Why Hillary is Ahead in the Popular Vote

Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics examines the popular vote totals, including caucus states, and says Hillary Clinton is ahead.

Her 214,000-vote margin in the Keystone State means that she has won the votes, in primaries and caucuses, of 15,112,000 Americans, compared to 14,993,000 for Obama.

If you add in the votes, as estimated by the folks at realclearpolitics.com, in the Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine caucuses, where state Democratic parties did not count the number of caucus-attenders, Clinton still has a lead of 12,000 votes.

Barone says even with a loss in North Carolina, Hillary may keep the lead if she does well, as expected in W.Va and Kentucky and Puerto Rico. [More....]

So it's likely that Clinton will be able to argue that undecided super-delegates should heed the will of the people.

Barone presents the Obama campaign's likely response, which he says, likely will prevail with superdelegates:

Their candidate is ahead and will remain ahead in delegates chosen in caucuses and primaries. Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot, and Florida have been disqualified by the Democratic National Committee for voting too early. Counting popular votes unduly discounts the results from caucuses, in which many fewer people participate than in primaries. And the Democratic Party can't afford to alienate the young and black voters who enthusiastically back Obama.

But, and there's a big but: Barone says Hillary is more electable in November:

Clinton's popular vote lead is one piece of evidence that suggests that Obama will be a weak general election candidate. In national polls, neither Democrat seems stronger than the other: The realclearpolitics.com average of polls as this is written shows Obama leading John McCain 46 percent to 45 percent and Clinton and McCain tied at 46 percent apiece. But they don't run the same in different states.

SurveyUSA's 50-state polls released in March showed that electoral votes would go to different parties in 15 states depending on whether McCain was pitted against Clinton or Obama. And it is electoral votes that determine who will be president.

While Obama will say he'll do better in the West, and he may, it's not enough:

Clinton seems to run stronger than Obama in the industrial (or formerly industrial) belt, running west from New Jersey through Pennsylvania and Ohio to Michigan and Missouri. Obama's weakness among white working-class voters in the primaries here suggests he is poorly positioned to win votes he will need to carry these states in November. This is not a minor problem -- we're talking about 84 electoral votes.

Barone points out his weakness among Latino and Jewish voters and says no candidate can win Florida without Broward or Palm Beach counties, which have high Jewish populations. Here are the maps showing how poorly Obama did in the Florida primary.He didn't only lose those counties, he lost all counties in the state except those on the northern border.

Barone also posits that Obama's weakness among Latino and Jewish voters could put California in play:

Obama's weakness among Latinos and Jews could conceivably put California's 55 electoral votes in play. Los Angeles County delivered an 831,000 vote plurality for John Kerry in 2004. Most of that plurality came from areas with large numbers of Latinos and Jews.

Barone concludes:

Hillary Clinton's current and tenuous popular vote lead may not persuade Democratic super-delegates to reject the candidate who has, after all, won more delegates in primaries and caucuses. But it may prompt some to think hard about Electoral College arithmetic.

For more on the electoral vote matchup, see my earlier post here.

Comments now closed.

< The Electoral Map and the Battleground States | Late Night: Johnny Can't Read >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I've got to think (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by hitchhiker on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:42:04 PM EST
    that the super delegates who have not yet voiced support for either candidate are holding back for a reason.

    They were hoping that the process would lead to a clear favorite, which would relieve them of having to influence the outcome.

    Now it seems that no matter what happens, they will have to influence the outcome and take the heat for whatever choice they make.

    The question is whether the heat will be hotter if they disappoint Barack's young and AA and educated fans -- or Hillary's armies of women and Hispanic and aging and low income loyalists.

    I don't think they can really lean too much on these polls, because we're sooooo far away from November and so many things can change.

    If I were them, I would be BEGGING for a joint ticket.

    Well Joint ticket is the easy part !! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TalkRight on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    If I were them, I would be BEGGING for a joint ticket.

    The million dollar question would be who will be on the top?
    However hard Pelosi may deny it, Joint ticket looks more and more plausible. And the way things are turning up, Obama may eventually agree to be the VP candidate, after all he is young and can run after the Hillary term.

    But the questions his strategists would have is that the more the people see Obama in senate, his clean slate and record would become more and more dirty and the ONLY big thing he had NOW (apart from the urgency of NOW) WAS the clean slate.

    On the other hand if he DOES think that Hillary cannot win, it would be even better for him because then in 2012, he can run and win(than have to cook up a conspiracy theory of Hillary running in 2012)


    Hence the Lincoln-Douglas debate proposal (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:17:54 AM EST
    Well, among other reasons, I mean.  She knows damn well that the 2 of them alone with one another for 90 minutes would make it perfectly clear who should be at the top of the ticket.

    That's also why he had to say no.


    Superdelegates will hold out (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:16:16 AM EST
    They could be holding out for other reasons.  For example, many of them are elected officials running for re-election.  They want campaign cash and other favors from the potential nominees.

    Why give up this incredible piece of leverage for nothing in return?

    Imagine how many SDs must be kicking themselves because they endorsed Obama too early.  Anyone who is left knows to wait.


    Superdelegates can (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:21:49 AM EST
    uncommit in an instant.

    Nothing is sure with superdelegates until they cast their votes or make some form of commitment as part of a deal.


    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    that California is in play if Obama is the nominee... at the very least, he will have to spend much time and resources here to win it in the GE.

    Hillary will have no such battle.

    If Obama is the nominee, (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Boston Boomer on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:58:30 PM EST
    Massachusetts will be in play.  That really ought to give these uncommitted superdelegates pause.  I would not be at all surprised if Obama lost the only state that voted for George McGovern in '72.

    Obama Lost MA In The Primaries.... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:44:54 PM EST
    And that was with the backing of Sens. Kennedy and Kerry, as well as Gov. Patrick.  What does this tell you?

    GE (3.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ItIsOvah on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:51:09 PM EST
    the primary is not the General Election, do you really think that Mass will turn to McCain over the Dem nominee?

    Mass IS a potential problem (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by djork on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:04:05 AM EST
    I recall a wave of enthusiasm for McCain in 2000 to the extent that one of the liberal columnists at the Globe wrote a column telling Dems to cool off, reminding them of McCain's right wing voting record. I have also heard the chatter in my office of people saying they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. At minimum he would need to expend campaign resources here.

    McCain does very well against BO in MA (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:16:53 AM EST
    But not as well against HRC. The most recent poll from SUSA 4/17/08 supports it.
    Although it's true that the GE can have a different landscape, November is far away, one has to go with the best information one has at the moment.  The decision should be based on calculated risk, not a gamble.

    In California (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:03:12 AM EST
    Jewish voters may also vote McCain if Obama is the nominee. The earlier analysis also showed Obama losing serious ground with independents against McCain in California.

    In MI Obama polls 2 points better than McCain but 16% are undecided.  The poll was from April 3rd.

    Far too close to ignore in a state that has been a battleground in the last 2 Presidential elections.  Kerry only won by 3.4%, Gore by 5.12%. And before the Big Dog, 5 straight Republican wins.

    With the economy as bad as it is here it's quite amazing that any Republican can be so close even at this stage. Of course Republicans did campaign here during the primary because the GOP only cut half the state's delegation.  

    The death penalty was the act of imbeciles.

    Spending huge amounts for California's can't win without 55 electoral votes let alone spending money to hold Massachusetts would seriously crimp efforts in battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.


    50% ? (4.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:25:55 AM EST
    The exit polls I've read from PA suggest 25% of Clinton voters would not support Obama. One thing to keep in mind is that PA was a closed primary, so while Clinton's support has been deeper in the Dem voters, Obama's supports has come from a wider group...some independent, some even Republican..that's one reason that he can put more states in play during the General. Pennsylvania, being a closed primary, you can only vote if you are registered Democrat.

    What makes you sure (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:31:29 AM EST
    they will vote for Obama in the General Election?  If you don't have the guarantee of the loyal party members, what makes you sure the Indie and Republicans will vote for you?  that is rolling the dice.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#178)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    I think it is very likely.

    And NY could become dicey (3.00 / 1) (#10)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:04:21 PM EST
    We have quite a few demographics here he doesn't do well with . . . He'll have to work for it.

    Blue to Red? (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ItIsOvah on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:37:16 PM EST
    there is no way that CA, NY, and MA will go RED. I can understand the love for Hillary, but this is getting carried away.

    Heh, NY tends to go blue for (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:46:29 PM EST
    the GE, but it's not really a blue state . . .

    CA does go red in the GE. Obama couldn't beat Hillary in MA with Kerry/Kennedy/etc. They have been down this road with Gov Patrick, ahem.

    McCain is not that scary to older voters, especially since he needs to convince conservatives he is one . . .


    Yup! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:06:26 AM EST
    I know of five people in my family who are for Clinton and will definitely vote McCain if Clinton is not the nominee.

    You are right. (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:37:26 AM EST

    I don't think that NY would go red.  But CA and MA?  They definitely have a higher population in the outskirts of the large urban areas, enough to make the state bleed red (or maybe just a soft blush).

    patently untrue (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ItIsOvah on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:53:24 PM EST

    California, New York and Mass will not go RED, not in this election.

    Yep, keep dreaming. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:34:01 AM EST

    Sounds like you're scared when confronted with facts.

    Again, say it with me folks:  Califnornia was a redt state before Bill Clinton turned it blue.

    His wife can keep it blue.  A dude who goes against his wife?  The state has a big chance of blushing back to red.

