After Super Tuesday

By Big Tent Democrat

Unlike the entire world apparently, I see last night's results as the beginning of the end for the Obama Presidential campaign. My thinking is fairly straightforward - Obama's has been a Media and Mo campaign to knock off the resilient favorite. He has had a ten day stretch that is not likely to be matched again. From the Media coverage of the South Carolina primary, to the Kennedy endorsements, to polls showing him with a REAL chance of winning states like Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, this was a perfect storm for the Obama campaign. If he could have won Massachusetts and either New Jersey or California, he would have gained a stranglehold on the nomination. And not only did he not win any of those states, he got clobbered in all of them.

What does this bode for the rest of the schedule? IMO, more of the same. Obama will win states with the right demographic but lose the big states by large margins. What is going to happen to push Obama to victories in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, the 3 biggest prizes remaining? Can a nominee lose New York, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida and Michigan by wide margins?

More . . .

For that is what is being posited here as the Obama case. Because he won states like Delaware, Connecticut, North Dakota and Idaho, Obama's spinners are claiming he had a big night. I simply do not see how that can be. What last night revealed is no amount of spin, mo, Media and endorsements can get Obama over the hump in big heterogenuous states. Indeed, his performance in the big states has underperformed polls and expectations.

Tom Edsall writes:

Hillary Clinton's strength among core Democratic constituencies -- women, Latinos and working class whites -- pushed her to victory in the mega-state primaries of California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts on Tuesday, slowing, at least for the moment, the momentum that had been building behind Barack Obama's bid for the nomination. Clinton's solid majorities among women, who make up from 55 to 59 percent of voters in Democratic primaries, remains her most reliable source of support, although her backing among Latino voters not only helped her win California, but should work to her advantage in the potentially crucial March 4 Texas primary. . . .

The dynamics of this race are now set in stone. No amount of Media and Mo and Kennedys can get Obama over the hump. He can not win women, Latinos, older voters and lower income non-African Americans. The Obama coalition is simply not enough. I discussed this problem for the past month.

The bottom line is nothing has changed from Nevada. Obama can not break through. He will not be the Presidential nominee. He will be the Vice Presidential nominee.

[Update (TL): Comments over 225, now closing.]

< CNN's Delegate Assessment | Super Tuesday Post Mortem Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You may be right (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    but I haven't seen the delegate count this AM. If its close, this will go another round. In the meantime, get ready for a rash of postings that you are anti-Obama. Again.

    BTW I saw some idiot on TPM said you were "Paul Rosenberg posting as BTD." LOL!

    Can someone explain to me what Obama is (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:52:44 AM EST
    going to change to give him win in Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania?

    The demos tell it all.

    And the fact is we probably would have known this already if Michigan and Florida were contested.

    Obama would have lost just as he did in Cali, NJ and Mass.

    Those 3 states told the tale of the night.


    What about all the pre-Mar 4 States? (none / 0) (#7)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:58:58 AM EST
    He's going to win probably 8 of the next 9 primaries. I'd say the demos of Texas point to toss-up. So a somewhat-narrow win in Ohio puts this thing probably at a slightly lean Obama heading into Pennsylvania.

    Don't forget there are about ~400 delegates at stake before Mar 4th. Most of the demos/caucus nature of those sites favor possible Obama wins of +20-30 percent.


    Say he wins (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:01:57 AM EST
    them by a net 100 delegates.

    He'll lose that and more in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

    He finshes down a hundred.

    Hillary will be the nominee.


    Say what? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    Down 33 delegates in each of those states?

    What if he loses each 52-47?  That would limit his delegate losses to about 30-40 total.


    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:18:24 AM EST
    what if he wins? See, you do not accept my premise apparently. that he will not run close in any of those 3 states.

    because it makes no sense... (none / 0) (#67)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:34:18 AM EST
    ...coming off two weeks of "Obama wins" headlines, since he's likely to win most of the remaining contests this month.  That, plus his financial advantages, gives him a good shot at leveraging his way to a closer finish in Texas, and maybe even a win or very close race in Ohio.  Rhode Island and Vermont will probably wind up in his pocket, too.  Every little bit helps.

    We then have a few more contests before Pennsylvania, most of which he's likely to win.  And he'll still have more money than Clinton.
    Again, decent shot to keep it close--40-45% is enough to limit the damage from a Clinton win.  

    She still will be fortunate if she has a pledged delegate advantage at all, and then there are still several states left after Pennsylvania, including the decent-sized prize of North Carolina, which I expect Obama has a decent chance to win.  I think he'll win 2/3 of the remaining contests on the schedule, and that he'll limit her margins in Texas and Pennsylvania while winning or keeping it a little closes in Indiana and Ohio.  

    What if Clinton wins Texas but loses Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and every state between now and March 4?  I think she's done if that happens.

    What's interesting to me is that I said "if Obama's even one delegate ahead after 2/5, this thing is over", and you agreed with me.  What changed?


    As opposed to the 10 days of headlines (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST
    we just experienced?

    Start making sense.


    He continues to get favorable media... (none / 0) (#113)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:51:57 AM EST
    ...and she does not.  He eroded her lead enough in the big states to pull slightly ahead in pledged delegates won.  That's not insignificant.
    He will do likewise, even if she wins those three states.

    And you ignore the other 19 contests at peril to the credibility of the argument.  He will likely win most of them, including some decent sized states, and some of them by large margins.  


    Not like the last 10 days (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    Geek, if you think Obama is going to (none / 0) (#68)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    lose all the big states to a DEMOCRAT, then you should support Hillary, because surely he'll also lose them in the general election.

    Engage in much more intensive campaigning. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:04:17 AM EST
    15,000 person rallies only deliver so much.  He will also have to adjust his messaging--one mistake he made was having about one week of public outreach to Latino voters.

    Those contests are month away.  Iowa was a month ago.  LOTS can happen in a month.  


    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    I think you are looking for something that I do not think can happen. But time will tell.

    Anything can happen, especially in politics. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:27:24 AM EST
    I agree that Penn, Ohio & Texas are good states for HRC.  Don't know what the split will be.  But as I said, anything can happen.  I'm hoping that the press will start scrutinizing BO's record.  So far, IMO, this has been nothing but media hype.  Like Steve Clemons said, he's like a rock star right now.  When does the balloon burst?  I say only after people really look at his record.

    Heh (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:24:23 AM EST
    Your argument kinda sounds like "we weren't able to overcome Hillary's affinity with the Latino community in one week - so let's take 2 or 3 weeks!"    She's spent years on that and I don't think he will be getting anywhere.  All that free publicity on Piolin's radio show didn't help him in CA.

    I'm not on board with BTD's theory altogether and I think Obama can run close in Ohio.  But TX and PA will remain very unfavorable for him.  Personally, I think we still have a race.


    Neither high nor low (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by Camorrista on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    Though I enjoy BTD's contrarianism, I don't think he quite makes his case. On the other hand, here, as Al Gore might say, are some inconvenient truths:

    Though the Obama camp is bragging of his gains among Latinos, this boast should be taken with a grain of salt: in Arizona and California, the two primary states with large Latino populations, Clinton won easily.  Obama won Colorado and New Mexico, which were caucus states--with unrecorded Latino participation in those caucuses.

    In fact, all in all, it would be safe to say that except for Illinois (his home state) and Georgia and Alabama (states with large African-American populations), Obama won by serious margins only in caucus states.  

    His two primary state victories were squeakers--Connecticut by 3.5 per cent, Missouri by 1 percent.  In the other primary states, Clinton beat him handily.  

    And, yes, I do realize that Clinton didn't beat him as handily as the polls anticipated a few weeks ago, but isn't it time to put that poor overused cudgel back in its holster?  (I've actually seen messages on other sites loudly arguing Obama actually won California because he only lost by 10 points while a month ago, he was behind by 20 points.)

    No doubt Obama had a good night, but by any realistic standard, so did Clinton.  The actual result both in delegates and popular votes was a draw, which even cable-TV anchors--not a group known for antagonism towards Obama--were willing to acknowledge.  

    Yes, Obama did better than his expectations of a few weeks ago, and, yes, Clinton did worse.  So what?  Did anybody with a grain of sense truly believe that a young, charismatic candidate with a huge bankroll wouldn't eventually catch up to the woman people love to hate?  Now we have a tie.  The question is what's next.

    Obviously caucus states have the same weight as primary states in the delegate count--that's why the count is so close.  But what yesterday indicated was that Obama--momentum or not, cash advantage or not--can win a primary in a high-population state only with the near-total support of African-American voters.  Missouri was a victory for him, but a victory with a sting in its tail.

    This isn't to say he can't expand his voter pool, or that Clinton doesn't have dangerous obstacles of her own, but it's a bit premature for Obama admirers to start secretly dreaming of invitations to the inaugural.


    He will not be the Vice-Presidential nominee. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:57:52 AM EST
    If he loses, he's not going to become a hood ornament, which is what he would be in the Clinton administration.  It would also absolutely destroy his brand--from candid uniter to Hillary's yes-man.  

    What is going to happen to push him to victory in the big three remaining states?  He can outspend her and out organize her.  He has to overcome her ethnic firewall in Texas, but she has to overcome her problem with white men.

    New York and New Jersey were never supposed to be competitive.  Just like Clinton was never going to be competitive in Illinois.  (Note that NY was a lot closer than IL).

    There are no more mega-primary days.  There'll be two solid weeks where the campaign will focus on the big two states on March 4.  And he will be able to outspend her in those states significantly.

    Outspend and outorganize? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:00:26 AM EST
    So that is the magic bullet that is going make women, Latinos and the working class vote for him?

    You simply have no answer. You are suggesting more of the same. More of the same won't work.


    No. He needs to adjust some of his messaging (none / 0) (#17)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    too.  Imo, there wasn't enough time between Iowa/NH and Super Tuesday to adjust that messaging.  You don't break a 75-25 advantage amongst Latinos by doing 6 days of outreach.

    Clinton has her own demographic problems--men an Af-Am--that she'll have to overcome.

    He lost NJ because it's in Hillary's back yard.

    If he can win MO, he can win Ohio.


    Bad analysis: Obama won (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:07:55 AM EST
    in only Jackson, Cole, Boone, St. Louis counties, St. Louis City, and only one upstate rural county (Nodaway). On the other hand, Clinton likely won at least five of the state's nine congressional districts.

    He only won by 10,000 overall because he won in the five traditional Democratic bastions that will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in November, Clinton or Obama. His 49%-48% win means those delegates split by overall vote means no more than a edge of one on that basis.

    In short, Clinton may get most of the delegates here.

    Among Republicans, it was virtually a three-way split of voters. That speaks to far greater disunity among GOP voters than one can argue for Democratic voters. This state is far more likely to go Democratic regardless of the nominee in November than the guess would have been prior to the 2004 election.


    Adjust his messaging? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:21:10 AM EST
    Wait, who has been advocating that for YEARS now?

