. Obama, for example, was trying to win some delegates in NJ, not win the whole state.

    And, to be fair, I am sure that applies to some of the efforts Hillary made in some states.

    [ Parent ]

    realistically, the goal was to get as close as (none / 0) (#138)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:38:44 AM EST
    possible to Hill and get as many delegates in NY, NJ, MA and California. I've never seen any credible polls in the last couple of weeks indicating Obama would win those states.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton tried to win a bunch of states (none / 0) (#152)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:57:53 AM EST
    she lost tonight.

    Obama won either 13 or 14 states.

    If NY and NJ were big defeats for him, than IL and GA were big defeats for her, right?

    [ Parent ]

    Actually...you're right! (none / 0) (#184)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:24:53 AM EST
    They were...they were delegate rich states she got beat in...

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#190)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:08:43 AM EST
    That's the election I'm looking forward to.

    [ Parent ]
    i must disagree (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by skippybkroo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:40:41 PM EST
    i can't speak to the other states you mention, jeralyn, but calif is not a winner take all state.

    obama could get lots of delegates.

    i'm blown away by the idea being presented here at this blog that obama has been stopped.  i've never known this blog to spin, but it has definitely not been decided tonight.

    as of this writing, cnn projects that clinton has 367 delegates, and obama has 287.  considering that 2,025 are needed for the nominatin, plus the fact that obama is outraising clinton 3 to 1 in money, i'd say that it's far from over.

    let me be clear.  i am not supporting obama.  i haven't decided yet whom, if anyone, to endorse.

    i simply endorse the truth, and the truth is, hillary did not walk away with super tuesday.

    i know you guys like hillary, and to each their own, but i think you are getting ahead of yourselves here.

    You miss MY point (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:04:36 AM EST
    if you think you are disagreeing with me.

    Understand what I am saying before you say you disagree with it.

    [ Parent ]

    We understand, but it's asinine (none / 0) (#183)
    by jr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:32:02 AM EST
    Find a calendar.  Look at the states coming up.  Look at fundraising reports from the two campaigns.  This is going to be a big month for Obama, and he's likely to erase any delegate lead within a week.  It takes a pretty myopic, fantasy-based interpretation to think that anything was put away tonight.  I know your irrational Obama-hate has basically driven the site's content for the past three months, but now you just sound dissociative.  Get ahold of yourself, and go back to being the rational jerk you've been since the early days at Big Orange--for some masochistic reason, we miss that guy.

    [ Parent ]
    question (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by lepidus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:55:12 PM EST
    because I'm really confused.

    On CNN they have repeatedly said that one of McCain's biggest flaws is that he's winning in blue states, but losing in red states.

    The reverse is also the case for Obama and being described as his biggest strength.

    Why?

    Good points all around (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:58:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    focus should be on the swing states (none / 0) (#99)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:01 AM EST
    They should talk about the states that could have gone either way in 2004 or could be in play in 2008- Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

    [ Parent ]
    bad night? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:56:54 PM EST
    What a bizarre statement. Not one pundit has said anything close to this in papers, on the radio, on tv, on any major blog.

    wow (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:01:16 AM EST
    No TV pundit agrees with me so I must be wrong.

    Like the way you think.

    [ Parent ]

    I assume it was a snarky joke (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Really (4.42 / 7) (#76)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:03 AM EST
    I'm shocked, shocked that no other pundit or blogger has said that Obama had a bad night.  Usually they're so quick to say bad things about Obama and praise Clinton.  How great for Obama that they've switched to his side tonight after weeks of beating him into the ground with baseless and ridiculous criticism.  Oh, wait, that was what they did to Clinton.

    I swear the longer this goes on, the more convinced I am that Clinton is the toughest potential nominee the party has had since, well, since her husband.   Actually, I think she's tougher than her husband because on top of the Clinton hate, she also gets the misogyny.  

    [ Parent ]

    and that porbably means it's true (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:48 AM EST
    and not some BS media spin

    [ Parent ]
    so EVERYONE is wrong? (none / 0) (#117)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:22:55 AM EST
    Ok I'll give you that the press is tougher on HRC than it is BHO, but to a limit. To claim that the entire press corps is in the bag is insane. Not one person out there is calling this anything less than a tie. Not one is saying Obama is done. That kind of talk is a knee jerk overreaction.

