Super Tuesday Post Mortem Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat

The thread in my post mortem post is overflowing. You can continue that discussion here or post about anything you like.

A data point. Chris Bowers has Clinton ahead in the pledged delegate count by 57 from the Super Tuesday contests. I have no idea if he is right. He is also speculating that Obama will narrow the gap and even be leading when all the delegates are counted. Time will tell.

This is an Open Thread.

< After Super Tuesday | Obama IS The Candidate Of The Establishment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Congratulations on. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    the tone of the discussion here which is almost universally civil and well-informed, even where people disagreee.

    Well, we try (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    Anyone want to drop an f-bomb so we can be (none / 0) (#25)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:56:05 AM EST
    like other sites that will remained unnamed?

    (Technically, an attempt at humor.)


    The spin out there (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by spit on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    is outrageous. I thought last night was strong for Clinton, myself -- I was out watching results at a pub, and it was clear that everybody read it as Clinton winning, though not with a landslide. The expectations game wasn't played well by the Obama camp, so "but he was down by X% a month ago" argument no longer works, IMO -- people expected it to be tight. I don't know whether that's about the campaign or the exuberant supporters, but they've been terrible with expectations management so far, and last night was no exception.  

    I would be amazed to see somebody become the nominee without winning CA, NY, NJ, MA, FL. Then again, I suppose there's a first time for everything, and a lot seemingly depends on where the media decides to lead us.

    It seems that the spin (none / 0) (#84)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:00:37 PM EST
    goes something like this:  "Hillary didn't really win because she was expected to win anyway; Obama didn't really lose because he was able to close the gap . . ."

    Yep (none / 0) (#92)
    by spit on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:13:41 PM EST
    and what's funny is that that's exactly how it would've worked in many people's minds, if the Obama folks hadn't completely flubbed the expectations game. Again.

    Last night he looked like a candidate who survived, but not like a candidate with overwhelming momentum that would take the world by storm (which is the image the campaign was using all week). I think he needed to do much, much better in at least a few of the bigger states. If CA and MA had been close, he'd be in great shape this morning. They weren't.

    The delegates keep the fight going, of course. But delegate totals don't set the narrative.


    And that is a losing formula (none / 0) (#97)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    for Democrats.  And the fact that anyone rational would buy that argument is ridiculous.  Only the media has an interest in pushing for the weakest Democrat.  But anyone progressive who pushes that line of reasoning really has less interest in winning the general than being right about Obama as some transformational figure who doesn't exist except in their imagination.  Right wing talking points on health care (Harry and Louise attacks) and a NON universal plan..plus his lying about it...is all you need to know to get it.

    winning the red states (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    or winning caucus states, isnt a strong sign of strength..You simply cannot discount the "be a democrat for a day" votes...I live in a red state and here they joke about it....However, in the general, there is no caucus and there is no crossing over....it will be head to head and we need democratic strength...that is the bottom line...the "bread and butter" of our party went strong for Hillary yesterday...To discount that is foolish....

    I agree: Wes Clark (none / 0) (#111)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:46:28 PM EST
    It has been reported that Obama "fielded a large staff in those caucus states," It is possible that one with enough funds could literally pay thousands of staff for one or two days until caucus day among eligible caucus goers and require them to be present supposedly to work on caucus day but at the same time caucus for Obama.  It would be a form of paying someone to vote although technically it is not really illegal because they are staff members.

    This is just the workings of my mind which I do not really know how to characterize yet.


    Vote totals overall (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    On Super Tuesday only

    Hillary: 7.24 million
    Obama: 7.16 million
    Mccain: 3.54 million
    Romney: 2.9 million
    Huckabee: 1.7 million
    Edwards: 405K
    Paul: 387K
    Guliani: 198K
    Thompson: 38K
    Uncomitted Dem: 25K
    Uncommitted Rep: 11K
    Biden: 2900
    Richardson: 1100
    Kucinich, Hunter, Gravel, Dodd: 0

    Minnesota still hasn't finished reporting in, so it'll probably tighten but Clinton will probably pull off national vote by maybe 50,000 or so.

    Clinton / Obama each. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    have votes just slightly below the total Republican vote for McCain, Romney, and Huckabee!

    Source (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    How do you count caucus votes? And where are the numbers from?

    This is a good question (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:41:54 AM EST
    California (none / 0) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    HRC got 1 million votes more.

    Obama got 800,000 more votes in IL (none / 0) (#14)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    You have to look at the overall numbers. It's all here:



    no (none / 0) (#20)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    it was closer to 600k, and hillary took that back in ny.  those two are a wash.  mo a wash.  tn, ar, ok, ca all big pluses for clinton.  that list is incorrect.

    And... (none / 0) (#26)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:56:12 AM EST
    GA, AL, CO and MN were all huge plusses for Obama. GA IL CO and MN all went 2-1 for Obama, Clinton only did that in one state - Arkansas.

    Georgia and Alabama (none / 0) (#87)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:05:28 PM EST
    will never go Democratic.  Plus in California, independents could vote.  What happened to the independent vote for Obama when McCain was on the ballot? Remember New Hampshire?  Obama keeps touting his strength in bringing over independents...but it didn't happen where it needed to happen.   This is more important to look at than the number of states for Obama, let alone the small number of voters those small states represented, let alone the even smaller number of voters those primaries represented...let alone examining who those caucuses represented.

    And it is impossible to ignore another populous state, Florida.  Obama was on cable there and obviously there was no national news blackout. She won by big numbers and there is a large Hispanic vote. At the margins,Obama wins primarily on the strength of African Americans...that is not a winning strategy in the general..because African Americans will generally support the Democratic anyway.  Hillary, however, hugely increase turnout among women, who represent more than half of all voters.  And women voters can put a Democrat over the top, as can Latinos.  Those are the important numbers...in addition to Hillary's strength among working class whites.

    We cannot underestimate the strength of McCain.  We  need the strongest candidate in a general.  And again, the youth vote did not materialize in California..it was just average...as it was in Flordia..as was the black vote. This is important to analyze.  


    Astute thinking here: thanks (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    for the analysis.  Important points.