    Governator Rules!


    divided we fall (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:13:56 AM EST
    I'm supporting whoever the Dem nominee is which is what I would expect all Dems to do instead of essentially voting for four more years of Bush with a vote for McCain.

    When one Dem candidate loses to another in a primary it doesn't mean that the loser in that primary can't beat the Republican in November.

    It's ridiculous to think that the strongest blue states would go for McCain because you don't like Obama.


    It's not about what WE like or don't like ... (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by cymro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:05:24 AM EST
    It's ridiculous to think that the strongest blue states would go for McCain because you don't like Obama.

    That's not the point. Large numbers of Clinton voters are not inspired by Obama's message of change, because it's not backed up by any solid experience or evidence of expertise at anything except making speeches. Clinton voters, especially older voters, look at him and say "Where's the beef?"

    Clinton is the opposite -- a less inspirational speaker maybe, but demonstrating way more in solid experience and grasp of policy, with concrete plans that people can relate to. If she's not the candidate, large numbers of her primary voters WILL gravitate to McCain (who's already distancing himself from Bush) long before they ever consider voting for Obama.

    In CA, we recalled Gray Davis, our Democratic Governor, because he was seen as ineffective, and elected a more charismatic Republican who ran on a centrist platform. Most of southern CA is heavily Republican, as are most of the rural areas. Any candidate can pick up 40% of the votes from the party faithful, but there are no safe states if a majority of the remaining 20% of voters decide you're not up to the job.


    That's not the reason. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:36:06 AM EST

    It's ridiculous to think that the strongest blue states would go for McCain because you don't like Obama.

    That is not the reason why we're saying this.  You're not listening to our reasoning at all.  

    Cal was a red state before 1992.  We have a Red Governator whom most of us are pretty pleased with, and he's endorsed McCain.  Conservatives make up a big voting bloc outside of the Bay Area and LA.  And if Obama loses the Latino and Jewish vote, it's over.


    Parts of the B.A. are reddish aren't they? (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:50:51 AM EST
    Farther out towards Walnut Creek and a bit south of there? When I think of the B.A., I think of pockets of both depending where you are. Haven't been out there for a few years, but my parents are still out there and I believe their area is still Republican leaning. They would be McCain over Obama.

    Definitely Walnut Creek... (none / 0) (#157)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:32:15 AM EST
    ...Contra Costa County in general is conservative.  Our lovely landlady lives out in Walnut Creek and we've been out there a few times.  It's mostly rich white conservatives.  You actually don't have to go that far out of San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley to find the people who would easily vote for McCain if Clinton isn't the nominee.  Here's the BART map that's in all of the BART trains as a guide:

    BART map

    ZOMG, I almost forgot about Lafayette, too.  I had to spend a few days over there when my gf worked a chain store/covered shifts, and it's conservative country there, too.  Rockridge is about the cutoff, according to the map, where you start seeing the conservatives outnumber the lefties (Rockridge is like Berkeley).

    I live in Oakland, which is pretty much Obama central, but we've a lot of blacks (A LOT).  At the Obama Rally that he didn't show up at, it was probably 95% black.  At the Clinton Rally the same day, people of all colors were there, but a lot of the white people from the conservative suburbs like Walnut Creek BARTed their way in just to see her speak.

    I would expect that throughout the state it's like this as well;  I recall watching the results county-by-county of the voting during the primary.  You could definitely see where all of the conservatives were and where Obama lost.  And for all of Obama's wonderful celebrity endorsements, he still lost Los Angeles county by nearly 200K votes, which is what surprised me.


    I lived in the Oakland Hills (none / 0) (#159)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:08:36 AM EST
    one year while in college with a couple other students. They went to Berkeley, me art school in SF. Once you get on the other side of the tunnel, oops, 'nother world! My parents are in Danville, which is where I went to HS. 25 yrs later and I still get odd looks when I'm visiting my parents, lol!~  ;) Not sure how the north end of CC county would vote (Concord, Pleasant Hills etc), but I do remember the area being overall conservative when I was there. I moved out at 18 just to find my comfort zone.

    My dad (Repub) used to tease me after I moved here about living around all 'those bleeding heart liberals'. I got to point out that NY was redder than CA (at the time), lol!~

    It's been YEARS since I rode BART. ah, those were the days . .  fall asleep on BART and ya end up somewhere ya don't want to be!


    Blue can move to red with the wrong candidate (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:18:23 AM EST
    The important point you overlook (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by xspowr on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:21:18 AM EST
    is that demography, primary results, and current polling suggest that these states, even if they do not ultimately go red in the fall, will require Obama to expend far more time and resources than Clinton to keep them blue. Given Obama's already existing disadvantages in the critical battleground states of OH, PA, and FL (which have essentially been determinative in modern presidential contests), Democrats cannot afford a candidate who simultaneously turns CA, NY, and MA into truly contested states that will squander valuable time and finite resources, regardless of whether they will ultimately go blue in the end.

    Obama Has The Same Problem In MO (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:57:13 AM EST
    He lost all but the Dem strongholds. Current polls show him losing to McCain 50% to 42%.  Clinton 47% to 46%.

    MO is basically a conservative state with a large bible belt.  Rev. Wright and Ayers will make Obama DOA here in MO.


    Does anyone (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:29:26 AM EST

    even know what they're talking about, outside of their stereotypical sheltered views of what California and Massachusetts are?

    They're both pretty conservative.  I grew up in a town that would definitely vote McCain over Obama (in Massachusetts) and I know towns that would follow.  Towns/cities like Jamaica Plain and Boston would probably go for Obama, but not Chelmsford or Tewksbury.  And towns like Chelmsford and Tewksbury outnumber the towns like Jamaica Plain and Boston.

    Same goes for California.  The outlying towns from SF/Oakland/Berkeley and LA are pretty darned conservative.  Walnut Creek?  Ha ha, good luck, Obama.  There were Clinton stickers everywhere, and a few McCain stickers/signs.  How did we end up with a Republican Governator again?

    You have to understand that a lot of the older Latinos and Jews have conservative hearts.  They would have no problem picking McCain over Obama, particularly if they keep believing that Obama isn't conservative enough for them (plus the whole Wright/Farrakhan thing reeeeally doesn't help with the Jews, nor does Obama appeal much to Latinos).

    Again, and I have to keep saying this obviously, but remember that California only turned blue when Bill Clinton turned it blue.  It was a red state before.


    another point is that (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by english teacher on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:43:49 AM EST
    the republican patron saint and hero of obama ronald reagan was elected governor of cali twice, yet to hear obama supporters tell it, there are no republicans in the golden state.  some say obama can win there without even trying.

    When he was elected Gov, my dad said (none / 0) (#150)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:54:42 AM EST
    to me "You just watch, one day he'll be President."  I think we actually had a yard sign. Not common for my parents.

    Really scary that I remember that! OY.


    northern california (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:34:42 AM EST
    The point is that these states are overwhelming Democrat. I get the sense that if Hillary is not the nominee then you don't want Obama to win. When you hear someone say the race is becoming divisive, this is what they are talking about.

    Clinton is the most polarizing candidate and it has been shown in many  nationwide polls that at least half the country is vehemently opposed to her in the White House.


    I don't know why I try (none / 0) (#199)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:06:31 PM EST

    to even talk to you, since you're not listening to a word we say, especially when you used two Republican Talking Points (RTPs) in your comments (Hillary is polarizing!  It's divisive [to be against us]!).  These RTPs are highly out of fashion now that the U.S. voters have begun to come out of CDS to see what Hillary Clinton is really like (and the big swing states proved that).

    You say Northern California, but you don't make a point as to what you're talking about.  NorCal what?  That I live in NorCal and only pointed to the conservatives in NorCal outside of SF and Berkeley?  Further upthread I already told you how, for all of his celebrity endorsements and that insipid Obama Girl and "Yes We Can" video, Obama LOST Los Angeles County by nearly 200K votes.  All the way up and down the state Obama LOST.  He won -my- county by about 14K votes, but look at how many people voted.  

    CA County Results

    He won SF (where I'm pretty sure Republicans probably voted for him as well...the total number of votes for the candidates combined seems to exceed the total number of registered Democrats), Alameda and then up along the northern coast, Sac and Yolo and San Luis and Santa Barbara and one on the Eastern edge.  But the rest?  Clinton.  In fact, start at San Luis and start tracing down and you'll see the percentage points widen and getting worse and worse until you've got  the high double-digit percentage points where he was creamed.  We have conservatives in this state and that is a fact.  No amount of crying RPTs will change that.

    And one more time:  Popular Red Governor.  Red State in 1991 and before, until Bill turned it blue.  


    Obama (none / 0) (#173)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:07:10 AM EST
    won only 3 counties in CA.  So. Cal. is dominated by Latinos and has a large Jewish population.  In addition, his tax plan is exactly the one that will kill middle-class here.  That won't help at all.

    Ack, no. (none / 0) (#200)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:12:22 PM EST
    Not 3, more like 18.

    See County Map.

    But not BIG counties.  The biggest county (as far as number of votes go) he won was mine, Alameda, but you also have to understand that we have Oakland.


    realize (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:45:18 AM EST
    These states are mostly urban.

    New York state has a population of 19million....10million live in the five boroughs of NYC.

    California has a population of around 35 million, of which 70% is urban.

    Mass is around 6 million and 3 million live in the greater Boston area...add in Worcester, Springfield and more than two thirds live in urban areas.