    [ Parent ]
    pundits? (none / 0) (#192)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:11:31 AM EST
    That's because all but about 3 pundits are rabidly for Obama. Pay attention.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama never expected to win NE, or Cali (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST
    My god, the spin from Big Tent! No intellectual honesty at all.

    Obama was never expected to win the northeast or Cali. Nor did he need to.

    At the end of the night, all that matters is the delegate count, which Obama may yet win.

    And oh yea, he still has more momentum, enthusiasm and hard cash than Hill.

    And oh yea, Louisiana, Virginia, and DC are coming up, which Obama should win handily.

    Seneca, his RCP had him up in Calif. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:26 AM EST
    with him winning four of the last five polls. You may not have, but a lot of people thought he would win California. Plus, people who aren't as focused on politics as we are saw nothing but Obama and his huge rallies and endorsements this week. This can't be spun as a big win for Obama though I don't think he is out of the race yet, at all.

    [ Parent ]
    I cannot believe that BTD is saying this! (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:11:35 AM EST
    Everything tonite when exactly the way of expectations with one big, and one minor exception.

    CT, originally solid for Clinton, closed in the last week to tossup. And it went for Obama.

    Missouri is a big upset win for Obama.
    Oddly, it hasnt made it into many developing narratives for the night because the early returns were all from Hillary's strong areas - in fact one service actually called it for Hillary.

    But this is huge.

    Mass a hotly contested fight????
    Are you kidding me? Show me one poll that showed it close!

    NJ did have one late poll showing it close, but it was a Clinton blowout as late as a week ago, and it is prime Clinton territory. Seems pretty clear to me to be one bad poll, rather than any real contest.

    California I'll give her props for. But once again, it was only in the last week that anyone thought Obama had the slightest prayer there. Then we have had a slew of polls all over the place.

    My bottom line for the night.
    One big swing state upset for Obama, Hillary barely hangs on to lots of states she was supposed to win going away.

    Obama wins 13-14 out of 22 states. and probably wins the delegate haul for the evening.

    Sorry BTD, your take is totally nuts.

    The expectations that need to be met are (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:18:33 AM EST
    the current ones. Not last week or last month.

    [ Parent ]
    Because of apportionment (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:16:46 AM EST
    Obama is far from toast. In fact, because of the proportional rules, he'll largely split those big states with Hillary, depending on the district outcomes. She failed to break 60% anywhere except AR, while Obama broke 60% in 8 of his wins. That means he'll leave those states with a more clear advantage in delegates, while Hillary will still only split with him in NY, MA, NJ, CA, etc.

    Considering all that, it's really hard to say she stopped him tonight. She did prove that she won't go quietly, but by no means did either of them end it this evening.

     If Obama wins the Chesepeake primaries big, and then picks up LA and MS, he will be very formidable, if not victorious.

    problem is (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by NJDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:18:43 AM EST
    how can BO claim to be surging when he can't win NJ, NJ, CA and MA?  HRC is much (and freakishly consistent) closer in his big win of Conn. the whole night?  Bringing up North Dakota, et al., is like Bush saying "and remember Poland."  [No offense my fellow democrats in those states].  

    The people in HRC's corner aren't going anywhere, so how will he able to make up this deficit?  It's probably best to wait until the final popular and delegate numbers are in for all the states tonight (and let's not forget America Samoa).
     

    HRC got 57% in NY (none / 0) (#119)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:23:02 AM EST
    that's hardly a resounding victory on her home turf. Also, with all the absentee voting in Cali, it was probably more of a longshot for BO than the MSM acknowledged.

    [ Parent ]
    At a Obama campaign meeting in Westchester, NY (none / 0) (#144)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:46:44 AM EST
    last night, we were told that the goal was to hold Hillary to 58% of the vote or under. The goal was met in NY. Westchester County was important because the county gets six delegates instead of the usual five. We were told to hope to win Westchester County to get the three delegates instead of two. We did. The point is that no one was spinning pie in the sky scenarios of wins in California or NJ or Mass. Everyone was realistic, grounded and in it for the long haul.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (none / 0) (#218)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    for supporting my claim. It's nice to have some validation! ;o)


    [ Parent ]
    As for ND, (none / 0) (#134)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:31:28 AM EST
    Obama got more votes than all the GOP combined. That says something, even if it is only 3 electoral votes. Al Gore would have killed for those 3 votes....

    [ Parent ]
    Am Samoa for Clinton (none / 0) (#143)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:46:02 AM EST
    one of the two caucus states she's won.  3 delegates.

    Obama has won most caucus states, Hillary the primaries and most of the big ones.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Elise on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:19:52 AM EST
    So, Hillary won where Hillary was expected to win - based on her 5 - state strategy (MA, NY, NJ, CA, and AR)... relying on her 20% national polling differential as a "buffer" to help her in a few other states - and you call that a win?

    Funny.

    Take a look at that map - and take a look at the margins where Obama won. He can win anywhere (including Red states), and he wins by bigger margins - showing that his supporters are MUCH more excited than hers.

    In addition - he closed a 23% advantage in MA to 14%. He closed a 20% advantage in NJ to 10%, and he kept her down in NY as well.

    She's the one begging for money in her speech tonight. She's the one begging for debates because she has no money to get her non-existent message out. And every single remaining state in Feb looks good for Obama (perhaps with the exception of LA). And so much for the "white people won't vote Obama" meme - since he whooped in MN, CO, ID, UT, etc. And he makes up ground among women and Latinos.

    Obama wins 13 states, Clinton wins 8.

    Looks to me like Obama's the one who won tonight...and it looks to me like he's poised to win most of the remaining states in Feb.

    Oh - and just so you know, he's also closed the gap in TX in the past 7 weeks - by gaining 24% on her...and he's the only candidate with offices there.

    I don't know what results you're looking at here - but Obama had a GREAT night. Clinton's the one who had a bad night.

    HRC will win the popular vote by a large margin, (none / 0) (#124)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:24:57 AM EST
    so it seems people must be listening to her "non-existant message."  Obama wins in states with high African-American populations and lily white populations.  HRC wins in states where there is great diversity among races and incomes.  Both candidates had good nights in some respects and bad nights in other respects.  I thought Obama needed to win CA, Mass, or NJ to have a knock-out punch.  And I thought HRC needed to hold her own, which she did.  And she is apparently going to win CA.  And it's basically a tie in MO, less than 1% difference.  The delegate counts won't be known for a long time so who actually "won" tonight is up for debate only.  None of us knows how this is going to play out.  

    [ Parent ]
    Nice try... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Elise on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:00:51 AM EST
    but IL and GA and MO and MN and NM have incredibly diverse populations. And he's up in WI, WA, VA, and MD - also diverse populations.

    Hillary wins traditionally blue states where the establishment Dems come out for her. That's it. She has no organization on the ground outside of that - and she has no money to put people on the ground after tonight. Obama has people on the ground in OH, TX, and nearly every state that's coming up through March. He's sending the guy who helped him win and organize in Iowa to OH. Obama needed to tie delegates tonight in order to "win". He has momentum - he has donors who haven't maxed out, and he's got the edge in states coming up all throughout Feb. She'll go into March with wins on Feb. 5th...and maybe one or two other states throughout the rest of the month - if she's lucky.

    She goes into the remaining states with no momentum and lacking on money - not a good mix.

    [ Parent ]

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:32:44 AM EST
    It should be fairly clear by now that Obama, not Clinton, is the establishment candidate...he has the establishment's "endorsement" for what its worth, while Hillary (typical to a Clinton) is reviled by said establishment

    [ Parent ]
    Hi, Elise. What do you think of (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:27:01 AM EST
    this quote?  (Really pisses me off.)

    "She has ceiling issues, and the people who aren't for her we think are very available to us," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Tuesday.



    [ Parent ]
    why does it piss you off? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:46:27 AM EST
    seems pretty accurate.