    I think it is too late to do that.


    yeah, you know (none / 0) (#46)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:24:39 AM EST

    MO was 49% BO, 48% HRC, and she got 15 (none / 0) (#56)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:29:37 AM EST
    delegates to his 6.  

    huh? (none / 0) (#83)
    by andreww on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    I think there were 72 delegates at stake in MO.

    CNN Now Has It As A Tie For Delegates In MO (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    Obama 30
    Clinton 30

    I'm not an expert on the counties in MO, but at first glance Obama won big in the typical Dem counties and Clinton won all the rest. Wouldn't it be better to have a candidate that can garner more votes in the non Democratic counties?


    Ahhhh (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:06:30 AM EST
    You're forgetting the Obama rules.  Hillary voters will vote for the annointed one while Obama voters will more than likely take their toys and go home if she wins.  So there.  

    It's really amazing how Obama gets spun.  When he wins it's over for Hillary but when he loses he didn't really lose and it's actually good for him and bad for her.  About the only good thing about his winning and Hillary losing will be seeing the heads exploding when the Obama rules inevitably change into the McCain rules.  


    Obama (none / 0) (#240)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    won in Kansas City, St. Louis, St. Louis county, Boone, Cole and Nodaway.  The cities are typically the bluest areas of the state.  My guess would be McCaskill's list was key in helping him get out the vote in those areas.  I don't have anything for comparison but would bet the turnout in those areas was higher than the others and just enough to give him the edge.

    more of the same will work (none / 0) (#185)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    if the goal is to seriously spend down hillary's campaign chest before the general and effectively muddle her message with a large part of a formerly reliable constituency.

    more of the same would accomplish that very well.


    Candid Uniter? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    Have you finally convinced yourself that such a thing actually exists?

    The idea that such a thing could exist, a failure to understand that being candid and unity are not complimentary, but at odds with each other, remains, I guess, the line of demarcation between the two campaigns and sets of supporters.

    Again, either it's an attempt to sell a candidate to a set of voters who do believe being candid and unifying is possible, and the Obama folks, underneath the advertising campaign, are smart enough to know it as such.

    Or you folks actually believe it, in which case an Obama administration will not be a competent administration.

    I suspect it's the former.  

    Anyway, I, for one, do not believe it under any circumstances.  There are many false choices in politics.  But candid unity is not one of them.  It is a real choice, and one, in my estimation, must decide at some point what is more important to them, if one values both as one says they do.

    For my part, neither concern me that much.

    There are bigger fish to fry when it comes to running the U.S. Government.


    and who wants to (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    unite candidly or otherwise with the corrupt regime now running it.

    to me the most glaring objection to obama and his supporters is the failure to recognize that the corrupt republican party has a death grip on the executive branch.  it is deeply infested with partisans, back stabbers, and dirty tricksters courtesy of the republican party.  they will make mince meat of obama, but since he'll never win anyway, i guess that part of it doesn't really matter.  


    The tone of his campaign (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:12:33 AM EST
    Leads me to believe he, himself, doesn't believe the "Candid Uniter" crap that is used to sell his candidacy.

    I think Clinton is the stronger of the two, but the tone of his campaign has shown two things, 1) how he sells himself is, at best, inspirational, at worst, hypocritical, and 2)  he can be as nasty and as UN-unifying as he needs to be as he sees fit when the time comes.


    i agree (none / 0) (#173)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:17:49 AM EST
    and i agree if you are suggesting that that is the quality he lacks apropos hillary which is the real difference maker for her in the general.  people have confidence that she will fight back.  you can take that to the bank.  that really means so much to the middle voting reagan democrats that obama seems never to have heard of.  

    Yes and (none / 0) (#211)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    He and his supporters will pull the race card against the republicans if he wins the Nomination. He will do and say anything to win.

    Unfortunate (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Claw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    I am dismayed that TL seems to have become HillaryCLinton.com.  It's fine to have opinions but when "analysis" becomes so colored by the author's biases...well, it's unfortunate.  BTD, I often enjoy your posts and I would happily vote for either candidate.  Let's just try to inject some objectivity into the Clinton v. Obama discussion.  

    I think your comment (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:02:46 AM EST
    shows a bias that makes it impossible for you to understand my post.

    There is no bias. There is an informed opinion that may be right or may be wrong.

    Your inability to ADDRESS what I wrote without accusing me of bias tells me you are not capable of having such a discussion.


    Will Obama's present votes (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:46:20 AM EST
    come back to bite him?
    According to a diary I read over at Mydd,
    The Illinois NOW chapter was very much against people in safe districts (such as Obama's) voting present on choice issues.
    It appears that a previous NOW president was lying on Obama's behalf in this regard (she was NOT President when the votes took place).
    If these facts hold up, Obama could and should have a problem.

    This comes from the President of NOW (none / 0) (#182)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:22:33 AM EST
    in Il. ---you can't discount what she says.

    asdf (none / 0) (#189)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM EST

    Basically, the OFB is once again spreading the lie that Obama voted present as a part of strategy to give legislators in conservative districts cover for voting "present" rather than cast an anti-choice vote.

    Here's the problem - most of the votes in question took place after the year 2000 and the woman in the campaign video who leads you to believe that she was president of Chicago NOW at the time of the votes is engaging in some chronoglogical slight of hand.  Lorna hasn't actually been a member of NOW since 1999 and was not in Springfield nor part of the campaign against the bills at the time.

    Bonnie Grabenhofer who was president of NOW AT THE TIME OF THE VOTES says that they very much wanted senators to vote actively pro-choice.

    Below the fold is the email that she sent out in response to the Obama campaign video:

    I thought I'd take a moment to try to add some clarity to the anti-choice Present votes in IL.

    Lorna Brett was president of CNOW from 1996-1998. She was not president at the time we were lobbying on these bills. Five of those votes occurred in the 92nd General Assembly session in 2001. NOW records indicate that she hasn't been a member since 1999. She was not there when we were lobbying against these bills. She is using her very old affiliation with NOW to try to validate her criticism of Hillary Clinton.

    Voting Present on those bills was a strategy that Illinois NOW did not support. We made it clear at the time that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the awful anti-choice bills being put forth. Voting Present doesn't provide a platform from which to show leadership and say with conviction that we support a woman's right to choose and these bills are unacceptable.

    The Present strategy was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district; he could have voted No with very little negative consequence in his district.

    - Bonnie Grabenhofer
    IL NOW State President

    Thank you.....!! (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:37:46 AM EST
    Was looking for this all last week. Do you have a link?

    Except that (none / 0) (#215)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:38:14 AM EST
    the Illinois chapter of planned parenthood was the group behind the strategy..

    As ABCNews.com's Political Radar blog noted on July 17, Obama cast his "present" votes on the parental notification bills with the support of Illinois Planned Parenthood:

        When Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voted "present," rather than "yes" or "no" on a handful of controversial abortion votes in the Illinois state senate, he did so with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

        "We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

        Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood's national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

        "He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,' " said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

        "What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."

        While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it's also not a 'yes' vote."

        As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted "present" on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." In 2001, he voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.


        But while he competes for the Democratic presidential nomination, he can use his cooperation with Planned Parenthood in Illinois to help assure supporters of abortion rights across the country that he will not cross them.

        "Obama made sure those bills got as few votes as possible for passage," said Sullivan [sic].

    So Illinois Now is upset he was working with PP.  Big deal.


    Coverage (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:06:16 AM EST
    The main problem for Clinton is positive media coverage. She'll be struggling to get any.

    So, while her base won't crumble quickly in those big states, the danger is that the media Obama lovefest will pick off just enough voters to give him the edge in delegates. The positive coverage for Obama won't be as intense as over the last period, but it may still be enough, especially since there'll be several states that he's likely to win. "Obama wins again" will be a recurrent headline.

    Which I think is why she wants debates. She knows she's good in debates and that voters need to see her without the (negative) media filter applied.

    But voter motivation is what matters (none / 0) (#205)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:33:31 AM EST
    The premise of your argument is that the media coverage will swing more voters to Obama. But the core Clinton voters are not going to be so swayed by all the hype, and every time she is attacked it just consolidates their support.

    Yes, Obama can whip up a lot of excitement among young voters, as he did in NY, MA, CA. But as was demonstrated in those states, that excitement is not enough to overcome Hillary's solid base among women, older voters, blue collar voters, Latino voters. These constituencies are not nearly as volatile and available to Obama as you would need them to be for your argument to work. The Clinton organization can get out the vote, and knows that those voters are solid supporters.

    Anyway, may the best woman win, as the saying goes :-)


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Grey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    MSNBC and the rest are spinning hard for Obama this morning.  For the last week or so, all I heard was that whomever won CA would have the big night and the big 'mo.  Clinton won, so now the spin is spinning itself into a semicircle.

    They're dismissing CA, NY and NJ because they're always blue in the general and they're hyping CO, which Obama won, because it's a swing state. If they had an ounce of integrity, they would also say that Clinton has proved she can win in the South and that Obama has proved he has problems with Democrats. If he didn't, he would have won CA or, at the very least, MA, given all the state elected officials were for him and he cruised on 10 days of media love.

    The question must be asked: with all the media love, all the talk of momentum and all the time he has had: if all Obama can win are caucus states plus a couple of open primaries, isn't it time to dial it back a little?  The last few weeks have been a perfect storm of adulation and incredibly positive press coverage and Obama still could not capitalize.  On the other hand, Clinton has been sitting in a perfect storm of crappy coverage, derision (which was manifest last night when pundits were laughing at her even while reporting the states she was winning) and great speculation as to her demise and she still won big in the large states and in the South.  Even MO is a tie; Sen. McCaskill managed  2,000 extra votes for Obama and we're calling that a huge win for him?  In what sane universe is that huge?

    Last night's results are very clear.  The popular vote is clear.  The winning coalition is clear.  Clinton won the night and she is well positioned to win PA, TX and possibly OH.  Are we really going to say, with any degree of self-awareness, that the candidate who the big states last night and who is likely to win the next big pots is not the favorite for the nomination?

    No.  Look, I'm a Clinton supporter, so I am not without bias; this race may be tied in delegates at the moment, but the night belonged to Clinton and she is the favorite for the nomination.

    I think (I hope) people said last night (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    that things are too screwed up.  We need a pragmatist for President, and maybe the hopes and dreams can fall into a VP role. Maybe things will get cleaned up after 8 years and the hopes and dreams can become president.

    And BTW:  Anyone who thinks Obama's win in Idaho means anything, think again. I'm from that area. Idaho is home of the Arian Nations, not a welcome place for AA's.  It is only their Clinton hate that overrules their bigotry.  I believe the vote last night there was AGAINST Clinton, not FOR Obama.

    A True Pregressive? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:30:47 AM EST
    I still haven't understood where this image of Obama being a true liberal comes from. I know he was against the war, but when it came to being able to vote on it, he's gone along with Bush every step. He did vote for the Patriot Act. He advocates school vouchers. He's very vague on civil unions let alone gay marriage. I just haven't seen the fire on any of these issues, particularly before he was a candidate. He also was very quiet over Katrina at a time when the people of the gulf states needed a loud and passionate voice. Even now with the FISA Bill pending, I haven't heard any passion to ignite his base to fight it. And his Missouri backer, McCaskill has already voted for the Bush bill. I'm not defending Hilary, but I do wonder where this image came from.

    New progressive (none / 0) (#231)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:56:04 AM EST
    Libertarian lite progressive. Against the war, but they want to opt out of the bits that they don't like, paying for health care etc.

    Obama has lost his mind.. (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by ajain on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    I just saw him on CNN saying that he thinks the Clintons have thrown all sorts of dirt at him and so he can take whatever the Republicans throw at him.
    This is absolutely ridiculous. There hasn't been a single attack ad from the Clintons. Obama has already done "Harry and Louise" and still lost.
    He is really in over his head.
    Stop demonizing the Clintons just because you have no better answers.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#3)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:55:44 AM EST
    Obama looks like he'll probably win at least 7 out of the next 9 primaries before March 4th.

    Clinton winning 2 out of the next 9 and not getting completely blown out in the rest is probably a best case scenario for her. Best case for Obama is winning 9 of 9 handily and going up maybe +100 pledged delegates to take the overall delegate lead.

    That's got to have some effect on his momentum. Clinton's best states are probably Ohio and Pennsylvania. She'll probably take Ohio with similar margins to New Jersey. I'd say Texas is a toss-up (large black vote, Austin for O, Tenn. like characteristics for the rest).

    Then there are 7 weeks after March 4th until Pennsylvania. Who knows what will happen then...

    Obama's momentum can NOT (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:57:50 AM EST
    be better than it was in the last 10 days.

    It simply can not be better.

    Nothing will change. Hillary win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania and wins the nomination.


    And? (none / 0) (#10)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:00:54 AM EST
    The 'mo for Obama over the last two weeks closed a possible Clinton +200 delegate win to a tie. I'd say that's a pretty significant influence. (About two weeks ago, Clinton was up 30 in MA, 15 in MO, tied in AL, etc.)

     It didn't push him over the top today, but if it has the same effect in OH and TX...


    And? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST
    So what. Those 22 states are over.

    Texas, Ohio and Pennsyvania. Explain how he can win them.


    Bold claims (none / 0) (#16)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:05:33 AM EST
    Why are you so sure Clinton will win TX? And why would Clinton be able to blow out Obama in OH? I'd predict, at best, Clinton gets NJ-like numbers there.

    NJ-like numbers (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    are pretty bad for Obama it seems to me.

    NJ was +11 delegates for Clinton (none / 0) (#36)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:20:02 AM EST
    She'd have to beat him by something like 65-35 for her to get the 30-40 you're thinking of. NJ like numbers just won't do it (the states are actually about the same size in delegates)

    Do you have a link?

    Not yet (none / 0) (#86)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:42:49 AM EST
    Heard it on the TV, maybe from Chuck Todd? Seems about right anyway; 10% win of 140 delegates, given the CD rules...

    Ther number I have seen (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:46:31 AM EST
    have it much wider than that.

    According to CNN (none / 0) (#115)
    by blueaura on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    She wins with the same coalition of voters at work (none / 0) (#97)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:46:02 AM EST
    in California. States that have an Obama-friendly demographic have had their say, as was their right.

    And even if Clinton gets "NJ" numbers in OH, it's still a win for her and loss for Obama.


    uhh... (none / 0) (#61)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:31:16 AM EST
    if it has the same effect in pennsylvania and ohio as it did yesterday, he will still lose.  

    Typical (none / 0) (#4)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:56:50 AM EST
    So now you are using Florida and Michigan as evidence of the invincibility of Hillary?  Have you completely discarded the notion of fairness in your commentary?

    Clinton 900 delegates
    Obama 824

    Yup.  It's all over certainly.  

    And apparently Illinois just doesn't count in all of this yet New York certainly does.  Nothing like a little consistency.  

    I am not deciding who the nominee is (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:59:08 AM EST
    I am expressing m views. Fairness dictates you address what I wrote.

    To wit, how cna Obama win Texas, Penn and Ohio?

    He can't. Therefore, he loses.


    Simple (none / 0) (#13)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    He wins WA, WI, VA, MD, DC, LA. That alone is more than OH + TX combined. I'd also say the demo of TX looks at least favorable for Obama.

    And Pennsylvania? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:08:21 AM EST
    My point is s simple one. Hillary will carry a 100-200 delegate lead after Pennsylvania.

    NOT counting MI and FL.

    In what scenario does the leader in delegates not become the nominee?


    Huh? (none / 0) (#23)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:11:06 AM EST
    Say Obama and Clinton split TX. Clinton picks up +50 delegates from Ohio (that would be a massive whupping of Obama). I'd say Obama comes in with +100 delegates from pre-Mar 4 states.

    At that point, it's anybody's game. The states that come after PA favor Obama too.


    They won't split Texas (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:16:45 AM EST
    That is my premise.

    Weak premise (none / 0) (#37)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:20:08 AM EST

    Based on what? (none / 0) (#53)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    Significant black vote in Texas, plus Austin. Deep South states seem to be generally favorable to Obama.

    The only poll I know of for TX puts them at only a 10% gap, and that poll was before the peak of the Obama surge (if you want to call it that), so it's reasonable to assume that it will be close.



    Latino and white working class vote (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:30:09 AM EST
    PLUS women mean Clinton by 10-15.

    if that's her margin... (none / 0) (#80)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:39:17 AM EST
    ...then your premise is horribly flawed, because of proportional representation.  She won't get a 200 delegate margin, even if she wins all three of those states by 15 points each.  Obama may win some of the states you dismiss by larger margins, meaning he get a pretty big yield from that.  And North Carolina may go for him too.  

    And the superdelegates aren't going to break 2 to 1 for her anymore, so she's in trouble there, too.


    Sure (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    You know this why?

    I think you are wrong in eveyr particular on this.

    Break out your calculator. Figure it out.


    Okay, let's look at Cali and NY... (none / 0) (#152)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:10:22 AM EST
    ...bigger states than Ohio and Pennsylvania, more delegates.  Clinton's net edge from NY and Cali combined(where she won by 17 and 10 respectively) looks like it's going to be less than +100.

    Now, let's go with your premise that somehow she wins big in all three of the states mentioned.  That gives her at most an advantage in the ballpark of 100 to 150 delegates.

    Looks good for her so far, right?

    Except there are 19 other states(plus DC) in play, and most of those, some of which have a decent number of delegates, will likely break for Obama.  That gives him more than enough delegates to overcome even that outcome--and I think Ohio will wind up being very close(no more than an 8 point win for her), and that Texas and Pennsylvania will be under 15 point margins.


    Latinos didn't break so heavily for Clinton (none / 0) (#91)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:44:13 AM EST
    ...outside of CA. In NM and AZ it was a lot closer. You've got to figure that's more like what's going to happen in TX.

    So you decide to accept NM and AZ but not CA (none / 0) (#105)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:48:51 AM EST
    Why the cherrypicking?

    The only other heavily-Latino state left (none / 0) (#167)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    Is Texas, which I think is probably more similar to AZ and NM. See the IRV cross-tabs below.

    sorry, (none / 0) (#164)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:14:28 AM EST
    but va will go for sen. clinton. given the demographics of the state, it very much favors her. sen. obama will probably win the city of richmond (very high african american population), and do decently in the tidewater (same reason), but if sen. clinton's demos hold here, she will win the democratic primary.

    He can't? (none / 0) (#27)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:14:09 AM EST
    As in it isn't possible for him to win any of those states?  PA is 2 months from now.  2 months ago Clinton was projected to win every state but Illinois.  Ohio borders his home state.  He will likely push hard in that state.  Texas he is likely to lose because of the latino vote.

    However, you seem to confuse the Democrat primaries with the Republican primaries.  He doesn't need to win those states.  A close race means equal delegates.  George meant more for Obama than New Jersey or Ma did for Clinton.  Illinois was the largest delegate victory for either candidate.  But please continue to tell us that it doesn't matter.  Oh that's right.  Only Democrats in CA, NY, NJ, and MA matter.

    It seems very apparent that you are trying to call this simply based on your own personal desires.  That is the only way you can ignore that last night was essentially a tie.


    And Obama (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:19:52 AM EST
    was ahead in the Cali polling.

    This was a perfect storm for Obama.

    He will not win those states imo.

    If you think he can suddenly start winning demos he has been losing, then you reject my premise.

    Which is fine. Time will tell.


    How do you know? (none / 0) (#44)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    The demographics for Texas make it look like a toss-up. The pre-Mar 4 states will surely give Obama a greater lead than whatever Clinton can deliver from OH (tops +20 for Clinton), and probably PA (tops +40) too.

    The demographics in Texas (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:29:24 AM EST
    do NOT make for a toss up.

    I assume you know this.


    Says who? (none / 0) (#95)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    Let's see the numbers, because what I've been reading says differently.

    Let's see what you have been reading (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:48:24 AM EST
    IRV (none / 0) (#118)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    "November and December polls both gave Hillary Clinton a hefty 51% to 17% lead over Barack Obama, but that has changed considerably over the last two polls. Current results give her just a ten point lead over her main rival, 48% to 38%. Mike Gravel received 3% while 12% were undecided. Much of Obama's increase has come from his increase in support among Latinos. In December, Clinton had a 70 to 7 lead in this group. The January 10 poll was 63-18. In this poll, the margin was down to 60-29. That is still a wide margin, but 2-1 is a lot different from 10-1. Edwards was at 5% among Latinos in the January 10 poll, so Obama's gain cannot be completely explained by his departure. There is a significant gender gap as Latino men under 60 were more likely to support Obama while Latinas under 60 gave Clinton large margins. Clinton easily led both sides of the 60+ group.

    Obama's support among African-Americans actually dipped slightly as the number of undecided women increased. Obama still has a large lead 55-21, with 24% undecided."


    I think Obama gains in the AA vote, probably not a lot of other movement. So, basically a toss-up.


    No he wasn't (none / 0) (#55)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:29:33 AM EST
    He was not leading in polls on the whole.  A few polls had him winning but the mean was in favor of Clinton.


    And you are simply cherrypicking demographics to suit your need.  How does the latino vote help or hurt him in any remaining state other than Texas?  Obama won the white vote in CA last night but I guess that no longer matter.  That was last week's meme.  

    This was certainly not a perfect storm for Obama.  Hillary has a significant advantage in states with strong political machines.  In NJ virtually every elected official is backing Hillary down to the council level.  That is difficult to overcome.

    But there aren't many states left with big Dem machines.  And I fail to see why the delegates in MD or Virginia mean less.   What is more important, winning Ohio by 4 points or winning North Carolina by 20?  


    I am picking nothing (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    The demographics argument is one that any sentient nbeing would be familair with.