    He has made up ground with the rural vote when comparing his results from Ohio to Pennsylvania.


    Closer to 8.5 million in NYC (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:55:08 AM EST
    and we elect Republicans here. A lot.

    I'd say more of CA is Suburban, not Urban, big difference. CA suburban born gal here . . .


    No. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by cal1942 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:17:29 AM EST
    Seven million live in the five boroughs.

    Long Island's suburbs have only recently gone Democratic. A candidate they're sour on can turn that around in a heart beat.


    re: Longuyland and New York State... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by janarchy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:24:49 AM EST
    yup. And they still tend to vote for Republican presidents in great numbers.

    I've also got ties to upstate New York and I have to say that a lot of my friends/relatives up there are pro-Hillary, anti-Obama and will not vote for him in the GE. Hillary is a well-loved senator and people know what she can do here and they'd rather vote for McCain in the GE if Obama gets the nomination over Hillary, especially in what many of them deem is an unfair fight.

    People think NY can't go Red but they forget how conservative upstate New York is, that we've had both Democratic and Republican governors, etc.


    heh, I forgot about Long Island (none / 0) (#145)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:42:14 AM EST
    I used to do a couple days a week of on site work out there for a client. Was def a republican area.

    My friend from there just moved to another 'hood in Brooklyn which she calls the "reddest 'hood in Brooklyn'. Which fits since she is a Republican (who didn't vote for Bush!) as is all of her upstate family etc.

    There seems to be a lot of 'assumptions' about some of these "blue" states with not too much understanding of the state dynamics.  


    wikipedia (none / 0) (#170)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:48:31 AM EST

    great resource on the web. 8.2 million in the five boroughs and another 2 million within 30 miles.

    Worcester and Springfield (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:31:48 AM EST

    "urban"?  Are you out of your mind?  Seriously, I don't think you know what it's like to live in Massachusetts.  I grew up there.  It's conservative, much more so than California (where I live now).  The NE mindset is very, very different from the midset of the West.

    spent 15 years there (2.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:28:46 AM EST
    are you really going to argue that worcester and springfield are not cities? Massachusetts might be the most liberal state in the country, even republicans joke about how liberal the state votes.

    I'm sure there are Yankee fans in Mass too, but I would say that the only red majority in Massachusetts is Red Sox Nation.


    Mass. is unique in this election (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    because of Patrick, Obama's BFF and another client of Axelrod.  He ran an almost identical campaign to Obama's, and has fumbled badly as governor.  A lot of people in Mass. look at Obama and see Patrick on a national scale and shudder.

    Remember (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:30:20 PM EST
    we voted for Mitt Romney for governor.  We're not as blue as some might think. We've had Bill Weld and Paul Celucci and Jane Swift and a host of Republican governors.  Our vote for George McGovern is the source of our legendary "blueness", but that was 35 years ago.  Massachusetts is in serious play for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and yes, our dissatisfaction with Deval Patrick is a huge factor.  He was definitely "not ready on day one", and we are still waiting to see what "Together we can" do.  The primary here was as much a referendum on Patrick as it was a vote of support for Hillary although it warmed the heart of this proud "Clintonista".

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#197)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:41:35 PM EST

    Mass had Mitt Romney, Weld and all of those other Republicans.  Not as solidly blue as people would like to think, and is put in play if Obama is the nominee.

    We (over here in California) have Arnie, who is really popular (and I think he just signed some sort of gay rights thing, too, so he's seen as moderate).  We have a Red Governator and were red in 1991.  Demographics wise, we do have many, many more Latinos than Massachusetts, but the setup of the state is pretty comparable:  Outside of the "big cities" like SF and LA you've got some pretty strong conservatives, and the Latinos wouldn't be afraid to vote conservative, either.


    I'm going to argue (none / 0) (#196)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:36:12 PM EST

    that they're definitely not cities like Boston and Jamaica Plain, yes.

    You may've spent 15 years there, but I grew up there.  The entire area where I grew up was conservative.  And there are many areas in Massachusetts that are like my town, so sorry, Massachusetts isn't the most liberal state in the country.  That's a myth almost as big as California being the most liberal state (though it's MUCH more liberal than Massachusetts).


    Caucus (none / 0) (#172)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:05:33 AM EST
    versus primary voting is starkly different for Obama, so I agree with you.  But I think what nobody is saying is that his style of campaign doesn't have staying power.  The long primary has shown that.

    He peaked in Wisconsin.  In Philly, huge registration drive but the turn-out of new voters did not come through as expected.  

    He's starting to soften in the upper-class.  My guess is that they heard him on taxes.  He's got a very unattractive plan for that group.

    He's not wedged her union voters away, in spite of months of negative ads and endorsements.

    He's just not holding up.


    These SD's (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Mrwirez on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:50:15 PM EST
    Need to grow a pair and pick a winner NOT a whiner.
    If McCain wins there are so many ramifications.
    Hillary '08

    Hillary is the only reasonable choice (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:54:57 PM EST
    Obama has too many question marks by himself

    Hillary/Oba,a is a winner.  Otherwise forget it.

    I cannot believe that Michigan and (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lorelynn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:00:13 PM EST
    Florida will not be counted if counting their votes gives us a more decisive answer. If counting those two states makes Clinton the clear leader and Obama receives the nomination by the party discounting those votes, Clinton supporters will feel utterly betrayed by the party. I don't like Obama, but it will be the party that betrayed me. And the Democrats will, with good reason, split.

    Right now, it's just tedious. Hopefully, it won't turn into a mess.

    Caucuses should count to total (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ig on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:01:26 PM EST
    Texas Primary Clinton 50.9%, Obama 47.4%
    Texas Caucuses Clinton 43.7%, Obama 56.2%
    Difference of 16%

    Washington Primary Obama 51.2%, Clinton 45.7%
    Washington Caucuses Obama 68%, Clinton 31%
    Difference of 31.5%

    I meant caucuses shouldnt count to the total (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ig on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:05:36 PM EST
    Funny about those caucuses (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by janarchy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:11:05 AM EST
    because a close friend of mine is very involved with the WA State caucus and she is/was a Kucinich supporter and she told me about voter intimidation by Obama supporters in her precinct. They took over, they were pushy and pretty much acted like thugs.

    She also told me that there was a mail-in primary that didn't count but most people were not aware of this fact so they thought that was the vote that counted, not the caucus. So they didn't vote again.


    So TX gets to count twice... (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kredwyn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    in vote counts?

    You seem to be (3.00 / 2) (#54)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:51:42 PM EST
    new, so I (even though I'm quite new myself) get to tell you that ridiculousness (even when it's pro-HRC) is not going to fly here.

    Your WA state analysis is humorous.  Even the most hardcore HRC supporter will acknowledge that the WA primary was meaningless.

    And, I, as a WA, resident who voted in the caucus, but not the primary (because BO already won) will confirm that it is senseless to look at our primary.  I also know more than a dozen folks who didn't go to the caucus, and they didn't vote in the (mostly) mail-in primary because it didn't count, but they would have been for BO, some even have "women for Obama" bumper stickers.  And, I know someone who didn't go to the caucus, but did give a sympathy vote to HRC in the primary, if it counted she would have been for BO.

    And, it is unfair to look at a direct comparison of the popular vote from caucus and primary states, because caucus numbers (if available at all) under represent our state size compared to primaries in other states.  So, some kind of extrapolation must be implemented to add weighting to our caucus participation numbers so that our state's size is fully considered.

    Nice try.


    And if your crazy state caucuses again (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:58:14 PM EST
    in November instead of holding an election, your comment will be useful.  

    I don't see how (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:39:51 AM EST

    bringing up the WA primaries is useless when it clearly, clearly indicates a proven disconnect between caucus results and primary results.  Caucuses aren't representative of the vote of the people at large.  They're a small sampling.

    Like someone else said, when you hold caucuses in the GE, then your comment might be usefull.  But the GE voting will be more like a primary...get used to that idea.


    "I know six people..." (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:27:21 AM EST
    um, pointing to the fact that you know people who would have voted in Washington for Obama isn't what most of us would describe as "rigorous analysis".

    The simple fact is that the WA primary was a far more likely idicator of voter sentiment than the caususes.  One need only look at the results from Texas, and at the GOP primary/caucus totals in WA itself (McCain got 25% in the caucuses, but 50% in the primary, Ron Paul got about 22% in the caucuses, but 7% in the primary) to see how completely unreliable caucuses are as an indicator of voter sentiment.


    Pervasive innumeracy (1.00 / 1) (#182)
    by dmk47 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:15:18 AM EST
    Paul Lukasiak, by cooking up a few relatively simple functions with real number variables arbitrarily inserted, I can generate at least continuum-many --- i.e. uncountably many --- popular vote counts that put Obama ahead; uncountably many that put Clinton ahead; uncountably many that put Gravel ahead.

    Any such manipulation of the data is no less motivated than manipulations putting Clinton ahead. Here's a proof, using the Terry McAuliffe/Michael Barone/Jeralyn Merritt math as an example, but I'd be happy to show why it applies mutatis mutandis to all your spreadsheet work and all that of your co-partisans.

    It's quite simple really. The McAuliffe-Barone-Merritt arithmetic is, if motivated, clearly and flagrantly contradictory. The only non-question-begging motivation for the first step, namely registering popular support for Clinton in Florida and Michigan, prohibits the second and third steps, namely discounting all popular support for Obama in Michigan and discounting all popular support for anyone in four caucus states. The only non-question-begging motivation for the second and third steps, namely heeding the demands of procedural rules and fairness, prohibits the first state.

    All three steps are necessary to yield the Clinton lead. So the McAuliffe-Barone-Merritt arithmetic is either (1) clearly and flagrantly contradictor or else (2) unmotivated.

    If (1), it's actually irrelevant that the result of the procedure is a Clinton lead, since a contradiction logically implies literally anything. Formally, ∀p (⊥⊃p), where p is a variable ranging over propositions. In particular, on the assumption that the McAuliffe-Barone-Merritt math is motivated, it implies that Obama (or Gravel, or me, or you) has the popular vote lead.

    If (2), see above, the McAuliffe-Barone-Merritt licenses any arbitrary transformation of the vote count. Hence it licenses at least continuum-many inconsistent vote counts (i.e. more vote counts showing different leads than there are natural numbers).

    What is background in statistics/advanced mathematics/mathematical logic, if I may ask?


    Lost, and double lost (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by katana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST
    The only non-question-begging motivation for the first step, namely registering popular support for Clinton in Florida and Michigan, prohibits the second and third steps, namely discounting all popular support for Obama in Michigan and discounting all popular support for anyone in four caucus states. The only non-question-begging motivation for the second and third steps, namely heeding the demands of procedural rules and fairness, prohibits the first state.

    I'm new here--is complete incoherence allowed?


    I believe irrelevance isn't allowed (1.00 / 2) (#190)
    by dmk47 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:15:21 PM EST
    A simple semantic truth: "I can't read competently" ≠ "What I read is incoherent."

    Let's take it at "A is for apple" speed.

    The McAuliffe-Barone-Merritt arithmetic showing Hillary Clinton with a popular vote lead involves three steps, all of which are indispensable.

    (1) Count all votes cast Florida for both candidates and count all the votes cast in Michigan for Hillary Clinton towards her vote total.

    (2) Count zero votes cast in Michigan for "uncommitted" towards Barack Obama's total.

    (3) Count zero of the estimated votes cast in four caucus states towards anyone's total.

    Q: What (non-question-begging) principle motivates (1)? A: The principle that, despite procedural issues, votes cast in support of a candidate should be counted in measures of that candidate's popular support. Call this principle PW, for short.

    PW obviously rules out (2) and (3). Does that need really need to be spelled out explicitly? The overall national popular vote has no effect on the Democratic party's selection of a nominee, except insofar as superdelegates, according to a prima facie plausible argument, have an obligation to cast votes in accordance with the national popular vote. In which case they have an obligation to take account of all expressions of popular support, thus ruling out (2) and (3). (Spare me the "we don't know who the Michigan uncommitteds were voting for nonsense." We know more than 120k were for Obama, and that's all that needs to be the case to rule out (2) under PW.)

    Q: What principle motivates (2) and (3)? A: The principle that some expressions of popular support can't be factored into overall popular vote totals, because procedural objections prohibit it. (E.g., despite the fact that Obama's support in the Michigan primary can be measured with enough accuracy to show that it exceeds the 120k margin for Clinton that the McAuliffe-Barone-Merritt math produces, procedurally, we can't just assign uncommitted votes to Obama.) Call that principle RR, for short.

    RR obviously rules out (1). Why? Because on any conception of procedural requirements strong enough to justify (2) and (3) is more than sufficiently strong to require abandoning (1).

    Here's another principle, which we can call CA:   Count the popular vote in such a way that Clinton comes out ahead. CA is blatantly question-begging. If CA is taken as credible, then so is any arbitrary transformation of the primary results I can cook up; and I can cook up uncountably infinitely many transformations with Obama ahead, with Clinton ahead, with Mike Gravel ahead, and with you ahead.

    Is that clear now? Anything else I can help you with? An apology and concession would be in order.


    An Obama fan, for sure (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by katana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    A simple semantic truth: "I can't read competently" ≠ "What I read is incoherent.

    Incoherent, and abusive.  Cheers!


    Definitions (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by dmk47 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:50:34 PM EST
    Please look up 'incoherent' and correct.

    Please look up (none / 0) (#201)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:29:44 PM EST

    your own sentiment with your pedantic pseudointelligentsia about why "Merritt"'s math is off.

    "I can't read competently" ≠ "What I read is incoherent"

    Exactamundo.  You can't competently read p's comment (or any of our comments) about why caucuses "don't count" [sic].


    Obama and DNC had chance to resolve MI/FL (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Davidson on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:06:09 PM EST
    So why should that be used against Clinton?

    Obama is simply not electable.  How can they not take into account what the GOP and media will do to him, a blank canvas with no experience or accomplishment to fall back on?


    Maybe the DNC will throw a nation (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:09:33 PM EST
    wide Kool Aid party?

    It's gonna take a lot of something to get me to vote for someone I don't trust, don't agree with and don't think would make a good president. And that's not even touching my feelings on his so called 'experience'.


    Unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Davidson on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:17:03 PM EST
    The caucuses are a joke: they're not only the antithesis of democratic (Voter intimidation anyone?), but most of his caucus delegates come from deeply red states.

    How can they be this suicidal?  Again, all that has to be done to appease Obama's base, blacks and the wealthy, are for Obama to campaign on her behalf.  No matter how hard Clinton campaigns for Obama she can't undo the damage because the problem is with Obama himself (The GOP will make sure to remind everyone of what he's said and done).

    If they fail to nominate the only electable candidate left whose coalition promises us a strong chance to win, they will harm the party for years to come.  Obama is a dream come true for the right wing.  He's got it all: close associations with anti-American nutjobs, a terrorist, and a corrupt political machine.  And let's not forget the radioactive race card Obama employed during the primary that the GOP will salivate over.

    The popular vote count, no matter how small, is the escape hatch out of this disaster in the making.  I pray they won't be so foolish as everyone and their mother tells me they'll be.  I cannot believe this.  God help us.


    Seriously, Why Would MI & FL Vote For Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:46:55 PM EST
    Maybe these folks would like him? (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by xspowr on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:18:01 AM EST
    There are some drivers in FL who might need a candidate to speak up for them, and Obama seems like the kind of guy who could understand their problems:

    State Moves to Ban Fake Testicles On Vehicles

    Just kidding! Thought we could use some levity on a Saturday night. :)

    PS: This says it all about Republican legislators in Florida.


    Look (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:09:39 PM EST
    Obama cannot win the Democratic base even.  The Democratic base!

    My God, the case is closed.  If the Dems nominate him they deserve to lose big time.

    These people are drinking the Kool aid.


    Did you ever imagine in your lifetime the Dems might nominate someone who can't even motivate the base of the party - women and working class whites?

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Problem Is That We Lose Too (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:48:37 PM EST
    Look, I'm no fan of Obama at all, but (4.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:13:45 PM EST
    he is supported by roughly 50% of the Dems.
    I find it interesting that the excruciating near parity we have seen between the two parties  in Presidential elections is mirrored within the party itself this year. Why is it so hard to choose?

    OT, check out JMM's dark and curdled editorializing


    No, he hasn't (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Davidson on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:22:33 PM EST
    Clinton has won the majority of Democrats.  You do realize there are open primaries and Democrat-for-a-day, right?

    BO is not supported by 50 pct of Dems (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:29:44 AM EST
    If you took the time... (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andreww on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:18:21 PM EST
    to look at the numbers you would see that it has nothing to do with class, gender, or income.  It has to do with age - that's it.  Obama represents the next generation.  Hillary represents the previous/current generation.  His support among women and working class whites is equal to Hillary in voters under the age of 45.  The divide is generational.

    If you kept up with the data (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:39:14 PM EST
    on recent primaries, you'd know that isn't so now.

    Then Why Did Hillary Cut Into The Youth Vote? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:49:21 PM EST
    and the smart vote ;) (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:34:51 AM EST
    to andreww (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:28:01 AM EST
    you say:
    "Obama represents the next generation."
    If you are correct, and I think you have a point, OB's time has not yet come.  We, those who are old are more numerous, and being that this is a democracy, we get to choose.  Unless you want us to vanish into thin air.  I understand your disdain for old people, but if those who support BO feel that strongly about us not participating in the Democratic Party, I have no problem.  I'll vote for McCain.  He will gladly take my vote. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a wide eyed fool who thinks McCain is some kind of moderate, but at least he will not treat me with disdain.

    OB should be BO (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:28:37 AM EST
    Hillary's Popular Votes from Sharpton (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Chimster on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:17:43 PM EST
    When Al Sharpton (an Obama supporter) disagrees with a judge's decision, he threatens NYC with some sort of angry response, "This city is going to deal with the blood of Sean Bell." I agree there should be outrage, but starting up another L.A. Riots in NYC would be bad for obvious reasons, but could also be politically devastating for BO.

    I don't know enough about the case, but i do know that race issues like this don't make people feel more united and brotherly. The timing for headline race issues like this couldn't be any worse with the nomination process as close as it is. We'll see if this situation has any impact on Hillary's and Barrack's numbers.

    I'm not too sure what's going to happen (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:34:16 PM EST
    in the upcoming week, but I'm not feeling good about it.

    He's threatening to shut the city down with civil disobedience. I need to go back and do some reviewing, but iirc, the mayor has been involved since the beginning and was not dismissive about the situation (aka NOT Rudy). And the case is not over yet. I hope like heck this doesn't get out of hand, but . . .


    I see it now (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:44:07 PM EST

    OK (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:39:10 PM EST
    What's happening in NY?

    so because of one black mans (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by pennypacker on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:23:47 PM EST
    actions in New York...this affects Obama. Sharpton hasnt even been supporting Obama and seems jealous of him, but his actions are Obama's fault.
    I dont care if Obama took his name off ballot. Hillary repeatedly said Florida and Michigan wouldnt count...repeatedly, quoted often and directly. You cant give her all her votes in Mich and none to Obama...its ridiculous. Especially when polls show the two of them close if the primary was held again.

    Not one black man's actions (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Chimster on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:31:35 PM EST
    It's not what Sharpton said that affects Obama, it's what could possibly happen if any sort of racial riot makes headlines. I;m not saying it's right and I'm certainly not saying Obama has anything to do with this. I am saying that racial issues like this cut deep and could affect politician's numbers.

    Oh, and i actually agree with your point about Michigan.


    Sharpton becomes a problem.... (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:44:58 AM EST
    ...when Obama supporters start talking about how denying Obama the nomination will "tear the party apart" and throw thinly veiled threats of urban violence around should the Democratic Party not abide by the will of AA voters.

    This feeds into people's worst fears about race --- and make it even more difficult for Obama to win in November.  

    Were I Obama or Clinton, I'd be "souljah"ing Sharpton for his threats to "shut down the city".  It can't hurt Clinton with the AA vote (and I think it could help her.... lots of AA's consider Sharpton an embarrassment) and could definitely help Obama in terms of reassuring white voters....


    No, you have many errors in this comment (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:37:05 PM EST
    and with limited bandwith on this blog, and limited patience after clarifying all of this here many times, it's your responsibility to read up to get the correct facts to be able to contribute.  Go back through the archives and look at threads about FL, MI, the reasons for Obama removing his name from the ballot, the exact wording of the pledge, etc.

    So call the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:37:38 PM EST
    And implore them to do something that would clearly be in their best interest.

    Have revotes.  It will prove Obama is much closer (or even a winner!) to Clinton in MI and FL than previously thought.

    Then Clinton folks can't complain.

    And then FL and MI are in play for Obama in Novemember.  It's not just a win-win for Obama.  It's a win-win-win for Obama.

    So why do they not embrace this course of action?


    after the shockwave (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Salo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:38:15 PM EST
    of the recent revelations about Ayers and Wright, I suspect that Obama's coaltion that won Iowa has disappeared.

    pre Wright post Wright.  Two different campaigns for Obama. Iowa and the wider party was defrauded by a selective media and a timid field of Democratic candidates.


    Sharpton, Wright, Clyburn (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:46:50 AM EST
    The AA leaders above use race baiting as if dividing the country with hatred is a sign of strength.  It's really disgusting.  Leaders should use their position to bring sanity not threats when the masses are in disarray.  One has to question what the actions of BO's supporters and friends say about BO.

    BO got every poss prop + STILL won't meet 1/2way? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:50:31 PM EST
    But he goes on Fox to trash the Dems?



    Take away all the props buttressing the money-sucking, support-shredding, goodwill-destroying actually disastrous run and let him burn out on his own words and actions.

    Lay off piling more and more handicaps on HRC and let the players play. It'll be over soon enough. The world won't end.

    The Obamabots are drinking a bitter (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:12:10 AM EST
    tonic on their long, long victory laps for the "obvious winner".
    Actually they Orangistans have been declaring Hillary's candidacy over since last June (no joke!), so I'm a bit skeptical they really know the score this time around.

    Here's where it's at (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:20:49 AM EST
    They said: "Hillary must suspend for the sake of the party."

    That blew up in their face, proved to be a politically inept talking point.

    The voters wanted the race to go on.

    The race went on.  PA voted.

    Now something interesting has happened.  There's a subtle shift in their rhetoric.  It's not so much "Hillary must suspend for the sake of the party."

    It's more like "Hillary is still out on the field after the third out's been recorded."

    But is that it?  Is that the accurate summation?  Do UNDECIDEDS in REMAINING STATES believe the last out in the ninth inning has been recorded?

    Or is it the ninth inning and instead of stepping into the batters box, Obama and his campaign has decided to try to pretend a baseball game is decided after 8 innings?


    I think it's about as difficult (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:13:31 AM EST
    As it must be for an Obama supporter.

    I think the key is to ignore them (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:34:16 AM EST
    and they'll go away.

    The problem with BO supporters (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:54:35 AM EST
    it's their display of immaturity.  No surprise, their leader has displayed his immaturity by using his middle finger to make a gesture imitating a scared teenager afraid to be confronted with his actions.  Sad.

    A vote is a vote is a vote (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:58:22 AM EST
    the people of Florida and Michigan voted.  If anyone wanted to vote for Hillary they marked her name, not mark her name and thought, "this will go towards Obama".  And in FL all their names were on the ballot, and those voters spoke as well.

    Obama surrogates were all over the place in MI telling Obama supporters to vote non-committed.  They did, as surely as Edwards' supporters might have.

    Obama cannot have it both ways, even though the media would rather him to do so.  I will say this to the day I die:  winning in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho is NOT the same as if a Dem wins in PA, OH and FL.  WHY can't these Obama people GET IT?  Did they just arrive to the USA? We're they media and information free from 2000-2004?

    And they have the nerve to call the Clinton supporters "low-info" and "less educated."

    Yeah, right.

    Florida Was Probably The Best Example Of (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:13:19 AM EST
    true grass movement politics we will ever see in our lifetime. Each candidate had their own supporters out pounding the streets, making calls and all GOTV activities. Each had unions campaigning for them. Obama had the advantage of TV ads that the other candidates did not.

    They're like Ninjas ... (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:01:11 AM EST
    with really noisy shoes and no martial arts skills.

    California (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:18:07 AM EST

    Barone also posits that Obama's weakness among Latino and Jewish voters could put California in play:

    I think I've continually argued that California may just very well be in play if Obama gets the nom over Hillary against McCain.  It isn't just the Latino and Jewish vote;  it's the conservative vote, period.  We've got a popular Republican Governator and people who are much more conservative on the outskirts of cities like SF and LA.  Remember, CA wasn't a blue state until Bill made it so in 1992.  It could easily blush back.

    Its a no-brainer HRC for the GE (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:55:35 AM EST
    But it may prompt some to think hard about Electoral College arithmetic.

    for most of the primary there has been this giant poo-pooing of electability that its conjecture and blah, blah, blah. I don't understand why there is any discussion other than Electoral College arithmetic as it is THE ONLY thing that counts:

    • the primaries have proven that HRC has the entire democrtic base except African Americans when Obama is her competition
    • African Americans are likely to vote for HRC in substantially numbers were she to be the dem nominee in Novemeber
    • It is far from clear that much of the democratic base will vote Obama if he is the nominee in Novemeber
    • HRC beat Obama in all the democratic "must-have" states
    • it is far from clear that new maybe states that Obama might win in the GE could make up for his losses in dem "must-have" states.
    • HRC is showing to have a more reliable greater than 270 Electroial College vote count that Obama.

    given these conditions and the fact that the only real conjecture about the GE is how US corporate media will treat Obama and it seems pretty clear that its a slam-dunk decision for super delegates to pick HRC for the ge.

    ABC This Week (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by chrisvee on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    Someone should alert Matthew Dowd and MoDo to this information. They apparently believe the opposite.  However, that was probably the least of their offenses.  The amount of vitriol poured forth on all the Sunday punditfests is really shocking.

    Mother Superior drops by again (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by katana on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    It must be really difficult to be a Hillary supporter.

    And you would know that, how?

    popular vote (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by snucky on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:56:54 PM EST
    obama supporters will try to downplay the florida/michigan votes but the voters in those states who voted don't.

    Mr. Unity fails at his central platform (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by oh puhleeze on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:58:18 PM EST
    Obama makes the mistake of arrogant beginners.  Instead of asking why working class voters are not supporting him, he derides them.  
    Strike 1.
    Instead of understanding the anger generated in women by the misogyny of the press and standing up against oppression, he jumps on the bandwagon, whatever it takes to win.
    Strike 2.
    Instead of fulfilling his promise to be the post-racial candidate, he and his supporters brand everyone critical of him as racists, undoing the work of decades of committed civil rights activists.
    Strike 3.
    While whining and blaming Hillary for going negative, he has from the start of the campaign promoted the most withered, personal, character assasination talking points of the right wing.

    Nice going, Mr. Unity.

    Math (3.50 / 2) (#49)
    by ItIsOvah on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:48:56 PM EST

    this math doesn't make any sense and is so twisted that even the most ardent Hillary supporter has to be clear headed enough to see through it.

    Both candidates pledged not to campaign in FL or MI, Obama going as far as to remove his name from the MI ballot. Clinton did not start whining about counting these votes until she was behind.

    Can she honestly argue that Obama would receive ZERO votes in MI? There were enough people, 40% I think, who actually went to the booths in MI and voted for undecided before voting for Hillary...and she was the only major candidate on the ballot.

    Even if she wins all of the remaining primaries 60-40 she would still be behind Obama in pledged delegates. Would we then accept superdelegates overturning the primary results and popular vote?

    Um, Obama DID receive zero votes in MI. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:18:48 AM EST
    You have a point?
    There was no requirement that Obama remove his name from the MI ballot. He did so out of pure political expediency.

    16 point lead over "undecided" (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:29:53 AM EST

    Only Clinton and Dodd had their names on the ballot...maybe Kucinich too, but was he ever relevant?

    I wouldn't boast about Clinton beating "undecided/uncommitted" by 16 points...that's a pretty hollow victory.

    the point I was making was, how can Clinton count those votes toward the popular vote total when everyone signed a pledge that those votes wouldn't count and then give her opponent ZERO credit?


    Sigh. Here we go again. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:34:27 AM EST
    That's not what the pledge said.  You could look it up.  It's on this blog, it's available online elsewhere.  Don't talk about what you don't know here; it's not that kind of blog, and you'll just embarrass yourself more.

    point is.. (1.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:52:39 AM EST

    Clinton's math is twisted. If she had said "well, I won 56% of the vote and my opponent probably would have won at least 35%"  then she wouldn't be able to make the claim that she is leading in the popular vote but she is spinning this as if she is..which is beside the point that the popular vote has never counted toward the nomination, only  pledged delegates + superdelegates...

    AND this is all without accounting for the caucus votes.


    Wrong again. Super-delegates (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:02:22 AM EST
    have looked at the projected popular vote before and certainly will do so again, as their charge is to pick the candidate best able to win in November.

    They always have had to do so when much changes in many months between primaries and the convention.  They always have had to do so with caucus states, as caucuses draw so few that they tell nothing about the leanings of the states at large.  And more.

    So in addition to actually looking up and reading the pledge, also look up and read the responsibilities of super-delegates and the basis for their decisions.


    you're missing the point! (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by ccpup on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    you want that Poster to find and read this and then find and read that and digest all those words, words, words and then come back and have a conversation based on real fact.

    Don't you realize it's a lot more fun and creates a lot more havoc if one just makes stuff up and presents it as irrefutable fact?  -- Barack won 80% of the midget vote!  Barack gets 92% of the vote of those old people who eat Jell-O on Tuesday! -- And then defend it with CAPS and !!!!!!!! and questions your intelligence if you don't "get it"?

    Seriously, are you out of Kool-aid or what?  :-)



    facts (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:22:58 AM EST

    Obama has won twice as many states, has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates, leads in popular vote and is winning and Clinton  superdelegate lead of 39 in February is now only 19.

    And as he claims to be (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    a Constitutional law prof, do ask him when we amended the Constitution to count states for the presidency.  Really, have you even heard of the  Electoral College and how it works?

    As for your claim on the super-delegate count, that is not the one on your previous source, and you state no source now, and none of half a dozen common sources for current delegate counts list that number, so it looks like another one you pulled out of your posterior.

    Go see electoral-vote.com for a roundup of the many different media counts of delegate counts, but with this disclaimer:  "The sources differ because in most caucus states, no delegates to the national conventions have been chosen yet, just delegates to the district, county, or state convention so there is some guesswork involved. Furthermore, some of the unpledged delegates are elected at state conventions in May or June. Finally, the PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) sometimes waver and may tell different reporters slightly different stories that they interpret differently."


    your condescendence is remarkable (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    each one of your comments is filled with condescension...no one is suggesting counting the number of states for the presidential nomination but the popular vote is equally as ridiculous as a measure, especially when you suggest counting a primary where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot.

    the super delegate count actually didn't come "from my posterior" but from a credible site which includes the latest count


    Clinton 257  Obama 238

    And yes, I'm very familiar with the Electoral College and how it works. It seems that you have become so deluded in your love for Clinton that you refuse to believe the facts.


    ItisOvah is suspended (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    for being a chatterer. Read the comment rules. You are new here and have posted 16 comments since yesterday. When you come back you can post up to 6 in a 24 hour period.

    Math changes (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:32:34 AM EST
    with subtraction as well as addition.  You do know that the caucus states still are not done and recaucus again and their delegate numbers can change?  You do know that super-delegates can switch, as some already have, so even the number of declared super-delegates can change?  

    The numbers of "pledged" and "committed" delegates now are from the media, not from the parties, and are just projections.  Estimates.  Guesses.  No one knows, really, how many "pledged" delegates Clinton or Obama has now -- but especially Obama, with his reliance on caucus states.  No one knows if already-committed delegates might change their minds tomorrow.

    Unless you do?  If so, please state for us exactly the numbers now in each category of delegates for each candidate.  You're so confident of the number needed that you must be the only one in the whole country who has the exact answer.  Amazing.


    calculator (1.00 / 2) (#92)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:55:24 AM EST

    go to CNN or Slate or any other delegate calculator and you can see the chances of Clinton overtaking the pledged delegate lead.

    do you seriously think, that after all the primaries are over and Obama is leading, that the superdelegates will overturn the result? Ask Pelosi how she feels about that.


    As if there is only one calculator (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:03:36 AM EST
    Go look at all sorts of media sites -- AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, etc., etc. -- and see all sorts of numbers.  So what?  Proves my point.

    No need for a calculator (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by dwmorris on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:12:01 AM EST
    If x < 2024, then the undeclared super delegates decide.

    In this circumstance, there is no result to overturn.


    This place is a bubble of fantasy and delusion (1.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:24:02 AM EST
    And any black man who opens his mouth is called a racist or race-baiter.

    The sooner Hillary drops out the better. She will drop out. She has run a horrible campaign despite having all the advantages. Obama has run a masterful campaign. The superdelegates these posters are relying on are pretty much undeclared Obama supporters. Pelosi, Reid, Carter, Clyburn, Brazile, Gore, etc. Now, who do you think these people are going to side with, Obama or Clinton?

    Hillary will not be the nominee. Unless you all want a GOP victory in November, I suggest you all get onboard the Obama train.


    I guess you didn't see the PA exit polls... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jeffhas on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:52:16 AM EST
    at least 25% of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain.  We're not buying the snake oil your candidate is selling.

    Good luck in the GE if your candidate is the nominee.... and thanks for the condescension (get on the Obama train) it's not like we haven't been hearing that for the past few months - it's another reason 25% have decided to not vote for him... his supporters and their excellent attitude towards others of a different opinion.

    Uniters not dividers... yeah right... where have I heard that before?


    I suggest (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by magisterludi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:14:38 AM EST
    you bite me.

    Clinton celebrated when she won FL (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:49:27 AM EST
    and BO made fun of her.I have no idea what you are talking about.  She went to FL to tell the voters their votes would count.

    Well.. (3.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ajain on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:53:33 PM EST
    As much as I think Hillary will be the better nominee, I really doubt that California will be in play in November. If McCain wins California, there is no way he will lose the GE. I doubt he will win it. Clinton will campaign there regardless of whether or not she is the nominee.

    While the Bay Area (4.50 / 2) (#6)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:57:12 PM EST
    may carry him strongly, Los Angeles and environs will not... everything off the coast is pretty darn red... seriously, I don't think he will win here.

    Obama could win CA without campaining (1.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:01:15 AM EST
    and without running a single ad.

    Explain how he gets the Hispanic vote (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:50:03 AM EST
    there against McCain without campaigning . . .

    and his crossover voters . . .


    Explain why he wouldn't (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:44:12 AM EST
    Hispanics are going to rush to McCain? Why? It'll be a wash at worst. McCain won't get the lopsided margins Hillary enjoyed.

    McCain, Imigration Bill . . . (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:04:17 AM EST
    Also, McCain knows how to 'speak' to them. Remember, Obama has a problem connecting with just a few of the demographics. Hispanics would be one of them. McCain is also a western Senator. He understands that part of the country and the people better than Obama.

    Obama doesn't have a lot of experience with the different lifestyles in America from a 'ground up' perspective. South Side of Chicago and DC pretty much make up his whole professional life. This is where experience comes in handy. There's a reason Hillary does well in the 'big states' and why she gets the late deciders. And the same may be true for McCain in the GE against Obama.


    Obama won Hispanics in IL (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST
    and has steadily cut Clinton's margin of victory among Hispanics. He'll do just fine with Hispanics, particularly as I don't expect McCain to stoke some alleged black/Hispanic enmity.

    The Hispanic vote is fungible. It's not in any party's corner. But to think that Obama is going to receive less than half of that vote is ludicrous.


    Hispanics know McCain fought for an immigration (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jeffhas on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:31:23 AM EST
    bill.  They know he stuck his neck out against the Repub establishment so he gets credit.

    Factor in that for some reason Hispanics have not supported Obama, and it's a no-brainer, the Hispanic vote splits - very nicely to McCain - not 90/10 like AA's for Obama, but 70/30 for sure... That puts CA in play.

    Also, Arnold is Governor because he is a centrist.  ... McCain is a centrist.  He will do well here, he'll still have to work hard to get it, but McCain could pull it off.... Oprah or not.


    As a bay area resident, I agree. (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by cymro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:10:08 AM EST
    He'll do OK in the bay area counties and in Santa Cruz, and Chico, but lose pretty much everywhere else.

    Hey BrandingIron, why the "1" rating?! (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cymro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:07:45 AM EST
    You seem to agree with this assessment elsewhere. I'm curious, what did I say here that you don't like?

    Probably an accident. (none / 0) (#203)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:27:07 AM EST

    I've been trying to keep up but on rare occasions I mistakenly hit the wrong button.  My bad!

    -stops channelling Obama ;D -

    But for real, I think I made a mistake on that one.  My apologies.


    LOL!! I thought so, no problem (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 03:45:46 AM EST
    If it had been someone else I wouldn't have bothered -- I'm not that paranoid ;) -- but I've noticed that we usually agree.