    When you have such an advantaged candidate, quasi-incumbent almost, who seems to everyone to be inevitable, then you can usually conclude that people who support someone else have probably first concluded that they dont want the inevitable one. So if their candidate drops out, they are much more likely to go to another alternative.

    Hillary obviously has negatives. Everyone in the entire country knows her very well. If, after 15 years in the national spotlight, you dont support her, you probably aint gonna start now.

    [ Parent ]

    It pisses me off because Obama's (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:56:09 AM EST
    campaign mgr. is playiing the gender card.  As you doubtless know, "glass ceiling" is a term reserved for women striving for upward mobility.  

    [ Parent ]
    gee, I missed the word "glass" (none / 0) (#216)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:48:42 PM EST
    if you follow the jargon of political campaigns, the term "ceiling" is a very common term for a candidate who one percieves to have obstacles to gaining more than a certain amount of support.

    I think you are either stretching for a reason to be offended, or else just not aware of the jargon of the field.

    [ Parent ]

    O.K. you win. I definitely added (none / 0) (#217)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:59:36 PM EST
    teh word that subsequently pissed me off.  

    [ Parent ]
    Don't fool yourself (none / 0) (#185)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM EST
    Clinton has a very strong ground game too...in fact it is debatable, Clinton does very strong int he primaries (GOTV) where as Obama is doing very well in the Caucuses ("Organization")...both have very strong ground games, and very strong grass roots...don't be blind to that, blindness to that is what caused Obama and supporters to be so shocked by NH

    [ Parent ]
    right (none / 0) (#193)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:14:30 AM EST
    This is exactly right. Obama is winning in Red states where there are not that many Democrats and they are mostly blacks. Then he has a few Blue states where people are voting for him because they're fascinated with the idea of a black president and scared of a woman president.

    [ Parent ]
    Bad Night? No. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by scatcat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    Bad night for Obama!?  Not at all.  Obama wins the majority of the primaries tonight.  He meets expectations in all of them, and exceeds in several.  The ones he loses -- CA, NY -- he was expected to lose.  At worst, he roughly splits the delegates.  He goes on from here with a huge lead in money, and with his national  recognition/approval rising rapidly, he is in a perfect position.  

    I would be far more worried if I were a Clinton supporter than I am as an Obama supporter.  Very good night, I'd argue.

    An alternative theory. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:29:38 AM EST
    BTD is Mark Penn himself (Is that crossing the line? Perhaps. Like calling someone Lucifer).

    The delicious irony of it all is that one of the candidates tonight really IS a "big tent democrat" that could haul in cross-over votes and independents and thus, I believe, secure a Democratic majority for the next eight years and beyond.

    Another candidate will doom the democrats to eight more years of partisan turmoil and marginalization.

    Hey BTD, how about supporting a real BTD!

    No Luck (none / 0) (#142)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:45:58 AM EST
    BTD has already said he supports Obama.

    Believe me, I've tried to get him to see the light and that McCain will kill Obama in a general election, but he won't be persuaded and insists on supporting Obama anyway.  

    [ Parent ]

    tepid. don't forget the tepid. :) (4.00 / 1) (#145)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:48:16 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wow, this post is a real stretch (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by daveUSA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:42:13 AM EST
    It's a real stretch to say that this was a bad night for Obama.

    Obama is going up against someone with a president's name, who the country has known for at least 15 years, in a contest that was tailor made for her to win.

    Despite all this, Obama

    1. Won more states than Clinton
    2. Probably won more delegates than Clinton
    3. Won in states where Clinton was leading big recently
    4. Did better in New York than Clinton did in Illinois
    5. Won in Clinton's "backyard" (Connecticut)
    6. Virtually split the popular vote today
    7. Won late-deciding voters

    You can say that Obama didn't do as well as some of his cheerleaders hoped (in other words, he didn't win California). But it is dishonest to say that this was a bad day for him and that Clinton stopped him for good.

    After standing toe-to-toe with Clinton tonight in a virtually national primary, Obama will go on to win most of the remaining states, the nomination, and the presidency.

    Several Problems (3.66 / 3) (#147)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:50:30 AM EST
    It's not enough for Obama to do better than expected, that's not winning the nomination, it's simply doing better than expected.  And I don't even think that's true given the margins in some of the states that his "surge" was supposed to put into play.