    As for polling the RCP average has Obamna AHEAD.

    Pollster's regression had it a tossup.

    I do not understand what you are trying to do in this thread. Stop the insultds just because my opinion ON THE CAMPAIGN is not favorable to your candidate.

    We do not do that here.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#121)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:55:35 AM EST
    What insults are you referring to?  Please elaborate.  I do see you insulting my intelligence by saying that any sentient being would know what you are talking about.  

    You keep telling us that the demographics mean he can't win.  Yet you haven't shown how that is so.  The overall vote last night was 49-48 Clinton.  Latinos favor Clinton.  Women favor Clinton.  Blacks favor Obama.  White males favor Obama.  Older people favor Clinton.  Younger people favor Obama.  I haven't seen any information on income levels favoring one or the other.  If you have such information that would be interesting.

    So which demographic groups matter most?  And why?  

    I have no problem with your opinions.  We all got them.  But one of the reasons I started to post here was because you were trying to claim that you were objective when clearly you are not.  

    As for this post you are trying to make a counter-factual argument based on specious reasoning that because Hillary may win 3 states she will win the nomination.  She still needs 1100 delegate.  Those 3 states  only have about 550 delegates in total.   Even she gets 60% of those delegates that means she would still need 800 more delegates to get the nomination.  How you think that is a certainty I have absolutely no idea.


    You accuse me of shilling and cherrypicking (none / 0) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    I take that as an insult.

    Indeed, I really do not plan to respond to you anymore.


    It is what is (none / 0) (#207)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    You seem to find it completely acceptable to demean those who support Obama.  You continue to claim you are neutral.  Yet every single new diary on this site is clearly favorable to Clinton.  

    I ask you to explain your reasoning and all you offer is dismissive comments.  My accusation of cherry picking stems from your selective use of demographics to make a dubious claim(i.e. that Hillary has already won).  

    I am not trying to demean you.  However I will criticize your observed actions.  And you may certainly ignore me if you wish.  That certainly would be the easiest approach for you and would let you continue on without a moment of introspection on your part.

    You're right that all we have are opinions.  But unsupported opinions mean very little and if you dismiss criticisms simply because you don't want to answer them you aren't really supporting your claims.


    Um (none / 0) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:49:06 AM EST
    You need to take a closer look at which states Ohio borders. :)

    Well... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Claw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    I'm not so sure Obama's down for the count.  He seems to have a broader appeal than Clinton (winning more states) but you do well to point out his greatest weakness: The Latino Problem.  We'll see...at least it's interesting.  

    Latino states are mostly done (none / 0) (#18)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:07:12 AM EST
    The only big state with a significant latino population left is Texas.

    Obama actually did okay with the Latino vote outside of CA anyway. It's not a demographic he'll probably ever win, but CA is the only place he really got blown out on it yesterday.


    Still.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by ctrenta on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:08:19 AM EST

    BTD, what kind of evidence can you provide that Barack will lose Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? Show me the logic here.

    In the event, that Barack "Does" pull something off (still a grandiose scenario IMO) Hillary will wish those Michigan and Florida delegates would count.

    Polling, demographics (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    the standard stuff.

    I can't find recent polling for these states (none / 0) (#200)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:29:56 AM EST
    If you have some that's linkable...

    Follow the money (none / 0) (#21)
    by Claw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:09:08 AM EST
    BTD you shouldn't discount the money issue.  Right now Obama is vastly out-raising Clinton.  Also, to paraphrase Vernon Jones, it's tough to run against a movement.

    Money will not be an issue (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:41:36 AM EST
    for either campaign imo.

    craziness (none / 0) (#24)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:12:17 AM EST
    I can't believe the Obama triumphalism everywhere. He lost CA by 10 points, MA by 15 points, NJ by 10 points. Those are losses, I believe, even by Geekesque's optimistic standards. He was supposed to be competitive in these states (there were a handful of polls that showed him winning CA and MA, loudly trumpeted by DKos, etc). He wasn't. Not even close.

    What's your point? (none / 0) (#29)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    Clinton wasn't competitive in GA, AL, MN, CO, or IL either. He also picked up the swing states of NM and MO too.

    Frankly, I was surprised that both sides dominated each other so thoroughly in their respective states that they won. Few states were even close (like within 10).

    But, at the end of the day, in a grouping of states that were highly favorable to Clinton, the popular vote split 49% for Clinton and 48% for Obama, as well as an even delegate split. I think the popular vote splits are not likely to be so favorable for her from here on out.


    Your facts are a little off here. HRC didn't (none / 0) (#62)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    campaign in GA or AL.  CO is a caucus state. IL is BO's state.  And once CA votes are counted, HRC will have approx 54% of the popular vote.

    NJ, NY (none / 0) (#78)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    New Jersey and New York were Clinton's home state.

    The states with some of the best demographics for Clinton are past now anyway.


    Well spin is spin (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    New York is where Hillary was a "carpetbagger."

    Missouri is next to Illinois.

    Obama is from Kansas and Hawaii etc.

    But honestly, that is all irrelevant to my point in this post.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:22:33 AM EST
    How is this post triumphant of Obama?  

    Last night was a draw.  The question that remains is who does that help?  No one really knows but some partisans wish to claim they do.


    Demographics? (none / 0) (#25)
    by ctrenta on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:12:17 AM EST

    So Barack can't win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania because it  all boils down to demographics?

    Is that what I'm reading BTD?

    How do you intepret these states demographics and how can you prove they'll vote for Clinton?

    I just need to see the dots connected here. That's all. Thanks.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:22:49 AM EST
    Life's tough ain't it? Demos matter still.

    Ohio demos (none / 0) (#117)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:54:08 AM EST
    are simliar to MO.

    Not quite (none / 0) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:07:18 AM EST
    Especially in terms of hard core Dems, which favor Hillary.

    Demographics (none / 0) (#218)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:40:56 AM EST
    There's lots of old voters in PA, for one.

    There's lots of machine politics in PA, for another. Though that isn't a demographic, it still is important.


    Wisconsin Congressional Districts (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:14:03 AM EST
    Only 2 of our Congressional Districts award an odd number of delegates, so in the rest it's tough to do better than a split. In Sensenbrenner's Clinton's likely to get the "odd" delegate with Republican women crossovers. I'd favor Obama for the "odd" in Petri's but not with great confidence.

    Baldwin's with 8 could go 5-3 Obama. (I'm wondering if we're the only CD in the Country with this many delegates at stake?)

    I'll give Obama a slight chance of 4-2 in Obey's and Moore's.

    Kind's, Kagen's, and Ryans are sure to split 3-3.

    I haven't read up on all the results. . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:14:57 AM EST
    from last night, but I think the biggest question mark in your analysis is this:

    He has had a ten day stretch that is not likely to be matched again.

    I simply don't see how you can back up that statement.  It's true Obama had a fantastic period leading into the yesterday's mega-vote but I think a lot of that campaign goodness is attributable to the smarts that his campaign has shown.  I suspect he's got more big endorsements coming (there's still Richardson and possibly other hispanic endorsers who could make the difference for him) and I see no evidence that the media will be any less friendly to him relative to Clinton going forward.  At least some of the big states coming up have open primaries, which helps him.  And he seems to be adjusting his message (for instance, in the recent debate) to gin up more mainstream Democratic support as well.

    Yes, if Obama peaked yesterday then he probably won't win.  But did he peak?  I don't claim to know -- but he's one hell of a campaigner and he's running one hell of a campaign and I sure wouldn't bet against him.

    It's no less likely that what we've seen recently is typical of Obama's campaign rather than a unique high point.

    Also. . . (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    I think you underestimate Obama's chances in Ohio and probably Pennsylvania -- the midwest loves him (he can thank his mom's side of the family for that wonderful plains states voice).

    And the money-mo is with him too, although I think both candidates will have more than enough to compete, especially since the calendar is much sparser coming up.


    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    is a machine state like NJ, and not very midwestern at all despite the fact that they have a Big Ten school.

    Pennsylvania is a funny state. (none / 0) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    I definitely see Philadelphia being a heavy Obama city -- it's just a Philadelphia thing.  The western part of the state may well tilt towards Obama as well.  And there are a lot of Christian identified voters even on the Dem side in Pennsylvania (think Casey) and if Obama were to repeat is "committed to Christ, called to serve" mailer in rural PA he could bring out a lot of voters.

    Not saying he'll win, just saying the Clinton advantage is not as big as I think some people may believe.


    Ironically (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:43:28 AM EST
    despite all the protests we used to hear in the netroots about how Obama wears his religion on his sleeve, he absolutely crushes among the "non-religious" demographic.  He doesn't do as well with more traditional religious types.  It's hard to parse out exactly what this means because there's some overlap with other demographic considerations.

    I miss being more active back at DKos but it's hard to visit since Hillary-hate really, really turns me off.  I did have a diary recently that you might like.


    PS. (none / 0) (#75)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    Always nice to "see" you -- you've been missed at "the other place", at least by me.

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    I do not think I do underestimate his chances.

    But time will tell.


    Let's get clear on what IS the Midwest (none / 0) (#242)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:15 PM EST
    (I actually teach this so have researched it.)

    Surveys have shown that Americans and media are  muddy about the definition, to the point of providing some marvelously funny maps of their mental images of the Midwest.  But the definition best to use is that of the census bureau, which defines the Midwest as 12 states -- and splits them east and west of the Big Muddy.  And it does so for historical reasons which had long impact -- and still do even today, in terms of what is in the states' constitutions, their political legacy.

    Think Great Lakes states and Great Plains states.  Think states under, for most of their pre-U.S. history, the French flag (Great Lakes states before briefly being British) and states under the Spanish flag (Great Plains states before briefly being French -- and then part of the Louisiana Purchase).  

    And the Great Lakes states are defined by their incredibly important and almost indelible history of being created by the Northwest Ordinance -- a remarkable document, pre-Constitution but banning slavery and creating public education (as well as also banning religious intolerance, like the later Constitution).

    So:  Pennsylvania is not Midwestern, although its most western parts have similarities (for that matter, so does the Buffalo, NY area:-).

    And so: Ohio is in the Midwest, much as its eastern parts are similar to the East -- but its southern parts share similarities with the South, too (as do southern Illinois and Indiana . . . and southwestern Wisconsin, settled by Southerners such as the first territorial governor who brought slaves to the "progressive" state, as it finally became when the NO's slavery ban was enforced -- except in military forts, and thus the Dred Scott cases, with his and his wife's legal basis being many years of living in then-Wisconsin Territory).  

    Then you cross the Mississippi and find the anomaly of Missouri being defined as in the Midwest, despite it being the only one with a heritage of slavery, because of the Missouri Compromise (let it be a lesson to those who would compromise too much in politics and only defer central problems that we must face:-).  But it was part of the Louisiana Purchase, so there 'tis.  

    And slavery defined other states, too, but in a different way, such as Bleeding Kansas -- where the Civil War really began, in the 1850s.  (The war was between the North and South, but it was about the future of the Midwest).  Others in the Midwest are the other created by the Kansas-Nebraska Act plus Iowa, Minnesota, and the Dakotas.

    Once understanding the historic bonds between and among Midwestern states -- under previous flags (so, for example, legacies from the long French and metis culture still have impacts) -- as well as historic battles, and not really all that long ago . . . it can help to understand some factors still significant today.  For another example, its  religious tolerance tradition, which opened doors for all sorts of immigrants as well as utopians and make it the most churchgoing region of the country . . . but also a battleground of religious wars for a long time, and those battles still are fought there today.  There will be pockets of Huckabee support! right next to strong Dem areas.

    I went on too long, sorry -- but we will not win the Midwest, especially the purple states which are that way in part for historic reasons, unless we understand it rather than treat it as just one big black hole in history, a "flyover country" where everyone thinks alike.  Never have, never will -- but will always try to get along, because it always has had to do so.  I.e., "Midwestern nice" masking deep divisions while also bound together by historically sharing similar visions.


    Ok (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:26:43 AM EST
    so you think ANOTHER 10 day stretch like the on we just saw is coming.

    Well, that seems crazy to me.


    What about winning 9 in a row? (none / 0) (#57)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:29:58 AM EST
    If Obama wins 9 in a row or 8 out of 9, don't you think that creates at least some momentum?

    Not that matters (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:32:19 AM EST
    That moment was last night.

    Sort of my point.


    you mean the (none / 0) (#119)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    momentum that got stopped yesterday?

    And if he wins 9 in a row? (none / 0) (#151)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    Will that not be momentum? So if it is stopped today, there is nothing he can do to get it restarted, including, you know, winning a lot?

    when does it stop being momentum (none / 0) (#208)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    and become just spin?

    Crazy? (none / 0) (#74)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:36:35 AM EST
    I simply don't see what facts there are to support that opinion.

    Put it another way -- what about Obama's good two weeks just passed is attributable to luck?  Maria Shriver's endorsement, maybe.  Anything else?

    I think it's reasonable to believe that those things not attributable to luck were actually influenced by the quality of his campaign.  And if it is, it's entirely possible that his campaign will continue firing on all cylinders.


    Not to luck (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    But the circumstsnces can not be recreated.

    For one thing, consider how the Kennedy endorsements performed last night.

    Are you expecting a Gore endorsement to turn it around?


    Well. . . (none / 0) (#106)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    I think that you were including the Kennedy endorsements in his "great ten days".  There are still more endorsements out there to be had.  I don't think endorsements, on the whole, move votes as much as the rabid candidate partisans seem to think but they don't hurt -- and Ted Kennedy was definitely a big get.  It was determinative in MA or CA, but I'm sure it helped and Obama will get delegates based on it.

    I don't think Gore would make that big a difference (won't hurt, of course) but it will inform the media coverage and help create a momentum narrative.  I also don't think he'll endorse, however.

    But if Obama picks up some good hispanic endorsers (politicians or media) especially in Texas, or some union support in Ohio it could definitely help.


    Oops. . . (none / 0) (#148)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    that should read "wasn't determinative in MA or CA".

    LarryInNYC regrets the error.


    But Obama had high profile union (none / 0) (#237)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:09:08 AM EST
    endorsement in CA.  

    Missing the importance of the Kennedy endorsement (none / 0) (#112)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    It turned the dialog away from whether or not Obama was the black candidate. I had hoped that it would help him win MA, but didn't happen. He still got the bonus of reframing the discussion, which I think will continue to help him.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:00:48 AM EST
    he lost MA even with the Kennedy endorsement, but you just KNOW it's going to help him in a big way from now on ;-).

    Dude, the Kennedy endorsement is old news. The news today is Super Tuesday, in which Clinton got more votes and all the big states.

    But that Ted Kennedy endorsement outweighs all that, right? Heh.


    Delegates? (none / 0) (#133)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    So...if Obama gets the most delegates from Super Tuesday and then wins the next 9, that'll be great for Clinton right?

    How does that address (none / 0) (#135)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:03:54 AM EST
    my critique of your failed Kennedy endorsement argument? I'll tell you how - not at all.

    All I said was (none / 0) (#147)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    that the fact that the race has been re-cast from being the white woman vs. the black man (i.e. what the Kennedy endorsement did) will continue to pay dividends down the road. That was the emerging narrative after SC, and if it had stayed that way, Obama would be in a lot more trouble after Super Tuesday.

    The math's not there (none / 0) (#34)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:19:10 AM EST
    We don't have any evidence to suggest what the result for those three but they are not likely to be blowouts.  Hillary has only broken 60% in one state.  They are not going to give her enough to put it away.

    he will win them by (none / 0) (#38)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:20:19 AM EST
    bringing with him five red herrings, and with that red herring he will feed whole multitudes!

    it will be a miracle!

    Don't pretend to your expertise, BTD, (none / 0) (#47)
    by clio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:24:51 AM EST
    but, I think you're right: that this is high water for Obama.  

    My man was Edwards, mostly because of health care and his acknowledgment of his mistakes, especially on Iraq, but that's not gonna happen.  Obama's refusal to really support universal coverage remains a deal breaker for me, and like you I beleive Hillary will hold her core constituencies.  (And in the general African-Americans will come home, as will many white males)

    If you care to, would you comment on 2 points:
    While I know that the "Bradley effect" has been pooh-poohed, I do notice that Obama won the caucus states.  Do you think that will hold going forward?  What, if anything, might it portend for the general election?

    Hillary's last quarter's fund raising must have have been a problem.  Do you expect that to reverse now?

    Thanks for your time.

    Obama Spin (none / 0) (#48)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    I was just listening to the radio pundits raving about the Obama wins. I don't see how winning in states such as, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, and a couple of other Republican strongholds will do anything for the Democratic Party in November. He hasn't won where it's needed.

    I'm from Illinois, and one of the main reasons he's in the senate at all is because he ran against Alan Keyes here! The Illinois Republican Party clapsed under the weight of corruption, so the national party brought him in to run. He hasn't demonstrated to me the ability to win a true campaign.

    Don't discount the red states. . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:30:04 AM EST
    they (or some of them) could conceivably be in play in November -- and I think Obama now has a better (or at least very good) story to tell about he is the candidate to put them there.

    States NOT in play (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:36:19 AM EST
    Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Utah.

    I disagree on some of those. (none / 0) (#116)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:54:04 AM EST
    I think the mountain west, particlarly Idaho, could be put into play with a strong civil liberties plank.  Those states are going to be ours someday.

    If Huckabee is McCain's veep there may be a significant anti-Republican reaction in Utah -- either cross-voters or lots and lots of people staying at home.

    Finally, if Obama is the nominee we might be able to put into play those southern states in which a huge black turnout might make the difference.

    Not saying we'll win any of those states, but we could contest them enough to make McCain spend time on them.  And we might pull a couple of them.

    I'm counting on November to be a big Democratic sweep, possible on a scale approaching 1972.


    Idaho? (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:54 AM EST
    Ok, you must be kidding me.

    Not kidding. (none / 0) (#156)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:11:26 AM EST
    I realize that my analysis is (almost) as far-out as your analysis in this post but I think the mountain west is already trending our way and that the Bush has helped us out a lot there.  This may not be (probably won't be) our year in Idaho, but the same approach that will help us in Colorado and Montana will appeal there as well.

    colorada (none / 0) (#165)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    was the only state that obama won and which also went significantly dems over reps in the west.

    obama got 70k.  the repub total was around 40k combined.

    but it was a caucus, so i don't think we can extrapolate those numbers to november as we can with a primary.


    Well except for my being fact based (none / 0) (#188)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    and yours being fantasy, yes they are exactly alike.

    One man's facts. . . (none / 0) (#199)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:29:39 AM EST
    are another man's fantasy.  As is evidenced by the reaction to your analysis in this post.  Nobody believed me in 2003 when I said the Dems would be competitive in Montana, either.

    And Idaho aside, do you take issue with my analysis of the other states you stated would not possibly be in contention?


    I do not know about Montana in 2003 (none / 0) (#221)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:45:16 AM EST
    But it seems silly to me to say they had no chance in Montana when the Governor and one of the Senators were Dem.

    NO ONE in Idaho is a Dem.

    Facts, Larry. Facts.


    At the time. . . (none / 0) (#232)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    Montana had a Republican governor, and had since 1989.  But you're right about Baucus.  My point was that no one believed Montana would be in play in a Presidential race any time in the near future.  Do you believe it might be?  I think so.

    As for Idaho, I'll grant that you have more familiarity with the situation there.  I'm including them at the farthest end of the Dem's increasing viability in the mountain west.  If there's a completely unassailable registration difference there -- if Republicans overwhelm Democrats + Independents -- I'll grant that they may not, in fact, be in play anytime soon.

    Georgia and Utah?


    iirc (none / 0) (#160)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:12:18 AM EST
    the comparative turnout numbers for idaho were about 12,000 dems to 80,000 repubs.  but you never know.  

    maybe he can!


    Not following you (none / 0) (#70)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:35:14 AM EST
    The popular vote nationwide was 49% Clinton 48% Obama.

    Obama won in these blue states: MO, MN*, CO, DE, CT, IL*
    Clinton won in these blue states: CA, MA
    , NJ*, NY*.

    * is > 10% win
    is > 20% win

    I think that NJ, NY and IL you have to discount for being essentially home states. In terms of swing states, though, Obama won handily.


    Ugh (none / 0) (#109)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    Didn't realize *'s had a bolding effect. The point is, I'd say blue states-wise, Clinton won the big name ones by a medium margin, and Obama one the medium and small sized ones by a large margin.

    Were You Serious When You Said MO Is A Blue State? (none / 0) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:56:40 AM EST
    MO is in no way a blue state. At best, it is a purple state.

    MO delegate wise was a tie. Obama did well in typical DEM counties and lost the rest of the counties to Clinton.  


    Just going by last election (none / 0) (#131)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM EST
    I'm just doing blue states by the 2006 election results. That's why I included MO but not NM.

    I was trying to do a star thing to show significance of the win, but apparently asterisks screw up the formating. Point being, Obama dominated MN and CO, two medium-sized blue states, while Clinton had medium sized wins in MA and CA.


    Not Sure Of The Significance Of The Win For GE (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    Had Obama blown Clinton away in MO then I would be convinced, but he did not, even with the support of the Democratic machine in MO. Obama won in the Democratic counties where the Democratic candidates always win big, but lost all the others to Clinton.

    MO is a completely open primary. We do not even register by party affiliation. You just ask for the ballot you want. If Obama was going to win independents and cross over Republicans, I would have expected him to win in non Democratic counties. That did not happen. Extrapolating a narrow Obama win in the primary, to a win in the General Election is a stretch IMO.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#206)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    I'm not trying to say he'd win it or not in the GE, but Obama did win all of the GE swing states up for grabs yesterday. Take of that what you will...

    Just Giving You An Alternative Viewpoint (none / 0) (#225)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    At this point, I'm not sure who is going to win this in the end. My crystal ball is broken. <snark>

    The breakdown of the  counties interested me and wondered how and how much this would impact the GE. Since I live in MO, it is of special interest.


    Not Sure Of The Significance Of The Win For GE (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    Had Obama blown Clinton away in MO then I would be convinced. But he did not, even with the support of the Democratic machine in MO. Obama won in the Democratic counties where the Democratic candidates always win big, but lost all the others to Clinton.

    MO is a completely open primary. We do not even register by party affiliation. You just ask for the ballot you want. If Obama was going to win independents and cross over Republicans, I would have expected him to win in non Democratic counties. That did not happen. Extrapolating a narrow Obama win in the primary, to a win in the General Election is a stretch IMO.


    A tie? (none / 0) (#63)
    by andreww on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:31:51 AM EST
    BTD - I actually agree with much of what you say regarding Obama not winning either CA, MA or NJ.  Not chalking up wins in any of these states does concern me as an Obama supporter.  However, I disagree with the suggestion that last night was somehow a knockout to Obama - even if it's a TKO.  Obama not knocking off Clinton is not, I don't believe, the threshold for Obama's success.  I also disagree that what we saw last night means Obama would have lost MI.  He won MN by a ton, and Obviously IL, a neighboring state to MI.  Midwesterners often tend to stick together and MI could easily have gone to Obama.

    You had a post about how winning was winning, losing was losing, no whining etc.  And in that spirit, I really think last night was a tie.  Both camps have reason to be optimistic, Both have reason to be concerned. Let's not forget that three months ago everyone thought the race would be over this morning, and clearly it's almost as if we're just getting started.  

    Specifically, one thing that Obama can look at very positively is NM.  While Obama lost by 10 in California, NM still looks too close to call and the Demographics their should have pointed to a Clinton victory.  It's quite possible that the little extra time before Texas will allow this momentum to play out there.

    I also disagree that the dynamics of the race are set in stone.  I still believe there are world events, endorsements, and other things completely unforeseen that could affect the race.  

    Lastly, and this is admittedly through the lense of an Obama supporter, I look at MA, NY, NJ and see states that the Dems are going to win no matter who is the candidate.  I truly believe part of what we see in last night is that Obama could be competitive in certain states like KS and CO.

    With Clinton's win in big states, Obama winning more states, delegates split almost evenly, Clinton taking CA, Obama winning MO and extremely close in NM, I really think we had as close to a tie as we could have had last night.

    TX and OH will be indeed interesting.

    So the threshold of success (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:49:19 AM EST
    for Obama is lower than the threshold for Clinton? You guys are funny.

    Clinton has received more of the popular vote and more of the delegates, and Super Tuesday is now over.

    Mathematically she hasn't eliminated Obama, but practically speaking she has. That's all BTD has been saying. But you guys keep calling that spin. lmao.


    The Super Tuesday states always favored Clinton (none / 0) (#125)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM EST
    Overall, the demographics of the Super Tuesday states always favored Clinton. Now we're going to get a string of states that tilts toward Obama. So yes, I'd say that the bar of success was lower for him - he's got a much easier path to running up the delegate counts before Mar 4th.

    Sorry but I've never understood this (none / 0) (#145)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    argument. She was favored to win on Super Tuesday, she DID win on Super Tuesday, but somehow that's a loss?

    He's losing and it's late in the game. You are now at the point where you are essentially arguing that Obama can with via the Rudy strategy. Yeah, it's possible, but it's not very likely. This is basically wishful thinking, not reality-based thinking.


    She didn't win (none / 0) (#175)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:18:30 AM EST
    There are three ways of looking at Super Tuesday:

    1. National vote total -> Clinton, by a thin margin
    2. Delegates -> Obama, by a thin margin
    3. States -> Obama, by a large margin.

    National vote total and States don't really mean anything other than media narrative. So how's he losing Super Tuesday? I don't think you'll find any Obama supporter that has ever said if he doesn't absolutely cream Clinton on ST, he's out. Almost all of the Obama-supporters predictions were that he would lose the delegate count; at best it would be close. Well, he won it.

    There's only so much one can do with t.v. ads. (none / 0) (#195)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:28:53 AM EST
    For instance, Obama's one that was run throughout the southwest Missouri market was vanilla enough the first time I saw it, but, by the time I was seeing the same one every other commercial break across the entire cable package, it became tiresome. Extremely tiresome.

    Maybe that's one factor why Greene Co./Springfield broke for Clinton.


    It would seem you have confused primaries (none / 0) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    Your analysis would be spot on if you were referring to the Republican primaries.  It isn't over maybe but it isn't only a matter of time.

    Mathematically they are tied.  So you're right that she hasn't eliminated Obama mathematically.  Of course she hasn't.  They're tied.


    Tied? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:02:22 AM EST
    No, they aren't tied. The spin is that they are tied. But you keep spinning that.

    I think being within 60, including superdelegates (none / 0) (#137)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:05:12 AM EST
    at this point indicates being basically tied. Obama is going to be ahead in pledged by about 20-30 and behind in supers by about 80. This is out of 2000 total so far.

    And if the positions were reversed (none / 0) (#150)
    by Warren Terrer on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    you would be calling that 'basically' a tie too? Pardon me if I don't believe it.

    I'd think you'd have to be dishonest not to (none / 0) (#157)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    Obama will probably make up all of the 60 this Saturday anyway, if those states break the same way similar states did on Super Tuesday.

    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:35:05 AM EST
    Obama won states no question. He did not get KO'ed last night.

    But to exstend the prize fight analogy, he is vulnerable to the same left hook - the women-Latino-working class demo and he will get hit with it again and again - in Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    This is the 9th round of a 15 round fight but the pattern is clear, imo.

    I think I know who is going to win the fight after last night.


    so basically (none / 0) (#87)
    by english teacher on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:43:15 AM EST
    his right eye is swollen shut? :>

    Yep... (none / 0) (#103)
    by andreww on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:47:40 AM EST
    agreed.  But NM seems to indicate that he's figuring out how to deal with that - otherwise Hillary would have won the state handily.

    Santa Fe (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:50:14 AM EST
    LArge wine track contingent in NM.

    Over age 65 left hook (none / 0) (#236)
    by LadyDiofCT on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    As a poll worker yesterday, I was so encouraged to see so many voters coming out to the polls.  There is another interesting dem party demographic that surfaced yesterday - the over age 65 group.  They came out in droves, in the rain with their cains, walkers, and daughters to vote in this very important Primary.  I don't have solid numbers of course, but the excitement, general comments, and those we assisted, both men and women were there in support of Hillary.  The women I saw yesterday were so proud, they have waited 60, 70 years for this chance to elect a woman president, and they were going to be there to cast this all important vote.  They are firmly in her corner.  (BTW- CT gave Obama the popular vote by 4%, but heh, they elected Lieberman 4 times, what can we say)

    I can only speak to Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    Hillary has all of the major endorsements here, including the Governor and the newly elected mayor of Philadelphia, both of whom will campaign hard for her.

     Obama doesn't stand a chance in the Pittsburg market: white labor Democrats appear solid for Hillary. Philly is the wild card--it has an AA majority (but not an overwhelming one). If the Pennsylvania Democratic party had the demographic profile of Georgia, Obama would probably win. But unlike in the south, white people didn't desert the party 10-15 years ago.

    See my reply. . . (none / 0) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:43:54 AM EST
    elsewhere in these comments to Steve M.

    I think Obama will get a lot of white support in Philadelphia and win there.  And I think he can win in rural areas too.

    Question: I saw a report that PA has an open primary, is that true?


    Obama didnt win any rural areas in MO (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by texas hostage on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:39:18 AM EST
    so why do you think he can win them in PA? And no one in this thread has addressed the issue that Clinton didnt even try to compete in the caucas states. And when you look  at the vote totals in the caucus states, they are way below the proportional turnout in the primary states.

    PA has a very, very, closed primary (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:46:53 AM EST
    Obama will not win in the pgh region, no matter what. So in order to win the state, he needs massive Philly margins. If he had gotten the Rendell endorsement, instead of Hillary, that would have happened. Now he'll probably only win Philly 60/40, at best. Probably worse.

    Closed primary (none / 0) (#226)
    by Mary Mary on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    I was thinking this morning about the deadline for registering. Obama had better get all his indies registered as Dems, pronto, or they won't be voting in April.

    Not so fast (none / 0) (#72)
    by Heather on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:35:40 AM EST
    I know that you are preaching to the choir but he won the most delegates and he won the most states. Not bad for an underdog.

    He is expected to win the next seven contests over the next seven days...rumors are out there of a Gore endorsement...and another $30+ million haul in February... and the jaw dropping suggestion that the Clintons had to self-fund their campaign with millions of dollars over the last week! suggest that money and momentum may bury the Clintons sooner rather than later.

    I would have rather won NH but I like our chances. (front runners btw don't normally put a call out for debates)

    My understanding is that Hillary (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:37:22 AM EST
    won the most delegates.

    Buit that is not relevant to my point.


    nope (none / 0) (#124)
    by Heather on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:57:10 AM EST
    Again (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:00:31 AM EST
    that was early in the evening and I understand that revised figures show Clinton winning the night among delegates

    did you read the link? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Heather on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    It was posted at 10 something this morning. There is agreement between Obama, Clintons, NBC and Politico.

    Obama wins most delegates


    Um (none / 0) (#170)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:16:51 AM EST
    It's not particularly honest to say the Clinton camp agrees when the link specifically states that the Clinton camp does not agree.

    Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#177)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    called it by about the same margin on MSNBC last night in an independent analysis.

    Except it was not an independet analysis (none / 0) (#186)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    It was taking statements form the campaigns.

    Again, this is irrelevant to my point.


    No it wasn't (none / 0) (#190)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM EST
    His final tally was different by a few delegates than the Obama campaign.

    here is a direct quote: (none / 0) (#204)
    by Heather on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:32:16 AM EST
    "Clinton aide Guy Cecil says on a conference call that his math has Clinton up one delegate on the night, and that in any case the margin will be within five or six delegates"

    Sounds like he agrees, more or less.

    Here is what Obama and NBC says:

    The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 847 to 834.

    NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

    Obama wins!


    Did he win more delegates last night? (none / 0) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:40:27 AM EST
    I thought he was already slightly ahead in delegates.  But the delegates counts on this blog show Clinton ahead.

    Or do the counts posted here include superdelegates?


    My understanding is that the pledged (none / 0) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    delegate count yesterday favored Clinton but who knows?

    Politico is reporting. . . (none / 0) (#139)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    that NBC's count currently shows Obama ahead by ten to twenty delegates in yesterday's voting.

    Apparently the total delegate counts being listed by various organizations include announced superdelegates which is very misleading in my opinion.  If the nomination is in a position to be decided purely on the vote of superdelegates I think that enough of them will switch to the popular vote winner (if the person with the most elected delegates can claim that title given the irregularities in awarding of delegates) to switch the results.

    We're called the "Democratic" party after all, and I'd hate to see our candidate decided by party insiders.


    super delegates and moentum and money (none / 0) (#158)
    by Heather on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:11:40 AM EST
    Super delegates may have a role in picking the winner but remember they can change their mind and change their pledge.

    Isn't it likely that super delegates will also be influenced by money and momentum and the raw delegate counts determined by the primaries and caucuses?

    These people are institutional insiders but that doesn't mean they will stick to the Clintons like glue when the momentum and money and raw delegate counts are going to Obama.


    I think that's what. . . (none / 0) (#169)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:15:31 AM EST
    I just said -- except that I think the biggest factor in superdelegates changing their votes will be if their announced voting intentions would overturn the results of the elected delegate count.

    To be clearer, if Clinton leads with superdelegates and Obama leads without them I think enough Clinton supers will switch to Obama to allow the popular result votes to carry the day.

    If that were not to happen, I could see very bad results for the Democrats in November and going forward.  Very, very bad.  Very, very, very, very bad.


    I agree 100% (none / 0) (#209)
    by Heather on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    sorry you did say that. i just wanted to say it again.

    If Obama can show depth and breadth. The supers will follow in time.

    I think the system is working out exactly as it is designed to do. (sort of unusual and somewhat unexpected)


    If the superdelegates. . . (none / 0) (#222)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:45:20 AM EST
    are simply going to reflect the popular vote, I think we should get rid of them -- they serve no purpose.

    And if they might decide the nomination against the popular vote, I think we should get rid of them as a vestige of anti-democratic party insider-ism.

    Either way, I don't see an advantage to having them.


    No (none / 0) (#183)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:22:35 AM EST
    CNN has Clinton ahead in PLEDGED delegates.

    The NBC count comes from the so called math of the campagins.

    No independent reporting.


    That's not true (none / 0) (#196)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    His count is different than the Obama campaign.

    Obama Rules (none / 0) (#77)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:38:25 AM EST
    We all predicted, and it has come to pass, that no matter the vote yesterday Obama would win.

    I believe that Hillary has to come out hitting Obama in a way that he can't have his surrogates pull the race card. I also think she was talking about Obama's campaign and not the Repubs when she said "She will not allow anyone to swiftboat her." She needs to hit him back hard. I admit that he will have his people look for any way to pull the race card, but she has to hit back and I don't mean using Bill. She has to do it!!! She has to tell people why they should vote for her over Obama.

    Youth vote didn't show in California (none / 0) (#81)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    Isn't this a problem for the Obama narrative?  The youth vote did not materialize...it was average.  How can the Obamamaniacs throughout the blog continue to misrepresent the results...even at Charlie Rose, they were misrepresenting the results...a win in Idaho, Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, Utah has no relevance....Dems will never win these races in the general...whereas we can win in Tenn. and Arizona...big wins in the general.  Plus the margins were big in Mass. New Jersey and Calif.  Yet these people continue to lie.  The evidence suggests if we go with Obama, we lose the general.  

    Again, who cares abou those low population non representative states?  And Hillary won Florida too.
    And no one is mentioning that the African American vote accounts for much of Obama's success.  And that is clearly not enough for a general.  So, do
    these Obama supporters prefer to lose the general as long as they can win the nomination by hook or by crook?  Are Democrats that stupid?  Is the African American community that unrealistic..  
    And why is it OK for them to  vote strictly on race but not for the Latinos or whites?

    Math... (none / 0) (#92)
    by jarober on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:44:27 AM EST
    Apparently, Big Tent still needs to be summarized with:

    "No one told me there would be math"

    Politico is reporting that Obama has the lead in delegates


    It's all about proportional allocation.  Unless one of the two delivers a crushing (on the order of 60%) win, it's going to remain a state by state slog for awhile.  Likely through PA at least.

    Obama claims delegate lead (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    I submit that reporting Obama's claims, as Politicio and NBC do, is NOT actual reporting of the results.

    that siad, it is not relevant to my post.


    Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#140)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:06:09 AM EST
    Called it about the same on MSNBC last night, and he's pretty non-partisan about it.

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    NBC is utterly biased and Chuck is pleasing his team.

    Sure (none / 0) (#194)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:28:21 AM EST
    Got anything to back that up except sour grapes? The Well Known Chuck Todd Bias Theory isn't one I've come across before.

    The NBC is biased theory? (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    I can not imagine anyone who has watched it

    I agree with independent thinker--hit Obama hard (none / 0) (#93)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    She must fight back against his bullsh*t.  He didn't bring out the young vote in
    California.  And Dems need the Latino vote desperately and they won't vote for him... And she should start discounting these caucus states...another disaster idea for Democrats.  Caucuses do nothing for determining who is our strongest candidate.  If we had rules like the Republicans, Hillary would be the winner.  

    But she must start attacking his lies.  Hit him on lying about health care...about his harry and louise ads.

    If You're Really an Obama Supporter (none / 0) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:51:17 AM EST
    Your analysis is just, well, it's like either a game of expectations, or the phenomenon I'd liken it too is the reverse-jinx.

    Being overtly owtwardly negative about one's hopes in the underlying hope that being outwardly negative will force others to redouble efforts and/or an attempt to corral cosmic good will through self-flagellation.

    You're right about the big states being more important than the smaller states, and you're right that that the Obama spin is pretty transparent on that issue.  But it's still quite a close race, and we all know politics is a fickle business prone to wild swings in the space of a minute or a second.

    A lot can change in a day, everything can change in a week.

    Edge to Clinton because of the big states, but Obama is still very much alive, and if you're alive, in politics, you always have the same chance as anyone else.

    Just a datapoint (none / 0) (#123)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    Intrade has Clinton trending toward 50% for the nomination, Obama is also trending that way. So the CW is even money at this point.

    The odd logic I suspect (none / 0) (#174)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:18:05 AM EST
    They said McCain was finished, look what happened, they said Clinton was finished, look what happened, they said Obama was finished 6 months ago, look what happened.  ... I'll be the Obama supporter pundit and proclaim that he's finished, and we'll see what happens.

    Saying someone is finished is just another way to create momentum for that person.


    So put your money where your mouth is (none / 0) (#180)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:21:05 AM EST
    Money is on the table then at Intrade! You're going to make a killing!

    Given the logic (none / 0) (#192)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    I would put 10k down on Obama.  Which cosmically succeeds in pushing the odds towards Obama, which in turn creates the reverse-jinx mojo feadback every where else, and benefits Clinton.

    And then If Clinton wins, I'm happy she won.

    If Obama wins, I win the money.

    Likewise with BTD.

    Now if Obama wins he can be happy Obama won cause that's who he wanted to win.

    If Clinton wins, he can say "I told you so."


    Youth Vote (none / 0) (#114)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:52:09 AM EST
    Over the years I have seen the youth market energized only to see them pull back. Just look at Ned Lamont or Howard Dean. (Or if you're as old as me the names of Gary Hart and Eugene McCarthy springs to mind). If 7 years of war and the continual erosion of civil liberties doesn't move them to action, I don't know what will. Maybe it was a mistake to end the draft!

    Why should the youth bother?.... (none / 0) (#234)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:59:14 AM EST
    Out of Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Romney....all support by word or deed the continued occupation or Iraq and Afghanistan, continued erosion of civil liberties...in general business as usual.

    Nothing there for the youth to get excited about.  Obama talks a lot about change, but hasn't offered any.


    I'm concerned about how little we know about Obama (none / 0) (#120)
    by jawbone on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    The MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) for the most part is ecstatic about Obama and his speaking style, his hope and change motif, his newness and momentum. His rock star ability to pull in huge crowds.

    I've heard much less coverage of his legislative history and his current policies and stands. But, the NYTimes did do an article about one of his Senate legislative attempts--to require nuclear power plant operators to inform the public of leaks, based on some leaks of radiated cooling water into the groundwater and contaminating drinking water sources.

    The article said Obama began with a strong language requiring the operators to inform the public, then, to gain Republican support (R's were in charge of the Senate at that time) he lowered the requirements to finally become voluntary compiance to be decided by the NRC and the operators.  

    This seemed to be BushLite--corporate voluntary standards. Great.

    But--is this article fair? Anyone knowledgeable about this issue know more? The NYTimes can be good--but they can also not be so good, so how's this article?


    Complete Distortion Of Outcome Of Legislation (none / 0) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:10:26 AM EST
    Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

    "I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

    Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

    Check out this post at The Washington Note. (none / 0) (#153)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM EST
    Obama Fizzling?

    Has Obama's brand maxed out? Interesting read, anyway.

    After Slumber Tuesday..... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:12:51 AM EST
    Yep....we're f*cked.

    See you in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2012 folks! See you in the federal pen on drug charges!  See you with a national id card and in a biometric database.

    Yep...definitely f*cked, no matter who wins.  We had choices but didn't exercise them.

    haha (none / 0) (#163)
    by Claw on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:13:22 AM EST
    I am so biased that I cannot "understand" the complex logic of your post.  Please excuse me.  I actually worked for Clinton in GA and was simply expressing my dismay that my favorite blog has adopted a large and growing Clinton bias.  My comment was civil, yours was not.  Thank you for proving my point.

    Jawbone Comment (none / 0) (#166)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:14:46 AM EST
    I agree the media has given Obama a clear pass. Just like the McCain "Straight Talk Express". I don't know what they'll do if the two of them are the candidates! But I suspect they'll turn on Obama at that point. They've been in bed with McCain so long they can't afford to turn on him now and they admiy they thrive on conflict. If there isn't any, they will create it. (I believe they did that with Clinton and Obama).

    A Richardson endorsement for Hilary (none / 0) (#172)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST
    would help her tremendously.  Especially if he campaigned with her  in Texas and Richardson   would address the voters in Spanish and English.

    It would help either candidate. . . (none / 0) (#178)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    and it's hard to believe that if Richardson is going to endorse Clinton he wouldn't have done it last week.  At a guess he'll sit it out.  But there I'm sure there are other hispanic endorsers in Texas who could also make a big difference in Texas.

    How odd to think the Democratic nominee might possibly be decided in Texas!


    Super Delegates (none / 0) (#176)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    Any body got a list by name of the super delegates and which way each one would be leaning to?

    Only one thing (none / 0) (#184)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    Only one thing can unite the Republican Party now: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    I love this line (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:12 AM EST
    Obama will not unite them? The magic will melt them?

    Here's the problem with your analysis (none / 0) (#187)
    by brainwave on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    The logic of your argument is "Obama failed to win  NJ, NY, and CA. Therefore, he can't win big heterogeneous states. Therefore, he will also fail to win OH and PA and TX." That completely ignores three factors:

    • First, the blue-purple-red continuum. Indisputably, Obama does better in more purplish-reddish states. Indisputably, the set {OH, PA, TX} is a heck of lot more purplish/reddish than the set {NJ, NY, CA}.

    • Secondly, size and heterogeneity are gradual properties. In terms of the number of delegates they award, GA and IL (both of which Obama won) are in the same ballpark as NJ (the numbers are 103-GA, 127-NJ, 185-IL). And in terms of demographics, IL has about the same percentage of Latinos as NJ (slightly higher in 2005 in fact).

    • Thirdly, you're treating this as a linear process, ignoring the potential effect of changes in the fundamental contextual conditions. If Clinton's funds dry up and Obama secures the biggest endorsements still to be had - those of Edwards and Gore - it'll be much harder for Clinton to compete in the remaining states than it was going into Super-T-Day.

    A reasonable Comment (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:30:14 AM EST
    Here's why I disagree:

    (1)"First, the blue-purple-red continuum. Indisputably, Obama does better in more purplish-reddish states." No evidence that Obama does well in BIG purple reddish states.

    (2) "Secondly, size and heterogeneity are gradual properties. In terms of the number of delegates they award, GA and IL (both of which Obama won) are in the same ballpark as NJ (the numbers are 103-GA, 127-NJ, 185-IL). And in terms of demographics, IL has about the same percentage of Latinos as NJ (slightly higher in 2005 in fact)."

    Ignores Illinois is Obama's home state. I did not hold losing NY against Obama. Georgia is a special demo state as you must know. No point there for you imo.

    (3) "Thirdly, you're treating this as a linear process, ignoring the potential effect of changes in the fundamental contextual conditions."

    I am not ignoring it. I am logically discounting it. I think the "linear process" part of this campaign is over. I think it is etched in stone now. I could be wrong, but that is my premise.

    If the idea is that Obama is going to change the dynamic, my counter is if the last 10 days did not, what will?


    Obama has strong chance in Penn and Ohio (none / 0) (#191)
    by Seneca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    All of these predictions from Big Tent are so much tea-leaf reading. This race is incredibly volatile and so to pretend that anything is decided is dishonest.

    HRC has advantages in name-brand recognition, inherent fear from deviating from the status quo, institutional power, Machiavellian tactics.

    Obama has advantages, as well, in cash, enthusiasm. Moreover, wherever he has campaigned hard and voters have got to know him, his numbers have skyrocketed. This could easily happen in Ohio and Penn.

    But to say that Hillary or Obama is "guaranteed" the nomination is either wishful thinking or ill considered.

    Hawaii is not a lock for Obama (none / 0) (#198)
    by cdo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    I haven't seen any polls, so please correct me if you have seen something. But I lived there for 10 years and I would say the demographics favor Hillary. Hawaii's largest racial demo is asians, with no significant black population, and whites a definite minority. While solidly democratic, they are working class, union democrats...not liberals.
    "Inouye and the Hawai'i Government Employees Association and other labor unions behind Clinton are expected to bring people to the caucuses. Obama volunteers, including U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai'i, former Makiki state Rep. Brian Schatz and attorney and Democratic strategist Andy Winer, are depending on energized activists to take advantage of Obama's local roots and message of change."
    Thats from today's Honolulu Advertiser. It also says Obama has started phone banking there and starts running ads today.


    What helps him (none / 0) (#217)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    is that he is a favorite son.  He grew up there.   You know that he will make sure people remember that in his ads.

    I don't know how much of an impact that will have but I think it will be notable influence.


    Yes, but... (none / 0) (#223)
    by cdo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    The quote I included listed Senator Daniel Inouye and Hawaii's Gov't workers union as well as other labor unions as Hillary supporters. Maybe you aren't familiar with Hawaii politics, but thats pretty huge mojo right there and anyone campaigning in Hawaii has a pretty tough battle without them.

    BTD has changed his mind repeatedly (none / 0) (#213)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:37:34 AM EST
    He said Obama was inevitable after Iowa then switched back to Hillary after NH then said Obama would win CA and now he says Hillary is inevitable.

    Excuse me if I wait to see how things play out :)

    Fair point except (none / 0) (#220)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:43:15 AM EST
    I did not think Hillary was inevitable after NH.

    Obama won last night (none / 0) (#224)
    by dmfox on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    Bowers completely disagrees, and it's hard to argue with his analysis:


    I never expected Obama to take CA.  1/3 of the ballots were already cast over 2 weeks ago.  The only real disappointment for him was Massachusetts.  I've always said that all he needed to do was tie on Super Tuesday, and then he'd be in great shape.  He has more money, and much more committed organization and activist base.  He'll likely sweep through the primaries to March 4, and has an even shot at Texas and Ohio.  Given that Obama has sent his South Carolina team to Texas, to count him out there is ridiculous.

    That, and Obama won more delegates last night.  I thought an Obama victory would be coming within 100 delegates.  He seems to have won the night:


    So, to recap, Obama won more delegates, more states, has a big edge in money, and a more committed activist organization.  And yet, it's over.  Strange logic indeed BTD.

    Answer the big question:Who wins general? (none / 0) (#227)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    We are supposed to pick our strongest candidate.  Why are the Obama folks having trouble with that idea?  African Americans and latte/wine Democrats will not carry us over the finish line.  Many independents will go McCain.  McCain won New Hampshire with independents.  And the conservative REpubs reside in the states Obama won...those states will remain Republican.(and the caucus system is flawed for picking candidates anyway)

     No one who pushes Obama wants to confront the serious problems an Obama candidate would pose. This is a  serious candidate who has not been  raked over the coals by the MSM, which is holding its fire until the general.  There has been NO negative coverage of Obama...no exploration of his lack of experience and failure to demonstrate leadership.  Isn't that strange? He is an unknown now and it is likely a negative campaign will lower his positives and raise his negatives substantially.  His drivers licenses to illegals is toxic in a general.  They had to take it off the table in New York it was so unpopular. The REpublicans will be attacking him relentlessly.  The Democrats are constrained to attack him but have no problem attacking her.  Why do they want to maintain their fantasy to everyone's detriment?

    Obama has no experience on economy...the number one concern. No experience in foreign policy. No one wants someone else, to learn on the job.  We've already done that.  It's too risky now.  Again, I repeat, why aren't the Obama supporters interested in being realistic?  Do they want Dems to lose the general?
    The numbers in the big states prove he will have trouble against McCain. The small states he won will never turn Dem.  Tennessee and Arkansas we can win with Clinton.  And Arizona.  Where has Obama demonstrated he can win in a swing state?  It took him Claire McCaskill and other surrogates who  endorsed him there to edge Clinton in Missouri and he only won in the cities with huge African American populations. Clinton won all of Missouri and lost in the cities because of the black vote, which is voting purely on race.

    So in terms of reality, he has won demographics that will not be in his favor in the general.  And did anyone look at the number of people voting in the states Obama won?  He won Alaska...by a total of what 1000 people voting.  The same with many of the the other states he won.  Did anyone note how small those numbers were?  Is this who they want to saddle us with?  A candidate who is weak?  What is the evidence, based on the states he won last night and their demographics, that demonstrates he is a strong candidate.  No one has addressed that issue.  He doesn't just have to win Democrats over, he must win the more conservative general population against McCain.  A woman brings in crossover women.  And that is a big demographic.

    Hillary won the night now onto Ohio (none / 0) (#229)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    I only saw minor commercial breaks from MSNBC last night but thought Keith, Tweety and Russert were pouty and child like in their coverage, I  much preferred the informational coverage and lack of little boy punditry of ABC and CBS.  I also agree this is the beginning of the end and that Obama has peaked, Mass, Calif and MO being split down the middle was a passive pin prick in the personality cultist surge.  Me thinks Kennedy, Kerry and McCaskill need to watch their backs in their next elections.  Hillary need not worry once she makes it to Ohio, she has a hugh ground swell of good will.  Not sure if the Oprah road show will have much of an impact we Need real change we don't just Hope for change and we have already suffered mightily from the rough and tumble pay go politics of Chicago so that wound is fresh.

    Completely agree (none / 0) (#235)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    How boring huh?

    My take from Feb 5th (none / 0) (#238)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:17:20 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.

    War Vote is a Wedgie (none / 0) (#241)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    The Iraq war vote has become a verbal wedgie a sound bite to divide and inflame.  And all this ranting of the supposed anti war Progressives masks a disgraceful inability to accept our own responsibility for the tens of thousands of dead.  

    President Carter had warned us all those years ago what our addiction to foreign oil would mean for this country and the Dem Party that abandoned him and his demand for moderation and change to alternative sources of energy.

    It is We the People who have the power in this country, there has been no massive Progressives march on Washington to stop Congress or the President before the invasion, no Recall attempts in States or Districts for elected officials who went against the People. I would bet most people didn't even write and demand their elected Representatives heed their wishes and stop the invasion from happening.  There has been no ground swell to speak of to impeach the President for his crimes, no significant March demanding Bush be run out of town on a rail for his actions.  Senator Obama has at no time hit the Floor of the Senate advocating impeachment; he has not refused, like many other Senators have, to dis continue funding this war.  Senator Hillary Clintons home State had been attacked the people murdered but the Prince of Saudi represented by her, the financial institutions that would fall from a embargo of oil were in her back yard and the rippling effects on the rest of the country known, her view and Obamas can not be compared.  

    Right (none / 0) (#243)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    Since she won more delegates and won the big states, I think she now gets the big MO. I haven't seen any site or news group portraying Obama as winner last night. He is reverting back to his shrill, swift-boating self because he isn't politic enough to know that attacking instead of talking about your vision is a turnoff.

    What happens now (none / 0) (#244)
    by Joike on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    Both Clinton and Obama have key strengths over the remainder of primary season.

    Obama has raised a very large sum of money so far in '08.  Money isn't the key.  Look at how poorly Romney and even Ron Paul have done despite having access to barrels full of dough.

    The next few contests should favor Obama, but Clinton should continue to do better in the larger contests such as Ohio and Texas.

    Voters with economic worries seem to be favoring Clinton over Obama, and there are a lot more people with economic worries these days.  There may be more in the coming weeks.

    I think it would be a mistake for Clinton to pull a Giuliani and focus on the later bigger contests and avoid fighting hard in the interim contests.  I have no indication that she would, but both candidates need to keep their momentum going.

    I don't see an extended nomination process as hurting the eventual winner unless the in-fighting gets really negative.  The negative stuff so far seems pretty tame to me.

    Isn't it nice that all the states will get a chance to have their votes matter?  Our party is made up of more people than just those in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    I will enthusiastically support the eventual nominee.  I think we've got two exceptional candidates.  It is vital to retake the White House.  The country can ill-afford to have McCain or any other Republican select the next few Supreme Court Justices.

    Elections do matter and we need to stay united in our efforts to undo the damage caused by Bush and the Republicans regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is the standard bearer.

    "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."  Douglas Adams

    Comments now closed here (none / 0) (#245)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    We're almost at 250 comments, time to close the thread. Thanks for commenting.