NYTimes Analysis: Obama Fervor Fell Short

The New York Times analyzes Super Tuesday and concludes the "movement" and fervor that has become the hallmark of the Barack Obama presidential campaign fell short. Not that it petered out, just that as in New Hampshire, it failed to meet expectations.

One telling sign: Last minute voters tended to go for Hillary.

Throughout a week when Mr. Obama was campaigning with members of the Kennedy family, when there was a sense that he was creating a movement that cut across racial and generational lines, there was a steady movement of Democrats toward Mr. Obama, the survey suggested. But those who reported making their decision on the last day bucked the trend, tending to vote for Mrs. Clinton, of New York.

What it may mean: The fervor for Obama may not translate into votes. [More...]

[O]nce again — as in New Hampshire — the result on Tuesday did not match the fervor that had been signaled by Mr. Obama’s dramatic march of rallies across the nation leading up to the vote. In that dynamic rests one of the central questions about the Obama candidacy, which may well go the heart of whether he can win the presidency. Is this campaign a series of surges of enthusiasm, often powered by the younger voters who form long lines waiting to hear Mr. Obama speak, that set expectations that are not met at the voting booth?

What's defining the battle between Hillary and Obama? Race and gender. [More...]

In Obama's camp: "younger voters (under 44), blacks, white men (to a more limited extent) and independents"

On Team Hillary: "women, older voters, Hispanics and also some white men."

A Clinton rally may not have the energy of a rock concert the way an Obama rally does. Yet the older women who have embraced Mrs. Clinton as the culmination of years of hope and other core supporters are no less passionate in their intensity and devotion.

The question is: Whose supporters will be more likely to vote?

Clinton Democratic voters tend to have a history of being more likely to vote, particularly compared with younger voters and, as was the case this week, black voters. That in part might account for the enthusiasm fall-off between the campaign trail and the voting booth that Mr. Obama has to deal with.

Even Ted Kennedy says of Obama's allure: "I’m mindful that crowds don’t always turn into votes.”

As for Obama's attempt to gain women voters by having Oprah and Caroline Kennedy stump for him:

Mrs. Clinton still has a bulwark in women at the polls. Mr. Obama tried to chip away at it — dispatching Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy to campaign for him, broadcasting television advertisements with women backing him — but to little if any avail.

As the Times notes, not all white men are going for Obama or resisting Hillary.

Mr. Obama split the white male vote nationally with Mrs. Clinton, but there was an important geographical disparity there: White men in California voted for Mr. Obama but white men in Southern states like Alabama did not. The question is what white men in Ohio will do next month, during what is shaping up as a critical showdown for Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.

As for the Hispanic vote, Obama is doing better, and he needs this group to score in Texas, but "Mrs. Clinton still has the upper hand."

The Times concludes, it comes down to Obama's excitement factor.

The question is whether he can move them one more step on the electoral process — into voting — in the dwindling number of contests that make up this campaign.

< New Mexico to Start Counting Provisional Ballots | Huge Mob Bust in New York and Italy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Odd to focus on last day (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:43:37 AM EST
    Don't you think?

    I mean, think about it.
    The dynamics of this kind of a race are that you have a default candidate in a sense - the well known, well respected, establishment candidate.
    And you have the fresh face, relatively unknown insurgent.

    And you have a group of people who are undecided, they like both candidates (otherwise they arent undecided).

    The question is - what percentage of these undecideds will the new guy be able to win over?

    That is the dynamic at play - the new guy winning people over.

    Seems obvious to me that the election-day deciders are probably going to break to the establishment candidate, since they are the ones who havent quite been won over. They represent the remaineder at the bottom of the pot of undecideds.

    The interesting question for analysis would be - how big was the pot originally, and what percentage of the pot made it over to the insurgent.

    The fact that their was this residue of people who were not won over - and who decided to stick with the safe candidate - means only that the insurgent didn't get 100% of the undecideds.
    Which is hardly surprising.

    New face vs establishment candidate? (3.00 / 2) (#12)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:24:27 AM EST
    It's hard to call the "new guy" the non-establishment insurgent when he has the establishment behind him as has been pointed out already.  He's definitely just as much if not more of establishment as Hillary is at this point. In fact, this is clearly a fight between two parts of our political establishment.  So people looking at the two of them will see two people with the full backing of parts of the establishment.  That's what having Kennedy and others like him standing with Obama show.  He may be new but he's part of our establishment vote for him.  

    As for the fresh face?  Yes he is new to the scene while Hillary has been around for years.  However, Hillary has been assaulted with lies about her which have formed a clearly false and ugly persona for her which even our side has taken in.  Don't believe me?  Go over to the daily Obama and read the comments for awhile and some of the diaries about Billary and worse.  Hillary is, in a way, being rediscovered by many people on our side after years of having her reputation and image tarred.  When people see her in debates and out campaigning they see someone different from the ugly picture painted for them.  So in a way she's just as much of a fresh face in this race as Obama.  

    So it could be that people come into this race with a bias against Hillary but as they start to pay attention and watch and listen to both of them their bias against Hillary is lost in the face of the real Hillary.  This could just be part of the reason for the late deciders.  It's an interesting phenomena.  We'll have to see if it continues.  Especially since a certain portion of our population doesn't pay attention to politics until shortly before they vote.  


    Thinking about it (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Richard in Jax on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:19:04 AM EST
    I mean, think about it.
    The dynamics of this kind of a race are that you have a default candidate in a sense - the well known, well respected, establishment candidate.
    And you have the fresh face, relatively unknown insurgent.

    Well I did..and I suggest you give it a try. My conclusion: Baloney my man..baloney

    Hillary is NOT The Anti-Establisment Candidate (none / 0) (#36)
    by tjproudamerican on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:52:03 AM EST
    I am happy that there is so much enthusiasm for Hillary here. It surprises me because in my home state (NY) and County (Erie) casual conversation is usually sick of hearing about her or anti-Hillary. Even older women who are Liberals think she "should have ditched Bill several humiliations ago."

    But those of you who support her always claim NOT to support her is to be duped by Obama. I asked some women my age (close to 60) why Obama was evil and they replied, "He's not." I tell them read Talk Left and you will see different.

    According to many of you, Obama is a worse than right wing Republican liar who, unlike Hillary, doesn't "deserve" to be president.

    I wish you would see how claiming Hillary is the anti-establishment candidate is crazy. Hillary raised enormous money to defeat her Senate opponents two years ago. She is a known quantity. She is tapped out and whatever she is, she is.

    It is interesting to me since I have voted for both Clinton's twice each, how often that vote is premised on a destruction of their opponent(s) and an outright lie or two.

    She is not a fresh wind from the Prairie. Take a second look is a better slogan, but Hillary would do well to find a way to "I have learned from my mistakes, and some have been doozies, quite frankly."

    Otherwise, McCain, who is crazy and dangerous will win by asking: do you really want to wake up November whatever and realize "they're baaaack!"


    Just because (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:59:32 AM EST
    you don't read and don't know the dialogue between the Clintons and Americans doesn't justify unloading on Hillary supporters. Go to HuffPo, it's all Obama all the time. You'll fit right in.

    Wrong (3.66 / 3) (#38)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:54:07 AM EST
    Nobody is claiming that she is the anti-establishment candidate. It would be a silly claim to make.

    What people are claiming, however, that Obama has become an establishment candidate, and I agree.


    The rejoinder is (3.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:58:39 AM EST
    Yes they are back. Thank God. What part of peace and prosperity didn't you like? McCain is just like Bush, except older and no wiser.

    I have no problem with either Democratic candidate (Ok I have problems with both)- I will have no problem voting for either.


    No one is saying Hillary is the anti-establishment (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:07:43 AM EST
    candidate.  Both Hillary and Obama are part of the establishment.  They both have portions of it supporting each of them.  The point of saying that Obama is the establishment candidate is that he's being suppported by the main players in our political establishment that want to end the Clintons influence.