    He didn't nearly split the popular vote.  He nearly split the popular vote before California is included.  Hillary is on track to win California by as much as one million votes.  

    Obama won Connecticut, but lost Massachusetts by a pretty good margin despite having the Kennedys, John Kerry, and Deval Patrick behind him.  It didn't matter.  All that behind him and nothing changed in Massachusetts.

    He also did not win late deciding votes.  He won voters who decided in the last three days.  Clinton won voters who decided in the last day - undecideds have been breaking for Clinton on election day fairly consistently.  

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary has problems now (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by daveUSA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:00 AM EST
    Obama didn't have to win the nomination tonight. He needed to stand toe-to-toe with Clinton and keep the delegate count close, which he did.  I think the remaining primary schedule favors him.  

    Also, it doesn't make sense to imply that Obama underperformed because he didn't win places like New Jersey, Massachusetts, or California, where his "surge" was supposed to help.  These have always been Clinton states. They were only considered as "in play" during the past few days, and that was based on bad polls and the wild hopes of Obama supporters like me.  You can't set the bar that ridiculously high and then knock Obama for not reaching it.

    My question is this:  With all of her advantages, why was Clinton unable to put the race away tonight?

    If Obama were going to be stopped, this was her time to do it, and she failed.

    [ Parent ]

    Ugh (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Virginian on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:41:19 AM EST
    People act like this is the first election ever.

    1. Hillary is the front runner, the job to "knock-off" someone was Obama's. Hillary kept on track, took the delegate lead and is moving forward. Obama lost the delegate lead and failed to knock out Hillary when he had the chance...he is running from behind now, so obviously he lost that part of the "game"

    2. Clinton supporters have not raised any bar for Obama...in fact, if anything, they have continually tried to lower it with talk of the inexperience, not ready to be president, etc. etc. etc...The Obama campaign raised their bar so rediculously high, that they started spinning the night before in order to reset the playing field to something attainable. And even when they scrambled to do so, the Clinton campaign stepped out of the way, stayed mainly silent, and let them. If anyone is changing the bar, changing the criteria for what success is, it is the Obama people

    3. Any fool that took polls 3 months ago and predicted that those would  be accurate doesn't know what they are talking about. Almost to a T elections narrow to small margins by election day. ..that is WHY people campaign...to narrow the margins...so the idea that Hillary "blew" wide margins is ridiculous.


    [ Parent ]
    stretch (none / 0) (#195)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:16:47 AM EST
    You forgot to say that Obama has faced no criticism from the media or the Dem establishment as they tear Clinton to pieces and she is not even allowed to defend herself. In an equal contest, he'd already be out.

    [ Parent ]
    Still think it was "Obama's bad night"? (none / 0) (#219)
    by daveUSA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    Ok, it's a day later.  Do you guys really still think last night was a bad night for Obama?  For Obama, Super-Duper-Tsunami-Tuesday was at worst a draw.  And for Obama, even a draw on February 5th is a win in the long-term.  

    So the next states are Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, and Obama will likely win all three.

    Then we have the Maine caucuses, which Obama  will probably win, just like he has in all the caucus states but one.

    Next come DC, Maryland, Virginia: Obama, Obama, Obama, based on the large proportion of African-American voters in each of these.

    Then Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin. Obama will definitely win Hawaii and probably win Washington. Wisconsin will be competitive, but will Obama's momentum from all these wins sweep this state too?

    March 4th is being billed as Clinton's firewall because it includes Texas and Ohio.  But these voters will have watched almost a month of nothing but Obama wins and will have been spending that month getting to know him better. (Keep in mind there are still people who think he's a Muslim who was sworn into office on the Koran.)  All indications are that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they like him.  The same cannot be said for Hillary.

    Notice that the wheels are already falling off Clinton's campaign. She's lagging in fundraising and loaning herself money. How are things going to improve for her the rest of this month?

    Democrats across the country are going to start realizing that Hillary cannot win the general election.  She would excite Republican turnout, depress far-left turnout, and win fewer independents than any Republican nominee.  That is a recipe for defeat, and we Democrats have a responsibility to nominate the candidate who can beat a McCain-Huckabee ticket.

    BTW, I was right (above) about Obama "virtually splitting" the popular vote.


    [ Parent ]

    Media Darling (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:05:44 AM EST
    So what say you now, BTD?  Are you still a tepid (heh) Obama supporter because of his media darling status?  In the last two weeks he's had the media and a large part of the Dem establishment in the tank for him and he still can't knock Clinton off.   What does that mean for his ability to beat McCain?  Sure, it's a democratic year, but should a media darling have to depend on that?  And an awful lot of the people he'll need in November are in states he lost, unless you think Dems are going to carry Idaho and Utah.
    huh? (none / 0) (#171)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:28:03 AM EST
    Obama had the Dem establishment?

    Hello....Hillary and Bill ARE the Dem establishment. Sheesh

    What does it mean for his ability to beat McCain?
    Gee, I dont know. Means nothing as far as I can see.

    "an awful lot of the people he'll need in November are in states he lost"

    Oh, you mean that all the people who voted for Hillary will NOT be voting for Obama, if he is the candidate? Sorry, but that is just dumb.

    IF OBama is the nominee, he will win CA, NY, NJ etc. AND some of the red states.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD and kos in diametric opposition (4.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:22:24 PM EST
    I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

    One thing I think we can all agree on is that SUSA is a decent polling outfit.

    Kos is right, clearly. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:29:11 PM EST
    BTD thinks Clinton winning states she was supposed to win is a dramatic development.

    Never mind that the total looks like this:

    Obama:
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    Georgia
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Kansas
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    North Dakota
    Utah

    That's thirteen, pending NM's results.

    If he wins 14-8, that's not a loss.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course it is (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:34:50 PM EST
    go sell the he "won in Idaho and North Dakota" at daily kos.

    [ Parent ]
    And Colorado and Minnesota and Missouri (none / 0) (#26)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:21 PM EST
    and Connecticut and Georgia and Illinois.

    Big, coastal states with media centers aren't the only ones that count.

    This is classic coastal liberal myopia.

    [ Parent ]

    Missouri? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:40:10 PM EST
    Oh is it about delegates  or states now?

    CALIFORNIA, NEW JERSEY, MASS.

    Those were the key states. Obama knew they were. and so do you.

    He lost them. All, Badly.

    Over.

    [ Parent ]

    One Million Votes (4.66 / 3) (#57)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    There's a decent chance Clinton will beat Obama by one million votes tonight.

    To me, the most telling thing is that the voting patterns have remained the same.  He's done well in small states and caucuses and states with large African American populations.  Otherwise, Clinton tends to win.  Not always, but generally speaking that's what happens.

    Obama OWNED the last week, all the press was about his momentum and closing the gap in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California.  And it turned out to be completely untrue.  He gained a bit, but Clinton won them comfortably.  

    And Clinton may not have as much money as Obama, but she still has money and will probably raise more.  Again, not as much as Obama, but I'm not sure she needs it.  

    I'm really beginning to warm to my theory that Clinton is the media anti-toxin.  It simply doesn't matter what they say about her - it has no effect, she wins where she's supposed to win anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    media anti-toxin is right (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:59:41 PM EST
    That's one of the reasons I strongly prefer her.  I want the media to be completely humiliated and stomped into submission.


    [ Parent ]
    Oh, so well said. (none / 0) (#162)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:22 AM EST
    Here's blowing a kiss your way!!!

    [ Parent ]
    It's delegates now but popular vote matters (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    a lot in people's minds re who can win in November.  

    (And people know that there are more cattle -- and elk and moose or something -- than people in North Dakota and Idaho. . . .)

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, but the popular vote does NOT matter ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:50:07 AM EST
    ... or Al Gore would have been elected in 2000. It's all about delegates. And in the General Election (unlike the Democratic Party primary) you have to actually win in a State to get those delegates. It does not help to be the favorite local Democrat in a whole string of little States where the Republican voters are in the majority.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course it does now. Don't confuse (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:02:26 AM EST
    these delegates to party conventions with delegates to the Electoral College.  That's then, and we have yet to see how some of the crucial states go, such as Ohio.