    Those are good points, but (none / 0) (#145)
    by halstoon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    I disagree that the South is out of the question for Obama in the GE. They certainly would be for Hillary, but Obama at least makes them playable. She will win the states Dems always win, and not much else. He will win all the true blue states, plus give us a chance in a lot of red ones. With the electoral vote so close in '00 and '04, winning just one of those dark red states would be huge.

     We outvoted the GOP in GA yesterday, and they had a Southern Baptist on the ballot. They also had a war hawk and a big business tycoon. They still could not beat us in GOTV. That says something.

    Also, Obama got more votes in places like CO and ND than all the reds COMBINED!! You can't say blacks did this, b/c they don't live in those states. His mo is real. Hillary is very good, and very capable, and I will vote for her, but she is also going to turn out more GOPers than McCain or anyone else on their side. Dems love the Clintons, but everyone else pretty much despises them. There are such people as Obama Repubs. Obama gives us a more legit shot at victory.


    she got 350,000 (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    more votes in cali.  not 1 million

    no one said (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    she got more than 1 million votes than Obama. Last night they said she had 1 million votes total.

    Last Night (none / 0) (#98)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:18:27 PM EST
    I did say that if the spread in California held up, she would win by about one million votes.  It did not hold up, so that turned out to be wrong.

    She did, however, win by several hundred thousand votes.  The fact that she won't win that many more delegates is, IMO, a travesty and underscore what a ridiculous delegate allocation system the Dems have.  There were hints of this before - Obama taking more delegates in Nevada, Clinton taking more delegates than Edwards in Iowa - but California makes it obvious on a huge scale.  When you can win a CD by 15% and still tie in delegates, something is very, very wrong.  

    If this turns into some ugly delegate battle, the Dems have no one to blame but themselves by having delegate allocations that overcount some votes and undercount others.  


    Clarification (none / 0) (#99)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
    When I say she won by several hundred thousand votes, I meant she won California by that spread.

    It cuts both ways (none / 0) (#105)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    Obama suffers the same thing in his blow-out wins too. The thing is, the national vote is about even, and so is the delegate allocation. It's only off by a percent or two, which I think is basically a fair outcome.

    Wrong. (none / 0) (#126)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:23:26 PM EST

    This is what Stellaaa said (emphasis added):

    California... HRC got 1 million votes more.
    That sure reads like she is trying to say that Clinton 1 million more votes than Obama.  And others tried to say the same thing last night.

    currently... (none / 0) (#54)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    With 96% of the votes in, Clinton is leading Obama in California by less than 400,000 votes.

    But yea - 400,000 and One million - they are kinda' close.


    No (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    Last night it looked like that would happen if the trend continued, but it did not and she won by less than that.  But she still won California by several hundred thousand votes.  

    California formula for allocating delegates (none / 0) (#82)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    is a bit complex:  about 130 will be awarded based on the overall result of the State primary votes and the balance of the 341 delegates on the basis of votes by county (I think).  So, if Obama did not get a majority in an county (no matter how slim) he might not get any of the remaining 100 or so delegates.  If anyone has a more accurate account of this, please correct me.

    Calculated based on MSNBC final results page (none / 0) (#8)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    Caucus states included; so it seems plausible that Obama will be in the delegate lead given that you need smaller numbers of voters to win delegates in the caucus states.

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    Many states do not disclose vote counts in caucuses. This is a fabrication of numbers. I just don't buy it.

    Uhh (none / 0) (#12)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    You can go to the page and do the math yourself if you don't believe me. If anything, excluding caucus states would bias the results TOWARD Clinton not away from her.

    if you did the math (none / 0) (#16)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    you made an error.  'cuz those numbers are basically phony.  

    Care to back that up? (none / 0) (#17)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:49:51 AM EST
    Like, with, you know, some evidence?

    uh, they are your numbers (none / 0) (#31)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    why don't you provide a link.  and don't tell me to "look them up" because i want to know the exact source you got for these numbers.  

    did you add these numbers up in some way yourself or are you reporting numbers from a news agency?

    i watched returns all night and i paid close attention to turnout numbers.  i'm pretty sure these numbers are phony baloney, but if you are saying i am wrong then why don't you just provide the link to the numbers you are using.  

    provide a link to your source. put up or shut up.


    I added them up myself (none / 0) (#35)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    from here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

    I double-checked with CNN and they are reporting the same thing (on a couple of states there is a slight difference due to 1% reporting differences).


    do not tell another commenter (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:51:56 AM EST
    to shut up. I've already deleted one of your comments today. You are warned to be civil here.

    do not tell another commenter (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:11 AM EST
    to shut up. I've already deleted one of your comments today. You are warned to be civil here.

    Get me a link (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    How did the extrapolate the caucus votes? We can only compare votes with votes cast, and caucus with caucus. Everything else is fantasy. Five hipsters in Minneapolis do not equal 5,000 votes in Calif.

    I don't think you get it. (none / 0) (#22)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    Obama won all of the caucus states on ST. If Minnesota only reports 20,000 for Obama then, despite the fact that he will have won a significant delegate share, his popular vote share will be lower.

    So adding in the caucus vote totals probably understates the number of delegates he's going to get. And he tied the popular vote.


    I call last night a tie (none / 0) (#6)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:40:40 AM EST
    on the Democratic side.

    McCain is the favorite on the Republican side.

    Obama has a slight advantage going forward becaus he will win most of the state heading to March when Ohio and TX vote and could continue his momentum.  

    Don't forget he's also raiding more money then Clinton but the Clinton campaign machine is more efficient.

    Anyone who claims to know what is going to happen on the Democratic side is no smarter then the one who claims to know the opposite.  On the Republican side McCain is inevitable.

    This thing is a long way from being over.


    From the CNN Election 08 site I got this (none / 0) (#107)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    just a few minustes ago: (delegates without California)

                                    HC  BO    Net +/1
    Alabama            17    17     00
    Alaska            04    09    -05
    Arizona            16    13    +03
    Arkansas        22    05    +17
    Colorado        06    13    -07
    Connecticut        22    25    -03
    Delaware        06    09    -03
    Georgia            18    27    -09
    Idaho            03    15    -12
    Illinois            31    62    -31
    Kansas            09    23    -14
    Massachussetts    54    37    +17
    Minnesota        24    48    - 24
    Missouri            30    30    - 00
    New Jersey        51    37    +14
    New Mexico        13    12    +01
    New York        127    87    +40
    North Dakota    05    08    -03
    Oklahoma        24    14    +10
    Tenessee        34    21    +13
    Utah            09    14    -05

                            +61 Hillary           


    When Calif. delegate count becomes available (none / 0) (#114)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:50:38 PM EST
     it is conceivable that Hillary would have come out of ST with close to a net lead of about 200 or more.