    So you're wrong on that point.  You're equally wrong on many of the other points you make.  This blog is not a hate Obama blog.  In fact BTD is an Obama supporter.  A tepid one but still a suppporter.  He tends to write critical pieces on Obama but that's more a function of how lop-sided the left blogosphere has become against Hillary.  Look around and you will see screed after screed written about Hillary with adulation for Obama overwhelmingly and cloyingly almost everywhere.  After all he would be just one more voice in a huge choir if he emulated them.  As it is he gets to keep his reputation for fair and pithy commentary.  His commentary on Hillary is equally fair and pithy.  I'd rather come here and read his and Jeralyns commentary than be subjected to more Obama worship.  There's way too much koolaid going around.  

    What's sad is that in the few places like this you get Obama supporter after Obama supporter doing what you are complaining about how awful and anti-Obama it is to have a few places left on the internet not singing praises for Obama.  I'm glad you're telling your women friends to come here.  You may just find that they will read and see that the commentary here is not anti-Obama but just plain good politics.    Hopefully, they will find a respite from the nastiness the rest of the left blogosphere has become.  


    What makes you part of the establishment? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sterno on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:34:11 AM EST
    The question here is when do you become part of the establishment?  Are you establishment because a few members of the establishment choose to support you?  I don't think so.

    Before I get into this though, let's not kid ourselves here.  This notion that somehow Obama is more of an establishment candidate than Hillary was put forward by her people, trying to spin her situation.  She is struggling right now.  She was supposed to win handily on Tuesday and she lost narrowly.  She is running low on funds.  She's hoping that she can turn herself into the favored underdog and regain some momentum.  

    What we see here is somebody who was not part of the establishment, coming in and proving himself as a candidate.  Then the establishment, recognizing his success, wanted to be a part of that.  Inevitably, he will bring a few new ideas, and lose a few, and a new establishment will be formed that he's a part of.  But that has not happened yet.  

    The best example of the difference here between Hillary and Obama as far as establishment backing goes is the backing of AFSCME.  Obama was unable to get national unions to support him.  Not because he's anti-union, because he's been readily able to get local union endorsements.  The problem was that he hadn't been in the beltway very long to establish those relationships with the unions.  There's few things more establishment in Democratic politics than the national unions.  

    This isn't to knock on the unions, but you have to understand that they are an integral part of the Democratic party apparatus.  Clinton got their support because she was part of that machine and had those connections.  Obama didn't, because he was not enough a part of the establishment to do that.  So he, smartly, sought to find his union support outside of the main establishment apparatus.


    LOL (none / 0) (#81)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:08:33 AM EST
    No, just because he's fairly new doesn't mean he's outside the establishment.  Time spent doesn't make you establishment you can be new and part of the establishment and someone who's been around for a long time and outside of it.  It's a matter of if you're accepted into the establishment and if you support the establishment.  It's not a function of time it's a function of social and political actions.  

    Obama has clearly been from the time he first rose on the scene a sought after politician.  His quick rise to the Senate and his acceptance within it show his establishment credentials.  His running for president with all the support he has shows his establishment credentials.  No one is able to get this far on charisma alone.  He has substantial support within the establishment.

    Unions are a different matter than the political establishment.  They are a significant part of the Democratic politics but they are not really a significant part of that establishment. While our politicians value their GOTV abilities their influence has been reduced just as their numbers have been reduced.  Getting union endorsements is not equal to being part of the establishment.  Paul Wellstone was not a member of the establishment but he received union endorsements for the work and support he gave them.  

    So Hillary lost in a contest where she pulled in most of the big prizes and the popular vote?  We don't know where the delegates are yet as there are various countings of them.  Your guy went into Tuesday with huge expectations and didn't fulfill them.  He tended to win in small states she tended to win in big states.  The fact is that if MI and FL counted your guy would be behind further in the popular vote and definitely in the delegates.  But hey, whatever, keep on saying your guy won and she's struggling if it makes you feel better.  Amazing how you Obama supporters make everything a loss for Hillary and a win for Obama.  He may yet pull it off but if he does it won't be because you guys keep saying he won when he didn't.  


    Establishment (none / 0) (#125)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:42:14 PM EST
    "She  was  supposed  to win  handily  and she  lost  narrowly."

    Uh, no.    Let's  put this  Obama   spin to bed.  

    She  didn't lose.  She  WON,  handily.  

    She  took  all  the major  Democratic  base  states, plus more.    

    Obama  took Illinois  and some  already-red  states  that  won't  be  blue in November.    

    She   took   California,  Florida,  Michigan, New  Hampshire,  New  York,  New  Jersey,   and  Massachusetts.    Now  the  Obama  campaign  is  conceding  that  they won't win in  Texas, Ohio,  or  Pennsylvania;  Clinton will.  

    Clinton  WIPED  THE FLOOR  with Obama  in  all the  crucial  Democratic  base  states.  

    The  spinmeisters   at   the Obama  campaign  are    are   trying  to  convince you  she  narrowly lost,  but   she didn't.  And  they know it.  

    That's  why  Obama  has  had to  go  negative  and  is   refusing  debates.  


    Can't stand the heat? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    Its a good thing I made up my mind from the candidates and not their supporters. You gave a bad McCain argument, I gave the obvious rejoinder and all you have is a "1" for a come back. Ha!

    As I said, I will have no problem voting for either HRC or Obama in the general.

    But you should be aware, I have GOP friends and acquaintances and if Obama is the candidate- well lets just say its getting ugly out there.

    Have you seen the email about Obama is for slavery reparations? That one floored me. (Let me be clear, that is my GOP acquaintance, not me).


    Molly (none / 0) (#126)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:45:02 PM EST
    My own  Republican friends,  as  soon as  they heard  Obama  is FOR  drivers'  licenses  for illegal  aliens, laughed  out  loud  and  said,   "Forget him."  

    He's   waaaaay  too   ultra-liberal  for my Republican friends  (thank you Uncle  Teddy).

    They'd  vote  Clinton,    but if  it's  Obama,  they're  going   McCain.   Period.


    It's almost satisfying (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:47:11 AM EST
    to know that Oprah didn't help much.  I wanted to think that she was justifyably popular for the entertainment value; however, not the person you'd turn to when decided which candidate to run.  Of course, I said this in Orangeland and they brought out the tar and feathers.

    (I also said that the Kerry endorsement didn't mean much, and MAN did the hot tar hurt that time too!)

    (I am so over the Big Orange.  I wonder what the readership will be like when the rock star image fades.)

    Numbers of women vs men (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:19:47 AM EST
    It would be interesting to know how many women vs men blogs like the daily Obama lost.  I rather think they are losing many more women than men.  That type of confrontational, aggressive behavior tends to push more women away I think.  I'm also thinking that as more women leave the more aggressive and confrontational the blog gets. Though that could also be more from a younger population than just a male vs female one.   I'd love to see a breakdown on who stayed and who left by sex and age.  

    I think this election has really hurt the effort to build a movement to change the Democratic party.  Quite a few people like Markos and his blog have burned bridges that won't be rebuilt easily.  Words are easy it's the actions that are hard.  They have shown how little they follow what they themselves were selling not so long ago.  


    Yes! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:04:39 AM EST
    it's amazing to me to think that just a few months ago, liberals were all wishing that Bill Clinton could run again and in 2004, there was a concerted effort to search the Constitution to see if he could run as VP with the Democratic candidate. Now, you'd think the Clinton were Ghengis Khan because they are threatening the chosen one of the blogsters and the D. C. Dems.

    Look at what you wrote... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Richard in Jax on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:24:34 AM EST
    it's amazing to me to think that just a few months ago, liberals were all wishing that Bill Clinton could run again and in 2004,
    A few months ago...in 2004? One might draw the conclusion that you just made this stuff up and did a poor job of it. No, liberals were not trying to run Bill Clinton in 2004 and BC never hinted that he wanted to run. And guess what..he did nothing wrong in White Water, his wife didn't hike files from the Rose law firm (David Bossie did) firing a thief from the White House travel agency was the RIGHT thing to do..Foster killed himself....oh well.

    I believe (none / 0) (#19)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:58:00 AM EST
    a lot of left sites will have a lot of damage control to do when this all shakes out.  Maybe it's best, though, because obviously they need it.

    I am really ticked at Moveon, meanwhile, for getting their members to pony up for him when he basically stabbed them in the back.  Just shows where their priorities really are.