    Obama will destroy McCain in Southern California (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:45:08 AM EST
    Delusional, you are. (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 12:29:54 AM EST

    Especially when you consider that Southern California is where Obama fared the WORST against Clinton, racking up near 60/40 percentile losses.  It's conservative country down there.

    The facts are on my side, buddy.


    I agree. I don't think CA will be in play (3.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:34:59 AM EST
    but BO will have spend more money to defend it and avoid it from going red.  Southern CA is very Republican and if McCain takes enough votes from the blue area, the suburbs (more conservative than SF), BO has a greater potential of losing CA.  Remember, that he does not do well with Hispanics.  They are a block that could go to McCain.  I know, I'm Hispanic.

    First of all (2.00 / 2) (#16)
    by pennypacker on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:10:14 PM EST
    polls have shown Obama ahead by more in California...this is ridiculous to count Michigan votes for Hilary while giving none to OBama. Very disingenuous.

    What about Florida (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:16:42 PM EST
    Without Michigan, she's still far behind (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Knocienz on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:25:28 AM EST
    Down by a few hundred thousand.

    There are certainly issues with not counting Michigan and Florida votes, but let's not ignore that a false cancellation of an election is one of the standard voter suppression tactics (even if done after the fact)

    I'm not going to try to convince you to drop the line, but while "Popular vote is inside the margin of error" might be a worthwhile tactic, I can't imagine that counting only Hillary voters in Michigan will convince anyone not already supporting her.


    Bull (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Davidson on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:19:19 PM EST
    Actions have consequences.  Obama took his own name of the MI ballot to win over people in IA and NH.  And he blocked a revote in MI.

    It's his fault.


    Unfortunately for you, it's the SD's that decide (1.33 / 3) (#98)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:05:22 AM EST
    and they don't buy these closed-minded, self-serving arguments. If only posters here were SD's then you could get something done and put Hillary over the top. Alas, they've given those credentials to others.

    Less time spent in fantasyland and more time spent helping Hillary's campaign might be a good idea.


    Then by your logic (1.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andreww on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:23:00 PM EST
    in all future presidential races the states can do whatever they want with no consequences.  This may be a good thing actually - but you have to be okay with this reality.  All states will want to be first.   All will move up their primaries.  And, if this had happened this time around and hillary lost by a slim margin - she'd still be in it anyway saying that more has been learned about Obama since the races started.  

    No matter the situation, Clinton would find a way to try and steal the election.


    Educate yourself (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Davidson on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28:46 PM EST
    All the GOP has to do is rig future primary dates so to throw a wrench in our primaries.  By justifying disenfranchisement the DNC has forefeited any legitimacy in criticizing future GOP disenfranchisement of our GE votes.

    No party should disenfranchise states, certainly not to favor one candidate over the other.  And these are battleground states for crying out loud.

    And stop lying: both Obama and Clinton will need the superdelegates to win the nomination.  If Clinton "steals" it so will Obama.

    Oh, and your upthread comment about this being generational and that somehow the mythical Obama youth vote should be justification for political suicide is hilarious!  Truly.  I say this as a twentysomething.


    I agree (1.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andreww on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:46:32 PM EST
    with much of what you say.  But giving Hillary all the votes in MI and Obama none is not the solution - that is my point - and that in my view would be stealing the election.

    As for the up-thread comment - look at the exit polls.  It's not mythical.  Obama competes at about even amongst catholics, mid-income whites, and women when they are under 45.  But, don't let these facts get in the way of your reality.


    We need to drop "older generation" (none / 0) (#153)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:08:40 AM EST
    Let's be real and call it the "experienced generation"  ;) 45+ is NOT old. We're just getting going, lol!~

    What? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Benjamin3 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:01:56 AM EST
    He lost catholics 70-30 in PA, and it was almost as bad in Ohio.  geez

    kill your parents (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:43:44 PM EST
    that's where it's at.

    Yup the Oedipal rage is strong in this party today.


    It's a shame Obama is over 45 . . . ;) (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:48:18 PM EST
    yes (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andreww on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:53:37 PM EST
    but he represents the next generation.

    The Next Generation of Money Changers? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:57:02 PM EST
    So how does this work? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:42:28 AM EST
    My time is over yet his isn't? Explain that one to me, will ya?

    Oh, and before ya go blaming all the ills of the world on me, remember, they are Obama's ills also.


    look (1.00 / 2) (#55)
    by andreww on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:52:23 PM EST
    you can go ahead and take my comment and blow it up by saying "kill your parents" but you give little credit to those who believe it is our turn to run things.  I'm 31 and a parent of two so don't talk to me like I'm17 because I support Obama.  

    All you snide Clinton supporters that are almost certainly baby boomers need to get over the fact that your generation for once may not be in control of everything.  I know it's hard for you - after all your entire life everything has been about YOUR generation.  Well, guess what - you did NOTHING about energy which is the number one reason for what's going on in the world today.  You are putting unsustainable amounts of debt on your children, your robbing medicare and your going to break Social Security.  Your generation on a Macro level is doing the equivalent of running up $100,000 grand in credit card debt on your childs SS#.  Guess what - we have legitimate reason to be pissed about that.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:56:30 PM EST
    What was the national debt in 1999?

    The Irony is that i'm 33 (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:40:00 AM EST
    and a parent of three.

    You have to laugh at the arrogant characterizations that the poster makes.  First assume you are talking to a 60 year old.  Then make all these assumptions about 60 year olds.  Then reveal all sorts of prejudices and go off half cocked on a "Tommorrow Belongs To Me" rant.

    The Rhine truly gives its Gold to the Sea...

    The passions excited by Obama are truly comical or truly dangerous.

    I Think i'm generation z.  The butt end of every single demographic that exists.


    I'm going on 40 (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:49:30 AM EST
    I think there's a snideness to pointing out that a lot of Obama's youth support really wasn't aware of what happened in the 90s.  That their impressions of the 90s are either created by the Main Stream Media or by farther left folks like Nader.  Note that Obama's campaign embraces both the Bipartisanship snake oil pushed by the Media AND the rhetoric of Ralph Nader re: Campaign donations. Remember what Nader said about Gore's donations from the pharmaceutical lobby.

    And then those perceptions are re-inforced by this next generation of aspiring consultants who see 8 more years of the Clintons quite simply in no other terms than 8 more years longer they'll have to wait to get their consultant money.

    There's a snideness there because one is really saying to them "you just don't know."

    But the problem is they just don't know.


    roughly 5.8 Trillion Dollars. (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andreww on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:17:06 AM EST
    Great (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:31:42 AM EST
    You really don't see a difference between the way Clinton handled the national debt and how Bush handles the National Debt do you?

    Hey.  If Obama is running surplusses at the end of his term, I'll give him credit too for handling the National Debt.

    I just don't think he's capable of it.


    Gulp... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Chimster on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:00:49 AM EST
    "you give little credit to those who believe it is our turn to run things."

    I'd like to give you credit for believing it is your turn to run things. Let me know when your campaign starts, and I'll donate something.


    Yes And Many Young People Are More (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:34:15 AM EST
    than willing to claim that older people don't care about anyone but themselves at the same time they want a free ride on health care even if it puts a greater burden on those who really need it or causes the program to fail.

    You know what else. There was a surplus in the budget when Bill Clinton left office. Maybe if the youth vote had voted at the same percentage as the older folks in 2000,  Gore would have been president and there would not have been this hugh deficit. Maybe if the youth vote had voted at the same percentage as the older folks in 2004, Kerry would have been president and things would have been better for everyone. But oh no, lets blame the older generation.

    It is obvious why many of Obama's supporters buy into him blaming everyone else for his own mistakes  and are deaf to his whining.


    andrew, (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:40:08 AM EST
    Its impossible for the boomers to be "robbing medicare"; you need to be 65 to qualify for Medicare and the first boomer is only 63.

    Social Security  is not going to "break" anytime soon - its running a surplus (thank-you boomers!)  that will last at least 2 more decades before mild tweakings are necessary to accomodate surviving boomers


    andreww, the "we" in your comment (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by lookoverthere on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    is interesting.

    How old am I? What race or ethnicity am I? What is my income? What is my education level? What are my concerns? What is my gender? What disabilities do I have? How many children? Where do I live?

    You don't know. But that didn't stop you. The stereotyping on which you base your, I don't really know if it's an argument, does your position no justice. It's a terrible way to convince anyone that your argument is rational, much less superior, compared to another's.

    As far as Social Security, you can look here for an interesting graph. This site also pulled some interesting quotes from Sen. Obama, Paul Krugman, and Sen. Clinton. here they are:

    First, Sen. Obama to Tim Russert,

    "Now, we've got 78 million baby boomers that are going to be retiring, and every expert that looks at this problem says "There's going to be a gap, and we're going to have more money going out than we have coming in unless we make some adjustments now." Now, I think that Social Security is the single most important social program that we have in this country, and I want to make sure that it's there not just for this generation, but for next generations."

    Last week the New York Times' Paul Krugman offered a charitable interpretation, I think, in his "Played for a Sucker" column:

    "...Social Security isn't a big problem that demands a solution; it's a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders. And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want."

    Likewise, for all that she's not my favorite candidate either, Hillary Clinton is right on the money about this:

    "I've said, these are Republican talking points. Social Security is not in crisis. Health care's in crisis. Medicare's in crisis. The energy--climate change is a crisis. And I'm not going to be repeating Republican talking points...

    Why are Democrats having this debate? Democrats should be rejecting the premise of this debate. That's what we successfully did when we took Bush on with privatization. We said, "It's not in crisis. We're not going to play this game. You're trying to undermine and destroy Social Security." "

    If you want to debate the issues, I'd be happy to, especially regarding energy. Unlike Sen. Obama, I do not think clean coal or nuclear power are good ideas. So perhaps on an open thread we could discuss it?


    He opted to take his name off the ballot. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:21:08 PM EST
    pennypacker, what state are you in? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:24:22 PM EST
    I'm guessing it's not CA... and exactly which polls are you referring to?

    Which polls? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:55:42 PM EST
    I know that the urge to link and push anyone who has data favoring Clinton is strong, but come on. Michael Barone slandered the left as anti-American and simply lied about whether Democrats were supportive of the troops at the 2004 convention (where you were, if I remember correctly). Michael Barone's analysis is bull, plain and simple.

    And what does your comment have to (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:33:46 AM EST
    do with THIS analysis?
    Weak kryptonite, if you ask me.

    At some point (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:04:47 AM EST
    you guys are going to look back and see that your choice of hyping conservative arguments to hype Hillary were clearly flawed.

    I do admire Jeralyn's ability to re-create the same argument over and over again.  Yes, Jeralyn, if Hillary is granted the irrelevant Michigan popular vote, she gains a tiny lead in the irrelevant popular vote  

    Let me say this again.  The popular vote is wholly irrelevant. Super delegates vote based on political impact, not some sense of egalitarian justice.  You and BTD can argue how important it is until you are blue in the face.  It still won't matter.  Well, honestly, it doesn't matter unless the remaining SDs are looking for a reason to vote for Hillary.  If that is the case then she is going to win no matter what.


    That's a reaonable point, overall; however (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:24:48 AM EST
    it seems that SD's are being swayed by trivial (to me) things: several of them say they are switching to Obama because of Hillary's negativity.
    In fact, they all seem to have the same talking point.
    I think the popular vote totals are much more legitimate than the subjective impression of negativity. How does that respect the will of the people? It does not.

    The will of the people (4.66 / 3) (#137)
    by janarchy on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:28:54 AM EST
    argument seems to be a joke anyway. It's only the will of the people when the SDs constiuents have already voted in the majority for Obama in the caucus/primary (i.e Missouri). Otherwise it's voting your conscience in places where he lost (i.e. Massachussetts, New Mexico, etc.) otherwise Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson et. all would be having to stfu and vote for HRC.

    Yet another primse example of the blatant hypocrisy going on.


    Didn't Obama Say Something To The Effect (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 08:19:16 AM EST
    that we should not be deaf to the wisdom of the Republicans? Do you think he was wrong and do you condemn him for that.

     How about his wanting to adopt a foreign policy like Reagan and BushI? Do you condemn him for reinforcing the hype that only Republicans are strong on foreign police?

    How about Obama wanting to tap in to the great wisdom of the Republicans on foreign affairs by having Republicans, Hagel and Lugur , in his cabinet as Sec. of Defense and State.  Do you think that this might just give the impression that their are no capable Democrats to fill those positions and do you condemn him for it?


    You know better than Dean (none / 0) (#192)
    by Chimster on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    "Super delegates vote based on political impact, not some sense of egalitarian justice."

    After hearing Howard Dean explain to Tim Russert this morning how Superdelegates will vote, I have to note that it is not the same answer as yours. You might want to check it out. For better or worse, many of these Superdelgates are regular folks who think about a whole lot more than just political impact.


    People in denial often find it easier ... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by cymro on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:22:39 AM EST
    ... to attack the messenger than to actually listen to the message.

    We're going to be seeing a lot of that over the next few weeks, I guess. I have to keep reminding myself to rise above the sniping, and figure out how to help present a united front in November, so that we can win the landslide victory the Dem's deserve this year.


    I could not care less (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by magisterludi on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:26:25 AM EST
    what Barone has to offer. His data just reflects the overall zeitgeist of the electoral landscape that many, of all different political persuasions, accept.

    Conservatives are wrong most of the time, but not all the time.


    the real reason... (1.00 / 3) (#18)
    by andreww on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:14:57 PM EST
    to this posts title is simple.  Clinton is counting votes where Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.  That is "why Hillary is ahead in the popular vote".

    Make the case that Supers can do whatever they want for the good of the party - that at least is accurate.  Posting this nonsense makes you look like Pravda.

    Obama's name was on the FL ballot (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:26:29 PM EST
    contrary to the revision history going on in many corners.

    There is a clear (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Salo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:31:07 PM EST
    dividing line for me with Obama's vote count

    Pre Wright and post Wright.

    We could also extend that the pre amd post Ayers.

    Many of his Red state Caucus votes and thos ein Virginia will have melted away by now. He commands a VERY different coaltion now.   He will never get those moderates again after seeing wright and the growing evidence of his relationship with Ayers.

    Thi should have come out before Iowa.


    Clinton asked BO for a re-vote in MI (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:31:38 AM EST
    and BO declined and had the MI legislature kill the measure.  It was his choice to keep the Jan primary intact.

    didn't realize... (1.00 / 0) (#174)
    by ItIsOvah on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 09:18:47 AM EST

    ...that this was a pro Hillary site only. Anyone who disagrees with you is a troll? great thing about blogs is that these are open forums where people can share their different views and perspectives.

    Proof by induction HRC can't win (1.00 / 1) (#181)
    by dmk47 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 10:45:17 AM EST
    Ok, it's clearly cozy inside the cocoon, but just a little arithmetic and a little inductive logic shows why there is simply no rational basis for uncertainty about the outcome of the Dem primary.

    Under very favorable assumptions for Hillary Clinton --- unrealistically favorable assumptions --- Obama still finishes on June 3 ahead by ~130-140 elected delegates. Probably more. Which means that to get to 2,025 (thereby imposing a settlement on FL and MI that won't endanger his nomination) he merely needs the support of about 1 in 5 of the remaining undeclared superdelegates.

    Now, Clinton supporters, like it or not, Democrats supportive of Obama, as well as a surfeit of media people, have made the argument that SDs giving the nomination to Clinton when Obama is ahead among elected delegates will do extraordinary damage to the party's support among African-Americans (and also we advanced-degree holding white liberals whom it's apparently okay to insult wantonly), which will be fatal to the party's prospects in the fall. Let's call it the Clyburn argument for lack of a better name.

    Repeat, like it or not, the Clyburn argument has currency. In echo chamber situations like TL threads, it's easy enough to build up the perception that it's not a problem. But, unfortunately for your cause, very few superdelegates --- 1 in 5 --- need to buy the Clyburn argument to effectively ensure Obama of the nomination.

    And the Clyburn argument is merely one of good half dozen or dozen arguments, of which a small minority of SDs would have to be convinced, to ensure Obama of the nomination.

    Can Obama supporters persuade at least 1 in 5 of the remaining undeclared superdelegates of the Clyburn argument or a similarly clinching argument? Yes, they can. Indeed, they already have.

    Again, slowly. There is no such thing as "the superdelegates" to convince. There are individual SDs, of whom Obama has to win over merely 1 in 5. Hence the assumption that Hillary Clinton's candidacy is still viable rests on an assumption about superdelegate attitudes that has already been proven false. No matter how solidly Jeralyn and the majority of TL commenters are convinced of their electability arguments for Hillary Clinton, for those arguments to have any effect on the outcome of the race, it would not suffice for those arguments to "succeed" in some abstract sense. They would have to be persuasive to a fantastically improbable majority of SDs. But even that's not enough. Any of the pro-Obama arguments, which clearly have substantial purpose among SDs, would have to collapse to the point where not even a small minority of SDs heed them.

    This is straightforward stuff. Logically, metaphysically, nomologically, it is possible for Hillary Clinton to win. It's also nomologically possible, according to the current assumptions of quantum physics, for the computer you're reading this on to spontaneously disassemble subatomic particle for subatomic particle and reassemble as a penguin. What probability would you accord that?

    The problem for Clinton is not simply that the probability Obama will be the nominee is exceedingly high and the probability Clinton will be the nominee is exceedingly low. Additionally, the probability that Clinton will be the nominee conditional on Obama not being the nominee is also low. Maybe 50 percent, I'd guess less than that.

    *Because commenting rules here stipulate a category error by construing facts and opinions as opposed, let me qualify all the foregoing asserted propositions as my opinion. They are also exceedingly likely to be facts.

    Again, with the (none / 0) (#206)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 04:09:29 AM EST
    verbose pedantry and the completely myopic vision as to what SDs are.

    Again, slowly. There is no such thing as "the superdelegates" to convince. There are individual SDs, of whom Obama has to win over merely 1 in 5.

    Why is it so hard for you to stop writing ego-stroking love notes to yourself and realize that SDs can change their mind up until the convention?  

    Verbosity does not earn one fives.  The quality of the comment does, and you've shown that the quality of your comment earns you little to no comprehension of the conversation at hand, despite its verbosity.  I.e., you like to say a whole lot of Obamatonic nothingness in too many words.


    earn 5's? (none / 0) (#207)
    by dmk47 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:57:27 AM EST
    you mean with shameless, cocooning bs? no thanks

    luckily i'm an unreconstructed Edwardian (none / 0) (#120)
    by Salo on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:47:19 AM EST
    And It's never realy been about the nomination, November is the key.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:43:53 PM EST