home

Hillary's Campaign Responds to Obama's Win Today

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:27:43 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The votes aren't fully counted, but it's pretty clear that as expected, Barack Obama will win big today in Washington State, Nebraska and Louisiana. Hillary Clinton's campaign as released the following statement:

(Shorter version: We're concentrating on Ohio and Texas.)

Tonight there are contests in three states that the Obama campaign has long predicted they would win by large margins. According to a spreadsheet that was obtained by Bloomberg News, the Obama campaign predicted big victories in Washington State, Nebraska and Louisiana.

The Obama campaign has dramatically outspent our campaign in these three states, saturating the airwaves with 30 and 60 second ads. The Obama campaign has spent $300,000 more in Louisiana on television ads, $190,000 more in Nebraska and $175,000 more in Washington. [More...]

Although the next several states that hold nominating contests this month are more favorable to the Obama campaign, we will continue to compete in them and hope to secure as many delegates as we can before the race turns to Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Louisiana had a low turnout, maybe 15%. Anger over Katrina is one of the suspected causes. 50% of Louisiana Democrats are African-American so it's not suprising Obama will win big there.

Washington State liberals and well-to-do came out in droves there -- they also tend to be Obama supporters.

Nebraska has never had a good relationship with the Clintons -- Hillary didn't even make an appearance there. So it's not suprising Obama will take that as well.

< Clinton Demands NBC Change Its Pattern Of Behavior | TPM Continues To Misreport Clinton Letter To NBC >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary's Campaign Responds to Obama's Win Today | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I don't expect her to win this month (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    the states with Feb. voting belong to Obama. But she will pick up some delegates, and she still has an edge in Ohio, Texas and perhaps Pennsylvania.

    She does have to watch out for the psychological perception that will result from Obama's winning streak.

    Obama's wins (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    Oh, come on, Jeralyn.  

    You  and  I both know  Nebraska  and  Louisiana  will  go  RED  in  November.    

    Obama  winning  the  small  Democratic  caucuses/primaries  there  doesn't  translate into  winning  the  state in the  general.  

    Hillary's  RIGHT  about  focusing on   other  larger  states.  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania  are  MAJOR    pulls  for the  general.

    [ Parent ]

    Watch out? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    .....according to the press and progressive blogs Hillary the B has been dead and counted out what 3 times now, how will this month be any different?  Just hang in there, volunteer for the campaign this month make calls and ignore the pundits.  We will bring Ohio in for Hillary..

    [ Parent ]
    Will Obama continue (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Coldblue on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:57:29 PM EST
    to run as the underdog candidate, or will he accept the front runner position and all the arrows aimed at his candidacy?

    oh he loves to be perceived as the (none / 0) (#44)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    underdog....Why change it now? He is even trying to not debate her anymore than necessary...What a man of the people.....lol.....God forbide America find out what he stands for...

    [ Parent ]
    Underdog (none / 0) (#96)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    Obama   giving his  speech  now.....dramatically  claiming  to be  the  underdog in the whole race....like  his   "burden"  has   been sooooo  hard  to  carry.  

    Barf

    [ Parent ]

    Woo Hoo (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:09:40 PM EST
    CNN is reporting with 0% of the vote in Clinton leads 330-295.  And that can't be 0% or else it would be 0-0, it must be something like 0.0001%.  We're on a roll!

     At least until they count more votes.  Heh.

    I had to turn off (none / 0) (#73)
    by IndependantThinker on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:29:23 PM EST
    CNN and move to FOX. I couldn't stand Blizer. He was saying that the exit polls show Obama winning LA but he can't call it. I go to FOX and Hillary is ahead. LOL. I know it probably won't continue but it would be great, I can dream can't I.

    [ Parent ]
    seeing (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by andreww on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:00:19 PM EST
    what's going on with huckabee in LA, it really makes me think the south is in play for the dems if obama is our nominee in a way that it isn't if hillary is our nominee.  They seem to really not like mccain down there

    That's nuts (none / 0) (#83)
    by Shawn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:04:12 PM EST
    Obama's losing the white vote in LA 70% - 26%. You don't carry Southern states with those kinds of numbers among Democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    with about (none / 0) (#86)
    by andreww on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:08:51 PM EST
    the same percentage in, obama has more votes than mccain and hick combined.  I think that means something.

    [ Parent ]
    andrew (none / 0) (#97)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:36:31 PM EST
    It  doesn't  in Louisiana,  Andrew.  

    Louisiana  is   a  red  state,  period.

    Obama  won't   bring it  to  the  Democratic  side,  anymore  than  he'll  bring   Alabama,  Georgia,  Kansas,  Alaska,  or  Utah.  

    Not  gonna  happen.    

    [ Parent ]

    hey I want to lead a protest in the future against (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:44:23 PM EST
    CAUCUSES!!!!!!!!! if the democratic party wishes to be fair to all voters then we should do away with them period.....

    So? (3.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:30:05 PM EST
    Some states favor Obama, some favor Clinton. The thing Clinton really needed to do was limit her losses in states that favor Obama. She didn't today. If she doesn't on 2/12, she's done.

    Ocolyte Propaganda 2-12 is nothing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:36:28 PM EST
    ........and Obamas campaign is complaining about voter problems in LA and the only time I have heard that level of concerns and boo hoo about voters not being counted is when its going against their guy.............. So my guess La can't be going their

    [ Parent ]
    andreww, what could she have done in these (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:37:04 PM EST
    three states besides waste her money? She was always going to lose them. They aren't the kind of demographics she does well with. Just ask the Obama campaign.

    I think these expected wins will give Obama a lot of favorable coverage over the next few weeks and could help him in the remaining states where Hillary leads.

    [ Parent ]

    She had a 2-1 lead in WA in October (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:44:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Duh, this was a caucus so that lead means squat (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:47:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Reread the post (none / 0) (#19)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:50:49 PM EST
    It said Hillary was always going to lose WA; not true, she was up 48-22 in October, and both Senators endorsed her.  Losing 2-1 is a troubling development for her.  

    [ Parent ]
    It is not a development (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    This was foregone for the past month at least.

    No need to spin. These are good wins for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    You're the only one who thinks so (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    from what I've seen and read all over the networks, the 'Net, the press (Seattle PI, etc.).  Why?

    [ Parent ]
    Depends on what the definitions of is is (none / 0) (#31)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:12 PM EST
    If "always" means the last month, then I am wrong.

    Early LA votes favoring Obama 2-1 also

    [ Parent ]

    what post said that? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:56:05 PM EST
    Mine doesn't say " always going to lose WA."

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    You probably should have written that.

    This is a foregone conclusion.

    The thing to watch is the delegate split.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, if you get a chance, will you read the (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:08:19 PM EST
    post I left in answer to KO in the earlier thread about the Washington primary? It has a link to Obama's newest rule on superdelegates and I want to know if I am reading him right or just looking for something to complain about. It sounds like he's saying the superdelegates should go with the winner except the ones who have already committed to him.

    [ Parent ]
    You sound right to me (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:10:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Teresa's post (none / 0) (#38)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:00:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Set up field offices, begin to organize (none / 0) (#6)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:41:23 PM EST
    Obama set up field offices and worked for their votes for at least a month. Clinton did not. The results pretty much follow from who worked for the states.

    [ Parent ]
    Limit her delegate losses (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:38:36 PM EST
    At this point, we do not know the split. I know for a fact you do not.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    We'll have to wait to see the delegate counts.  Of course, we still don't know the delegate counts from Tuesday.  Heh.

    Caucuses and byzantine delegate allegation rules - terrible way to pick a candidate.  

    And I honestly hope that Obama wins the Washington State primary on February 19 or that not that many people vote.  I can't believe I just said that, but there you have it.  I don't want people to vote.  Because if they show up and vote in larger numbers and the results don't match the caucuses tonight, what a flipping mess.  We've already got enough messes.  We don't need another one, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    A result that doesn't match (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by rebecca on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:04:25 PM EST
    the caucus results might just put an end to these caucus' though.  That would be a good result from the clusterf.  I would like to see how far from reality these caucus' are.  

    But you're right it will cause more problems in this election that we don't need.  If Hillary wins the primary and Obama wins the caucus does that put the rest of his caucus wins in some question as to whether he would have won them with a primary?  These caucus' as a way of voting have to go.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's not like (none / 0) (#23)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:53:10 PM EST
    we have never been told that she's done.

    After Iowa... she's done...opps! maybe not. After Union endorsement in NV.... she's done... opps! maybe not. After the Ted & Caroline endorsement.. she's done.....opps! maybe not. After the polls released Obama was way ahead in CA... she's done... opps! maybe not.

    This lady keeps coming jsut keeps on and on and on.

    She is not out of this yet. This may go to the convention.


    [ Parent ]

    "She's done" (none / 0) (#84)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    Of  course  she's  not  done.   Andrew  said  the  same   after other caucus  days,  and  was  proven  wrong.  