    I am sending emails to all of my friends saying to donate to Hillary, and that if they are going to give 100, split it with a friend.  Two $50 donations look better than just 1 $100 one.  "First time contributors" means a great deal at the end of the day.


    Taylor Marsh (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by tek on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:01:45 AM EST
    has the numbers and facts up, Hillary has raised millions since Super Tuesday. Of course, the MSM headlines are that Obama has raised 5 million since Tuesday and no mention of Hillary except to say that she loaned money to her campaign. There will be no end to the MSM and blogosphere's diminution of Hillary.

    Teresa (none / 0) (#127)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:48:53 PM EST
    I think  Oprah cooked her own  goose  when  she stood  on  that  stage in  California  and  said  she  GAVE   people  " permission" to  vote  for  Obama. (presumably,  women  against  Hillary).    

    Frankly,   it  never occurred to me  that  I  needed  Oprah's  permission  to do  ANYTHING.

    Her  tone of  voice  was  really  offensive.  


    Democrats are coming out in droves (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:56:41 AM EST
    this time, i think Barack and Hillary should be applauded for the turnouts. I don't think the fervor for Barack fizzled i think the "polarizing" candidate and he have made demos realize the significance of the next election and they are showing it in the primaries.  I could be wrong but i expect a record turnout come november for Hillary or Obama...

    But are they "Dems for a Day" (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:33:01 AM EST
    per the Obama appeal -- and will they vote Dem again in November, if he's not the nominee?  He says not.  So they're not really voting for the Dem party platform.  They're voting for the third party within and benefiting from the Dem party.

    Obama as an independent (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:34:51 PM EST
    Would be interesting to watch the political suicide.....

    What are they talking about?!? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:37:52 AM EST
    "Barack Obama presidential campaign fell short...."

    Oh, puleeze.  Let me count the ways:

    • Obama won more delegates Tuesday than HRC.  
    • Obama received $32m in Jan, HRC $13.5m
    • Clintons lended $5m of their own money
    • Some high staff for HRC are working unpaid
    • Obama collected $5m in one day (yesterday)

    Next up, we have a bunch of primaries that seem to favor Obama.

    Let's get a little more real here (as opposed to Bill Kristol-like unreality about how the Iraq war would be over in a few months and then we'd find the WMD's).

    For the record: I like both candidates fairly equally and haven't decided yet who I'm voting for in the "Cheseapeake Primary".  But I'm a realist who prefers looking at some of the cold, hard, facts.

    And I am a bit bummed that one of my favorite blogs (this one) seems to have turned into an extension of hillaryclinton.com -- one-directional spin not necessarily connected to reality.

    HRC is an awesome Senator for NY who would probably make the most competant president of the bunch.  But that doesn't change the fact that it is her candidacy that has fallen a bit short, not Obama's.

    Not the point (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:46:31 AM EST
    I thought the delegate counts weren't final yet, so I'm not sure your first point is correct.  Your other four bullets are about financing, which is important but not the only improtant metric.  Ask John McCain who was broke a month ago.  Ask Mike Huckabee who is running on fumes but still winning states.

    I don't think the Obama camp knows how to play the expectations game.  They set themselves up for this kind of analysis.


    you're actually switching subjects (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:18:20 AM EST
    Yes, indeed, money is not a 100% predictor of who's going to do well.  But it is a metric of who is doing well right now.  I don't know how anyone could not be impressed with Obama raising $5m in one day.

    As for your comment that Obama doesn't know how to play the expectations game, I have two responses:

    • it's the media that mostly made the expectations; and
    • I'm not sure it's a negative point if a candidate doesn't play the expecations game well

    Obama's fundraising is very impressive (none / 0) (#55)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:28:48 AM EST
    It would be silly to argue otherwise, and I don't think I did argue otherwise.  He can definitely haul it in, and I believe he does it primarily with small donations, which is very imrpessive.  But I don't think fundraising was the point of the NYT article, so actually it was the orignal commenter that switched subjects.

    I disagree with your last statement.  Controlling expectations is part of politics.  It may not be part of good governing, but it's part of what one needs to do to get elected.  If we elected people only on their ability to govern and not on their politicking skills, we'd be approaching the end of the Gore presidency.


    Here's what they are talking about (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:50:17 AM EST
    The expectations game. The images of big Obama rallies, his high profile endorsements and enthusiastic supporters, combined with polls showing a surge, created high expectations.

    He fell short of those expectations. Obama did well, but did not live up to the expectations. That's what the article talks about.


    Michelle Obama has a good speech (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by byteb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:28:55 AM EST
    about 'raising the bar'. The thrust of which is that when Obama started out his run against Hillary everyone said he had no chance. They said he had no organization in place and to get an organization in place takes time..time he didn't have. But he got an organization in place and a good one at that. So then,they said  campaigning takes money and he could never get enough money to start-up a campaign. But he did get enough money. Then they said he could never maintain the level of donations to keep a campaign going, but he did. Then they said a candidate who was black with a funny sounding name and relatively new on the scene would never get any support especially from white ppl and he won Iowa. The speech goes on from there but I'm sure you get the drift.
    I thought about her speech when I read Adam Nags story in the NYT, because it seemed to read like an example that Michelle Obama could put in her next Raising the Bar speech: sure he split the Super Tuesday results, something no one including Hillary or her supporters thought he would do only a few weeks back but he didn't win everything. He didn't win California where he was behind and where Hillary had years of reaching out and a strong system in place. And sure he made inroads with Hispanic voters but she did better, and sure White males voted for him but not southern white males..it's all more raising the bar. If Obama fell short of anyone's expectations it was the Media's overhyped unreasonable hysterical take on what he should do based on what exactly? In this NYT story, it's based on Adma Nags perception of Obama's rallys and how Adam Nags thinks that should have played out in votes? Please, NYT hire me. I can fathom all sorts of theories based on pulling stuff out of the air too.  

    Agree he has exceeded original expectations (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:50:45 AM EST
    He's done marvelously.  But the bar does get raised -- on everyone.  And rightly so.  There are a huge number of things you have to do right to be viable.  As you pass each test, that doesn't absolve you from having to pass the next test.  That seems to be what Michelle Obama is talking about, and I don't think that's unfair to Sen. Obama or any other candidate.  You have to do a hundred things right, and he's done most--not all--of those things right.  He's not my candidate, but it is very impressive to see how far he has taken this campaign.

    You don't know who won more (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    delegates yet.  Some states still are counting.  Other states, caucus states -- the target of Obama's strategy -- only have counts based on media estimates, because caucus states haven't picked national delegates yet or determined how they are to vote.

    That's how it's done in a democracy.  Takes time, but better than a rush to judgment.


    One-directional spin? (3.00 / 2) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    If you'd like one-directional spin, try DailyKOS.  You'll come back thinking we're taking a reasoned approach.

    If you haven't decided yet, why are you so worried that this site is Hillary-leaning?  This situation is the minority.

    And BTW:  The point of the New York Times article is that Obama's crowd draw isn't proportional to his vote.  That's all they were saying. They weren't saying he isn't successful, it's just that his supporters aren't voting in the expected numbers.


    one-directional spin (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:24:51 AM EST
    If you haven't decided yet, why are you so worried that this site is Hillary-leaning?

    I don't mind that it's Hillary leaning at all!  I do mind when so much of what I see here lately is seemes to be disconnected from reality.  In my mind, that's what the right-wing does, not us.  (Reminds me of Colbert's "truthiness" thoughts).

    Wake up and smell the coffee.  Things are, currently, going better for Obama than HRC.  If forced to bet, I'd bet on HRC to win, but that's because of her (and the former Prez's) experience in tough campaigning, creative strategies, and HRC's obviously superior debating skills -- not because of her current position.

    (Re: debating: I thought her answer on the Levin amendment in the last debate was awful, to put it nicely).


    Please.... (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by koshembos on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST
    Obama failed to win any of the three big states: CA, MA and NJ. He won many anti democratic caucuses states. He won ultra red states such as Idaho and Utah that will not vote Democratic even after the second coming (coined by Bruce Babbitt about Arizona in the 90s).

    Actually, Obama failed miserably and the country seems to swing back towards sanity/Hillary.


    failed miserably? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:15:15 AM EST
    To repeat: Obama got just as many (and most say slightly bit more) delegates than HRC.  This is "failing miserably"?  I wish I could fail so well!

    Failed miserably (none / 0) (#129)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    Based on the  expectations  game  the Obama  team  projected,  he  DID  fail   miserably.  

    He   won Illinois  and  a  bunch of  already-red  states.  

    He  won NO  major  Democratic  base  states.  

    Hillary won all of those.  

    So.....that  tells us  that  the  Democratic  base   actually  PREFERS   Hillary,  and  that  his  team's  expectation   were    nonsense.  

    Did  you hear  that  the Obama  campaign has  already  conceded   Texas,  Ohio, and   Pennsylvania  to   Hillary?  

    Not  looking  good.  


    If Obama wins the nod, California, NY, NJ and Mass (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by byteb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:32:19 AM EST
    will go blue just like they always do.

    well they will, (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by english teacher on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    but what about ok, ar, and tn?

    they will certainly go blue in the general if hillary is the nom.  i think that was proven on tuesday.  will they for obama?  i'm not so sure.


    I don't agree with you about that. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by byteb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:43:24 AM EST
    He sorta kinda..didnt he kinda sorta... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Richard in Jax on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:46:29 AM EST
    No he did not win those states..he just won a bunch of others and will continue to win more states. And guess what, so will Clinton. Can someone tell me what the point is in all of this?

    i would wager (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by english teacher on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:36:25 AM EST
    that the "campaign staffers working without pay" is about as legit as "they stole the w's off all the keyboards and trashed the white house" crap from eight years ago.  

    i could be wrong, but this smells like something that came from an anonymous source.  maybe they just don't need the money?  


    without pay...? (none / 0) (#90)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    I would wager that the "campaign staffers working without pay" is about as legit as "they stole the w's off all the keyboards and trashed the white house" crap from eight years ago.

    FWIW, ABC, MSNBC, LATimes, etc., are reporting it.





    they all went orgasmic (none / 0) (#94)
    by english teacher on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:49:44 AM EST
    repeating the tales about the clintons trashing the white house and stealing the w's from the keyboards, but that didn't make it true.  

    if you refuse to believe that... (none / 0) (#102)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM EST
    ... at least some senior Clinton staffers are going unpaid . . . well, then, that's exactly what disturbs me: this desire to believe what one wants to believe no matter what the facts are.  That's exactly what got us into, and perpetuates, the Iraq mess.

    I note that in this instance (as opposed to the trash-the-WH-allegations) that nobody from HRC's campaign has issued any denials or clarifications.


    DC Wonk (none / 0) (#130)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    Not  anymore.   Clinton raised   $6.5  million  in   2  days.  Plenty money  now.

    And  the  Gallup Daily   tracking  poll shows  her  with the uptick  after  Super  Tuesday:  

    Clinton  52%
    Obama   39%

    Nationally,    she's  whoopin  him.


    this blog does read like Hillary.com (none / 0) (#67)
    by tjproudamerican on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:41:31 AM EST
    I came to this blog through Memeorandum. I wrote an e-mail to BigTent explaining who I am and why my enthusiasm for Hillary disappeared in a one-two punch (watching Hillary debate followed by the Jesse Jackson Moment, which will follow Bill Clinton like the execution of Rector, his vehement and lie-filled put down and denunciation of an intern as "that woman" and several other moments when he really lived up to his detractor's estimation of him).

    I assume many posters here are Hillary staffers, or at least I hope they are. I hope Hillary finds her real voice, which would be to reconcile the ambiguities and contradictions of "The Clinton's" so that she can reclaim former (reluctant) supporters like me and claim people who don't support her, but could if she gave them a reason to.

    Hating Obama, and later on hating McCain, won't carry the people who do not already like her, which I think can reasonably be said to top off somewhere in the lower 40's of voters.

    Supporters will say her health care plan covers everybody, and who knows, maybe it does. But you need 60 Senate votes to even get that, or any plan on the agenda.

    What will Hillary do when as President, she has no 60 vote Senate Majority? She isn't exactly Abraham Lincoln as an orator, and you praise her here because she WON'T reach out to Republicans.

    Many here seem to like the Clinton's because they are tough, back alley fighters. But there legislative accomplishments on Progressive ideas are few and he did sign a welfare bill that punishes the poor.

    And whatever the reasons, the Reign of Bill Clinton coincided with losing the House and losing Governors. Those are big issues that have something to do with him, but much more to do with historical trends.


    You know (none / 0) (#104)
    by spit on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    you'd have a lot more credibility with me if you had gotten this post out without sinking into intern-land in the first paragraph.

    Hating Obama, and later on hating McCain, won't carry the people who do not already like her, which I think can reasonably be said to top off somewhere in the lower 40's of voters.

    While there are some few Hillary supporters here who are extremely frustrated with Obama (this place has seemed to draw the Hillary folks seeking refuge), the reality is that most democrats like them both. And as for the "topping off", no I don't think that can reasonably be said. It's an assertion people make, but lots of things that aren't true are asserted strongly on the blogosphere every day.


    Guess Obama Has Spent A Bundle For (none / 0) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:23:17 AM EST
    all his staff members posting over at the Big Orange, TPM and other Dem blogs.

    Get real and try not to make stuff up.


    DC Wonk (none / 0) (#128)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:51:44 PM EST
    Uh, no.    CNN  & MSNBC  showing   CLINTON  has   the  delegate  count.  

    And  in  fact,  CNN  showing   Clinton has  one more  delegate  from  Alabama  than  Obama,  so  by Obama  rules,   CLINTON  won  Alabama.  

    Jeez....you   Obamanauts  can't  even  get  your  facts  right.  

    Stop   posting  the  spin  from  his  campaign.  


    An enthusiastic loud vote (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by magster on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:39:49 AM EST
    only counts once.  The enthusiasm of his supporters make his caucus success more understandable though.

    hsu, marc rich, aaron tonken (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by SpindleCityDem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:02:02 AM EST
    and list goes on and on...enough is enough

    Rezko, Rezko, Rezko... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:14:38 AM EST
    No Quarter (click for link) has an interesting addition to the Rezko story.  Apparently, the lot Rezko bought beside Obama's house was rendered unbuildable because part of it was sold to the Obamas.

    Zoning laws require setbacks, and splitting off the side of the lot that contained the driveway and carriage house for the Obama home apparently rendered it useless.

    Oh, and Michelle Obama was on the landmark board that controlled the fate of the house.

    Also, they got a nice deal where they don't have to pay taxes for eight years.


    Uh huh, saw that and recall asking (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM EST
    about the viability of the now-smaller lot, asking an Obama biographer in a diary on That Other Site.  And the reply was, sure, it's still buildable.

    But what really angers me is how That Other Obama used and abused her responsibilities on the historical preservation board -- in her second term, past term limits (according to NQ).  And then, as soon as the two Obamas got their house and their deal, she went off the board.  Uh huh.

    We see that use and abuse of historical preservation laws, tax credits, etc., in my city -- and it has potential for all of us, across the country, losing the federal impetus for historical preservation for which so many of us worked for so long.


    Rezko (none / 0) (#131)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:02:08 PM EST
    An  interesting  detail,  Kathy:  Michelle  Obama  served  on that  Landmark  Board   UNTIL  her  house  deal  was   closed.  As  soon  as   that  was  "taken  care of,"  she  quit.

    IIRC Norman Hsu Also Contributed To Obama n/t (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:14:03 PM EST
    Another 2000 decision (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Saul on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:38:39 AM EST
    could divide the party if the delegates are evenly divided on delegates all the way to the convention  for Obama and Hilary. It might come down to the super delegates or just one superdelegate who decides who the nominee  will be.   If this happens this could anger both sides and divide the party and with each side saying that  after all these votes and effort  some superdeleagte is going to decide the nominee then screw it.  The  Hilary side would be angry as well as Obama side and with both sides saying we will just stay home since we did not get what we wanted after all this effort.  If that happens and the party is dividing then Obama and Clinton will need to make a deal on a dream ticket to unite the party no matter how much they might dislike themselves.  The prize is winning the election and sometimes you got to compromise  your principles for the good of the party for the sake of winning the election

    Most super-delegates are elected by us (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:21:21 AM EST
    as governors, members of Congress, etc.

    Would it be better to have the decision in the hands of pledged delegates, most picked because they are big donors?

    I just don't understand the fear of the super-delegates.


    Superdelegates (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:09:19 PM EST
    It's  NOT  a   big  deal,  except to  Obama  supporters. We've  ALWAYS  had  superdelegates. Nobody  cared until this  year,  because  the Obama  campaign  is pushing  the  "delegates"  meme,  knowing  they  can't  actually  win  states    or popular  vote.  

    In the  end,  even if  they're  TIED  in delegates, the  superdelegates  will look  at  who  is  capable of  carrying  the  big  states in November,  for the good  of the party. That  IS  their  responsibility.  

    And  that  will  be  Hillary  Clinton.  

    Obama  better  be  careful  about   how  cocky  he  gets  ,  or  how  much  his arrogance  begins  to divide  the party,  or   he  won't  even   be  VICE president.  


    I think I can safely (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    say that a lot of us are here (no matter which candidate we support) so that we could escape the sexist sleaze from dailykos, not have it follow us here.

    If I have to vote for BO in the general election I will, but comments like yours make it seem more and more repugnant.

    Lena (none / 0) (#140)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    Agree,  Lena.  

    The  Obama   supporters  sound more  and more  like  Freeperville    or  Limbaugh's  dittoheads.    

    They  have  BECOME  what  they claimed  to despise.  



    NYT: F in analysis (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by koshembos on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:06:08 AM EST
    According to the New York Times, huge rock concerts crowds imply that Obama has majority in the population. Then if he fails to get a majority in the pools, the natural conclusion is that some of his fans stayed home.

    Large crowds do not mean a majority; Obama simply doesn't have enough support, concerts not withstanding. Or in my view: Obama didn't con enough people. Obama's failure is a sign that this country has a lot of good people and a lot of success in the future.

    Hope is in NOT voting for Obama!

    Or maybe (3.66 / 3) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:18:58 AM EST
    voters like my wife and her 20 friends who are supporting Hillary who say "I don't need to go to a rally to support her she has my vote".  And everyone of them voted on Tues. Perhaps rallies have a greater representation of younger voters (less than 30) and those of us over 30-40 who went to them in our 20's don't "need" the rallies to get excited about a candidate or to show our support.  Maybe it is that they are showing up for the party and not in the booths, but with outstanding turnouts for the dem primaries methinks it has more to do with generational differences and priorities than the former.  I am not getting a sitter to go to a rally nor will i take time off of work.....

    So every one (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:00:53 AM EST
    of your wifes 20 friends voted and Ms. inevitable got a tie?  

    Koshembos (none / 0) (#133)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:13:12 PM EST
    Remember  the   big Obamarama  predictions  for New  Hampshire----HUGE  rallies,  rah  rah  rah.  

    Come  to find  out,  a  lot of  those people  at  the  rallies  were  from  Massachusetts...just  wanted  to see  Obama  with friends....and couldn't   vote  anyway.    Media  completely  missed  that, thinking  the  rallies  meant  votes.  

    Same  thing  in California.....huge  rallies  for  Oprah.....wanted  to  see Oprah,  but didn't  vote   for Obama.  

    In  fact,  the young  people  in California  and  Massachusetts  went  HEAVILY for  Clinton.  


    new here (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kenosharick on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:11:57 AM EST
    New to this site and I like what I see so far. I was spending a lot of time at americablog- but got sick ofbeing bashed because I support Sen. Clinton.

    Me Too KenoshaRick (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:35:36 AM EST
    I used to be a big fan of BuzzFlash too but they went all Hillaybashing/Obamalovin on me and I exited.

    Hey Off Topic but have you got shoveled out yet? I swear I have 18 inches of snow on my sidewalk and in my driveway and I am running out of places to pile it.

    I go shovel for a while, come in and get on the heating pad, shovel for...


    Hey Marge (none / 0) (#120)
    by kenosharick on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:05 PM EST
    Sorry my name is a bit misleading- I spent most of my life in the Milw-Racine-Kenosha area, but recently moved to West Georgia for grad school. It is so right-wing down here as to defy description-even on a college campus. Anyway,sorry about the snow, my Mom and friends there are not loving it.

    Hey dere, Kenosha! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:39:24 AM EST
    Welcome, from another Wisconsinite.  It's much more "Midwestern nice" and reasonable here -- disagreeing and debating but we dassn't do nastiness, ain'a. :-)

    Whadayathink Fellow Cheeseheads? (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    Will Wisconsin go for Hillary or Obama on February 19th? I'm voting for Hillary.

    I do wonder (3.00 / 2) (#27)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:37:07 AM EST
    if the powers that be at the big networks and at the cable nets have any idea how their coverage is affecting female voters.

    See Big Tent Democrat's post regarding the Obama Network and Digby's recent post regarding NBC's coverage.

    I can't speak for others, but this over 50 woman is completely fed up.  And yet, I will still support the Democratic nominee.

    But gentlemen, you are pushing your luck.  I'm talking to YOU, Chris Matthews and Brian Williams.

    I'd like to see this posted at Big Orange, (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by magnetics on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:15:09 AM EST
    where Obamamania has broken all bounds of rational expectation or behavior.

    I think Hillary did great last night, considering that the media narrative and the left(wing-nut)osphere so favored her opponent.

    The lefty blogs sound more and more like redstate to me; I had thought we (on the left) were better than that.

    Anyhow, I have a new slogan which sums up my objections to Obama, running for president after only two years on the national political scene:

    "The Audacity of Audacity."

    You heard it here first, maybe.

    My slogan (3.66 / 3) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:43:17 AM EST
    The "Audacity of Naivety".

    "The Audacity of Audacity." (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:21:06 AM EST
    Funny, sounds like a slogan from redstate.

    there's nothing inherently (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:54:37 AM EST
    wrong with audacity, if you have substance to back it up. john kennedy's 1960 campaign was audacious, but he had a portfolio. my problem with obama is that he lacks one.

    Really? (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:00:30 PM EST
    I guess it is all in the context. How's this:

    The audacity of a black man thinking he could be president.


    The audacity of a woman thinking she could be president.

    What do you think that says about blacks and women. Go over to redstate and find out.


    As one half of a mixed race marriage (none / 0) (#122)
    by magnetics on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    --Aframerican/Ashkenazi-- I have no problems with a woman, a person of color (any color) or a Jew becoming president of the US.  Well, maybe I draw the line at Lieberman, but for reasons other than  his ethnic or religious heritage.

    As others have noted in this thread, I think Obama basically lacks a portfolio: call me out for this, but IMO there's no there there.


    Not Saying You Do (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:48:30 PM EST
    Just reacting to this:

    The lefty blogs sound more and more like redstate to me; I had thought we (on the left) were better than that.

    And then a slam at Obama:

    Anyhow, I have a new slogan which sums up my objections to Obama, running for president after only two years on the national political scene:

    "The Audacity of Audacity."

    It seemed to me that you being guilty of what you criticize.


    And another thing: say what you will about Jesse (none / 0) (#123)
    by magnetics on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:39:41 PM EST
    Jackson:  I remember well his run for president in 1988; and here is the astounding thing about it.  It was about message first, fervor second.  I remember after he had campaigned in Wisconsin I heard an interview with a dairy farmer in one of the smaller towns -- it was as though the guy had drunk progressive truth serum, and suddenly realized how so many of his practical day to day difficulties were rooted in the class-economic system which favors the rich over the working people.  

    Sorry to sound so Marxist -- I am a capitalist, who believes Marx to have been our greatest economic historian.


    Obama talks audacity (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:32:54 AM EST
    but offers up a timid proposal on health care. He's already caved on universal coverage before he even gets started. I wish Amercans would wake up and start looking at actions rather than lofty words.
    At least we are not talking about who would be more fun to have a beer with.

    Who's timid? (none / 0) (#96)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:51:52 AM EST
    Obama talks audacity but offers up a timid proposal on health care.

    Yup.  You're right.  But HRC has been timid (or, perhaps just wrongheaded) in her approach to the retroactivity in reducing prison time for crack offenders.  She said that she's against retroactivity in prinicple.  Almost every professional in the field of criminal justice (as well as the unanimous US Sentencing commission, and the federal judiciary) think she's wrong on this.

    In my mind, they are both 90% great, and I can't help but cringe when I see both camps harp on the 10% that the other candidate is weak on.

    To quote Michael Duffy in today's Time.com, Obama and Clinton present:

    the visionary and the technician, the candidate who could inspire the masses and the candidate who could get under the sink and fix the plumbing.

    We need both.  Neither candidate excelles in both.  We need to weigh which is more important, and other factors (electability).

    But, let's face it, on the issues, they are 90% the same, and they are both timid (or wrong) from time to time.


    A-squared. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:26:34 AM EST
    Red States or rather MSM (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by koshembos on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:56:16 AM EST
    You say:

    The lefty blogs sound more and more like redstate to me; I had thought we (on the left) were better than that.

    Most of the Netroots show, and not surprisingly, that they also have their own Village. There is no difference between the MSM behavior towards Hillary and that of the Netroots. The major reason is the mob mentality. After all, how can one explain the decision of true progressives such as Gitlin and Kos to go with Obama who item by item is to the right of Hillary?


    how can I explain it (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:59:13 AM EST
    Anatomy.  Those guys were too gleeful tearing Hillary down to make me believe it was an informed, thoughtful decision.

    Greed (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:46:11 AM EST
    The Obama supporters are possibly the majority on the net and KOS is going for the short-term financial gains (via advertising hits).

    I sincerely believe he'll pay for it in the long-run, just as the party will pay for it if they pay less heed to the reliable D's than to the "fair-weather D's".

    I'd have zero problem with reasoned discussion with Obama-ites, but the KOS-ite Obama-ites like to mob and shut down people who don't agree with them -- even some of the FP'ers do this.  This is authoritarian behavior, more like a Republican than a D.  


    Fitting (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:01:35 AM EST
    as a great many of them used to be republicans.

    I dunno.  This stuff is not looking good for the party.  I asked this yesterday but maybe someone can answer now: what happens if Clinton gets the popular vote, Obama gets the delegates and the superdelegates have to decide?


    Fitting (none / 0) (#135)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:22:40 PM EST
    What  happens?  

    That's  what  the  superdelegates, being  elected members of the party, are  for.    

    They'll  calmly look   at  who   won   the most  large  Democratic  base  states  for  advantage in   November,   and  go from there.  

    Besides,   both  Obama  and  Clinton  already  promised   Michigan and  Florida  they would support  reinstatment  at  the convention.

    If  Obama  reneges   just  to  avoid  giving  Clinton   the   delegates  she   legitimately won,  especially in   Florida,   he  splits  the party    and   we lose  in  November.  

    Besides,  lotta  the  Obamanauts  have  said  they'll  take  their little red  balls and go home.  

    Some   "uniting,"   eh?


    I'm late here but just wanted to say that I think (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Angel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:45:32 AM EST
    Hillary's camp knows that the more people see of BO the more they don't like him.  That's why she wants a debate every week; BO doesn't want any more debates.  That's very telling.  Just wanted to say that we need to put some bucks in HRC's pot, she needs it to win.  We put in another chuck last night....gotta put our money where our mouth is.

    On the way to the office.  Y'all have a great day!

    she wants a debate every week b/c she' s (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by byteb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:34:08 AM EST
    running out of money and it's good cheap pubicity in a venue that she does very well.

    Debates (none / 0) (#134)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:15:58 PM EST
    No,  dear.   Hillary   $6 1/2  million  in 2  days, and more  pouring  in.  

    Obama  doesn't  want  to do  debates  because  he knows  Hillary  beats  him  there.  

    He'd  rather  give  "inspiring"  speeches  about  "hope"  than   actually  discuss  policy.


    one thing that is perhaps being overlooked (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by english teacher on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:29:02 AM EST
    in my opinion is the fact that clinton basically turned three states from red to blue.  in ar, tn, and ok she not only crushed obama, she also got as many or more votes than the entire republican field in all three states.

    that is huge.  those states are hers for the taking in the general election.  i take these numbers as strong evidence to support my hillary landslide general election thesis.

    i'm pretty sure she would take those states, which voted for bush the last two times, in the general election. she would surely beat the republican in all the crucial swing states like fl, mi, ohio, pa, and ca.  

    she will probably add texas to the democratic side.  

    the point being, super tuesday basically disproved the spin that hillary cannot win red states.  she proved she has three in her back pocket on tuesday.  

    hillary can take ok, ar, and tn, plus texas in the general election.  i think that is a safe assumption to make based on the evidence at hand.    

    It doesn't translate that b/c she won Ar, Tenn and (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by byteb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:36:34 AM EST
    Oaklahoma in a Democratic primary that she'll win them in November if she's a candidate.

    Then It Doesn't Translate That b/c Obama (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:56:20 AM EST
    won in primaries in a few Southern states or eked out minuet victories in swing states that he will win them in November. Yet, this meme has been put forth consistently by his supporters.



    You're right. (none / 0) (#82)
    by byteb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    i think the numbers (none / 0) (#75)
    by english teacher on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    speak for themselves.

    fairly one-sided argument (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:50:06 AM EST
    As someone else noted -- crushing Obama in Oklahoma in a Dem primary in no way indicates whether she can take Oklahoma in Nov.

    And if it did indicate such, then please also note that Obama exceeded 60% in six states (including red ones like Idaho), while HRC exceeded 60% in just one state (Arkansas).

    My point is this: I don't think the voting between Obama and HRC is indicative of how they will fare against the GOP in a given state.

    I do think, however, that the sheer number of votes (for either Obama or Clinton or combined) is a terrific sign for November.  If you compare the number of votes received per candidate in each state, McCain finished in 3rd in most of them: Obama and HRC finished 1-2 or 2-1 in almost all of them.  (Granted, it's easier to do so in a 2-way race than a 3-way race -- but we've all read the stats, I'm sure, that so many more voters are voting in the Dem primaries than the GOP ones)


    Hillary outperformed the entire Republican (none / 0) (#92)
    by g8grl on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    top tier in TN, AR, and OK by herself, without Obama's votes.  If she gets even half of Obama's vote on top of her own in the GE, we've won those states.  Compare that to Obama who won in states with NO chance of going blue in the GE.  Those states translate to NO electoral college votes.  

    irrelevant (none / 0) (#109)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    Do you really think if HRC is nominated she could carry Oklahoma?

    And besides, your facts are wrong.  In Oklahoma, HRC got 228K votes.  The top-3 GOP combined for 315K votes.  It wasn't even close in TN.  If you add in Ron Paul, what you stated isn't true for AR either.

    I will argue again that how Obama and HRC polled against each other is not particularly relevant as a predictor for how they will do against the GOP.

    But, if you insist, I'll point out (again) that Obama got over 60% in eight states, including states such as Missouri, which is often a close state, and Colorado which has been trending purple.  

    OTOH, Calif and NY will go Dem no matter who wins the Dem nomination.

    So, I disagree with your premise, and on top of that, your facts are incorrect.


    It's not Clinton (none / 0) (#73)
    by sterno on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:52:04 AM EST
    she also got as many or more votes than the entire republican field in all three states

    That's not Clinton's doing though.  It's a party thing.  There is far more enthusiasm this year amongst the Democratic base than the Republican base.  It is representative of party dynamics, not individual candidates.

    What happens come the election could be very different.  It's one thing to not show up to pick which Republican is running.  It's a very different thing to not show up to vote for the Republican over a Democrat.

    Having said that, McCain's role here will be very interesting to watch play out.  The base hates him, but many independents like him.  Having said that, my sense is that over the course of the campaign, independents will be shown who McCain really is and he'll get destroyed by either Democrat.


    i think the numbers (none / 0) (#86)
    by english teacher on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    reveal more than all your spinning ever will.  she blew away all other candidates.  what about that don't you get?  

    these are states that went for bush.  in all three states, she was far and away the leading vote getter.  

    but that doesn't matter.  or you think barack can do as well.  sorry, there is no evidence to support that.  at best, it is a toss up that obama would take those states.  

    tell me arkansas wouldn't be a pick up for her.  look at tennessee.  look at the numbers.  three states that went for bush, three red states, and she blew away the entire field.  

    if obama hasn't sliced off the african american base, i believe clinton could be competitive in alabama and georgia.  

    at the very least though, it disproves the obama campaign's claim that she can't win red states.  will you at least admit that this evidence seems to strongly refute that phony obama talking point?  probably not but i thought i'd ask anyway.  


    Lovin the Spin They're In... (none / 0) (#101)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:09:02 AM EST
    When Hillary loses she's on her way out and the media, particularly MSNBC and most of the liberal blogs take numerous victory laps and then when she wins, she doesn't win by enough or with the right demographic or some other cockamamie reason and thus she loses again. It's very easy to understand once you acknowledge that the Clintons are responsible for all the evil in the world and Hillary never wins even when she does.

    Evidently the  war was started, mishandled, funded and fought by Hillary Clinton too. Of course Obama tried to stop her but she had that nasty super-dooper "Clinton" machine behind her. (That's nothing at all like the inspirational, does nothing but good Kennedy machine that now backs Obama. Oh my no.) Because Hillary is one of those nasty politicians, unlike Obama and Kennedy who are only waiting patiently for their halos and wings to be awarded.


    but your numbers are incorrect (none / 0) (#110)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    Clinton did not outpoll the top-3-GOP combined in three states -- only in one, Arkansas (and if you add in Ron Paul, Clinton did not outpoll them).  Big deal, it's a former home state of hers.

    Obama did the same thing in Illinois, his home state (even if you throw in Ron Paul).  And he did it in a few other states, too.

    But I still think it's irrelevant.


    It's not spin... (none / 0) (#117)
    by sterno on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    If you want to talk about Hillary beating democrats, then I think that's a fair comparison.  I think trying to read something into the general election from these numbers in the primaries is iffy at best.  Primary turnout is driven by enthusiasm for the choices put forward.  If people don't particularly care for one of the candidates, then they won't show up.  

    But come the general election when they have more riding on it, then many of those people who wouldn't show up to the primary will show up to vote.  That will drastically change the dynamics.  

    I'm not spinning anything here.  I just don't think this is a reasonable comparison.  I mean, imagine if Hillary had locked this up back in Iowa.  There'd be nobody showing up to the primaries in Tenessee because there'd be no point and so the opposite conclusions would be drawn.  

    The republican field of candidates is a pretty mixed bag for them and there's a lot of fragmentation.  My sense is that many are just staying the hell out of it (and the turnout numbers suggest that).  What isn't clear to me is what kind of enthusiasm they'll have for McCain and how much anti-Hillary energy there will be if she wins.


    Numbers (none / 0) (#136)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:28:39 PM EST
    Clinton did  the  same  thing in  the FLorida  election  ,  and  Florida  is  a  crucial   swing  state  for  November.   Here  are  the numbers  from FLorida:  

    Clinton     856,944
    McCain      693,425
    Romney      598,152
    Obama       568,930

    Clinton  beat  them ALL.   Obama  couldn't  even beat Romney, let  alone McCain.    

    Superdelegates  have  every  right  to  take  these  things  into  account  for  the good of  the party.  

    If  Obama  resists  reality,   HE  is  the  party  DIVIDER, for  his own personal gain.  


    What were the expectations though? (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sterno on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    [O]nce again -- as in New Hampshire -- the result on Tuesday did not match the fervor that had been signaled by Mr. Obama's dramatic march of rallies across the nation leading up to the vote.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Obama winning? :)

    I mean okay fine, there's the super delegates, but I can't imagine them going against the popular delegate winner.  It would be, in a word, ugly, if that happened.  

    The "fervor" is a bunch of media hype that is treating Obama like he's the second coming and should be wiping the floor with Hillary.  The reality has never been that way though.  His bet was that they could win Iowa, establish his credibility, then grind this campaign out.  

    Obama's campaign didn't expect to be in this good of shape.  They expected to lose Super Tuesday and be within maybe 100-200 delegates that they'd make up for in February.  Instead they are actually ahead going into a series of very favorable primaries and caucuses.  

    "Popular delegate winner" (none / 0) (#83)
    by zyx on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    is a spin term anyway.

    Obama vacuumed up delegates in Alaska, where, last time I looked at the figures at the Washington Post site, all of about FOUR HUNDRED people voted in the Democratic Caucus.  He got more delegates, likewise, in states that had disproportionately tiny Democratic voting populations like Idaho and North Dakota.  He wins fewer votes in Nevada and gets more delegates.  He said last summer in Tampa Bay that he really did want to seat the Florida delegates, but now he doesn't, for some strange reason.

    "Popular delegate winner" is a meaningless term.


    Not really (none / 0) (#118)
    by sterno on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    It all comes down to whether you believe that the super delegates, at the end of the day, would align against a candidate who had secured more popular delegates.  I personally don't see that happening because it would tend to fragment the party.  If you believe otherwise, we can agree to disagree, but it's not an attempt to spin, it's just what I think the political reality is.  

    I'm not going to sit here and deny that Obama is playing to get the delegates.  That's just smart strategy.

    As for the Florida delegates, they all agreed that they were not to be seated and that they would not campaign there.  Those were the rules going in.  To change them after the fact would be grossly unfair.        


    Sterno (none / 0) (#137)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:32:42 PM EST
    Nice  try,  sterno.  

    Obama  has  already publicly  told   Floridians  he  supports  their   reinstatement  at the convention.  

    If he  goes   back on that  promise,   he's toast.


    The super delegates ARE the popular picks (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    since most of them were elected by us -- to be our governors, lieutenant governors, members of Congress, etc.

    Many of the pledged delegates are, as usual, the big donors.  Did you pick them?  I didn't.  I appreciate their donations to the party, but that's different.


    odd argument... (none / 0) (#119)
    by sterno on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:11:52 PM EST
    The pleged delegates are the ones that are assigned based on the outcome of the popular vote in each district and must vote as the votes were cast in the district.  It doesn't matter who those delegates are, they are required to vote the way that the popular vote went.  It's not like a super delegate where they can be arbitrary.

    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#138)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:34:09 PM EST
    No, sterno,  the  superdelegates  are  NOT  required  to vote  as you  say.  They  can  vote  any  way  they want.   Has  always been so.    

    Quit  reading  the  Obama  campaign spin....they're  misinforming you.


    I know it's an argument not seen here (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:10:35 PM EST
    or much of anywhere, but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about them -- even a reversal, where the thinking is that super-delegates are less accountable to us.  They aren't bound by our votes, but we have ways to get back at them, anyway . . . as we don't for the donor types of delegates who are only pledged for a round or two (depending upon state rules) -- if it gets to a brokered convention.

    Define winning? (none / 0) (#105)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:13:41 AM EST
    Both sides have a claim on winning and that's the problem.

    With the delegate situation, (none / 0) (#1)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:38:06 AM EST
    short of something really dramatic, I don't see how there is a clear winner no matter who wins TX and PA.  If (big if) obama wins 9 states, some by wide margins, his supporters will have a very hard time accepting that hillary wins the nomination just because edged him out in these bigger states.  Likewise for Hillary supporters, they won't accept that Obama should win without the core states of the party.  On top of this - if one has more delegates, they'll never accept that they should step aside.

    I am having a very difficult time seeing how we avoid a brokered convention.  But, I suppose we still have half the states to go so maybe not.

    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:41:53 AM EST
    I'm not sure "edged him out" is the right description for what Clinton has done to Obama in most of the large states.

    that's true... (none / 0) (#3)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:52:23 AM EST
    - i was thinking in my head about TX and PA though.  I would be SHOCKED if either candidate won by more than 5 points in those states.

    But your comment sort of makes my point.  Hillary supporters would think they won, Obama supporters would think he won.  And they would both be steadfast in their belief.

    Yet another reason to me why and April 22nd showdown with PA, MI, and FL would be good for the party.  And by the way, all it would take is for the two candidates to agree to do this.  Either one should feel confident enough in their support to do so.  


    I don't think it will be within 5 points (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by desmoinesdem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:57:06 AM EST
    in OH and TX unless Obama dramatically improves his standing among Latinos and working-class whites.

    Andrew (none / 0) (#139)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:35:54 PM EST
    I'm hearing  that  the Obama  campaign has  already  conceded   Texas, Ohio, and  Pennsylvania  to  Hillary Clinton.  

    Not looking  good.


    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:51:05 AM EST
    New guy allure versus media blowback?

    Who did better? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:21:36 AM EST

    Who did better in the swing states?  Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida...  How well one does in the states that are reliably Dem or reliably Rep don't matter much in the general.  

    We Are Talking About Dems in that State (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM EST
    This was not a victory among Republicans.

    Further many of Obama's victories were in caucus states. That means it occurred among folks motivated to attend a caucus. (I supposed beyond motivated, it includes folks with the time and resources to expend at one.)

    Little of that translates to the GE.

    As for the fears that Hillary will "drag down" the ticket. Please, what do you think the Republicans will do to him after he wins? Oh, please spare me "he survived the Clintons." It's nowhere near the same (just ask McCain).


    Unless you're running against a (none / 0) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:42:42 AM EST
    "moderate"( John McCain).

    In addition, alienating voters in the states that go reliably Democratic (CA, etc) is a whole lot more dangerous than alienating voters in a consistent red state (ID).


    how is (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    Obama alienating voters there, over 70 percent of both candidates voters said they would be happy with the other.

    Did I say HE was (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    alienating voters?  I meant that the wishes of the reliably blue states should trump the wishes of the states that would only vote blue when hell froze over (e.g. Idaho (LOL)).

    If the delegate race was a virtual tie, the tie should be broken by who got the most delegates in reliably Democratic states.  Wishes, hopes dreams and pixie dust aside, the reliable red states are going to stay reliable red states.


    Caucus' vs primaries (none / 0) (#15)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:44:21 AM EST
    A win in a primary or caucus only means that the voters who are Democratic or tend Democratic or spoilers voted for that candidate.  It doesn't show us how the vote will turn out in the GE.  Though the huge turnouts for the Democratic side this time is encouraging.  It doesn't show that one candidate or another would be more likely to win in the GE.

    You also have the complication of caucus' vs primaries.  Primaries give most everyone an equal chance to participate while caucus' are more difficult to attend.  Just look at the drastically lower participation in caucus'.  Caucus' are set for a specific time and it's generally 1 to 2 hours.  Many people can't attend due to family or work obligations.  Many people are also intimidated by the thought of having to get up in front of people to vote.  Caucus' by their nature limit participation.  

    The people who caucus are definitely not representative of who will likely turn out for the GE.  So while neither tell us much of which candidate will do better the caucus  is worse than the primary for guessing how a candidate will do in the GE.  It would be interesting to see how those caucus states would have voted if it was a primary.   An interesting test would be to hold a primary the same night as the caucus and let people choose which they want to go to and compare results.  Such a test might end the use of the caucus for determining the choice of candidate.  


    Wisconsin didn't vote yet (none / 0) (#30)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:42:14 AM EST
    Wisconsin doesn't vote until February 19th. By then maybe our vote won't even matter. Sucks to be so late in the Primaries. And although I will vote for Hillary Clinton I suspect that Wisconsin will go to Obama.

    Our knuckle-headed Democratic Governor Jim Doyle has endorsed Obama which means that Doyle has got his last vote from me.

    I believe private citizens have a perfect right to endorse anyone they want to endorse. I think it inappropriate when the Governor of a State, who is supposed to represent all the people of that state, endorses anyone. And yes I would say the same thing if he had endorsed Hillary Clinton. I don't like it no matter who they are endorsing.


    Lt. Gov. Lawton and Tammy Baldwin (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:50:31 AM EST
    -- our first congresswoman ever -- both endorsed Clinton, so I'm not discouraged here in Wisconsin.  The organizers are here, events are happening.

    I don't mind Doyle making an endorsement, either.  But like you, I will add it to his ever-growing list of reasons for him to retire.  Not that he was my first choice for his first term, either. . . .


    I didn't know... (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    I didn't know about Lawton and Baldwin. Thanks for sharing that information. It gives me a little more hope that maybe, just maybe... Nah, I'm not gonna jinx myself by saying anything else.

    John McCain represents change? (none / 0) (#34)
    by cowboyneok on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:49:21 AM EST
    Check this post out and tell me again why John McCain "the maverick" represents change?

    The "Maverick" represents change?

    Wow the Republicans (none / 0) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:04:24 AM EST
    did their job to an expert degree!  

    You're afraid to go back to a time when they were smearing the Clintons for things that did not stick! 70 million in investigation of things like "whitewater" and they got him for a blue dress.

    How gutless!

    And I can't believe I'm saying this to a Democrat, so you're apparently not.  Must be a red stater.

    well, yeah.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:58:59 AM EST
    ... I, and I think millions of others, are not terribly psyched to:
    go back to a time when they were smearing the Clintons for things that did not stick! 70 million in investigation of things like "whitewater" and they got him for a blue dress.

    And I'm speaking as someone who thinks that Bill Clinton's economic policies were the best of any president in modern memory.

    If HRC doesn't win, I think it will be because of this baggage, no matter how unfair this will be.  

    It would be wise to not scoff at it.


    Whether you support Hillary or Obama... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:04:29 AM EST
    ...someone explain to me how you can feel good about any vote you cast when we KNOW there is no reason to trust that your vote was counted correctly or even counted at all.

    We have our heads in the sand in a profound and disturbing way.  There is no election result in this nation that can be trusted.  

    What we are discussing and debating means nothing when the reality of election fraud and maniuplation are SO immediate.  The last two prez elections were stolen almost certainly, have we forgotten?

    Obama mania (none / 0) (#84)
    by SoCalDem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:18:07 AM EST
    I think it began with the Oprah endorsement. Due to the fact that I live in California and am now living under one of the worst Governors of our time. Thanks in part to Oprah having him declare his run for Governor on her show. How else can you explain Democratic California voting for a Republican that can't speak fluent English. I never watch her show and have had to par down my favorites on the net to escape the Obama b.s. I didn't start out a Hillary supporter, I never had a problem with her I just thought that John Edwards was what we needed at this time to give everyone a voice. When John suspended his campaign I was just going to vote for him anyway because he is and has been my choice since the last election. After he suspended I listened to the debates, most people I know thought I would be supporting the Black candidate because my children and grandchildren are mixed. Just being Black or mixed doesn't make you jump on his train. There is no substance to this Black man. I'm Old, I lived through MLK, he was a black man you could support, he lived his message, Obama is an empty suit.

    ummm.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM EST
    How else can you explain Democratic California voting for a Republican that can't speak fluent English.

    Is there something wrong with having an accent?

    In any event, I would explain it as: anger at the prior governor, uninspiring opponents, and unbelievably high name recognition.


    It's not his accent so much... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    It's not so much his accent as our hearing. Your hearing isn't what it once was when you get older and you hate accents because they make it even harder for you to understand what people are saying. NOTICE, before I get beat up, I said you hate ACCENTS, not the people speaking but the accent that makes it hard for you to understand what they are saying.

    I never did like Ahnold and it had nothing to do with his accent. It had to do with waving a big cigar around and bragging about all his Hummers. What a jerk. Didn't like his muscle bound movies either. I suspect most old bats like me don't either. We're more the Steel Magnolias type than Terminators.


    his English is very fluid (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:58:08 AM EST
    he just has an accent.

    And fluent. (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    I had to vote against him since the CA health care reforms he promised to bring would ruin the co my wife worked for - and they did - but I've always found his accent to be fun to listen to, and that he uses it in a humorous way.

    10% of independent votes no counted (none / 0) (#115)
    by DA in LA on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    in LA county.  That's 70,000.  Should swing a few delegates Obama's way.

    LA votes (none / 0) (#141)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    Probably  swing more  to   Clinton,  since     Obama  is  NOT  popular  with   Hispanics.  

    Check This Out (none / 0) (#121)
    by LetMeDoIt90 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:39:01 PM EST
    Know matter what it comes down to the votes and if they keep their promises. I just came across "The Leagues" FaceBook page. They ask you to vote for your favorite presidential candidate and your three top issues. After you vote they give you the result of your city. The result surprised me. I thought that my city were complete democrats. Check this out heres the link Apps.facebook.com/theleague