    It is pretty (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    clear Obama won last, night.  He won the most states, the most delegates and showed to be the most competitive in places that will be swing states. MO CO MN.  
    I think it was a loss for Clinton because she, is not an attractive candidate for moderate/ind white males.  loosing those to McCain would be a disaster, in a GE.  AS for Clinton, winning the popular vote isn't going to help her in a GE if she has to pile up the vote margin in blue states.

    It's been said here before (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by g8grl on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    but Obama winning in small states almost certainly going Republican doesn't mean a darn thing.  Those should probably be considered null moreso than FLA and MI.  Additionally, does anyone else think it's highly egotistical for Obama to imply that he's the reason for the huge crossover.  It couldn't possibly be because we currently have the WORST PRESIDENT EVER and he's a Republican.  All independents and crossovers are reacting to Bush more than Obama.

    Accepting your metric (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    It appears Clinton won the most delegates.

    based on what? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:03:17 AM EST
    Counting delegates (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:05:40 AM EST
    is what I understand is going on.

    See Chris Bowers.

    I have no idea.


    MSNBC (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    was estimating that when the numbers come on congressional districts he will have a lead.  The initial number is not complete.

    MSNBC was reporting (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    what the Obama camp told them.

    Frankly, with the votes still being counted, how could anyone really know?

    I repeat, I do not believe MSNBC as a matter of principle.

    They are not reliable.


    I trust Fox over MSNBC at this point (none / 0) (#104)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:29:15 PM EST
    It is really pathetic...but their reporting last night was better than MSNBC.  And who can forget Russert and Williams as debate moderators?  I'd take my chances with Fox before I'd ever let them be debate moderators or anything else for that matter.  
    They are openly pushing Obama and don't care how biased they look.  I've even noticed actual lies being propagated...even on CNN.  Anderson Cooper stated Obama "voted" against the war.  As a result of this biased coverage, many low information voters believe Clinton voted for authorization and Obama voted against.  

    msnbc has lost me. i actually turned on (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    faux last night. the gasbags on cnn were awful.

    What? (none / 0) (#56)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    You said yourself that Bowers thought that Obama would end up with slightly more delegates.

    Bowers' speculation (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:20:42 AM EST
    is NOT the same as Bowers' count.

    I trust his count. I dismiss his speculation.


    Chris Bowers (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    now says Clinton isn't disputing Obama has more pledged delegates.  he also says no such thing as a tie in his opinion Obama is the winner.

    A couple of things (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:59:33 AM EST
    I agree that there is no such thing as a tie when you have a decisive contest. Obviously yesterday was not decisive. So Chris' point is silly in that sense.

    Second, let's count the delegates and see. I do not know what someone's supposed "not disputing" means. I was not on that call so I do not know what they said but it is important to count the delegates for the day if you are going to make claims about it.

    The REAL question is who was HELPED in their path to the nomination. It is my view that Clinton was helped last night, not Obama.

    Chris' post does not make much sense to me.


    Thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#131)
    by robrecht on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    Here's another account that seems to make clear that neither Obama's 'count' or Clinton's alternative count were yet intended as definititive.

    Even with eight Clinton wins coast to coast, from New York to Oklahoma and California, the Obama campaign says it bested Clinton in delegates Tuesday with 845 to her 836. The Clinton campaign, however, says its calculations have her winning by one delegate Tuesday.

    Both campaigns say the delegate numbers could change as the results are finalized, but the Clinton camp terms Tuesday "a draw," and the senator's strategists have shifted their focus to the popular vote wins Clinton notched last night. Link

    First (none / 0) (#69)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    I wouldn't consider Obama to be competitive in Missouri.  His win was very narrow and quite likely the result of having McCaskill's voter information available to get out the vote in a couple of key areas.  

    Second, many of the states where Obama won last night were hardly contested by Clinton.  It was clear she was more focused on the larger states where she won.


    Swing States (none / 0) (#91)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:12:31 PM EST
    Actually, Clinton is carrying not only the Blue States, but more of the States Dems will need in November.  Racking up dem votes in Idaho and Utah is even more useless than racking them up in New York.

    States where Dems could win, but are not guaranteed to win in November:

    Obama - Iowa, Colorado, Missouri (although this state was almost a tie, like NM, which I haven't included because I haven't been able to find a result),

    Total Electoral College - 26

    Clinton - Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire

    Total Electoral College - 76 (68 w/out Arizona, which will likely go McCain if he's the nominee).

    Moreover, I'd argue that Clinton's base coalition is more likely to win a general election for the Democrats.  It's true that Obama brings out the youth vote and the African American vote.  But tere was a record youth vote in 2004 for Kerry and Kerry crushed Bush among AAs.  It did not result in a win, although it was incredibly close (damn you, Ohio!).  

    Clinton is likely to dominate the youth vote and AAs just as Kerry did, even if she's not quite going to get the turnout Obama has.  In addition, however, she's shown she can bring out the hispanic vote (which will be important against McCain, who is the least noxious Republican against hispanics) and women voters, who already make up a majority of voters (and if you look at Republican primary numbers, women are drastically down from 2000).

    This is why I think BTD is right and we're looking at our ticket - Clinton/Obama.  Neither is likely to get enough delegates going into the convention to seal this thing.  So it's going to be decided by the party leaders.Remember all delegates - pledged and super - can switch candidates.  The party could go for Obama and he certainly has momentum among establishment Dems right now, but I don't think they will.  Because looking at the electoral map, it's simply terrible politics to pick the guy who won Alaska, Utah, Connecticut and Georgia and not the gal who won Florida, California, New York and Tennessee.  

    Plus, it's more likely to end in a divided party.  A delegate battle brings up issues about how they are allocated, which often doesn't follow the popular vote, and the seating of Michigan and Flordia.  A convention fight over that is a disaster for the party and could hurt it in November.  

    Clinton won't be Obama's VP.  Even if it was a good idea - and it's not - she wouldn't do it.  I'm not entirely sold on Obama as VP as a good political strategy for Clinton, but I think it's the only one that will work for the party and, in the end, I'm convinced the party is going to solve this.  And Obama will go along because 1) he will be offered the VP as incentive and 2) he wants to be president some day.  

    After the nomination is decided, the party needs to address the inequities in the delegate system.  We've seen time and time again how it fails to count votes equally.  There's simply no reason why winning Idaho by a few thousand votes should be worth so much and winning California by seveeral hundred thousands worth so little.   Just as there's no excuse for Obama getting more delegates in Nevada than Clinton or for Clinton to get more delegates in Iowa than Edwards.  

    Which, again, is why this can't be decided on delegates - between the inequities in alloting them and the issues surrounding Michigan and Florida, that has the ability to really tear the party apart.  If Howard Dean and the rest of the Democratic leaders permits that, then Democrats really are the party of self-destruction.


    Am Registered INDY- and I would Consider OBAMA (none / 0) (#18)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    my wife is hard core GOP....she will consider obama.
    AS there is not a chance in a 100,000 years I would ever vote for a Clinton again (I voted for WJC in 92).
    I would sooner vote for Bush (which ain't ever gonna happen).
    The Clintons and Bush had their chance
    basically, we are both sick of the BUSH CLINTON devisiveness.

    Let's turn the page and move on to the next Generation.

    Thank you but ? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:09:52 AM EST
    Am I supposed to change my vote because of that?

    With the economy in tatters (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:58:16 PM EST
    and McCain having no knowledge of or interest in the economy, either you will not be voting self interest...or are independent financially and don't care.  Fewer people who would vote Obama would vote McCain instead if Hillary is the nominee. And certainly not after all his negatives go up when the real Obama is exposed and damaged.  No one here supporting Obama can point to any major accomplishment of his...and no one here ever factors in the negative blitz that will destroy his superficial hope and change mantra and expose a hollow core. Obama is a good politician...but not much more in terms of real legislative accomplishment or leadership. His Commander in Chief credentials are ludicrous.  Who thinks this media fawning will continue unabated once we come to the general?  It is  naive.

     Obama is a total question mark.  No one knows what's out there because they have willfully kept their heads in the sand while the progressive media has followed blithely along with the MSM.  It is a disgrace that the progressive blogs and media have allowed this fantasy to continue and worse, pushed it. The truth is that I know many many people who will vote McCain as a result of his national security experience before they will vote Obama. These are strong Hillary supporters now. But since neither of us can prove that number one way or another, it is more instructive to look at the big states and analyze the results realistically, not wishfully.  Many Republican women will cross over.  Hillary Hate is a product of the media and Republican narrative.(which the  progressives have been adopting lately to Democratic disadvantage)  But the base of the party is strongly pro Hillary. And since Democrats are outnumbering Republicans in swing states, that bodes well for her.  If the nomination process does not reflect this reality, then the process needs to change before Democrats destroy themselves.  One can't live in an insulated environment of one's choosing and expect to be victorious.


    With that attitude you . . . (none / 0) (#29)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:58:09 AM EST
    wife will tell you what you want to hear. LOL!

    I got My Wife Into Politics....and she's Amazed (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    at the hold the Clintons have on people, and in a very subtle, innocent way, wonders why would we as a country want to re-live all the Clinton hatred, slime, swift boating...all the crap that would accompany a Hillary nomination.

    I do not care for your wife's attitude (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    for deciding who would be the best PResident frankly.

    So big of you (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:12:33 AM EST
    Well maybe she should read somethings, like policies, like history then she can have an opinion other than the "Clinton" hold MSM BS.

    Clinton hatred (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by g8grl on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:18:38 AM EST
    swiftboating, slime...all from the Republican side.  Certainly Democrats didn't do any of that.  It's a wonder that you both still identify with Republicans who were the perpetrators.

    Which. to be fair. . . (none / 0) (#45)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:09:37 AM EST
    sound like exactly what you want to hear.  Right?

    It's usually very difficult (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    to swift boat and smear candidates twice for the same issues.  If they attempt it again with the Clintons it will likely garner a lot of sympathy vs. other things for them with the majority of Americans.  Even O.J. will tell you that double jeopardy is UnAmerican.

    It sounds as if (none / 0) (#143)
    by miriam on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    you are not so much into politics as you are into media-slanted-politics.  You are simply repeating the rightwing, corporate media propaganda that for years has been hurled at the Clintons, most of which has no relation to the actual facts.  Why don't you try reading some sources that don't reinforce your own narrow view?  Read Greenspan who states how amazed he was that Bill Clinton was able to make sense of, and then correct, the economic mess he inherited from Bush I.  The relative peace and financial prosperity many in this country enjoyed under Clinton goes far to explain why people rejected the Republican hate spin that accompanied his administration.  And...Hillary Clinton was NOT responsible for the slime, hatred, and swiftboating.  The Republicans and the media were and are the perpetrators of this.

    "Dems for a day" or even for four years (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:58:22 PM EST
    will not be deciding this.  We appreciate your crossover votes, though, as they will help win in November.  But it's about the convention now -- where the decisions will be made by committed, longtime Dems.

    no thanks! the next generation has to earn (none / 0) (#136)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    their kudos just like the rest of us.

    Obama won more delegates yesterday? (none / 0) (#21)
    by robrecht on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:52:31 AM EST
    Can anyone effectively refute, the Obama campaign's claim to have won more delegates yesterday?

    According to Plouffe's tally, Obama won 847 pledged delegates yesterday to Clinton's 834, bringing his pledged delegate total to 910. Clinton's overall total, Plouffe said, is 882. But there's a long way to go: It takes more than 2,000 delegates to win the nomination.


    Chris Bowers did (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    You mean this? (none / 0) (#36)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    Update: New results posted at 11:00 a.m., eastern. Obama has pulled to within 57 pledged delegates, or 42 pledged delegates overall. I still feel pretty certain that Obama will maintain his pledged delegate lead when the counting is done

    Precisely what I wrote (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:09:13 AM EST
    There was a link. There was ana accurate characterization

    IS there some point you are trying to make?

    Do not go down this road again Andrew.


    You're saying Chris Bowers refuted the story (none / 0) (#51)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:12:06 AM EST
    Chris Bowers is predicting Obama to at the very least will tie for delegates on ST and maintain is pledged delegate lead. I don't count that as a refutation of what the Obama camp put out.

    Sorry for any misunderstanding if I've read you wrong.


    Bowers speculation (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    is not the refutation.

    His COUNT is.

    Right now nobody knows.

    That is my point.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#62)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:22:35 AM EST
    We'll see when the count finishes...

    And the Obama number still will be too mushy (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:56:24 PM EST
    because of his strategy of focusing on caucus states.  Those national convention delegate counts are still many months away, awaiting the caucus delegates going to state conventions to determine allocation of the Dem national convention.  

    Dem leaders and committed Dems (not the "Dems for a day") who will be the national convention delegates know this.  They know that Clinton's delegate counts are much more solid now than Obama's.  There 'tis.


    And you base this on...? (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    Sounds mostly like wishful thinking.

    I guarantee you - if you never want to expand the democratic party, the best way is to say that the votes of first time democrats shouldn't matter.


    Read closely: they do matter later (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:47 PM EST
    in the general election.  They will not be at the national convention.  They will be in mind there -- but in the minds of those who are there, who will have much else in mind, because many have been in this for a long time, so they know how to make the calculations.  Dems-for-a-day don't know how to do so, as is quite clear from many of their blogposts.

    Thanks for the clarification, BTD (none / 0) (#132)
    by robrecht on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    Here's another account that seems to make clear that neither Obama's 'count' or Clinton's alternative count were yet intended as definitive:

    Even with eight Clinton wins coast to coast, from New York to Oklahoma and California, the Obama campaign says it bested Clinton in delegates Tuesday with 845 to her 836. The Clinton campaign, however, says its calculations have her winning by one delegate Tuesday.

    Both campaigns say the delegate numbers could change as the results are finalized, but the Clinton camp terms Tuesday "a draw," and the senator's strategists have shifted their focus to the popular vote wins Clinton notched last night.



    Clinton's estimate of the delegate count: (none / 0) (#142)
    by robrecht on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:32:53 PM EST
    Yet more clarification on the Clinton camp's statement:

    Clinton's advisers said the two candidates would end up after yesterday's voting separated by no more than five or six delegates, who will determine the party's nominee for the general election in November.


    Advisers to New York Senator Clinton, 60, declined to release their estimates. Guy Cecil, Clinton's political field director, said on a conference call that the campaign's current count shows Clinton ahead by one delegate, with more delegates to be counted. He said he expects the final margin will be narrow.

    The results are ``essentially bringing yesterday to a draw on delegates,'' he said.



    Not according to ABC News (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    They report:

    Despite trading victories with Obama, Clinton comes out of Super Tuesday the way she went in, leading in the delegate count. ABC News estimates that to date, Clinton now has 872 delegates, Obama has 793.

    Pretty sure... (none / 0) (#128)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:27:25 PM EST
    ... that ABC's numbers include super delegates.

    this is a link (none / 0) (#28)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    to a great editorial in the New York Times...it is really what the bottom line is in the democratic party.....

    Michelle's response (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    is revolting.  It is to me, at least.  And her response makes it very difficult for me to to support Obama in the general election.

    I will probably just sit that election out if he wins.

    Michelle needs to do better.


    do you have a link or is it the (none / 0) (#139)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    comments she made to abc?

    Obama wins misleading (none / 0) (#30)
    by koshembos on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:58:30 AM EST
    This may have been said before. Many of Obama's wins come in caucus states, where he overwhelms the place with his people and where the percentage of voting is in the single digits. Without such states, Obama is not much of competition.

    Going Forward (none / 0) (#32)
    by Joike on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    The close race brings up a couple questions.

    To whom will the Super-delegates go as we get closer to the convention and it remains unresolved?

    I don't know how committed Super-delegates are.

    What will happen with the Florida and Michigan delegates?

    Neither race was contested (so it is disengenuous to say Obama lost two big states where there was no battle - was his name even on the ballot in Michigan?) so will they schedule another primary day, seat them for Hillary or not seat them at all?


    There is a heppy lend fur, fur away.

    Whatever happens, the supers MUST NOT. . . (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM EST
    give the nomination to Clinton if the popularly elected delegates favor Obama.  That would be a long-term disastrous result for the Democratic Party.

    And vice versa? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:24:55 AM EST
    And what of Michigan and Fla?

    Aha! (none / 0) (#76)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    Obviously, the elephant (err. . . very big donkey?) in the room is Florida (Michigan less so in my opinion).

    If, with or without Florida, Clinton requires superdelegates to win, the supers need to switch to Obama or we're in a heap of hurt.

    If Clinton loses the elected delegates disregarding both supers and Florida, but would win with either  Florida or supers it's a first class mess -- and I don't see it ending well for us.  The big issue in this case is whether the existing delegates (elected and supers, less FL and MI) will vote to seat the Florida delegates.  In raw numbers, they would have the strength to do so.  However, I think even Clinton recognizes that some of her delegates will not seat Florida.

    If they do seat Florida then the issue of superdelegates goes away -- Clinton would have enough to win without them.  But, of course, half the Democratic Party would feel they had had the election stolen from them -- by shenanigans in Florida.


    That makes no sense (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST
    If Hillary is AHEAD in pledged delegates, she will seat the MI and FL delegations.

    If Obama is ahead, he won't seat them and he will need the superdelegates.

    Hillary is less dependent on the super delegates than Obama.



    Not necessarily. . . (none / 0) (#88)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    If Hillary is AHEAD in pledged delegates, she will seat the MI and FL delegations.

    First off, Clinton has stated that she doesn't believe all her delegates will vote to seat Florida.  What would really happen?  I don't know.  But her Iowa and New Hampshire dels might be against it, as might party loyalists.  So it's not a shoe-in that even if she leads in delegates (with supers) that she'd get enough votes to seat Florida.

    But my point really was that if she had enough votes to seat Florida based on superdelegates we're in a bad situation -- as bad as, but more confusing than, the straightforward case of supers putting her over the top for the nomination disregarding Florida.

    In that case, it would again be non-elected party insiders giving Clinton the victory.  A mess.


    Oh (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    I see your point. I can not imagine that happening.

    True, but. . . (none / 0) (#101)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    four months ago could you imagine it would come down to either superdelegates or Florida?  Or some extremely confusing combination?  I didn't -- which is why I didn't pay a lot of attention to the Florida / Michigan brou-ha-ha originally.  I figured what difference will it really make?

    I think we can all agree that whatever happens a clear win is much, much better than one in which supers or Florida decide.


    What Happens If Obama Has A Slight Delegate Lead (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    and loses the popular vote? Completely ignoring FL doesn't seem to be a win for the Democratic party either since we need them in the GE. The way it is looking now, it appears to be a lose, lose situation.

    Jeez. . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:56:34 AM EST
    more complicated still.

    I guess if Clinton had a popular vote lead and Obama a slight delegate vote lead that might make it harder for the supers to decide what the "right" course of action was.  I'm not sure I'd have a clear idea myself.

    But whatever happened in that situation, we'd have some awfully angry Democrats.


    unforgivable, ESPECIALLY when they had an easy solution, the GOP one, halve the delegates awarded.

    I did not understand. . . (none / 0) (#86)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    or predict at the time the nit-witedness of the DNC's actions regarding Florida or Michigan -- and in part the problems are due to the surprising way things have developed.

    Still, in retrospect, it's been a big, big mistake.


    Isn't That A Real Possibility Due To The Caucuses? (none / 0) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    Many of Obama's delegates come from caucuses where only a relatively small number of the population participates. I would think that would reduce Obama's popular vote substantially, but I'm not sure how they determine the popular vote for those.  

    Also, I'm not sure how the mechanics work. What happens to the delegates won by the candidates that have dropped out?  Are they factored into the equation before or after it is determined who has the delegate lead? Seems that there could be risk there as well.


    Oh Phooey! (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    The Democratic party has survived tight races before this!  If the party was that wimpy and flimsy it wouldn't even still be around.  Grandma Vera is not impressed with your comment!

    That would not be a matter. . . (none / 0) (#78)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    of a tight race.  It would be a matter of Democratic Party insiders taking the election from a popularly elected black candidate and giving it to someone else.

    It would be a disaster.


    Like Democratic party insiders haven't (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:10:10 PM EST
    chosen the candidate before........still silly.........party still here

    Can you name an instance. . . (none / 0) (#103)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    in which a black candidate was elected by popular vote of Democrats and then denied the nomination?

    So now you play the race card? (4.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    You are a typical Obama supporter!

    I'm not an Obama supporter. . . (none / 0) (#141)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:12:26 PM EST
    not even by BTD's standard.  Sorry.

    No (none / 0) (#134)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    And I can't name a race where a female candidate won the popular vote and was denied the nomination either.  And right now Clinton is winning the popular vote.  

    But I don't think race or gender have anything to do with this.  If Obama's only argument for the nomination is that he's the black guy, he loses.  Similarly, if gender is Clinton's only argument for it, she loses.  This is going to be decided, IMO, based on the political realities of November 2008.  And if it isn't, then a pox on all of their houses because 72% of all dems voting yesterday said they'd be happy with Clinton and 71% said they'd be happy with Obama.  I predict, however, that exactly 0.00001% Democrats will be happy if Democrats lose in November because the party permits itself to be torn apart by two candidates that most Dems like.    


    The Supers Will Decide (none / 0) (#115)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    Neither Clinton nor Obama is on track to win the nomination on the basis of the pledged delegate count alone, especially if Florida and Michigan aren't included.  Obama is going to pick up more delegates in February.  Clinton is likely to dominate March 4.  Neither is going to do well enough to hit 2,000 since we're more than halfway through and neither has hit 1,000.

    Moreover, in a close race like this, it becomes apparent exactly how unfair the delegate allocation is done.  Adding the Florida and Michigan mess to it, just makes it worse.

    No, the party is going to have to step in and force one of them to step aside for the good of the party.  I predict given where their wins are coming, that will be Obama.  To make it palatable to him, they will insist Clinton offer him the VP nomination if he wants it (and he will want it).  

    That's the one thing that will unite the party.  Anything else is a giant mess.  If they force Obama over Clinton, they are going to have an uprising from New York, California and other large democratic states.  Much better to have small red states (and Illinois) mad at them going into the general.

    Plus, I predict that Clinton will win the popular vote overall, even if it's not by that much.  Going into yesterday, my calculations have Clinton leading by approximately 218,554 votes (using state delegate percentages to figure caucus votes and including Florida and Michigan, but giving Obama all the uncommitted in Michigan because there will not be another election/caucus in Michigan or Florida so Obama's stuck with the results).  I'm not sure yet what the popular vote was from yesterday, but it appears that Clinton won the popular vote, even if it wasn't by much.


    The big winner from last night... (none / 0) (#37)
    by barryluda on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    What I like is that even though for the first time every my wife and I voted for different candidates (she for Clinton, me for Obama), we both won!

    Both of us would be happy with either one, and will vote for whichever one is our candidate.  And either one will whip McCain.

    Really???.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    I could see McCain beating Hillary or Obama....the hardcore conservative's hatred of McCain helps him in the general.  Non-political junkies hear that Limbaugh hates McCain and think "he must not be so bad."  Plus, McCain is as close as you can get to the "anti-Bush" in the Republican party.  And he has a history of working with Democrats....namely Kennedy and Feingold.

    I could see Hillary or Obama whooping Romney, but against McCain it could go either way.


    That so? (none / 0) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST
    Plus, McCain is as close as you can get to the "anti-Bush" in the Republican party.

    The anti-Bush.


    As close as you can get..... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    from Republicans not named Paul...yeah.

    If Bush had served in the Senate, would he in a million years co-sponsor a bill with Ted Freakin' Kennedy?  I think not.  He is the anti-Bush in that he will at least listen to what the other guy has to say.  Bush was/is incapable of that.

    Underestimate him at your peril, that's all I'm saying.  


    Obama and Lobyists (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    WASHINGTON ? While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital. Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from "federal lobbyists." His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign. But the Illinois Democrat's policy of shunning money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there. Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobbying operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in such state capitals as Springfield, Ill.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sacramento, though some deal with national clients and issues.

    First I read about half of this comment, (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:38:32 AM EST
    then I glanced up to see who wrote it.  Stellaaa.

    I asked my friends last night, all of whom voted for Obama, if they knew anything about his connection to Rezko.  Answer:  they all take money from sleazy people.


    When the trial starts in a few weeks (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    with Fitzgerald as prosecutor, with the impact of the Chicago press across the media, that low knowledge level of the Rezko mess could change.

    UGH (none / 0) (#130)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:29:52 PM EST
    Makes my stomach churn.

    (from bottom of previous thread) (none / 0) (#59)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    Obama scores a blowout (AK,ID,KS,MN,ND,CO) when Caucus and < 10% AA
    Obama scores a blowout (AL,DE,GA) when more than 20% AA    

    Hillary scores solid (AZ,MA,OK) when Primary having < 10 AA
    Exception goes to Obama with UT;  NM virtually tied

    Hillary scores solid (AR,NJ,NY,TN) when Primary and 10 - 20% AA
    Exceptions go to Obama with IL and CT; MO virtually tied.

    So what about OH, PA, and TX? They all fall into the 10 - 20% AA, which is solidly Hillary's with exceptions.

    PA is a closed Primary; Gov Rendall endoresed Hillary. So it will go to Hillary (but Obama will win the Philly area).

    OH and TX are Open Primary which could slightly favor Obama or be a virtual tie but Obama will not score a blowout.

    nah, obama is way behind in texas. (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    After a good night sleep (none / 0) (#61)
    by magster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:21:02 AM EST
    I still think yesterday was a tie.  Obama could have sealed the deal if he won CA, and Hillary could have sealed the deal if she could have thumped Obama in Missouri, and maybe won CT too.

    The bigger story is the role of superdelegates. Although I support Obama, I'd rather one or the other just take clear control of the nomination. AmericaBlog makes a great point of alienating African-American voters if Obama wins pledged delegates, and the overwhelmingly white superdelegates put Hillary over the top in spite of this. Same scenario of alienating women if Hillary wins pledged delegates and the mostly male superdelegates vote Obama.

    There needs to be a public campaign to have superdelegates support the winner of pledged delegates.  I'm worried about where this nomination is going.

    CNN has reported today that (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    Hillary has the most pledged superdelegates.  Don't know where they arrived at that though.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#71)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    She's up by about 80 on pledged super delegates. At this point, probably everyone that will endorse before the convention has endorsed. So I think that's probably a fairly fixed number.

    Unintended Consequences (none / 0) (#75)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    Hahahah silly, see pulling the puppet strings of ole Group Grudges swing two ways.....In fact, the majority of Democrats (55%) say Hillary Clinton has not attacked Obama unfairly.  

    When Democrats Attack

    The Jan. 30-Feb. 2 poll asked Democrats (including Democratic-leaning independents) for their views on the way the leading candidates have conducted their campaigns. Democrats are more likely to perceive that Hillary Clinton has been unfairly attacking Obama (35% say this) than to say the reverse (23% believe Obama has attacked Clinton unfairly). But Democrats are most likely to believe Bill Clinton has attacked Obama unfairly -- 41% of Democrats believe this.

    It is important to note that while greater proportions of Democrats think the Clintons are attacking Obama unfairly than the other way around, more Democrats believe the Clintons are not attacking Obama unfairly than believe they are. In fact, the majority of Democrats (55%) say Hillary Clinton has not attacked Obama unfairly.

    I feel Clinton comes out ahead (none / 0) (#77)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    from yesterday since she performed close to the best case expectations of everyone in the media, whereas Obama fell short of the best case expectations.

    The good news for this country is that the media storm for Obama did not swing voters as much as they expected. I am not saying anything negative about Obama by saying this. He does not control the media. I am just glad that the media can't totally influence the voting process.

    I think that . . . (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST
    without the media storm Obama would have bombed.

    Yep, that's the lesson for November (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    and that, it seems, is what has affected BTD's analysis, as before this, he said Obama was electable based on being a media darling.

    It isn't enough.  And that honeymoon looks to be over soon.


    You don't think it will be over (none / 0) (#116)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    when he wins 9 in a row before March 4th?

    First, he won't win them all (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:05:54 PM EST
    as I'm in one of them. . . .

    So it will be over where it matters -- in the minds of the committed Dems who decide this at the convention, the party regulars.  Clinton consistently wins them, while Obama is counting on Indies and crossovers.

    "Dems for a day" will not decide this.  If they really want to make "change," they have to learn that real change is made from the inside of any organization.  They're not insiders, they haven't made the commitment, they don't get to decide this.  They get to come back in November, if they do, and be "Dems for a day" again.  That's all.


    Totally agree with you (none / 0) (#93)
    by felizarte on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:15:53 PM EST
    and that Oprah, Ted, Caroline, Maria Shriver were not able to deliver California and especially Massachussetts to Obama. I believe that thhese speak to the real strength and toughness of Hillary Clinton.

    Pledged Superdelegates List (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:16:52 PM EST
    My analysis of what is happening (none / 0) (#100)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    It is true that nothing is decided yet, but I did some quick math this morning, and I am happy about Hillary's prospects. If the pattern of allocation for the undecided Super Tuesday delegates remains comparable to the pattern of allocation for the decided Super Tuesday delegates, Hillary will have 1,300 delegates, and Obama will have 1,200. The prize requires 2,025. Assuming that we never seat Florida and Michigan delegates, (a huge and implausible assumption), if my math is correct, after the allocation of all the Super Tuesday delegates, there will be 1,900 delegates left. If Hillary and Obama split these delegates 50-50, Hillary will have 200 more delegates than she needs to get the nomination. Last night, Hillary spoke first and was happy; last night, Obama went second, and he was not happy: I think that tells the whole story.

    Media mucking up total needed (none / 0) (#110)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    in many charts and analyses I see, when they go with a total needed based on including Michigan and Florida -- but then don't include her greater win of delegates in Michigan and Florida.

    It's maddening lack of logic, but that's the media.


    Florida must be seated (none / 0) (#121)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:06:56 PM EST
    because it was stupid to take away their delegates in the first place.  Florida is controlled by a Republican legislature...so holding the primary early was not the fault of Florida Democrats.  And throwing away the  goodwill of the voters in states Democrats need for the general, because of some stupid rules that aren't consistent in the first place, is plain dumb.  Are Obama Democrats really that infantile that they would rather win the delegate fight and lose the election?  They'd rather be right than win?  And this is who you are supporting?  That says it all , doesn't it? Short term thinkers...petty losers.

    Second Attempt (none / 0) (#122)
    by Joike on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    Tried earlier to post.  I must not be hitting the keys hard enough.

    The closeness of the race brings two questions to mind.

    1. To whom will the Superdelegates go?  I think Hillary has more committments now, but do these Superdelegates have to remain committed or can they vote in the end as they please?  Without knowing, I'd guess they can change their mind on a whim.

    2.  What will happen to the delegates of Florida and Michigan?  I think it is wrong to say that Obama lost those primaries when both were uncontested.  Was his name even on the ballot in Michigan?  Will each state try to hold a second primary?  Will the party allow the delegates to participate as is (a huge boost to Hillary) or would the party completely exclude the delegates from voting at the convention?

    If the nomination remains close, these issues would be critical.



    There is a heppy lend fur, fur away

    Form over substance (none / 0) (#125)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    Because the votes in Florida don't mean anything in an Obama supporters' mind? Even though Florida Democrats did not engineer this change inasmuch as the legislature is controlled by REpublicans? So they get penalized because of Republican action?  And now we allow Republicans to skew the system to disenfranchise Florida Democrats and the  DNC plays along? Certainly in Florida, everyone was on the ballot and Obama advertised on cable.  People did vote.  Of all places, not counting Florida
    voters is insane.  But more importantly, Florida is another big state that went Clinton.  Obama supporters want to win with little states that have few voters and more delegates so , which together mean even less in the general.  And that shows Obama's strength as a candidate?  So Obama wants to exploit a weakness in the nominating process to benefit himself and hurt the Democratic party. Sort of follows with his theme  about health care. Form over substance.  Totally Obama.  

    Many, many disenfranchised voters (none / 0) (#127)
    by DA in LA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    here in LA.

    Dems have a serious problem on their hands.

    Are you talking about ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    the voting place near the Senior Center that opened at noon? Or the polling place, also with a heavy senior citizen population, that moved without telling anyone except via the internet?

    No (none / 0) (#148)
    by DA in LA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:30:46 PM EST
    Potentially hundreds of thousands of votes in LA County were not counted.  We are getting lawyers and a suit will be filed to count the votes.

    Google "Double bubble"

    Obama probably won LA County.


    Thousands of other voters (none / 0) (#149)
    by DA in LA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    were mysteriously dropped off the voter rolls.

    I know 10 people, myself, who were dropped and given the "double bubble" ballots.



    This is Florida 2000 (none / 0) (#150)
    by DA in LA on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:32:47 PM EST
    Ohio 2004 kind of stuff

    Big deal.


    Will we... (none / 0) (#133)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    ...see a brokered convention here in the Mile High City?

    The view from abroad (none / 0) (#138)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    The Democrats Abroad global primary runs all this week and the final numbers won't be tallied till Feb 21, but turnout is breaking all records around the world, and while there's been no polling for obvious reasons anecdotally it seems expat Dems are breaking heavily for Obama. See here and here.

    I'd expected to vote online but it didn't work out so I went to vote in person. Big crowd in a pub, long line, very young, ethnically diverse, very excited, very Obama. A huge cheer went up when when CNN reported he'd won CO.

    Sorry this is so long, but it *is* me... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:17:34 PM EST
    I said I wasn't going to look at HuffPo anymore, because it only makes me angry, but I heard on the radio that you could look up donors by name and zip code on there, and I wanted to see if I could find out who the respective runners of TPM, Kos, etc had "unbiasedly" donated to; however, I didn't find the link to look up stuff, only vitriol against the Clinton "loss" and praise for Obama.  And of course I got sucked in.

    Near the top, there was a story about Obama commenting on the superdelegates, and basically threatening the party that there will be hell to pay if the superdelegates decide the election.  I wonder, though, in a scenario where Hillary gets the popular vote, yet Obama gets more delegates, how folks will feel about that.  And then you throw in Florida, which is a very real concern, and what do you have?  An absolute mess.  She beats him in superdelegates hands down.  Is he going to push us to a point where we are forced to choose between alienating black people or alienating women, latinos and Asians?  Because if that is true, I can take a guess as to who is going to get screwed--the same ones who always get screwed over: the women.

    This is why I said earlier that Dean needs to step in and push Obama by telling him the superdelegates won't go his way.  Now that I have read Obama's comments on this matter, it seems to me that Obama will not accept anything but his own way.  And I guarantee that early on, Clinton folks approached him about being VP-we're talking last year-and he said no.  No way they did not do this.  They are too politically savvy not to have.

    Which leads me to another thing I read about, this one at Taylor Marsh, because of course HuffPo would not say anything bad about Obama--that Obama sent out a mailer today attacking the Clinton years, and his new strategy seems to be to argue that Bill Clinton single-handedly lost control of the house and the senate for the democratic party.

    And then I got sick and had to go lie down and eat a cookie.

    Obama is not going to play fair.  He is going to ruin this election if it means getting what he wants.  I said a while back he concentrates on winning battles but not the war.

    I am seeing some of the glow start to wear off him, but I'm not sure it's not too late.  Anyone else?

    The glow wearing off? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    It's just starting up now that he's looking like he's playing to win.

    Maybe you should just stop reading Taylor Marsh if she upsets your stomach. Pretty venomous stuff over there.


    i am on record saying michelle's comment (none / 0) (#151)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    was insulting and tasteless. the reason i asked was i was wondering if she had opened her mouth and inserted foot again. thanks for your answer!