    Feb  was  never   the month  for   Clinton.  

    MARCH  is  going  to be her  big  month.   The Obama  campaign   has  already  conceded  she'll win   Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.  

    And  keep in mind,  Nebraska  is  never  going  to go  blue in the  general.  I would  predict   Louisiana  won't   either,  now that  most of  the  Black population  in  New  ORleans  has  moved  away.    

    These  little  bitty   red  state  wins  for Obama  don't  really  mean  much, in  the big picture.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem is long-term endurance/stamina. (none / 0) (#87)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    The MSM & now establishment blogs are starting to take their toll in the roots.  Check out this post over at MyDD, for instance.  How long can Hillary supporters take a beating before they resign themselves to going with Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Take a beating (none / 0) (#91)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:23:47 PM EST
    Oh  puleeeze.  

    Obama's  wins  are in RED  states.  For those  of   us  who have  been voting  for   what  seems  like  50  years,   we  know  that  doesn't  really mean   SQUAT  in  a  general election.    

    Gimme  a  break.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (none / 0) (#99)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    Cause a Democrat could never win in the South.  I mean other than 1976, 1992, and 1996 when has a Democrat ever won Southern states or the Midwest?  

    Oh that's right.  The only time a Democrat has ever won, in the last 40 years, is when they win Southern and Midwestern states.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    I don't mean the scoreboard itself. (none / 0) (#100)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:55:01 PM EST
    I'm talking about the morale of the troops in both camps.  It's tough to work your ass off, win the popular vote and delegates, disprove the MSM's predicted upset by Obama, and then see them play all of Hillary's wins down like she accomplished nothing.  After New Hampshire--which I think was the exception, because we were all stunned--the MSM has made Hillary's victories out to be practically nonexistent, at least to the casual observer.  

    So as a Hillary supporter, it's demoralizing to work your ass off and win--only to be told time and time again that we really didn't accomplish anything.  According to the MSM, that is.  How could that not infect the thinking of her supporters and of the electorate over the course of a month or two?

    [ Parent ]

    One Takes a Proverbial Walk Around the Block (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by cdalygo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:17:58 PM EST
    My partner and I went to see Juno tonight. (Cute film, highly recommend it.) We were too depressed to watch election results. Afterwards I felt a lot better because many of the characters reminded me of why Hillary (and face it, us) keep putting ourselves through this mess.

    After I got home, I perked up by helping to respond to a wingnut email sent to a friend in VA. She's still working to get some votes for Hillary.  

    Then I really thought back over the last week. We live in CA so feared a loss but got a nice present of a big victory. We hit the total panic button over the fundraising appeal but watched her come back stronger than ever. We got our hopes up over Washington but had them doused. Until we remembered the particular stupidity of that state's caucuses and the possibility of a different result in the primary vote next week.

    So to sum up the last message. You never forget why you fight the fight. You never let your opponent set the syllogism (caucuses of minority parties in partisan states with open registration don't reflect will of democrats). You never underestimate the stupidity of the official democratic party (though that is getting harder with each atrocity). And you never stop getting your message out to folks (even when you get trolled rated or ignored). There are folks out there who need that reassurance. (But always take a time out with your loved ones.)

    [ Parent ]

    There are so few people canvassing in these (none / 0) (#3)
    by derridog on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:36:32 PM EST
    states. I mean Nebraska has about 17000+/- with approx. 70% counted and Washington has 10,000 people representing 30% of the precincts. That's a tiny fraction of the population of the state.

    Also, as others have stated, the canvass system is very discriminatory towards working people and poor people who can't afford to take the time off to do this. We need to do away with this in the next election.  I just hope that Hillary can overcome this.

    Things look bleak today for Clinton (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:41:42 PM EST
    If Clinton doesn't take Maine tomorrow or Virginia Tuesday, it could be a long month.

    A delegate race? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:43:36 PM EST
    Obama needs to run up big advantages now as he has not shown the ability to win big states.

    I expect Hillary to lose every state in February.

    But then what?

    [ Parent ]

    He has to stay close in OH and TX (none / 0) (#14)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    If he only loses OH and TX by +10 delegates, she's probably done, if he keeps getting these margins in February.

    [ Parent ]
    That would require slender margins of 1 or 2% (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:52:49 PM EST
    TO me that does not seem likely.

    If loses by 10-15% as he has in big states, she'll make up at least 100 delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    The One Helpful Thing in Texas (none / 0) (#29)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:57:04 PM EST
    Is that I've read (don't know if it's true) that latino districts are underrepresented in terms of delegates compared to white and AA districts.  Kind of like how rural white Nevada voters were over-represented in the delegate count there.  Nicely done, democrats!

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it works like that. (none / 0) (#34)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:36 PM EST
    OH and TX are about the same number of delegates as NJ. Clinton won NJ by 10%, and she's won about +10-15 delegates. So it's not that unreasonable.

    [ Parent ]
    Got some links? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Is CNN balanced enough for you? (none / 0) (#43)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    link


    [ Parent ]
    On the delegate totals (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:07:50 PM EST
    for Texas and Ohio.

    [ Parent ]
    Wikipedia sez (none / 0) (#57)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:15:19 PM EST
    NJ has 107 pledged.

    OH: 143
    TX: 193

    So I was off by a bit. But if Obama can keep it at +15 and +20 for Clinton, respectively, then she's done if he runs it up to +100-+150 beforehand.

    [ Parent ]

    Per Wikipedia (none / 0) (#59)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:16:19 PM EST
    New Jersey had 107 pledged delegates.  Ohio has 141 and Texas 193.

    Ironically, Texas is probably closest to Florida in number of delegates and Ohio is closest to Michigan.  Heh.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:27:15 PM EST
    A lot more delegates.

    Then look at Pennsylvania.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of PA (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:53:30 AM EST
    My not-so-little state is getting some attention:

    The superdelegates, legally uncommitted and able to switch between candidates at any time, include the governor, the two state party leaders, 11 Democratic members of Congress, Mr. Casey, and 12 Democratic National Committee members. Three more bonus delegates are still to be named by the party's state committee.

    They are in addition to the 158 delegates to be chosen based on the April 22 balloting. Of those 103 will be awarded based on the voting in congressional districts, while another 55 will be determined by the statewide vote. Thirty-five of those are at-large delegates and another 20 spots are reserved for party and elected officials who, in contrast to the superdelegates, will be pledged to vote for their candidate at least through the first ballot in Denver.

    The 103 district-level delegates will be apportioned according to the votes in each of the congressional districts with the balance meted out according to the overall statewide margin. The number of delegates in each of the state's 19 congressional districts varies from four to seven, according to a formula that weighs Democratic registration and voting performance in recent presidential and statewide elections.

    Mr. Doyle's 14th District, including the city of Pittsburgh and part of the Mon Valley, will send seven delegates to Denver, for example, while the 4th District, held by Rep. Jason Altmire, will elect five Democratic delegates.

    The Democrats' proportional rules make it difficult to accumulate big margins of delegates. In a five-delegate district such as the 4th District, for example, the winning candidate of a two-person race would typically earn three delegates to the loser's two. To get a four-to-one split, the winner would have to gain more than 70 percent of the votes cast.

    In a four-delegate district, a candidate could win by a virtual landslide, say 60 percent to 40 percent, and still have to settle for an even split. To gain a three-to-one advantage, the winner would have to pile up at least 63 percent of the popular vote.

    Those rules help to explain why Pennsylvania can expect to be a player in the Democratic nomination fight, but, at the same time, they make it unlikely that the results in the state would be decisive.

    "If it reaches us, there is a chance it will go all the way to the convention,'' Mr. Rendell said.




    [ Parent ]
    But, did you know Puerto Rico could (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:20:48 AM EST
    determine our next Dem. nominee?

    DK FP

    [ Parent ]

    Wont happen (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    ...not in Ohio he will lose big this is Hillary country.....voters who would be swayed by Inspiration would primarily be Republicans and I am hoping Huckabee stays in to keep those folks over on that side of the Primary.....lots of University and Colleges that turn out, young adults vote and believe it or not they drink Starbucks toooo lol.  

    [ Parent ]
    A brief summary of why would (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:15:12 PM EST
    be helpful.  All caucus states?  all wine track?  Large proportion of registered Dems. are African American?  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:21:31 PM EST
    To all three of those.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes/BDB (none / 0) (#92)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:26:12 PM EST
    Pretty  typical  of  Obama's  wins,  eh?  

    Doesn't  seem reflective of  Dem base at  all.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, It's Going to Be a Long Month (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    For Clinton and supporters of hers, like me.  But the key is picking off delegates here and there, even if it's just a few.  Try to keep the margin close.

    [ Parent ]
    A dry spell until Ohio (none / 0) (#54)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:12:18 PM EST
    ....hey look at the bright side the press can beat the hell out of Obama for a change, what else will they have to talk about, Hillary lost will get old fast. I believe she will go into the Convention with the most delegates...and the Progressives in the party better figure out a away to get in line or join Ann Coulter and Rush as crossovers but do not more harm to the Party.

    [ Parent ]
    The press beating (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jen on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:19:57 PM EST
    the hell out of Obama will only happen if and when he's the nominee. Not before. Guaranteed.


    [ Parent ]
    Beat up on Obama?????? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by kenosharick on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:04:08 PM EST
    You are kidding, right? The press LOVES him and will beat her to a pulp until he is the nominee- then they will start to go after him.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Teresa on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:19:27 PM EST
    hey look at the bright side the press can beat the hell out of Obama for a change

    Good luck with that one Salt. They'll wait until he wraps it up if even then.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, not gonna happen. (none / 0) (#75)
    by kangeroo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:34:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maine and Wisconsin... (none / 0) (#12)
    by mike in dc on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:46:08 PM EST
    ...are the only states she's got a decent shot at winning before 3/4.  If she loses Wisconsin(and she's only leading by about 9 right now), that's quite a bit harder to spin.  

    36 states will have voted by the time "mini-super Tuesday" takes place.  If the score is 24 states to 12, and Obama's still better against McCain in hypothetical matchups, it seems likely the undecideds in TX and OH will break for Obama over Clinton.  

    But this is an unusual election year.  Anything can happen.  All I know is that losing even one of those two big states on 3/4 probably ends Clinton's campaign, and losing both definitely does.

    Worst case scenario for Obama at this point(losing  WI, TX, OH) still doesn't kill off his chances until at least PA on 4/22, but worst case scenario  for Clinton kills off her chances in early March.

    Sadly, I doubt a purely pragmatic argument will sway voters in TX and OH to end the nomination fight decisively.  I think Clinton will probably win both, albeit by less than major blowout margins(i.e., less than a 15 point margin in each).  Then Obama wins Mississippi, Vermont, Wyoming(maybe) and we have a six week battle for Pennsylvania.  That kind of time interval tends to    favor a tightening of the race, so Clinton probably won't win by a big margin(maybe 10 points?).  
    Then what?  Only 7 states plus PR remain after that.  If Obama wins most of them, he'll probably still be ahead in pledged delegates.
    Then we have the FL/MI wild card and if that's not enough to be determinative, it will come down to who the remaining uncommitted superdelegates want.  

    I think it's incredibly risky to let this thing go all the way to the convention.  But I don't know that either candidate can be persuaded to drop out, unless their "path to victory" is too forbidding to be worth further pursuit.

    Democrats do not count states (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:51:36 PM EST
    We have been losing more states for as long as I can remember.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh God (none / 0) (#32)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:12 PM EST
    I just flashed to the electoral map in the 1980 election.  And I'd truly and deeply like to thank Ted Kennedy for helping to make that possible.  Nicely done, Teddy!

    [ Parent ]
    FLashbacks (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:29:04 PM EST
    Pat  Buchanan  keeps  saying  that   Barak Obama  is  exactly   the  "George  McGovern"  candidate  the  Repubs  want  to  run against  in  the  general:  no  national security  experience,  no military,   ultra-left liberal   frames  as  a  Teddy  Kennedy  "protege,"   latte-drinking  yuppie.  

    I think  he's  right.  

    [ Parent ]

    Buchanan may be nuts (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:01:05 PM EST
    but he's a professional and doesn't have a dog in this fight.  I tend to think he's right myself.  If Obama can win TX, OH, PA then I'll probably change my mind.  Buchanan may also at that point  :-)


    [ Parent ]
    When you find yourself agreeing (none / 0) (#101)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:58:43 PM EST
    with Pat Buchanan you really need to start reassessing your views.

    I'm not sure how Hillary isn't a" no  national security  experience,  no military,   ultra-left liberal   frames  as  a  Teddy  Kennedy  "protege,"   latte-drinking  yuppie.  " except for the Kennedy part.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, Carter was a slam dunk (none / 0) (#52)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:10:44 PM EST
    Until Kennedy's colleagues urged him to jump into the race

    [ Parent ]
    Sarcasm? (none / 0) (#66)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:23:24 PM EST
    I'm assuming that was sarcasm.  Heh.

    Just to be clear, 1980 would've been hard for Carter no matter what, but Kennedy sure as hell didn't help and so, yes, I do hold him partly - but certainly not totally - responsible for Carter's loss.  Not so much that he challenged him, but that he took him to the fricking convention when it was clear Kennedy wasn't going to be the nominee.  

    [ Parent ]

    Yes! And we (none / 0) (#65)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:22:53 PM EST
    do not want that to happen again.

    Sen Obama is doing well... his camp needs to be gracious in winning. The Dems will have to pull this together or we maysee another map like that one.

    [ Parent ]

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#18)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:50:43 PM EST
    Has open primaries and a tremendous number of crossover voters.  They've had democratic primaries where barely 50% of the voters have been democrats.  It would not surprise me at all if Clinton wins Wisconsin Dems, but loses the state.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactlly -- see history of crossovers and (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:00:30 PM EST
    more re the Wisconsin wide-open primary under the Washington State caucus thread, mike in dc.  (And see the full story at jsonline.com today, where the leading paper in the state gives its usual how-to manual to GOP voters to pick the Dem to beat.)

    And see other comments on that thread as to just how backward Wisconsin is for women, especially women aspiring in politics here.  I've been here all my life and could not begin to guess how it will go.

    But also remember that in Wisconsin, it's about weather.  And this is a horribly snowy winter, with 20 inches just this week -- and now we're heading below zero.  Of course, it could be 60 degrees by the 19th.  Or not.

    [ Parent ]

    question (none / 0) (#16)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:48:23 PM EST
    how many states so far have been primaries and how many caucauses and of those who won???

    A parallel question... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Camorrista on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:07:53 PM EST
    On 5 February, 21 states were in play; six held caucuses; 15 held primaries.

    Obama crushed Clinton in five of the Super Tuesday caucus states (New Mexico is still in doubt), and surely will do very well in caucuses this weekend.

    In the primary states (as I've noted in other threads) his record is more mixed.

    He won three small states--Utah (57-39), Delaware (53-42) and Connecticut (51-47).

    Of the larger states, he won his home state of Illinois (65-35), Georgia (67-32), Alabama (56-42) and Missouri (49-48).  His victories in the latter three states depended on the African-American vote.  (In Missouri, for instance, he lost 110 of 115 districts; the five African-American urban districts overcame the rest of the state)

    In states without a pivotal African-American voting block, Clinton beat Obama by sizable margins:

    Arizona 51-42  
    Arkansas 70-27
    California 52-42
    Massachusetts 56-41
    New Jersey 54-44
    New York 57-40
    Oklahoma 55-31
    Tennessee 54-41

    (Though the results in Michigan and Florida are not official--and may never be--Clinton did beat Obama in Florida 50-33; and in Michigan, she beat Uncommitted 56-39.  Obama's supporters claim that with time and exposure, he could do much better in both those states, but there's really no evidence for that--or against it.)

    Given how well Obama does in caucus states, it's entirely possible he could gain the nomination without winning a primary in a single large state.  

    Some Democrats are comfortable with that.  Others are not.

     

    [ Parent ]

    This is what worries me about Obama (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:59:03 PM EST
    in the general election.  I do not think he will beat McCain.


    [ Parent ]
    Speculation phobic (none / 0) (#108)
    by Camorrista on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    In years of covering elections as a reporter, I rarely could predict the outcome, so I certainly won't get into that game now.  

    Given the mood of the country (forgive the cliche) any Democrat should beat any Republican.

    McCain is not any Republican.  Though I believe he is not merely an atrocious senator--far to the right in 90 percent of his attitudes and with no gift for  legislative accomplishment--and a choleric, vindictive, dishonest man, he is universally seen as a straight-talking hero.  

    It's unlikely McCain will unlock Clinton's grip on the female vote, but he might cut into her Latino vote--assuming he returns to his "moderate" position on immigration--and he might pick off some of her votes among the elderly.  

    As to Obama, McCain obviously won't make any inroads among African-American voters, and McCain surely can kiss the youth vote goodbye.

    So what about the white male vote?  Here, Obama does better than Clinton--especially in caucus states that lean Republican.  The trouble is, the white male vote is McCain's strongest demographic, and it's hard to see how Obama (or Clinton) beats him there.

    The question, then, is which Democrat is more vulnerable to McCain, and I don't know.  I'll go further:  I don't even know how to do the measuring.

    What's safe to say, though, is any Democrat who believes McCain is a pushover underestimates both him and the Republican Party tradition of behaving like a plague-ridden rat when it's cornered.

    A footnote: despite the passions the war arouses in the blog universe, it will affect the election only marginally.  Supposedly, the country detests the war, but five years have gone by and nothing has changed: the same gang is in power, the same policies are in place.   This isn't the Sixties; nobody is going to Canada, nobody is burning his draft card, nobody is pouring blood on Army records, nobody is getting busted on the steps of the Pentagon.  

    [ Parent ]

    i enjoyed your response. (none / 0) (#109)
    by hellothere on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:14:23 PM EST
    i hope this is kosher. i just want to comment on my other comments re: posters who are new or rarely post here. i am sorry but i think you misunderstood what i was trying to say. i simply wondered if some were very antihillary and only posted here for that purpose.

    i sincerely hope i didn't break a rule with that aside, but you seemed concerned. i wanted to clarify. thanks

    [ Parent ]

    10 caucuses... (none / 0) (#24)
    by mike in dc on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:53:49 PM EST
    ...and 21 primaries.

    Obama has won 9 caucuses, 8 primaries.  Clinton has won 1 caucus, 13 primaries(well, 11, if we only count contested "official" delegate-counted primaries).  
    Of course, she'll probably win the Maine caucus, and he'll probably win the Lousiana, Virginia, DC and Maryland primaries, bringing the score to
    9-2, caucuses, and 13(11) to 12, primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    She is going to lose Maine (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:55:08 PM EST
    She won't win in February.

    [ Parent ]
    I Agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:00:18 PM EST
    If it were a primary, she'd win.  I think she's the more popular democrat there.  But once you skew the participation in a caucus, she's not going to win.  I do think she'll probably hold close in delegates.

    [ Parent ]
    And Already I'm Annoyed with CNN (none / 0) (#17)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:49:35 PM EST
    Jeffrey Toobin (sp?) just said that it didn't matter that Obama was expected to win these states, a win is a win.

    Now, I don't necessarily disagree with that.  What drives me crazy is that that's not what pundits were saying last week about California and Massachusetts for Clinton.  

    And then they brought out Donna Brazile, who I cannot see without thinking about the Gore 2000 campaign.  Perhaps unfair, but what can I say, Bob Shrum isn't on these things very often (thank goodness).

    I was going to try MSNBC to see if they had gotten any better in the wake of the Shuster debacle, but turned off the television instead.

    Good Decision (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:55 PM EST
    keep it off until Ohio this is Hillary country, Strickland will bring the State in for her big time, then Tx and Penn...and no way Ind will go for O..

    [ Parent ]
    Salt (none / 0) (#88)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:13:29 PM EST
    Texas is  Clinton country  too.  Strong  support  from   women  and   Hispanics.    

    [ Parent ]
    At least no Bill Bennett on CNN tonight (none / 0) (#76)
    by robrecht on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:37:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Live LA results here (none / 0) (#20)
    by andrewwm on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:51:09 PM EST
    link

    Results so far:

    Click here for Results by Parish
    2     1%    Biden, "Joe"    -
    49     26%    Clinton, Hillary    -
    2     1%    Dodd, Christopher J.    -
    20     11%    Edwards, John    -
    0     0%    Kucinich, Dennis J.    -
    110     59%    Obama, Barack    -
    4     2%    Richardson, William "Bill"

    LA (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:15:40 PM EST
    Louisiana  is  a  RED  state,  andrew.   Moderates  and   conservatives....verrrry  few  ultra-liberals.   I lived  there  most of my life.  

    Obama  may  win  this   Democratic primary,  but   he  won't  bring  the  state into the fold in  the  general  election.  

    Not  gonna  happen.  

    [ Parent ]

    15% (now) don't want either HRC or BO (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    Interesting.  (Thanks for the link.)

    [ Parent ]
    Now Clinton is ahead in LA! -- (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:14:48 PM EST
    with 2 precincts reporting.  I wanna know where they are for when I get back there for some GOOD eating.

    [ Parent ]
    Louisiana could be relatively close (none / 0) (#35)
    by Shawn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    I did some quick math on these exit numbers about Katrina victims and came up with Obama 52/Clinton 47. Could be closer; the exits overstated Obama's numbers on Tuesday.

    Wait, my math was off (none / 0) (#47)
    by Shawn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:06:23 PM EST
    Clinton 44

    [ Parent ]
    A winning night (none / 0) (#41)
    by andreww on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:02:45 PM EST
    it will be a long contest - but winning is good.  I agree with btd, no need to spin.  Obama will win 3 states tonight and should get some good delegate numbers.  The wins matter, bit they aren't event turning.  This thing is still basically a tie.

    Re: "Nebraska has never had a good (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    relationship with the Clintons . . . ."

    Why is that?

    Bill never went there (none / 0) (#58)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:15:45 PM EST
    I have a recollection that it was the one state he never visited while President (or a candidate too?)

    [ Parent ]
    That's my recollection too (none / 0) (#60)
    by Shawn on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:18:57 PM EST
    I believe he finally made a visit close to the end of his presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    I can understand why he never went there. (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:20:37 PM EST
    But isn't Sen. Bob Kerrey from Neb. and a Clinton supporter/surrogate?

    [ Parent ]
    Kerrey likes Hillary NOT Bill (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:24:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yes (none / 0) (#74)
    by Salt on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:30:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Partly because he and Bob Kerrey (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:23:40 PM EST
    never got along and Kerrey was vocal about it.  I think part of it was problems from running against each other for the '92 nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary never campaigned in Nebraska? (none / 0) (#77)
    by robrecht on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:42:43 PM EST
    My brother went to the caucus in Nebraska today.  I couldn't convince him to support Hillary.  He didn't think Hillary had campaigned in Nebraska, but Obama did.  BTW, his vote was primarily based on Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war, 'though he admitted he had not led on Iraq since then.

    [ Parent ]
    Giant Grain of Salt (none / 0) (#69)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    Take these numbers with a giant grain of salt, but via MyDD here are the delegate projections from the Obama campaign's "inadvertently" leaked memo:

    Louisiana        54% (31)                 44% (25)
    Nebraska        60% (15)                 40% (9)
    Virgin Isl.        60% (2)                  40% (1)
    Washington   60% (49)                 40% (29)
    Maine             49% (10)                 51% (14)

    Delegate total:   107                      78

    It wouldn't surprise me at all if they under-projected these and over-projected later ones to try to set expectations, so if he beats this tonight he can claim that he's on track to be even further ahead.  What can I say, the Obama campaign brings out the cynic in me.

    D'OH (none / 0) (#71)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:26:50 PM EST
    The first column is Obama and the second Clinton, delegates are in ( ).  Sorry about that.

    [ Parent ]
    Delegates (none / 0) (#94)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:32:33 PM EST
    And  that's ok  for   the Clinton campaign....staying  close  behind in the  delegates.   Leading  into  the HUGE  March wins  and   those    votes/delegates puts  her   in a  good  spot.  

    [ Parent ]
    GOP Tonight (none / 0) (#78)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:52:55 PM EST
    Looks there is a chance that Huckabee could win all three states tonight, or at least make WA and LA close

    That is reason for amusement

    From Jerome at MyDD on Nebraska (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:56:00 PM EST
    The preliminary delegate outlook for Nebraska looks like it will break down as the following:

               Obama        Clinton

    CD 01-     3            3
    CD 02-     4            2
    CD 03-     2            2
    At-Large-  5            3

    Total      14           10

    The Obama spreadsheet projected a 15-9 gain in delegates, but again, this is preliminary.

    Delegates (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by auntmo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    But  Obama  wins   delegates  in  states  that  will  go  RED in  November, which is  not  really  any help  to the  party in the  general.    

    So  essentially, his   "more  delegates "  is  just  hype  and spin.    

    Nebraska  and   Louisiana  won't  go  BLUE.  

    Ohio  and  Pennsylvania,   Clinton  very  favored  to  win  there.......might.  

    And  THAT  is  what the  party  should  be  concerned  with.    

    NOT   Alaska  or  Alabama  or Georgia  or  Kansas  or  Nebraska  or  North Dakota  or  Louisiana.      

    [ Parent ]

    Obama in Texas (none / 0) (#95)
    by pewterman on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:33:30 PM EST
    I just left an Obama meet up group in Houston.  It was a mixed crowd, whites, blacks, hispanics, and even a few Republicans. This is a group that has been together for some time and most of the faces are well known by regular attendees.  In greeting some of the newcomers, I was informed their party affiliation was Republican, but they attended the Meetup to learn more about Barack Obama, stating that if McCain is the nominee, they would more than likely join the Obama camp. I'll speak with other meetup groups tomorrow to see if this trend is taking place within their groups.

    By the time (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:09:01 PM EST
    the Repubs get done with painting Sen Obama as a Democrate with Democratic ideas....John McCain will look like an Angel.

    The first thing the Repubs will do is force Sen Obama on the Dem ideas that conservatives hate. Let all the Repub know he is the same old Dem that they have always been voting against. They won't touch any of the areas that McCain crossed over.

    Repubs will come out in strength after McCain promises them conservative Supreme Court nominees.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's Campaign Responds to Obama's Win Today | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment