home

Final MS Recap

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:32:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

First, the Secretary of State of Mississippi seems pretty bad at his job to me. He said turnout was light and there would be about 150,000 votes. There will be more than 400,000 at the end of the night.

Second, Obama smoked Clinton by more than 20 points and 100,000 votes. A BIG night for Obama. The exit polls UNDER estimated Obama's vote. Bottom line a big big Obama night.

Third, yet again it appears that the selected delegate process is exposed for its voter dilution flaws. Based on his popular vote, Obama should have received 20 of the 33 available delegates. It appears he will receive 18. What a way to pick a nominee.

< FL Congressional Delegation Needs To Smell The Coffee | Gitmo Detainees to be Allowed Phone Calls >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Final MS Recap | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    x (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:55:52 PM EST
    Well, maybe that makes up for the fact that she won Texas, and yet he got more delegates. If we didn't know it before, we should know by now that delegate counts seem to have nothing to do with the actual vote. All the flaws of this process are certainly being exposed in all their ugliness this year. Too bad it had to be the election that we really need to win.
    Correction (none / 0) (#49)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:37:00 AM EST
    She won the primary portion, he won the caucus portion (and by a much bigger proportion than she won the primary part).  The winner of a triathalon is not the first one out of the water, it's the first one across the finish line.

    Parent
    Exacltly, and all of the caucuses (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:40:44 AM EST
    are far from the finish line in all caucus states.  This was only the first one out of the water.

    Obama delegates did not show up for the next step in the marathon of caucusing in Colorado, and Clinton gained.

    Parent

    That's good news (none / 0) (#61)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:57:13 AM EST


    Parent
    it should be suspicious (none / 0) (#132)
    by CentristDemocrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:54:22 AM EST
    ... that the primary vote is divergent from the caucas... yet they are suppodly the same set of voters. The vote mechanism that is closer to the general election comes up with divergent results from the caucas, which seems highly ssupectible to chicanary.

    Parent
    and this is (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:07:26 AM EST
    the closest a democrat will come to winning in mississippi. come nov., the entire AA community of mississippi won't stop john mccain from winning the state in the GE.

    congratulations to sen. obama, enjoy the moment, it will be fleeting.

    before you start bashing me, it would be the same if sen. clinton had won.

    that is a harsh truth down there.

    Tonight was just about tonight, and the (none / 0) (#28)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:16:27 AM EST
    Democrats in MS having a chance to have their voices heard. They spoke clearly that Democrats in MS want Obama to be the nominee.

    Diverting attention to MS in the fall while softly congratulating Obama on his win is simply to dismiss the people there. As long as Democrats continue to write off large parts of the country, you can count on continuing to either win or lose elections by one state, or even one district, as in 2000 and 2004. Some of us don't like the 47% of the country but 271 ECVs as a strategy for winning the White House.

    Obama may not win MS, but he can do a lot better than Hillary at winning maybe a Congressional district, a state senate district, a state house seat, etc. That is how the party comes back in MS. It's not about just all of a sudden carrying it on the national level.

    Nevermind the fact that in almost every pontification on the fall, he does better than Clinton.

    Parent

    the party took back (none / 0) (#36)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:21:50 AM EST
    the state senate and increased its margin in the house last year without obama anywhere to be seen thank you very much.  they did manage to field an incredibly weak gubernatorial candidate, however.

    Parent
    I'm glad to hear all that. (none / 0) (#45)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:30:33 AM EST
    I'm sorry. My point was really that a candidate who creates excitement can effect down-ticket races in a state they themselves are not going to win.

    No offense to you or the great state of MS.

    ;o)

    Parent

    well from a sincere clinton backer (4.66 / 3) (#57)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:51:43 AM EST
    to a sincere obama supporter, the fact is that the party also took back the congress in 2006 without obama on the ticket.  why is it so necessary for the party this time that obama personally lead the ticket?  frankly, i have always found the "obama downticket" argument insulting to democratic ideals (as opposed to me, personally).

     obama is not the most qualified standard bearer for democratic ideals, and has thus not earned my support to the extent clinton has. if he is the nominee, i will vote for him, but i will resent the fact that a younger, less qualified individual  was given the job over a more qualified and experienced opponent for superficial and wrongheaded reasons, including but not limited to the spurious "obama downticket" fallacy.  the excitement generated by democratic ideals and the democratic plan for sound governance should be the measure free people seek, for it is far more desirable than that generated by one man .
     

    Parent

    From a sincere Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:39:35 AM EST
    to a sincere Clinton supporter, I will take your argument. Clearly, I could quibble with a lot of your potshots at Obama, but I will simply accept it as you presented it.

    That said, it is equally wrong-headed to assume that b/c Clinton has won big states or swing states in a Democratic primary she is the best nominee. Clinton winning NY,CA, etc. in the primary has no bearing whatsoever on Obama winning those places in the fall. For instance, in the SUSA Poll last week, they both won CA; in fact, Obama got 51% against McCain while Clinton only got 50%. Now, they both won in the poll, but Obama had more respondents pick him over Clinton. Also, in that same poll, Obama won more states than Clinton. He also had more states where he was clearly ahead or in a dead heat than she did. His victory against McCain was with 4 more ECVs than she got.

    He is clearly "electable." The best evidence is that he is beating the best Democratic politicians in the last 40 years. Beating the Clintons is his best evidence for being a viable president. They were his opponent for the nomination, and he is beating them. That in itself qualifies him to be both the standard-bearer and the president.

    If all that continues, and the SDs decide that is not good enough for the party, then it won't be a party that keeps a lot of its voters. They know that. Either Sen. Clinton wins the popular vote, or she has no argument that can be accepted as valid.

    That's how this Obama supporter sees it.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#96)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:30:19 AM EST
    ...it would be nice to tighten up the margins in Red States so as to make a 270-290 electoral vote victory all the more compelling.  Bush was able to make his tight 2004 EV victory (somewhat) more convincing by the fact that he clearly won over 50%.  The last thing we need in 2008 is an electoral vote victory and popular vote loss (or just under 50%).  So, snagging more votes in Texas and Georgia and Mississippi and Idaho is not at all irrelevant for the general election.


    Parent
    Demographics matter (none / 0) (#103)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:45:34 AM EST
    MS has a massive AA population.  If Obama can get anything above 20% of the white population he will win MS.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#106)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:22:38 AM EST
    Well, Kerry got 14% of the white vote and 90% of the black vote, so you're almost there.

    Parent
    The question (none / 0) (#109)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:39:32 AM EST
    is how many AAs came out for John Kerry?

    Parent
    About (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:31:08 AM EST
    35% of the electorate was black.

    I am not sure how much higher you think we can push that figure.  Gosh, it was only 50/50 in the Dem primary.

    Parent

    THe idea that Obama (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:39:18 AM EST
    can win MS in the fall is simply ridiculous.

    Parent
    90%, he said (nt) (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:43:06 AM EST


    Parent
    So Obama got only 1% more of AAs (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    than Kerry did?

    I think that means there may not be enough potential there for Obama to win MS in the GE -- with what the polls are saying about the white vote as well.

    Parent

    I don't think MS means much of anything (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:13:42 AM EST
    It's another small state that will go Republican in November.  It doesn't show the superdelegates that Obama is more electable in November. It's not about to change their mind.

    The superdelegates are going to back whoever they think is more likely to win in November. The pledged  delegate and total vote count will be secondary to their consideration of who can win the big states and key states in terms of electoral votes.

    Neither MS or Wyoming, two states that McCain gets for sure, will matter one whit. Even TX won't matter much. PA is another story. The Dems can't afford to lose that in November. Nor should they risk FL, which is another reason the DNC should lift the penalty. If Floridians get mad and stay home in Nov. because their vote wasn't counted the way they voted in Jan, it's another state that goes to McCain.

    The superdelegates are intended to act as brakes when the party seems intent on nominating a candidate that is unlikely to win in November. People wanting them to vote for the pledged delegate leader or the popular vote leader need to get on a DNC Committee and change the rules for next time.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by xspowr on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:38:18 AM EST
    The point often missed in all the hyperbole over the nomination process is that the superdelegates are intended as a check on partisan excess (and to balance the influence of non-Democratic voters in open primaries and caucuses), not as a rubber stamp to ratify such excess.  My concern at this point is the number of superdelegates already on the record who don't seem to understand their function, and whether that represents the thinking of the silent majority? Our working assumption is that the superdelegates will ultimately act rationally in fulfilling their role by putting the party's interest first, but I'm not yet convinced that rationality is going to carry the day. The suicidal tendencies of the Democratic Party have been widely remarked upon, and seem to be in full force this election cycle.

    Parent
    Oh, thanks. Jeralyn had me (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:44:57 AM EST
    all philosophical and feeling hopeful that rational minds will prevail to ensure that we do the right thing, whatever it is, to win in fall.

    And then you go all historical and remind me that the Dems are not known for doing the right thing to win.

    I hope the Republicans are enjoying this show.  I sure am not.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#60)
    by xspowr on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:55:44 AM EST
    Didn't mean to harsh your mellow! Frankly, this is turning into such a unique contest with such unpredictable dynamics, I don't know how much history can really help as a guide. And isn't hope what it's all about, anyway? At least that's what I've been hearing lately. :)

    Parent
    I waver ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:17:18 AM EST
    between:

    (a) trusting that the SD's will act responsibly and do the job they were created to do, after carefully evaluating the likely electoral college votes, and

    (b) fearing that the SD's are a bunch of evasive and spineless politicians who will do whatever they can to avoid taking a position that anyone might criticize.

    This has led me to wonder, since there has been so much spin from the Obama camp about the SD's "respecting the will of the people," if anyone has done the following analysis of the superdelegates:

    What if every superdelegate who is an elected representative (and I know there are others who do not fit in this category, but let's ignore them for the moment) cast their vote in accordance with the public vote in their constituency? How would those SD votes turn out. After all, if SD's are really going to "respect" the public's opinion, the voters they should respect are their own constituents, and not any national totals, whether total votes or total delegates.

    Has anyone seen such an analysis?

    Parent

    Haven't seen this anywhere, but (none / 0) (#76)
    by plf1953 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:23:33 AM EST
    it sure would be sweet to see Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick have to cast their Super D votes for Clinton  ...

    Parent
    hehe .. and to do it publicly! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:03:09 AM EST


    Parent
    And if they are publicly pledging .... (none / 0) (#84)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:29:10 AM EST
    ... to support a candidate who their constituents did not select in the primary, someone should ask them publicly why they are ignoring their constituents' choice.

    And then follow up by asking what they think of the Obama campaign's insistence that SD's should reflect "the will of the people". Which people -- your constituents, or those in other states?

    This line of questioning could help to expose the double talk and spin that is being floated when discussing the role of the SD's.

    Parent

    Which people? The "will of the (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:46:03 AM EST
    Obama people."  Sorry for any confusion.  Glad to clear that up for you.  Okie-dokie?

    Parent
    That would be so poetic (none / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:14:06 AM EST


    Parent
    Daschle (none / 0) (#125)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM EST
    I  saw   Tom  Daschle  on   the  Daily  Show  openly  saying   "I  can do  whatever  I  want  with  my  vote.  I'm  a   superdelegate."  

    Hmmmmmm

    Parent

    I'd be happy with that. (none / 0) (#88)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:13:21 AM EST
    I have read this suggested elsewhere and as I understand it I think Obama would win the nomination under those metrics.

    Parent
    Hmmm. I don't have much confidence (none / 0) (#64)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:06:59 AM EST
    about a bunch of fallable human beings--especially the kind that couldn't beat Bush 4 years ago--going into a room to decide which votes this primary season have been sincere and which have not.

    I also doubt they'll trust the layman to trust their ability to do so. At the end of the day, their decision has to be rationalized to the audience at large--99% of which spends far less time on this stuff than we here at TL do.

    Parent

    Superdels not enough to matter (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:08:11 AM EST
    The superdelegates are intended to act as brakes when the party seems intent on nominating a candidate that is unlikely to win in November.

    That was my understanding of the rules too, but in this case, I'm guessing many super-dels will just give in to the pressure. "Might makes right". A few will stay loyal to the rules and their conscience, but not enough to matter.

