Obama Can End It On Tuesday

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

If Obama wins the Pennsylvania primary, the race for the Democratic nomination will end. And if you believe Rasmussen, Zogby, LATimes and PPP, he has a great chance of doing that. These four polls have Obama down 3, 4, 5 and up 3 respectively.

Personally, I have no confidence in those polls, and will continue to trust SUSA, which has Clinton with a 14 point lead. But make no mistake, if Obama wins PA, it is over. And then perhaps, the Clinton hate will stop. It is imperative for Obama's chances that it stop. Obama's worst enemies now are his own rabid fans.

< Post Debate Poll: Hillary Gains | Now You Know, Not All Polls Are Equal >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    My expectation is that we'll have a continuation of the demographic muddle.

    SUSA should have a final poll or two--probably on Monday and Tuesday--and we'll see where we are.

    We might as well wait till Tuesday night (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by AF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    When the PA Secretary of State is going to be releasing from pretty reliable data.

    Bradley Effect? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:44 PM EST
    ...there has not been an election post-Wright / post-race speech and there could be a significant Bradley effect.

    Frankly, I hope not (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    but it's sure possible.

    I agree, but if Obama LOSES... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    ... it will clinche the Obama  unelectability argument (lost every top 10 state except Illinois) and Clinton should be the nominee if she wins.

    Obama doesn't need FL to win the GE (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:53:28 PM EST
    so say his followers.
    btw - buses of FL Dems are going to protest in front of the DNC on April 26.
    Imagine that - having to protest to have votes counted.
    2000 all over again.

    Clinton should start using Florida (none / 0) (#18)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    and Michigan numbers and saying that she needs x votes to beat Obama in the popular count.

    ABC (none / 0) (#81)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:37:47 PM EST
    ABC is already using MI and FL popular vote results on their site.  It has Obama up by 102,000 votes.

    Picket (none / 0) (#45)
    by Step Beyond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    Monday there were Michigan and Florida union members protesting in front of the DNC. Didn't get much press. I hadn't heard of another protest coming up. Good for them!

    I'm hoping Clinton wins PA because I don't want this to end. If it ends then they'll seat the delegates and I'll have to say over and over again how it doesn't matter that they are seated AFTER the decision is made.


    And Georgia (no. 9) (none / 0) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:07:45 PM EST
    Top Ten DEMOCRATIC states... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM EST
    Georgia and North Carolina are top ten states population wise, but not alot of Dems there.  The top ten Dem states are: California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

    Thank you for making the argument (none / 0) (#52)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:16:00 PM EST
    that I often screw up. :-)

    I think the super d's have a number (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:46:34 PM EST
    and if Clinton breaks past that number, then a bunch will come out for her the next day.  They are holding back their endorsements for a reason.

    Demographics don't lie, and he was floundering during the debate like a flounder out of water.  They are taking off their rose-colored glasses and looking at who can really beat McCain.

    We'll see what Tuesday brings, but I don't think she should drop out until she is dang good and ready.

    personally (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:49:16 PM EST
    I believe that Wednesday morning we are going to be in a whole new world.
    or not.

    Ahoy, Capt! (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    I am on the same boat with you.  I think Clinton will take PA by large margins, and O will do what he does best: be the poorest loser in the world.  He'll get even more defensive and shoot himself in the other foot and we'll see what shakes out.

    I do think that those who say Clinton should bow out if she loses PA should set a similar standard for Obama.  I remember just before Super Tuesday, there were all these criteria by which Obama should be called to drop out.  He met pretty much all of them, and they changed the metric.

    How many times do they have to put the fix in, only to have him fall short, before someone starts calling for O to drop out?


    PA (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by chrisvee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    SUSA and my gut (hee!) are telling me that Clinton is going to win PA decisively and that it will be a whole new race on Wednesday morning.  Then I will have bragging rights since I'm a PA voter. :-)

    never give up (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    never surrender

    By Grapthar's Hammer (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    you're right!

    Mad points for Galaxy quest! (none / 0) (#102)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    I Bet Clinton win = Edwards Endorsement (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    I certainly got the impression that he was leaning toward Clinton on Colbert's show. But, he's not going to do it right before PA and then get embarassed with a loss.

    Clinton/Edwards ticket (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:15:26 PM EST
    I see that too.  I'm glad I'm not the only one to see that coming.
    If Hillary wins BIG (10+) I think Edwards will endorse her.

    If Hillary choses Edwards, she's in the WH.

    Obama followers are spinning as fast as they can and finding any poll they can that is skewed to him.  I know Hillary supporters are going all out in PA.

    This primary is changing all the rules.  


    that would make me feel much (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:16:36 PM EST
    better about voting for Edwards.

    I would be happy with a Clinton/Edwards ticket (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    I remember watching Edwards force himself not to cringe when Kerry would make some stupid, elitist remark.  He's a fighter and I imagine he's seen that Clinton is a fighter.  

    I know Obama says this about himself a lot (usually in the third person, which is always attractive) but it seems to me that when people meet Clinton, they realize that they actually like her.

    I guarantee you Edwards had a similar transformation.


    I'd be ecstatic (none / 0) (#111)
    by LHinSeattle on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:27:11 PM EST
     with Clinton/Edwards.  (either John or Elizabeth!)

    But if she doesn't convince him to be VP, then he'll take that new -- and much needed -- Poverty Czar position.


    That would be an exciting, unbeatable (none / 0) (#97)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    ticket.  Maybe they should announce it after Penn- if she wins big.

    Sorry... I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    I hate to say it, I don't think it matters how well she does.  I think he Obama campaign is holding on to a few superdeez to bring out and declare for Obama after her win to take the media attention off her win and allow the 'media' to start another round of 'why won't she quit, she's picking on Obama.'  I've been brain washed by the theory that the media will look for any reason to focus on Obama and criticize Clinton.  {beating head on monitor}

    They will indeed (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:49:34 PM EST
    but people are not listening. They're voting the way they want to.

    Otherwise, Obama would have been the nominee a long time ago.


    I think you're exactly right (none / 0) (#100)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    Rumor has it the entire NC delegation was going to endorse Obama. I've only heard a couple come out. My guess is that if she wins big, Obama brings out the rest of the NC SD's to blunt the victory and turn the media narrative to say "see - she may have won, but he's still collecting SD's".

    And Edwards endorsement would be great - too bad he's not an SD!


    Obama has set the standard high (none / 0) (#6)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:48:54 PM EST
    If Clinton doesn't win by at leat 10 points, it will be considered a win for Obama. I'm not sure why, but that seems to be the meme.

    Obama said (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:59 PM EST
    that a 10 point loss would be a victory.  He said that about a month ago.  So that set the number and it was picked out of Axelrod's backside.

    Of course the media is doubtless holding onto that number to flash out if it's a 10 point or less loss.

    In Michigan the ficticious number based on nothing was that Clinton was the loser if she got less than 60% of the vote.  On election night we were treated to the sound of some local TV reporters who passed along the 'wisdom' that: "they" say that anything less than 60% is a loss for Hillary Clinton. No one ever explained who "they" were and how "they" came up with that number.

    Quite a world we live in: 60% needed to pass legislation, 60% needed for victory and a 10 point loss is a victory.


    I just visited the big orange (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    In a post today, Markos said that the "baseline" for Penn should be a 19 point victory for Clinton, based on some poll done 6 weeks ago. 19 points. Wow. Why not just say that if she doesn't get 100% of the vote she loses?

    That's not all he's set (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by angie on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:45:26 PM EST
    he's set the following rules, and everyone seems to be buying them:

    1. If it helps Hillary, it is bad
    2. If it hurts Hillary, it is good
    3. The same is not true for Obama

    Delegate Math (none / 0) (#27)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    Since she is behind in pledged delegates a narrow win for her is really not going to bring her closer to his number.  And since much of the early polling had her ahead 19 points, a narrow win for her could be seen by some as a "comeback" for Obama.

    the delegate math: (none / 0) (#47)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    per this Delegate estimator: where you can plug in win% numbers and it calculates delegates and I find she could win if she averaged 57% wins of the remaining 10 races and gets 63% of the remaining superdelegates (hardly a coup) or you can try out your guess...

    But the margins are important (none / 0) (#60)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    and if she loses by a large maring in NC, then those numbers change.  Correct?  I guess my point is that it difficult to predict what will happen because the margin in each state will affect what is needed in the remaining states.  

    all that matters (none / 0) (#65)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    is who turns up to vote.  Demographics are the key to all of these elections.  That's what the pollsters are using to formulate their results.  Some use more wishful thinking than others, apparently.

    Or, even less than 57% average: (none / 0) (#69)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    I see some states have so few delegates...so big states DO matter more! Clinton was right...

    58% PA
    45 Guam
    63 NC
    60 IN
    45 WV
    50 OR
    57 Kentucky
    57 PR
    40 Montana
    30 SD
    64% Superdelegates


    I don't understand your post here (none / 0) (#84)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:39:30 PM EST
    Are these the percentages she needs to win these states by?  Are you saying she'll win NC by 63%?

    Take NC down a bit (none / 0) (#103)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    Bill Clinton said it, and I believe it - if Hillary wins North Carolina, she gets the nomination. I don't think it's likely at this point, but it seems like a reasonable assumption. Obama is favored heavily in NC.

    What will it take to derail Obama? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Chimster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    I'm not sure I've heard what percentage it will take to completely derail Obama off the tracks. Does she have to win by 20% to do that. Or is there no such thing as a big win for Clinton that will knock him off the path to the nomination?

    You know what? I think they should both (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:05:56 PM EST
    stay in to the end.

    Even if she wins by 20%.

    Let everybody vote. It will only strengthen her argument for the GE.


    I aspire to (none / 0) (#95)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:56:54 PM EST
    this type of evenhandedness.  :)

    Aren't you a doll. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:00:28 PM EST
    I'm trying. I just think the election is really close and no one should drop out till the end.

    I trust the Democratic voters to tell us who they want as the nominee. Of course, I'm betting on HRC, but if Obama can really do well in states where he "shouldn't" demographically, then I will agree that he is more electable.

    If he continues to have a narrower coalition than HRC, then it seems to me that she is more electable.

    So there ya go. ;-)


    they're merely following their Leader (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:47:32 PM EST
    >>>Obama's worst enemies now are his own rabid fans.

    and Obama has become very nasty.

    Neither his strategy (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:50:36 PM EST
    nor the tone of his rabid internet supporters have changed meaningfully for the last six months. Some people were just dog-whistled before others.

    Obama's mask... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:18:15 PM EST
    is slipping.

    For a lot of us (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:57:20 PM EST
    The damage is already done.

    You made some suggestions a week or so ago, BTD.

    Nobody listened.  Nobody cared.

    And I also think the bloggerati are still nursing their grudge over 2004.  And they've bought this idea that they fell in line for what was then, not their choice, Kerry.

    And so, without making any overtures, without making any effort whatsoF-ing ever to repair any of the damage that was caused in the Primary (remember it was Clinton's fault anyway), they will then expect Clinton's supporters to fall in line, and then when Clinton's supporter don't, they will cling (eeek!) to their sense of pride, and blame Clinton for not doing what it was Obama's job to do.

    I'd like to be given one logical reason why my scenario won't happen.

    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by chrisvee on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    It's been left too late.  Now if Senator Obama is the nominee, I think only external factors (world events, etc.) could mitigate the damage.

    I'm also starting to see some Bushlike personality traits in Senator Obama that are really starting to give me an uneasy feeling.  Cult + thin-skinned personality type + ego = trouble.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#98)
    by rnibs on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    For a lot of us it is too late.  Anything he does to try to win us back will really make us cringe--it would feel smarmy and insincere to us.  



    Not a big fan of primaries (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Chimster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:00:19 PM EST
    or caucuses for that matter. Why? Because this process could and has taken so long, peoples opinions have changed since they first voted months ago. Maybe if folks heard Hillary misspeak about Bosnia just before Super Tuesday, the outcome would be different now. Maybe our nominee would be Barrack right now.

    Same thing goes for Obama. If people knew he plagiarized speeches, attended Wright's sermons, made fun of blue collar workers, etc.. Hillary could very well be our nominee right now.

    The reason I bring this up is because the states that voted earlier didn't get the opportunity to see all of the news stories unfolding for each candidate. If we let campaigns travel to every state, set up some debates, then after all 50 states were pitched to, every state would vote for their nominee on the same day. A level playing field. I know it will probably never go this way, but I think its a fair plan.

    I am totally on board with this idea. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:03:20 PM EST
    In fact, I think we should vote for all candidates on one day and do away with the primaries entirely. IRV would determine the winner.

    Name recognition? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Chimster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    If no one knows who Barrack Oabama is by now... I'm suggesting that both candidates do exactly what they've been doing for the past several months--Introducing themselves to the public over a set period of time. Then after everyone knows where the candidates stand (and knows their name), all states vote.

    P.S. John Edwards was a very recognizable name from the John Kerry nomination. Look how well his name recognition turned out for him.


    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    As for the Obamabots, some of them are the nastiest, vilest people I have ever run up against on the net.

    As for Obama, he is a snake oil salesman, not immune to lying and he is outspending Hillary like crazy, but still cannot seal the deal.  I believe this is very telling.

    BTW, we should all send Hillary's Campaign $25.00 today.... :)

    Donation (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:45 PM EST
    I sent her $50, $25 to tv ads, $25 to radio ads.

    Hillary '08!


    Amongst the "Obamabots" are fakes (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    Some are GOPers who like to speak in insulting ways and are trying to make things worse for Dems. (Really, please remember this--and you can go look at some of the message boards over at some (only some) GOP or extreme right websites and they brag about doing it.)
    It is true though that some Obama fans are not GOPers but fellow Dems (I know this because of things said or written to me by people I KNOW who were previously good Dem party people but now are blind fans--I would have expected them to be like BTD--big tenters who could use their usual, extensive political expertise--but they aren't. YET?)

    Thanks, BTD and Jeralyn, again--you just rock.


    I think he's going to lose by a margin (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST
    that he will have a hard time explaining away, and this may be the point where his whining is finally seen for being exactly that.

    It just seems to me that the demographic he must have to win is the one which is probably the most offended by his increasingly obvious immaturity and mean-spiritedness - she is hardening solid Democratic support, which is not a good sign for him.

    Given that her support is coming from Democrats in much greater numbers than his, I think there is an electability argument that is stronger if she beats him as decisively as I think she will.

    You're the only one I've seen (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:07:21 PM EST
    Who isn't a cultist.

    And would be inclined to send the Obama folks a message similiar to what BTD is trying send if one could see through the abrasive way BTD sometimes communicates his message.

    Simpy put, if we have to choose between the Clinton legacy and the future of the party, the choice won't be difficult for a lot of us.  For some it will be difficult.

    Let me explain why (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    Obama supporters will vote for Obama.

    The issue is non-Obama supporters.

    This seems so elementary to me I am surprised I have to explain it to you.

    Well then, (none / 0) (#78)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:32:34 PM EST
    It's Hillary or TEAR IT UP!   A legacy and demonstrated results vs. HOPE?

    May 6 will be bigger (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Raven15 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    I expect Clinton to win PA by anywhere from 5 to 20 points. If closer to 20, it will be spun as status quo because it has the right demographics for her, or as an isolated win that doesn't say anything conclusive about electability or momentum. If closer to 5, Obama will try to claim victory, but I think there is a small opening for Clinton now, and I think most SDs and others will await results in NC and IN. Besides, any candidate who could not win outright in PA after spending the record amounts of money he has while enjoying continued media support should be perceived as weak.

    If Obama loses big in PA (none / 0) (#73)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    after spending so much money and spent so much time (like OH and TX), it will really put a BIG dent in his campaign and the perception that he can win the White House in the General Election.

    The Supers are waiting for the end of PA.  So many people are trying to sabotage Hillary right now because so much money and effort has been made to give Obama "mythical" status.  

    But all myths break.


    A Problem with it Ending on Tuesday (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    Regardless of the outcome, FL and MI remain disenfranchised.

    It should be understood, it is imperative that FL and MI be resolved before the Primary ends.

    There's a rationale for keeping the race alive on that issue alone.

    It's too late (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jen on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    O! has done the damage, and his supporters have fanned the flames, for the good of O! and damage to the Party.

    Paul Krugman is one of the few columnists who has pointed out O's! constant bashing of and lumping in of the Clinton presidency with that of the Bush's before and after him. The last line in his piece yesterday:

    And one more thing: let's hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he'll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

    This is such an important point - and a valid comeback to those who are whining about Hillary saying McCain has more national security credentials than O! and how could she- how dare she- what on earth was she thinking!!! We all know Obama's national security creds far outshine John McCains. Gasp! She is insane and obviously intent on destruction of the world. Because we all know it is sacrosanct and you do NOT criticize the other Dem in favor of any Republican, right?

    Well how dare Obama repeatedly denigrate the Clinton administration's record? ESPECIALLY when he's lying or just ill informed about the stats- whichever is worse I don't know. Leaving the Reagan era in its "transformational" terms and HW getting a big pass for such shining foreign policy. But slamming the Clinton years over and over and over. Trying to clump it in with the GW Bush administration. Yeah- indistinguishable... right.....Talk about hurting the Dem party. The one time in 3 decades we manage to win a two term presidency and restore a broken economy, prosper and enjoy peace... our shining hour of success in national politics in so many decades -- and he feels he has to trash that? In favor of how he'll be adopting HW Bush and Reagan policies?


    Yes We Can

    (h/t ms in la)

    Clinton by 30 points in Penn (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by drewohio1 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:42:14 PM EST
    Hillary all the way BABY !!!! 30 to 35 % margin for Clinton in Pennslyvania.... COME ON PENN !!!! DO IT BABY !!

    I Hope You're Right, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    But I'm afraid if Hillary loses in PA, and the race is over, the OS will do an obnoxious end zone dance, shoot the finger at her,  shout for the "racist ol' grannies" to "step aside" and alienate even more Hillary voters than ever.  I'd like to be proven wrong, but their behavior so far doesn't reassure me.

    We have seen this headline before (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    Obama can end it in New Hampshire
    Obama can end it on Super Tuesday
    Obama can end it in Texas
    Obama can end it in PA - more of the same and it is hard not to feel jaded about it.  I guess we will see if he breaks the string on Tuesday.

    But I am hoping to see a headline that says "Clinton can end it in Puerto Rico!"

    Pennsylvania (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    is not going to go for Obama.  He would do well to stay within 10. I agree though that an Obama win would end the campaign.

    Indiana is critical.

    A moderate to substantial Clinton margin in PA combined with a win in Indiana would give her an opening to make a credible pitch to superdelegates.

    Absent a blow out win in PA, I don't see how she sways enough Supers if she doesn't win Indiana.  IMHO, it is the only remaining primary where the results are not already predictable.

    Obama Can End It (none / 0) (#5)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    I thought there would be a sea change in the Republican party after the GE.  Turns out, the  sea change will be in the Democratic Party by or around August.  Seems to me we will splinter as a party; core Dems for Hillary and whatever else the Kossacks and the like are calling themselves.  I'm not optimistic.  And just think, a few months ago, I was gleeful with the dismal prospects of the Republican Party.

    To My Mind No One Has Done More To Shore Up The (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:04:09 PM EST
    Republican party than Obama during this primary.

    Robert Reich (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    has come out endorsing Barack Obama.  I just don't understand what Democratic Party some of these people belong to.

    I think Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by alsace on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    keeps Obama's endorsers in the closet until he needs a distraction from one of O's harebrained moments.  He should have figured by now that it doesn't work.

    Fourth Time's a Charm (none / 0) (#8)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    I join your skepticism, BTD.  But, hey, in this race anything is possible.  

    That's the problem, isn't it (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    Just how many chances does he need to finish her off?

    She could have finished him off (none / 0) (#20)
    by magster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:58:58 PM EST
    in Iowa, a closer loss in SC, a better performance on 2/5, and by winning any 2 of the 11 February contests.

    To use a Rocky analogy again, if Clinton crushes in PA, this will be Rocky II, with the winner facing Mr T. without having had a chance to recover.


    Well, I still expect (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:01:31 PM EST
    a 10-15 pt win for Hillary. The demographics suggest it. And that's the real answer to my question: demographics.

    I think it's over if he is within 5 -8 pts. (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    Not slam dunk over, but good enough for the weenie-superdels who haven't declared yet. An 8 point margin gives Hillary 8 more delegates.  

    Hillary's superdelegate lead has shrunk from 39 to 22ish since 3/5/08, and there was a 2 delegate swing from Clinton to Obama from OH final results. The CW was that Hillary needed to win big in PA after 3/5/08, and with a close Clinton win, he'll still have netted around 10 more delegates by 4/23/08.

    With poll leads in NC, and now IN, and Clinton's favorability ratings free-falling, a close win for Clinton isn't good enough.

    Whatever win = win... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:05:54 PM EST
    The Obama spin is either that a 20 point win will net few delegates and be meaningless OR that Obama has to only get within 10. In other words a win is always a loss for Clinton in Obamanation.

    If Obama loses, it will mean his only significant victory that hasn't been driven by African American voting is Wisconsin. He even lost 14 counties to Clinton in ILLINOIS. The guy has serious electability problems.


    You're right (none / 0) (#50)
    by magster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    The A-A vote was crucial for Obama in WY.

    Ah, yes, WY (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM EST
    that historically dem state.  Such a coup!

    So when Clinton wins Kentucky (none / 0) (#70)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    you will argue it doesn't matter since it isn't a historically dem state, right?

    I am obviously a Clinton partisan (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:30:13 PM EST
    so I think that only the states she wins are valid.  Fortunately, the math favors her wins--you know, big, electoral college-rich dem states and swing states we need to win.

    Bill won Kentucky twice. (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Lysis on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:54:00 PM EST
    He also won TN twice and WV twice.   All states that are favoring or have favored Hillary.  

    Those states are in play if she's the nominee.  


    Kentucky is a "red" state (none / 0) (#74)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:29:12 PM EST
    now, but polls are showing Hillary strong against Obama and giving McCain a run for his money.

    I think all states are up for grabs.


    Also good for the party (none / 0) (#106)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:53:26 PM EST
    Mitch Mcconnell is in a fight for his Senate seat - depending on his challenger, it could be close, from what I understand.  If Hillary is the nominee, it could also mean a Senate seat pickup.

    Kentucky matters (none / 0) (#75)
    by magster on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:29:53 PM EST
    I've said so before.

    He hasn't won... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    ... white democrats in any of the medium to large primaries and he has only won the overall white vote in two of the medium to large primaries: narrowly in Virginia and Wisconsin.

    No, Minnesota (none / 0) (#71)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    he won. He does not win the big blue solid Dem states, we prefer Democrats, we Democrats.

    That's true, but I was just talking primaries... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:18:08 PM EST
    Being from Wis- I can tell you (none / 0) (#99)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:10:39 PM EST
    that since rev wright and Obama's support from a "former" domstic terrorist he CANNOT win Wis. and certainly not Va.

    I think both can win Wisconsin.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:19:19 PM EST
    ...but, Clinton is probably in a better position in the general.

    Not so fast with that Indiana lead (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:08:28 PM EST
    I don't put must trust in that poll. I live in Indiana and am voting for Obama, but I see Hillary as having an advantage here.  How much of one remains to be seen, but I believe she will win the state.

    Indiana may be among the most complex (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:20:46 PM EST
    states historically, politically, etc. -- we have family there in southern and central Indiana and friends in northern Indiana, and it's something to drive through the state and see the differences.  And since marrying a Hoosier, I have heard more and read a lot more about it that just complicate it all even more.

    When Congress decided to run the old National Road through Indiana and called it the midpoint of the country, it got something correct.  Of course, that was a long time ago. . . .  But so did sociologists who selected Muncie as middle America for study.  

    Indiana is maddening, marvelous, ugly, gorgeous, and everything in between.  I just wish it wasn't so hot and humid in midsummer, when we go there!

    Anyway -- good for you for calling it as you see it, IndiDemGirl, and not as you wish it to be.  Spoken like a true Hoosier. :-)


    Thanks, but I must admit (none / 0) (#92)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:51:37 PM EST
    I am a Michigander who married a Hoosier!  But as I've lived here in Northwest Indiana for over 20 years I guess I now qualify as a Hoosier.

    Aha. I'm still called "Yankee girl" (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    by the Hoosier relatives, as I'm the next best thing to a Michigander; I'm a Wisconsinite.

    And here in "Bushville," as we were called by the Yankees fans when we beat their team and still recall that fondly, calling us Yankee-anything is asking for a fight!  But I try to take it with a smile.:-)


    I still say 10% Clinton win (none / 0) (#14)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:54:35 PM EST
    Take all the polls and add the undecideds at 60%  going for Hillary.  Averages out to a ten point win.

    Oblablabama Fans (none / 0) (#15)
    by bernarda on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:55:34 PM EST
    I know what you mean. The hyper-obama Americablog blocked me after I made several defenses of Clinton. This was just after I even gave a compliment to Aravosis in relation to another thing. What a hypocrite.

    bernarda-- same thing happened to me (none / 0) (#101)
    by kenosharick on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:12:18 PM EST
    I used to love that site and now my comments are blocked because I support Hillary.

    staying in (none / 0) (#16)
    by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM EST
    I think Clinton will win as she's a strong candidate and now showing even more of her positives. I've been "betting" on the real SUSA and haven't lost yet.
    And--I don't think she'll quit if it's close, even with Obama ahead.
    Why should she? Democrats in other close presidential races never have. I think she's helping the Dems too as she's coming off positively right now and Sen. Obama is not.

    Obama won't win (none / 0) (#19)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    and a 9 point loss is not a win. It's a debacle, considering how she has forced him to outspend her by multiples in PA.

    Should he become the nominee, I expect nothing other than a hearty F*** U from his rabid ObamaNation. It would be very nice if they were all as openminded as BTD, but most are not.

    Question for BTD (none / 0) (#25)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    Do you think it's possible for the Dems
    to unite and when behind whoever is the nominee?

    edit (none / 0) (#29)
    by kmblue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:03:20 PM EST
    meant to say WIN

    The big O seems to be winning (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    the hearts of many Europeans.  For example, a French friend who is very well informed about the primaries  tells me Hillary lied about Tuzla.  Today the Herald  Trib. featured interviews with young people from outside the U.S. who are volunteering for Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Nader, but most seemed to favor Obama.

    There you are! (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST
    I was in London, and my pals were pro-Clinton, but then again, I hang around with low-information types who haven't been told about the disastrous 90s.  The Guardian, Scotsman and Telegraph seem to be giving her a fair shake, too.

    Conflicting info in recent Herald (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:58 PM EST
    Trib. article on political gurus predicting who will vote for whom based on what magazines, food preferences, etc.  It seems Clinton supporters drink white wine and Starbucks.  Really confusing, and Mark Penn is apparently the all knowing one on these issues.  He wrote the book.

    Obama is the cool dude (none / 0) (#66)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:31 PM EST
    He's the cool candidate who seems (at least in the imagination of the European) to epitomize the "Young American" (Homage to David Bowie).  

    By the way, France thought the same thing about Sarkozy, their new President.  They thought he would bring honest, change and hope to the French people.

    They have been very VERY disappointed.  I don't concern myself with the Europeans.  They are use to drama in their elections.


    I agree (none / 0) (#43)
    by ajain on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    If Penn goes with Obama, or if she wins by a narrow margin then I think its over for her.

    But there are already very grim analyses coming out from journalists for her. I'm not sure what this means coz on the one hand we have seen this movie before and on the other hand even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

    Maybe everyone is just bored and don't have much to do between now and election day.

    They were right about SC (none / 0) (#54)
    by Davidson on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    Obama trounced her there.  However, the demographics were the determining factor not journalists.  And they're so outrageously biased I'm extremely suspicious of whatever they say.

    Considering what a pessimist I am, I will be on pins and needles until Tuesday.  I'm praying that she wins PA big and then wins IN.  Then I'll feel she has some breathing room.


    I'm with you on the pessimism (none / 0) (#79)
    by ajain on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:34:31 PM EST
    I am not at all sure how this stuff is going to play out and until I see the results I am not taking anything for granted.

    But I feel like doomsday stories help Hillary. Her base gets motivated. Or atleast I am praying that is what happens.


    Anyone paying actual attention to the (none / 0) (#107)
    by Seth90212 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    movement of superdelegates post Super Tuesday?  

    I don't like this argument at all. (none / 0) (#108)
    by ahazydelirium on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    BTD says:

    But make no mistake, if Obama wins PA, it is over. And then perhaps, the Clinton hate will stop.

    That's basically saying the Hillary hate will stop because her enemies defeated her. I don't know if I like the means to that end.

    The only way I will be satisfied (even marginally) is if the blogosphere collectively realizes how entirely irrational and unethical this hatred has been. They need to make a willful admission of guilt.

    An act of contrition, if you will.

    But I'm not holding my breath.

    Clinton hate will not stop (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:07:14 PM EST
    only the stupid outward manifestations of it.  Why would anyone care about that part?  Once the damage is done, it's too late for apologies, not that any would be coming.

    You are correct, BTD. (none / 0) (#110)
    by TomP on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:23:06 PM EST
    His worst enemies are the rabid fans he created.

    Your last sentence is right on! (none / 0) (#115)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:59:00 PM EST
    Obama's worst enemies now are his own rabid fans.

    I shudder at what an Obama presidency will be like precisely because of the vile, idiotic arguments coming from his supporters.

    Caller at a local talk show today who was trying to trump the host who was calling out Obama's support and friendship w/ Ayers -- he kept asking "Do you think meeting with Gerry Adams is ok? Wasn't he a terrorist?"

    Talk show host: Meeting with someone as a political representative of a country trying to create a peace process that might end the killing of children is ENTIRELY different from going to the home of a domestic terrorist who killed a Boston cop to launch one's political campaign!

    What was really sad, was that the Obama supporter didn't get it.. and kept arguing. What a pathetic bunch!

    I for one though am not at all sure that Clinton will win as many of the posters above seem to be assuming. Even though I thought her debate performance was much better than his -- the media is still in the tank for him, and he's just revved up his media buys 6-1 precisely to counter that last minute late deciders going for her. If I were  running the Clinton campaign, I'd buy infomercial time and re-run the debate on Monday night -- and have 50% of all other ad-buys point at it!

    A blog to check out -- pro-hillary (none / 0) (#118)
    by vickyt on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:25:24 PM EST
    I still support Hillary. Gloria Feldt blogs about her and the "Obamabots", if anyone's interested enough to comment.