    This is now, and taking the huge states now tells party leadership and potential donors (there is overlap there, of course) that Clinton could take the popular vote in November, and decisively.

    [ Parent ]

    Taking the HUGE states now ... (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:54:01 AM EST
    ...is significant. Especially if they are blue states. But taking a lot of little red states is not so significant. That's exactly my point. States are not all created equal, so it is meaningless to merely count states.

    To sum up -- we agree.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny how neither I nor any Obama people (none / 0) (#61)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:53:31 PM EST
    I talked to expected him to win Mass or New Jersey or California.

    Your bizarre fixation with the states that Clinton NEEDED to win is hard to understand.

    Obama has a favorable calendar and a significant fundraising advantage.

    Obama split the delegates today with her.  She is the one who needed to do better than that.

    [ Parent ]

    Geek I think you are right (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by hookfan on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:10:59 AM EST
    I think it's very even right now. Obama did better than expected. The result I fear is it's going to the convention. Somebody better start now sorting that out.

    [ Parent ]
    I never read any credible reports that (none / 0) (#133)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:12 AM EST
    Obama would win California, NJ or Mass. He was always behind. The goal was to close the gap in those states and pick up as many delegates as possible.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh please, (none / 0) (#198)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:24:54 AM EST
    don't talk to Hillary supporters about "liberal myopia." I think we've seen that aimed against our candidate from day one. Don't like a taste of your own medicine? And of course, if you don't like it you could go to one of hundreds of blogs that are all Obama all the time.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the delegates, not the states (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:31:29 PM EST
    With California called for Hillary, and NY, NJ, Mass and AZ, it's a bigger win for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Delegate count will be fairly close. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:33:32 PM EST
    Obama had blowout wins in MN, CO, KS, GA, and IL.

    Clinton doesn't get every delegate from CA.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagre with Jeralyn (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:36:35 PM EST
    that it is about delegates.

    Now unlike the Great Orange Satan, I did not change my criteria because Obama lost by that criteria. that was the Great Orange Satan.

    But I am the bad pundit.

    And the thing is you look ridiculous defending this "California is unimportant" talk,
     

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton was SUPPOSED to win (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:50:15 PM EST
    California.

    If she lost California, she was toast.

    If she lost New Jersey, she was toast.

    She held her serve, for the most part.  

    The deck was stacked in her favor tonight.  The rest of the month is stacked in his favor.

    You give her credit for doing what she needed to do.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton Is SUPPOSED to be the nominee (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:54:15 PM EST
    Look maybe I am wrong, but this is what I think.

    I was not kidding with my prediction this morning.

    I was expecting to be writing a post tonight urging Hillary Clinton to withdraw. that she does not deserve the treatment she has gotten from so called loyal Democrats.

    It is what I expected.

    [ Parent ]

    Well that is the bottom line then (none / 0) (#105)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:18:17 AM EST
    Your nutty assessment is all about the fact that you had pretty bizarre expectations this morning, and you judge the result against that.

    Here in the real world, Clinton underperformed tonite, by losing CT and MO.

    And Chuck Todd's estimate is that Obama wins the delegate haul (ok, by 4 dels :) ).

    Try to make an assessment on the actual race, not your mistaken expectations.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ghost2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:46 AM EST
    There is still a long way to go. But there is one thing.  At this late stage of the game, could we please stop the expectation crap?? So if Clinton was expected to win 22 states, and she won 20, you'd declare victory??

    At some point, this is about the big leagues, and about looking the part of the job.  You better act like grown ups who are in the final.  This is about more delegates and more votes, pure and simple.  

    And yes, thanks BTD.  Clinton does not deserve the treatment she gets from the democratic establishment after all she did for them, and the crap she put up with for their sakes.  What asses, pardon the expression.


    [ Parent ]

    so, who won more delegates, mr. grown up? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:01 AM EST
    Seems to be Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Clinton survived tonight, but she did not prevail. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:26:43 AM EST
    The problem is now she has a better funded opponent who will enjoy almost a month of building momentum and who will be accumulating delegates faster than her.

    And, now what happens on the Super-delegate count if Gore says it's time to rally around Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    if your guy (none / 0) (#139)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:39:57 AM EST
    had one burning issue that made it some moral imperative to keep going despite the fact that he's not going to win, that would be one thing.

    but preserving his own momentum is not a moral issue.

    the longer he stays in, the more integrity he loses.

    this election is not about him.

    it is about unseating the republicans in washington and breaking their death grip on the people of this country.

    obama is in the way of fighting that battle.  his candidacy distracts from the real issues.

    momentum is not an issue and it is not a sufficient reason for him to stay in.  

    your reasoning is childish.

    [ Parent ]

    repeat after me, gore will never ever ever say (none / 0) (#149)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:53:45 AM EST
    he endorses obama and neither will edwards. next

    [ Parent ]
    California was important (none / 0) (#39)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:40:49 PM EST
    Because if Obama won CA tonight, Clinton was toast.  It was a tie tonight. It was a tie going into tonight. Obama has a favorable schedule and Hillary has Dem. machine superdelegate connections with MI and FL hanging out there.

    And MSNBC just called MO for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    You see (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:55:31 PM EST
    that is not how it works.

    His MO is dead, never to be resurrected.

    Despite the attempts of his allies in the Media.

    there is nothing left for him now but losing the nomination.

    And then becoming the VP candidate,

    [ Parent ]

    MO is Mizzou, not momentum (none / 0) (#101)
    by magster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:14:55 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The media isn't treating this like a defeat (none / 0) (#130)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:27:55 AM EST
    for him.

    So why would that kill his momentum?

    Also, you don't think winning seven states in a row is going to build momentum for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Kos is talking from his heart (3.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:26:43 PM EST
    The idea that this is a HUGe night for Obama is  simply an embarrassment for him.

    This was a bad night for Obama and the faces of Obama and Axelrod showed it.

    They thought they had a shot to finish her. They missed their shot.

    they will not get another.

    [ Parent ]

    Have you looked at the rest of the (4.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:32:06 PM EST
    calendar in February?

    Obama could very well run the table between now and March 4.

    Clinton is out of money, and tonight was HER chance to put Obama away.  She didn't.

    [ Parent ]

    Link? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Virginian on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:34:24 PM EST
    She raised less than BO, but I don't think she's even close to being broke

    [ Parent ]
    Clintons cut off media freebies (3.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:06 AM EST
    and made them start paying their way on the campaign, a couple of weeks ago.  And media darn well deserved it.

    But that began the media spin that the Clinton campaign is broke.  It's pi**sed-off media b.s.

    [ Parent ]

    broke (none / 0) (#189)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:07:11 AM EST
    One of the news sites headlined how much she took in during January, it was significant.

    [ Parent ]
    He's just being the anti-Kos (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:34:47 PM EST
    The most accurate assessment is on Open Left where this thing is going to be a mess decided by superdelegates with a civil war over FL & MI.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:38:43 PM EST
    unlike Kos, I did not change my criteria after seing the results.

    I said this would be the result - one way or the other.

    Indeed, I EXPECTED it would be Obama delivering the KO blow tonight.

    [ Parent ]

    Consistency does not matter if (none / 0) (#69)
    by magster on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:57:18 PM EST
    your premise was wrong in the first place. MSNBC is projecting a 4 delegate win for Obama tonight.  Obama's fundraising will continue to pour in, he's got a ton of time to carpetbomb Texas Ohio and Pennsylvania with organizers and ads, and he is going to crush the rest of this month.  He had big mo' going in which was reflected in the caucus states where there was no early voting.  1/3 of the ballots in CA were early voting from when Clinton was crushing.  Kos was wrong, your wrong. Nobody can pretend to know where this is going.

    [ Parent ]
    NBC is a joke (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:08:36 AM EST
    I do not believe a word they say.

    Nor do I care.

    [ Parent ]

    Will Obama be for disenfranchisement (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 11:39:23 PM EST
    of the MI and FL voters? Probably, but it will kill him to flip-flop on principle so baldly.

    [ Parent ]
    And? (none / 0) (