    There'll be some small dropping off of Democrat supporters, both inside the Party and amongst voters, but not enough to matter. The "fatal flaw" of democracy - ie the majority can be wrong.  Give it a couple of years, us losers can lead the protests against him with "We told you so!" LOL

    Parent

    What a comment (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:11:54 AM EST
    Let's see.  Few Dem leaders will have a conscience.  But that doesn't matter.  Because we will get to say we told them so.  It's all about us.

    Well, you just have defined a party that doesn't deserve to win.  And yet, you find joy in that.

    I'm outahere.

    Parent

    sorry.. was being tongue-in-cheek (none / 0) (#82)
    by Rainsong on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:04:34 AM EST
    didnt work. my bad :(

    Parent
    well.......................yeah, it is! (none / 0) (#110)
    by cpinva on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:13:12 AM EST
    It's all about us.

    without "us" the democratic (and republican) party doesn't exist. without "us", the country doesn't exist. this isn't some ephemeral, hypothetical discussion, this is flesh, blood, sweat & tears human beings at stake.

    so yes, it is all about us! otherwise, why bother?

    Parent

    The "we told you so" crowd is not (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:48:30 AM EST
    the "us" I had in mind.  Nor the "us" you had in mind, I think.  You may recall which generation was called the "Me Generation."  Put that together with this campaign's demographics.  There 'tis.

    Parent
    I don't get this. (none / 0) (#98)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:06:32 AM EST
    If superdelegates vote in such a way that Obama gets the nomination then they aren't following the rules.

    If they vote in a manner that gives the nomination to Hillary then they are just fulfilling their roles?

    Do I have that right?

    Parent

    That's about right (none / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:21:25 AM EST
    Obama being ahead in the popular vote and delegate count doesn't apparently matter.  

    Since Hillary won the big states that's all the SDs need to know.  

    Parent

    heh. [nt] (none / 0) (#105)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:12:26 AM EST


    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    Well we disagree a great deal today J.

    I'll leave it at that.

    Parent

    and you haven't even seen (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:18:35 AM EST
    my new Fl/MI post yet! I'll hold back on it until tomorrow.  

    Parent
    Not to worry about FL any longer. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:34:25 AM EST
    LA Times article on line states Clinton won FL!


    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#41)
    by Andy08 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:26:27 AM EST
    100% with Jeralyn's analysis here. These are the realities of the GE and this is what the SD have
    the responsability to consider.

    BTD you seem frustrated about the inadequate distribution of pledged delegates vis a vis
    popular vote tonight in MS.

    But this has occurred in every single state so far; not just in MS....  

    The TX allocation (based on "prior voter participation") couldn't have been more unfair/undermocratic/flawed.

    Parent

    That whole big state/red state thing (none / 0) (#42)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:27:06 AM EST
    just seems so fallacious.

    Why would Obama necessarily lose any states Clinton has won?

    What is the determining factor? If he has the pledged count, popular count, total wins advantage, and continues to perform better in GE polling, I don't see how the SDs convince themselves Clinton is the stronger candidate??

    The "country won't elect a black guy" is also weak. A lot of what I've heard on here is that sexism is deeper and more entrenched than racism, so the idea of a woman winning would be at least as implausible, if not more. Add to that the woman being a Clinton, and it's a recipe for disaster.

    In that scenario, I just don't see how she is stronger.

    Now, if she overtakes the lead in popular vote, it will come down to who has the best pitch at the convention. Otherwise, I don't see a way for her.

    Parent

    stop the race baiting (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:30:05 AM EST
    or your comment will be deleted.

    Parent
    Statistics (none / 0) (#128)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:31:49 AM EST
    Why might Obama not win states Clinton has won?

    Numbers are boring but so far the number of Clinton people and the number of Clinton voters has grown, surpassed the Obama stat, and continues to grow.  If people stay home, it's a problem.  Small changes such as people staying home, voting Rep because they are mad, McCain capturing indies (which is an Obama strength but also McCain's), small increases in Rep. turnout, can give the Rep a win in a particular state.  

    For instance:

    If 20% of Clinton support drops of (polls have stayed at 25% so that could be real), a 10% flip of indie support to the Rep, and a 10% inc in Republican turnout, Washington and New Hampshire come in to play.  How about Michigan?  Try a 20% increase in Rep turnout (they may not roll over and just give up) heck, California comes in to play.  If that nightmare occurence happens and the Reps are ahead 2 million votes and 18 delegates in the GE.  This is why people look at what is going on in the individual states.  That is why articles are being written that there may be issues in the GE.

    You have to look at who is most vulnerable in Blue states and who is strongest in Red states.

    Parent

    Jaralyn... (none / 0) (#94)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:07:12 AM EST
    ...seems not to mind if the superdelegates overturn the pledged delegate and the popular vote results (which, even with Mich, Florida, and Washington State included now have Obama up 100,000).  That they can do, and I'll accept it and vote for Clinton.  But it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party, as the narrative will be simple and powerful:  Superdelegates overturn democracy to give nomination to Hillary Clinton. Of course, there will be alternative story lines/spins, but they will be overwhelmed by this one.

    Of course, I highly doubt that superdelegates will do this, but I commend Jeralyn and others on this board for their honesty in saying that they think it would be just fine if they did.

    The only thing that saves Clinton is the popular vote, which even with a huge win in Pennsylvania may not be winnable. (And again, that's with 350k+ votes for Michigan thrown in). Without that - and an implosion of the Obama campaign - there is almost no chance at all that superdelegates will turn. Mississippi did not help this cause.

    Parent

    Yes, that is the role of the SDs (none / 0) (#112)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:31:57 AM EST
    But it also is only to be used in emergencies.  When Obama is polling better, has more delegates, will most likely end up with more popular votes, and polls better in swing states, what is the overwhelming argument (and it will take an overwhelming argument in order to convince delegates to have a convention fight) for Clinton?

    She won more big states?  Well yes she does.  That's her strength.  It's a skill and a useful one, but not the only one.  Yes Obama would need at least one of OH and PA, but at the same time, Clinton's strategy involves her winning ALL of WI, MN, WA, and OR, all of which are (or will be) Obama's states.  

    Right now, they both have paths to the nomination.  When Clinton is losing the nomination by the usual metrics (states won, popular vote, delegates), it seems disingenuous to take her biggest strength and saying that should be the main determining factor.  We already weight the big states by giving them more delegates.  Why should they be weighted even more after the fact?

    Parent

    You're missing a significant adjective (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    in this equation.  The factor is not just about big states.  

    The factor is big <strong>blue</strong> states.

    Parent

    The main point is... (none / 0) (#133)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    ...that Obama is not so incredibly risky that the superdelegates need to act to save the party.  There's a strong argument that he's at least as viable as Clinton.  And even if not, the argument that he's a GE disaster waiting to happen is really not sufficiently strong to force superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate/popular vote leads.  

    It's not like some total hack is winning here by some weird accident of history. You just don't like him as much and hence are making the argument that he can't win the general election.  That argument can be made by Obama supporters just as effectively.  But in neither case is it strong enough to overturn the results of the process.

    Parent

    You start from a presumption (none / 0) (#135)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    about me, build from that, and still don't address my point. Fine. You win here. This is about winning a general election, and you are ignoring evidence of processes, polls, etc. Do so, and you will lose.

    Parent
    Ummm..... (none / 0) (#138)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    ....the evidence is not at all conclusive that Obama is the worse general election candidate.  A case can be made one way or the other, but neither one is strong enough to persuade superdelegates.

    This idea that Clinton is _absolutely) the better GE candidate is nothing more than spin.  The same would be true for an argument that Obama is absolutely the better GE candidate.  No superdelegate will buy either one.

    You are pro-Clinton and you want to win.  Fine.  I am pro-Obama and I want to win.  The difference is that I won't make weak arguments about electability in order to justify turning over BOTH popular vote and pledged delegate results. If Clinton is winning in the popular vote, I think she can make a very good argument to the superdelegates.  But if she's losing both, her electability argument (which is highly debatable and not a matter of plan fact as you and so many others here suggest) won't get her very far.

    Parent

    She was winning in the popular vote (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:00:46 PM EST
    two days ago. Did you think she had a good argument then when calling super-d's? Did you say so? We'll see what we all say after Pennsylvania. . . .

    Parent
    Care to share the demographic (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:41:57 PM EST
    break-out, or isn't that info available yet?

    In an earlier post (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:43:58 PM EST


    Parent
    I saw that but thought it (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:46:56 PM EST
    was based on exit polls and lower voter turn out.

    Parent
    Best we're going to get (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:48:16 PM EST
    the exit polls are never so off that the demographic data is wildly wrong.

    Parent
    Demographic breakdowns are always from (none / 0) (#90)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:14:31 AM EST
    Exit Polls.  Where else is the data going to come from?

    Parent
    Not sure we can learn much here (none / 0) (#4)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:47:21 PM EST
    I'm not sure we can take much from the white vote here BTD, I'm not tryign to be dismissive but it is Mississippi. (The thing that worries me is Clinton getting massive edges among voters who view both as untrustworthy and without plans, that seems like a clear indication of gaming by the GOP).

    How about PA? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:50:40 PM EST
    When will it matter you think?

    November?

    Parent

    PA that's different. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:58:46 PM EST
    If Hillary gets 78% of the white male vote in PA then yeah I'll be concerned.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST


    Parent
    I saw an interesting post on this (none / 0) (#99)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:08:59 AM EST
    on The Field.  Their analysis seemed pretty spot on and they predicted the breakdown of the White vote pretty accurately in Mississipi.

    Parent
    Personal redemption is sweet. (none / 0) (#7)
    by halstoon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:55:03 PM EST
    A couple days ago, I went out on a limb and said Obama would achieve more than a mere "pyrrhic victory" that BTD saw coming, and that I see he was still a believer in earlier tonight.

    As of now, CNN shows Obama with a 17-11 breakdown, but the TV coverage is showing a 20-11 split, so 20-13 is as close as she could come, which is a significant win for Obama. Based on the map, I can only see her winning one Congressional district.

    Between winning WY (+2), MS (call it +7), and the caucuses in TX (a combined +5 right now for Obama) and VT (+3) he's +17 from a week ago. With OH (+9) and RI (+5) she's +14; final tally for the last 6 contests: Obama +3.

    Had Clinton held him to a pyrrhic victory, she would have gone into PA having gained delegates, though only a few. Now he goes into PA having split the last 6 contests and winning the delegate battle once again.

    But, more importantly (tonight, for me), I was right and BTD was wrong.

    Cool.

    TV has it wrong (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:01:47 AM EST
    CNN BTW has it 17-11 with a 3-2 district leanign Clinton out.

    I think it goes 18-15 now.

    The WORST she can do is 19-14.

    Parent

    Bloomberg says 19 or 20 (none / 0) (#58)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:52:08 AM EST
    for Obama, which would mean a +5 or +7; either way, not as close as Alabama, and if it's 20, it'll be almost as big a victory as OH for her.
    Also, if it's a +5, then he still will have won more delegates in the last 6 states.

    Parent
    BTD is right (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:09:02 AM EST
    Clinton won Congressional District 1.  Congressional District 4 is unknown right now.  And Obama did not hit the magic 62.5% for the at-large vote.  So he gets 2-2, 4-3 for the at large delegates.  And for Congressional Districts 1,2,3, it's 2-3, 5-2, and 3-2 for Obama.  Congressional District 4 is either 2-3 or 3-2 making it either 18-15 or 19-14 for Obama.

    Parent
    Cool. (none / 0) (#74)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:21:28 AM EST
    Thanks for that. I could tell that District 4 was close when I wrote the original comment, but I figured an Obama win there.

    +5 is still good enough to get the best of the past week delegate-wise, so I'm good with that.

    On to PA!!


    Parent

    It's very much a pyrrhic victory -- (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:06:25 AM EST
    considering what this battle turned out to be really about.  Is a sad day for this country really a good day for a candidate?

    Parent
    IT was a good day (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:08:05 AM EST
    looking only at the day but this day will be like no others.

    That is the problem imo.

    Parent

    Cream, you know better than that. (none / 0) (#59)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:55:26 AM EST
    Barack's advantage in the black vote existed before the Ferraro flap. Clinton was going to win white voters in MS regardless.

    Ferraro really had no impact on MS.

    As for her comments, she shouldn't have said it. The fact she won't disavow it will keep in the news cycle.

    Clinton has said she disagrees. Her campaign should move on and let Ferraro speak for herself.

    Parent

    Funny thing is, Clinton lost in her economic demos (none / 0) (#65)
    by tbetz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:07:12 AM EST
    Obama won in all economic demos below $100,000 per year income, reversing earlier trends.

    Source: MSNBC exit polls.

    Parent

    Not to be offensive, but guess what? (none / 0) (#70)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:12:04 AM EST
    A LOT of the poor in MS are black....

    That explains a big portion of that demo breakdown, imo.

    Parent

    I said nothing about Ferraro. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:07:56 AM EST
    And I would think you know better, too, about what we saw today in the South.  

    But maybe it didn't bother you a bit.

    If so, enjoy the moment.  It will be fleeting.

    Parent

    Enjoying the moment would seem to be the best (none / 0) (#73)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:18:11 AM EST
    option. As a Southerner, I certainly am not surprised he only got 26% of the white vote. He got the same in SC or thereabouts (maybe 20)if I remember correctly.

    But I am touched that Clinton supporters are upset he didn't get more of the white vote.

    As for getting 9 in 10 of the black vote, well, that's just to be expected. Never in their history have they had a chance to actually win the White House.

    Clinton won 7 in 10 white women. Should we lament that? Or is it reasonable for them to be behind her?

    Honestly, so many comments have talked about being sad for the party or the country, but nobody will seem to say what the issue really is, and I'm not down on all my TL code. Or I'm out of the loop. More likely, as has been obvious since my arrival here, my mind just works differently. Y'all are sad about something I don't see as a big deal. Especially not in the context of it being Obama's fault, which is what BTD seems to imply.

    Once again, he didn't make someone say something stupid. He also fired the girl on his staff who did.

    Parent

    White women voted in line with white men (none / 0) (#80)
    by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:51:29 AM EST
    according to the MSNBC poll. And black women voted in line with black men. Very little gender gap in the voting here. Also, for the roughly one third who said gender was an important factor in their voting, more than two thirds of those voters voted for Obama. And for the roughly one third who said that race was an important factor, slightly less than two thirds of those voted for Obama.

    I doubt that either Powers(who's not a girl, BTW), or Ferraro made an impact on the vote. If I understand the concern here, I believe the lament has more to do with what Obama himself did and said.  

    Parent

    Obama said Ferrraro's comments are (none / 0) (#83)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:26:43 AM EST
    absurd; I happen to agree. No surprise that I disagree with the general sentiment here. Some accuse Obama's supporters of being myopic, but they then have a very hard time criticizing Clinton in any way whatsoever.

    As for white women, they went for Clinton 67% in OH, white men 58%

    In TX, it was 6 in 10, while white men split.

    Here in GA, it was 6 in 10, but she lost men.

    Had white women voted like white men, she would have lost CA.

    Check out MA and say white women's support is not carrying her to a great extent.

    True, MS showed no gender gap. There has also been significant talk about how backwards MS is; some of it even came from the Senator herself.

    But on the whole, both are getting solid support from those who identify theselves in similar demographic terms.

    I'll also send Power a note saying you think she's a boy. Don't be so uptight.

    Parent

    Yes, you do think differently (none / 0) (#119)
    by tree on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    I'll also send Power a note saying you think she's a boy. Don't be so uptight.

    Why you are proud of that fact, I don't understand.
    Don't be so condescending.

    BTW, there was a considerable gender gap in the 2000 and 2004 elections. I suppose your crack analysis would be that women voted in greater numbers for Kerry because he's a girl.  

    Parent

    "the girl"? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:34:43 AM EST
    I assume you're referring to Ms. Powers.  You may not know it, but calling an accomplished, adult woman "the girl" is rather insulting.

    Could you be a little more condescending towards TL readers? Do you imagine that we are faking it when when we lament the racial and gender divide in this country?  Clinton wins disproportionate shares of women and Obama wins disproportionate shares of African Americans. I don't blame either one for that fact, but it certainly points out that we aren't as far along as maybe we thought we were.

    Parent

    Cream (none / 0) (#104)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:56:33 AM EST
    you'll find this breakdown interesting on Correntewire:

    Overall, men prefer McCain over either Democrat, while women prefer either Democrat over McCain. But the gender gap widens considerably when a woman is running. When McCain is matched with Obama, the gap is 13.9% (comprising 7% of voters), but when it is McCain versus Clinton, the gap nearly doubles to 26.9% (comprising 13.5% of voters.) ... The expansion of the gender gap is due almost entirely to changes in how men vote.


    Parent
    Yep. It's the white male vote that (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:56:28 AM EST
    is deciding this, not white women.  I saw an analysis of that a while ago, elsewhere -- but not as clearly and concisely as this.  The sort of thing that can go right up on the blackboard . . . er, PowerPoint in the classroom these day.

    Thanks, Kathy.  It takes a village to teach, too!

    Parent

    And thanks also to TA Paul L (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:00:34 AM EST
    as I see it is his analysis on the link. :-)

    Parent
    So far, the most accurate predictor I've seen (none / 0) (#29)
    by tbetz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:17:52 AM EST
    ... was the spreadsheet the Obama campaign may or may not have accidentally left attached to a memo they distributed.

    Back then, they predicted MS to be 20-13 -- and again, it looks like they are pretty much on the money.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:23:33 AM EST
    18-15 is what it looks like.

    I think that, like a lot of people they misunderstood that the PLEOs were selected separately from the at large.

    They expected a 7-4 instead of a 6-5 and expected to win 3 CDs instead of 2.

    Parent

    Hello BTD (none / 0) (#87)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:04:10 AM EST
    I have just emailed you and would appreciate it if you could please read my letter.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    They did seem to nail all these (none / 0) (#79)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:48:43 AM EST
    last 6 states. They even predicted she'd have a bigger gap in OH than expected.

    If they're right about PR, I don't see her winning this thing. Of course, they'd need to be right about everything else, too. That means she'll win PA,WV,KY, but he'll take IN & NC.

    I'd be interested to see what they come up with for FL & MI. I think he'll do a lot better. I don't see her holding him to 35% in FL, though she'll get more than 50% as well. In MI, I think he can win, but he'll have to work hard for it.

    Parent

    Not quite 100,00 I think (none / 0) (#8)
    by jcsf on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:55:22 PM EST
    But close enough.

    Again, I do think, that this is one of the differences in the Obama and Clinton campaigns.  Hilary wins her states by 10% or less, in almost all cases, while Obama racks up 15% wins, in decent sized states, negating any delegate gains by Clinton, and a lot of Clinton's population wins, in the largest states.

    In this case, little Mississippi, with the lopsided 22% win, has a population lead of almost 100K.  While in huge Texas, the 4% win by Clinton, was just over 100K population lead.

    So little Mississippi almost cancels out Texas, in terms of population counts.

    Here's Chris Bowers on the contests coming up

    Current polling indicates that Indiana and North Carolina will balance out Clinton's win in Penn, including the popular vote.  

    So the path to Hillary even winning the popular vote, is very unclear (unless of course, there is some unforeseen breakdown in the campaign.)

    I don't mind Hillary staying in, at least until after the voting through May 06.  

    But I hope to God that this can be made a "democratic lovefest", whereby both campaigns talk well about the other, and have a "clean fight", as they say in boxing terms.  

    If it's clean, and done right, we encourage participation, grow networks of democrats, in three more important states.

    Counting chickens is never smart (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:00:46 AM EST
    Bowers is nothing these for Obama way too early.

    Tonight has warnng signals for those who can recognize them.

    Parent

    Whoops, BTD was right on the 100K (none / 0) (#15)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    Since I've typed the above, it's already at 97K. Looks like you may end up correct on 100K.

    I agree, don't count chickens.  But this is result, based on polling, so far - it can change.

    I also am worried about white response - to a much more conservative audience, the entire country - when Obama is the nominee.  It's definitely a leap of faith.

    I HOPE that, policy differences, Obama's charisma versus the cranky old man McCain, and the general negative image of Republicans, will overcome that.  But it's a leap of faith.

    Parent

    As you should be (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:07:18 AM EST
    As we ALL should be, Obama is likely to be our nominee and his campaign played an unnecessary and stupid game today.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#51)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:39:38 AM EST
    I may have an idea what you are getting at.

    But I sure can't say it out loud.

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:43:36 AM EST
    not here, not out loud. Thanks.

    Parent
    Hmmm is right. (none / 0) (#126)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    It  makes  one  feel    a  tad   bamboozled.  

    Parent
    I belive you are correct (none / 0) (#116)
    by Salt on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:46:20 AM EST
    that it is now out in the open, more obvious to those susceptible to this exploitation because of their ideology maybe age or sex? But I also believe that most of the country caught on to this during SC and everything since then, at some level, it has been cumulative and is another reason Fla and Mich must count.  Sunlight is better than stealth and the passive anger that comes with the Ah Hah, but you are also correct I believe that its trouble for Nov, but again I believe it was for many before today.  I'm now choosing to ignore as political stuntry gone bad anything to do with this old grievance, going forward I refuse to wallow in that ugly muck and hope it will not be successful.

    What will be interesting is if the corporate Press now reacts, a GE for example has some risk.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#129)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:32:41 AM EST
    And  yet,  Obama  never  gets  called   on  those  stupid  and  unnecessary  games,   at  the  expense  of  the party  as  a  whole.  

    Why  do you think that  is,  BTD?

    Parent

    I see the delegate numbers (none / 0) (#14)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:03:56 AM EST
    But did I miss popular vote numbers somewhere? If I look at RCP with Florida included she is down 388,229. That doesn't account for any of the races coming up. It doesn't seem that unlikely that she can catch up (didn't say very likely, just not unlikely).

    This also assumes no revote in FL.

    Parent

    Mnay discrepencies in popular vote (none / 0) (#101)
    by TN Dem on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:33:12 AM EST
    Are you considering WA causcus or the actual popular vote that came in? I have found that to be the center of many of the discrepencies. Check www.thegreenpapers.com, and see if they have different numbers, and maybe they will have data to help you form your own oppinion as too which popular totals to ount since caucus' make popular vote calculation a challenge.

    Parent
    Also a potential falacy (none / 0) (#18)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:07:24 AM EST
    If Obama in the nominee he will not be running in a "proportional" or straight popular vote election, rather an electoral college one. Where a 0.5% victory is all is needed. So how is it useful to win with 15-20% in small states while losing big ones with lots of electoral votes with say 3%?

    Not saying this will happen, it just seems emphasizing large wins in small states is only a democratic primary advantage.

    Parent

    It has been said here that (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11:39 AM EST
    Obama is running a primary campaign and Clinton is running a general-election campaign.

    I don't know whether that logically extends to mean that if the one running the primary campaign wins that campaign and the nomination, that is not the candidate to win the general election.

    Parent

    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#48)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:34:59 AM EST
    And how would the one running a primary campaign be in bad shape in the fall?

    He's contested more states than she has. His ground game is more embedded than hers. If anything, I would think that he has a stronger foundation for the fall.

    I just find that theory interesting. And what does that mean? They both seem to follow each other around, unless she really skipped a lot of states in Feb. or something.

    Policy can be argued to death, and some will convert and some won't. But I would think it would be extremely clear that Obama has distinguished himself as the superior--or at least equal--campaigner. After all, he's the one who came from nowhere. She was already supposed to be the nominee.

    Parent

    Don't confuse the primary and the GE (none / 0) (#85)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:06:42 AM EST
    And how would the one running a primary campaign be in bad shape in the fall?

    If you are going to discuss who will be stronger in the GE, you have to focus on the states that will matter in the fall, and ignore those that will not matter. In the GE the electoral college rules are quite different from the proportional selection of delegates that applies in the Democratic primary contest. Therefore the solidly Republican states won by Obama in the Democratic Primary will be irrelevant when we get to the GE, because neither Obama or Clinton can win them.

    If you imagine otherwise, you are not being realistic.

    Parent

    I understand the difference. (none / 0) (#86)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:14:20 AM EST
    For one, I like the fact that to this point, there is no such things as "states that don't matter." That was the point of the DNC's 50-state strategy.

    Two, Obama consistently performs better in head-to-head matchups with McCain, most recently in SUSA's poll, and last I checked they are a respected outfit here. In that poll, he won more states, ECVs, everything just about.

    The Clinton campaign will continue to be exposed so long as that is their main argument. He does better in GE polls. She has lots of GE problems, not that he doesn't. He just doesn't have as many as her, at least not according to people talking to SUSA.

    Parent

    This SUSA poll was discussed here ... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:37:05 AM EST
    ... about 5 days ago.

    I don't accept your claim that Obama performs better in head-to-head matchups with McCain. Some of the projections for Obama wins (like North Dakota, and 2 delegates in Nebraska) are subject to debate.

    Of course all states matter, but we expect to win Democratic strongholds like NY, MA, and CA. And if we are winning in Texas, we will have a landslide victory. So we still have to pay less attention to those extremes and focus on how we can win in the crucial battleground states like Ohio and Florida.

    For me, the key observation in the discussion of the SUSA poll was that Clinton wins every state that Kerry won, plus Ohio and Arkansas for sure and maybe Tennessee and Florida.  Since that is enough to put us over the top, Clinton is (imo) a much safer bet than Obama.

    A crucial consideration is that Clinton is a known quantity who (having already been subject to so many attacks) is unlikely to lose support between now and the GE. As a relative unknown,  Obama has much more downside risk. And if Obama is the nominee and loses the GE, it will be no consolation to be posting "I told you so" in November. That's why the party should put Obama in the the VP slot this time around, not at the top of the ticket.

    Parent

    Florida... (none / 0) (#95)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:26:42 AM EST
    ...nothing would please me more if the Democratic candidate conceded Florida and spent all of their money on Ohio.  If the polls suggest that Florida is going to be tough, forget it.  Concentrate on Ohio.

    But even without Ohio, all the Democratic candidate needs to do is keep everything from 2004 and Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada.  It would appear that Obama is just as well placed to win those states as Clinton, perhaps even better.

    Frankly, I think Obama and Hillary are both likely to be fine in the GE.  The structural advantages of the Democrats (I've been singing this song here for a while) are just enormous this year.  Just wait till gas prices hit $4, unemployment jumps to 6%, and inflation runs 7% for the year. Given Bush's approval, Iraq, right-track/wrong-track numbers, voter identification patterns, lack of enthusiasm among Republicans, and other economic issues, it's hard to see how a Republican wins in 2008. And both Clinton and Obama, who are articulate and intellectually nimble, nuanced, and informed, should be able to crush McCain in debates.

    Folks, relax - we're looking great in 08.

    Parent

    You're missing one point though (none / 0) (#121)
    by zzyzx on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:56:31 AM EST
    Since that is enough to put us over the top, Clinton is (imo) a much safer bet than Obama.

    A crucial consideration is that Clinton is a known quantity who (having already been subject to so many attacks) is unlikely to lose support between now and the GE.

    There's one problem with that argument though.  It ignores the effect of the convention fight.  If you have a case where Obama wins the delegate count, the popular vote, and is polling well, overturning those factors for nebulous reasons along the lines of, "Well we think that Clinton might do better if you look at the details of some of these polls," is going to anger people.  

    Moreover with the late convention due to the Olympics, there won't be much time to heal those wounds.  How many people will stay home then?  Low  turnout among Obama supporters could flip states like MO, PA, WA, and OR.  

    This process has to end in a way that the majority of the supporters of both candidates can accept.  There are arguments I could see for giving the nomination to Clinton from here.  She could run up a string of impressive victories in all of the remaining states.  Obama could have a major scandal.  Clinton could pass Obama in the popular vote totals.  All of those would be at least somewhat understandable to Obama supporters.  Changing the results just because you think Clinton would be more of a sure thing would have the result of making her much less of one.

    Parent

    How many people will stay home then? (none / 0) (#134)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    ... there won't be much time to heal those wounds.  How many people will stay home then?  Low  turnout among Obama supporters could flip states like MO, PA, WA, and OR.

    First, I think we should assume that Obama supporters with those tendencies, if they exist as a significant segment of the population,  are already represented in the published polls that show the outcome of a Clinton vs. McCain election. They may be counted as undecided, or even possibly as voters for McCain in some cases. That is what accounts for Obama and Clinton polling differently vs. McCain. So the effect you are concerned about is already being factored into the projections.

    Second, I was assuming that Obama would be able to rally his supporters to the Democratic ticket, once a decision is made. Are you suggesting that he will not, or cannot, do that?

    Parent

    There is absolutely not question (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:44:29 AM EST
    that Obama can take MS in the GE.  Alabama as well.

    When you start off with 35-40 of the voter block it makes it a lot easier to get that last 11-16%.

    Parent

    bwahahahahaha (none / 0) (#124)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:09:27 AM EST


    Parent
    AL & MS in the fall? (none / 0) (#127)
    by auntmo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    What   are  you  smoking,  Flyerhawk?  

    Not  gonna  happen,  dear.  

    Parent

    Rush has more listeners in MS? (none / 0) (#21)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:08:38 AM EST
    Republicans were 12% of the vote; you have to think almost all that came out of the 48% white vote, so about 1 in 4 whites was a GOP crossover, and they went 3-1 for Clinton. 12% would be about 48,000 votes. Obama got about 12k to her 36k. Take that vote away, and--let's be honest--and the NE part of the state probably goes to Obama, making the delegate loss even worse for Clinton.

    So, in a sense, it would seem Limbaugh's army was able to influence this race, albeit slightly.

    I'm using CNN's exit poll data.

    But making a huge leap (none / 0) (#22)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:09:49 AM EST
    That there is any relation there. Why is crossover vote for Obama appeal, yet for Clinton a Rush Limbaugh creation?

    Parent
    Rush was a joke to point out her (none / 0) (#30)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:18:28 AM EST
    big win among Republicans.

    Parent
    I am just off today (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:20:08 AM EST
    I am not getting posts and jokes. I am not having a good day.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    Oh, and are you serious that the Clintons (none / 0) (#35)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:21:01 AM EST
    have GOP fans in the South? Is that really your final answer?? That she "appeals" to them, as in they would vote for her??

    Are you gonna bet it all, Marvin?

    Parent

    No, but my explanation (none / 0) (#39)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:23:09 AM EST
    Is not one I am going to post here. Seriously as a democrat I am feeling very down today. And it doesn't have anything to do with who won what, etc. I have a fear that I just watched the GE go to the republicans, no matter what the outcome of the democratic primaries may be.

    Parent
    Too bad. (none / 0) (#43)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:28:59 AM EST
    I'd like to know more when you feel like sharing.

    Is it this Spitzer deal? Or Ferraro?

    Parent

    Halstoon, you are pushing it (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:33:37 AM EST
    stop trying to change the subject.

    Parent
    no, no, and no! (none / 0) (#25)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:13:34 AM EST
    white republicans in mississippi who voted for clinton did so for one reason:  the economy stupid!

    Parent
    Yeah, I forgot. (none / 0) (#37)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:22:38 AM EST
    Carville's from LA, so they all like him!?!?

    Clinton's not gonna continue Bush's tax cuts, so that ain't it, but good guess.

    It wasn't Rush, either, per se; I was just being unfunny, apparently....

    Parent

    the stridency (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:22:08 AM EST
    of your advocacy

    belies levity,

    especially when invoking rush;>

    Parent

    I don't mean to be overly strident. (none / 0) (#78)
    by halstoon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:41:50 AM EST
    I apologize. But I pointed out the original post was intended as humor. Was yours? 'Cuz we both seemed to not get it if so.

    Enjoyed your poetry, though.

    Parent

    Turnout (none / 0) (#32)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:19:42 AM EST
    I wrote earlier on another thread that 150,000 would surprise me. 400,000 is still low though about right in line with many other states. 400,000 is about 20% of eligible Democratic voters which number 2,066,840 according to George Mason University.

    http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

    That 20% turnout number is about the same for Lousiana where 19.3% was achieved. Still much lower than the 32.7% for nearby Georgia and marginally less than the 26.0% turnout in Arkansas. On the other hand, the caucus states are simply pathetic, all under 10% except for Iowa (16.5%). Kansas 1.9% and Nebraska but 1.0%. Alaska had 5.0%. Apart from Iowa, Minnesota turned in the highest turnout for a caucus, still a paltry 7.2%.

    Much more (none / 0) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:15:55 AM EST
    than caucuses.  Therefore more representative of Dems.  

    Parent
    There are not... (none / 0) (#97)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:34:21 AM EST
    ...2 million registered Democrats in Mississippi.  That would be more than 66% of the total population, and 91% of the over 18 population.

    2.06 million would seem to be eligible voters...

    Parent

    But the GOP voters.. (none / 0) (#38)
    by tbetz on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:22:47 AM EST
    ... broke three-to-one for Clinton, not Obama.

    Exit polls (none / 0) (#56)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:51:07 AM EST
    I'm looking at exit polls.

    1. Advertising seems to have favored Obama, which makes sense, since Clinton seems inclined to do Obama's advertising for him.

    2. Obama voters really, really believed he would make a good civilian head of the military. Clinton voters weren't as sure of their candidate. What do you expect when you advertise that your opponent has better judgment in military matters than you do, and then you claim military-commanding experience that you do not have and cannot tally?

    3. An Obama-Clinton ticket was reasonably popular.

    (I favor such a ticket.)
    Uh (none / 0) (#62)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:59:32 AM EST
    you are reading the exit polls backwards.

    Approximately one out of ten Obama voters felt Clinton would actually make a better Commander-in-Chief than Obama.

    Virtually none of Clinton's supporters felt Obama would make a better CiC.  About 1%.

    I trust you will take whatever your conclusions were and apply them to the opposite candidate at this point.  Or perhaps not.

    Parent

    I think you're both wrong, but (none / 0) (#93)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:17:14 AM EST
    Steve is the closest to being correct. The poll results actually say that:

    (a) Of the 42% who thought Clinton was more qualified to be CIC, 86% voted for Clinton and 9% for Obama.

    (b) Of the 55% who thought Obama was more qualified as CIC, 98% voted for Obama, and 1% for Clinton

    Ignoring all the missing percentages and just working with the known opinions, when you work out the probabilities, it turns out that:

    -- about 98.5% of Clinton supporters favor Clinton as CIC
    -- about 93.5% of Obama supporters favor Obama as CIC.

    I'll spare you the math, since it's a bit tedious to explain it without getting into basic probability theory. And if I have misunderstood the poll results, I will be happy to be corrected. But this is my reading of the published data.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:23:31 AM EST
    I think it was a point he's not interested in making any longer with the numbers reversed.

    Parent
    Clintons "Personality" movement (none / 0) (#130)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    So, looking at the numbers after the MS. primary it seems pretty clear who MS. dems view as a "personality" movement. When around 3/4 ths of her voters said they would be unhappy if Obama was the nominee. Granted around half of Obamas voters said the same but this number has held up throughout the campaign although both numbers are trending way up which is bad for the party. When that many folks say they would be unhappy with the other DEMOCRAT in the race winning then thats an issue. Funny how its the Clinton supporters who are now trending towards the Clinton or no one way instead of all us mindless Obama backers. Also, I would be a lot more skeptical about the "Rush Limbaugh" effect if Bill Clinton hadnt appeared on his show to promote Hillary! Limbaugh has been saying "Vote Hillary" since before the Ohio and Texas primaries then all of a sudden her repub. numbers go through the roof. Clinton routinely appears on Fox as well. Where is all the talk about her appealing to Repubs. and not fighting them and getting votes from people who wont vote for her in the GE. It would be nice to see some balance.  

    You have at least one lie here (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:58:31 PM EST
    that has been disproved in other threads, and those who repeatedly posted it were warned not to do so again.  Were you one of those already?

    Bill Clinton did not appear on the Limbaugh show.

    Period.

    Parent

    Legitimizing Fox and Rush (none / 0) (#131)
    by Independence33 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    Fox and Rush Limbaugh are some of the foulest and partisan media outlets in the market. Why are the Clintons legitimizing them by appearing on their shows? Obama has made a stand that during the primary, he would not appear on their programming because they pushed the "Obama is a Muslim" story. They cried and said it was a big mistake and it would hurt him. Oops, apparently not. So why does the Clinton campaign continue to do this? Rush was fired from ESPN for making the comments about Donavon McNabb basically being lucky because he is black and that if he was white he wouldnt be considered good. Sound familiar? No wonder they havent run from Ferraros statements. If they are appealing to Rush and his people then it all makes sense.

    And you repeat the lie again. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:59:47 PM EST
    Who is this for?

    Do you realize it makes you a laughingstock at this site?  This one still is reality-based.  Lies are welcome at other blogs.  I bet you know which ones.

    Parent

    Final MS Recap | 134 comments (134 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment