home

The Nomination Path

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:57:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

These are days of danger for the Obama nomination. Today he is the likely nominee. But what happens if next Tuesday he loses by 10 in Indiana and wins by 5 in North Carolina? Despite the decree from the now supposedly all important Joe Andrew, the race will continue. And what is up after Indiana and North Carolina? West Virginia on May 13. Clinton leads by 2-1.

On May 20, Kentucky and Oregon. Clinton leads by 36 in Kentucky and Obama leads in Oregon in the last polling there. Will he still on May 20? Oregon will become Obama's firewall. His must win I think. Right now, it seems unlikely that Obama can be be out of the woods until May 20 and Oregon. And only if he wins. If he loses Oregon, all bets are off I think.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed.

< What's The Magic Number? | D.C. Madam Apparent Suicide >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Nomination Path | 249 comments (249 topical)
    Only me (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    speaking for me.

    I'm done with this Democratic party.

    I'm so done.  They have toasted me.

    Latinos are under the firing line of minority attacks.

    We're sidelined by talking about AA preacher style?

    Give me a flipping break.

    I'm done with Democrats.

    Absolutely toasted.

    Done.  Out.  Won't give a penny.

    Not just Latinos every issue facing this country (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    the air has been sucked out of the race by Obama dramas other than Obama and grievance nothing is above the line.  

    Parent
    Let's be fair (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    Drama IS not limited to just tew Obama camp. The media has made this election cycle into something you would see at the three ring circus.

    Parent
    That's not totally accurate. (none / 0) (#68)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:30:12 PM EST
    The McCain/Clinton-care-about-and-fight-for-working people-gas-tax-holiday has seen a fair amount of attention, especially for those who see HRC's ad about how she's ready to take action to help the hurting people, but BO says "no."  And, he says "no" to the [voluntary to corporations] HRC mortgage solution.

    Although, I suppose that this is an example of grievance politics too.  You're right!  This is a campaign dominated by grievances.  It's a blessing to have the time to look at the big picture and see this stuff for what it is (sensationalism), and what it is not (thoughtful debate of problems and solutions--this is different than SOLUTIONS, which is the (expensive) work product of the HRC/Penn sloganeering factory.)

    Parent

    Axelrod was a editor greivance and race baiting (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    was and is the communication strategy of Obama's camaping, check back to the Mass Patrick campaign samestunt , if you need more confirmation read Obama's own words from his book, politicians know Race baiting covers up much, or something along those lines this is no accident it's just finally backfired.  

    There is a limited audience willing to play along as co dependents in this saga the rest of the country is feed up with it and see in the Wright drama the campaigns strategy come to life.


    Parent

    Would you be so kind as to (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    provide quotes/proof from Axelrod or Obama that demonstrate race baiting "is the communication strategy of Obama's camaping (sic)"

    I'm sure you're a fine person, but this kind of unfounded allegation is rather low.  The talk of race is not to BO's benefit, it benefits his opposition, so it's particularly offensive to have his opposition claim that they're some how damaged by not being black.  And, for the record Axelrod's consistent advice has been to avoid too tight a connection with "black politics" because doing so is obviously self-marginalizing.  Again, I'm sure you're a loyal HRC fan; but it's unconscionable to push the idea that BO wants this to be about race, when doing so helps his opposition (After winning with whites in Iowa BO won large support from AAs, this predates the race focused comments of his opposition, so BO didn't need to talk about race to gain AA support, and talking about this could only help his opposition, by framing him as a "boutique candidate."  And, Wilentz is wrong.)

    Parent

    Catch up on past threads on your own ... (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Ellie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    ... Obama's speeches, discussions of those, Michelle's stumping, discussions of those.

    Obama supporters seem incapable of keeping up with ongoing discussions and continue this ridiculous stomp for linkage ... THAT'S IN DISCUSSIONS not even 24-48 hours old.

    Alternate: use the same "crack" research behind the "conspiracy" to register women voters ... who might actually VOTE (oooh!) in a year a woman has overcome every wrench unfairly thrown her way to remain a serious contender.

    If you're too petty to applaud that, at least keep up with the discussion on your own.

    Parent

    Rubbish. Utter rubbish. (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    Obama's camp has been ruthlessly pushing the notion that the Clinton's are racists for months.


    Parent
    Since you seem to agree with the person (none / 0) (#220)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    I was responding to.  And, you indicate there's a lot of evidence please:

    provide quotes/proof from Axelrod or Obama that demonstrate race baiting "is the communication strategy of Obama's camaping (sic)"

    The support for this statement remains absent.

    The Huffpo memo (that references news stories about the Clinton team) written by some BO person (not directed from the campaign headquarters) in only the SC office, and was circulated internally, doesn't at all match this accusation.  Weak!

    While you're at it can you point to some memos from the BO campaing that show the BO campaign planned to play "the race card" on WJC all along:

    I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign that they planned to do it along."

    I know that WJC is now denying that he said this, even though it's on tape.  But, it seems that some of the HRC supporters disagree that he should deny his statement, so you can feel free to provide proof for a statement WJC doesn't believe, since he's denying that he ever said it (even though we can hear him saying it on tape.)


    Parent

    Well, you must agree then that there is (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM EST
    absolutely nothing to support the accusation that the Clintons were running a racist campaign.
    How do you think that idea got started, hmm?

    Parent
    If you don't think (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    the memo in the campaign office had the blessing of the campaign headquarters, then I'm not sure you understand how campaigns work.

    Parent
    And don't forget JJ JR's remarks--- (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by MarkL on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:50:13 PM EST
    Obama's co-chair.
    Or all the people who, at Obama campaign stops, made references to various supposed racist remarks.. uh huh.

    Parent
    Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#236)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    took the "fairy tale" comment out of context and twisting what Pres. Clinton said into something racial. And there is nothing you can say that will convince me that she was not coached. It is not Bill Clinton who is he racist.

    Parent
    Sorry, Mark (none / 0) (#238)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    That comment was supposed to be directed to 1jpd.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#241)
    by nell on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    and she told the New Yorker that after Bill Clinton made the fairy tale comment (that she twisted) she wanted to tear out his eyeballs.

    So sweet.

    Parent

    the huffington post (none / 0) (#192)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    published the race memo sent to them from someone at the obama camp that listed false claims of clinton racial comments this was when? january or february?  

    Parent
    Link here (none / 0) (#233)
    by tree on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:00:47 PM EST
    Obama Unhappy With Aides Over Race Memo

    More details here: Putting all the Race Cards on the Table

    Parent

    Ahh... thoughtful debate! (none / 0) (#219)
    by jackyt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    Does this mean Obama is agreeing to meet Hillary on the back of a flat bed?

    Parent
    So you've been saying, in 55 posts today (none / 0) (#252)
    by cymro on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:14:45 PM EST
    We've got the message now.

    Parent
    The Voters Don't Matter anymore (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    This is turning into a backroom deal.

    The point is obvious though, they can't stop votes from happening and what votes remain will only be nails in the coffin of the DNC.

    If only Supers/party "leaders" could rip the vote out of the hands of the people in the GE too.


    Back-room (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    is so accurate with his supporters.  Look at Richardson.  All about hate Clinton.

    Ditto for the latest.

    I'm done.

    I'm officially one of the women Hillary supporters who definitely means......

    Obama won't get my vote.

    What's happened is that it's gone beyond Obama.

    I really don't think the guy is evil.  He's a poltiician.

    But.......

    The endorsement messages have pushed me "emotionally" over the line.

    I am offended.  Deeply.

    Deeply enough to change my 30 year voting pattern.

    I will make my statement loudly.

    I am no longer a die-hard Democrat.

    That affiliation ended with this campaign.

    I'm for principles.

    Hillary represents those.

    If she's the nominee, then I'm Democrat.

    If not, then, I'm not.

    I have concluded my own journey with this decision, and I thank everyone for helping me along the way.

    Even those who disagreed...

    But I'm sure now, that a vote against this Demcratic Party is a vote FOR

    True Democratic principles.

    I am at ease.

    Parent

    I understand. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    and you may be correct.

    Parent
    Do me a favor (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:29:57 PM EST
    Hang out for a bit, see how this plays, see what happens. It ain't over yet. I understand emotions run high, I've had those days. But its a little early to decide imo.

    Parent
    If Clinton's the nominee (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    she needs support from Obamacons, and if Obama's the nominee, he needs support from Clintonites.  So far, his camp has been the one that has been claiming that disaffected Clintonites aren't necessary to an Obama victory because "he'll bring in new voters."

    Hey, Barack, ever hear the old adage, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?  You shouldn't be alienating loyal Democratic voters for the prospect of new, possibly less loyal voters. Hillary isn't taking Obama supporters for granted; she's telling them why they ought to support her if she's the nominee. That's what I like, someone who doesn't take me for granted.  But I still couldn't ever vote for McCain, who barely acknowledges that I or my concerns exist.  

    Parent

    EXACTLY...Let's See What The Voters In IN (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    and NC have to say.  If obama loses both, he has nowhere to go but down and the "backroom dealers" will not be able to cover for him.  Chill little ones....let's take a deep breath, watch and wait.

    Parent
    Marvin...... (none / 0) (#140)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:34 PM EST
    You are my "zanax".

    :)

    Parent

    People do say I put them to sleep! N/T (none / 0) (#149)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:57:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Thanks for the memories (1.80 / 5) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    Methinks we can beat the right without ya.

    Parent
    LOL* (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    You go right ahead and discount me.

    I'm so not impressed with anything other than my own personal vote.

    I speak for me, only.

    All I can really claim is that my family is amazed.

    You're talking to one staunch Dem here who has totally flipped.

    I'm no longer a Democrat.

    Amazing stuff.

    But heck, I'm in my 50's.

    So flipping at this stage means you've only got to deal with me for what.....20 years?

    wink

    Parent

    Me too! (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    I am a Dem for Hillary and no other reason and this from a life time Dem and a daughter of FDR Dems.  I will not stand by whilst voters are disenfranchised.

    Parent
    Me, three -- and I'm the daughter (5.00 / 7) (#116)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:49:49 PM EST
    of a past state Dem party chair.  Bygones.  I think my parents, were they here, would be with me on this.

    Parent
    I know exactly what you're talking about Ann (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by kempis on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:50:55 PM EST
    I'm holding off on changing my registration from Democrat to Independent until I see for certain that this utterly out-of-touch party leadership is foolish enough to reach past the most electable, best-prepared candidate to hand the nomination to Obama.

    But I've already begun to stop thinking of myself as a Democrat. I'm sure I'll continue to vote primarily for Democratic candidates, and I will vote for Obama over McCain this fall. But my vote really won't do Obama any good anyway. He's going to be swiftboated into a loss "for the ages." And if McCain implodes and Obama does manage to win, he's going to make some disastrous rookie mistakes--right at a pretty perilous time for our country.

    I'm disgusted with this party and with myself for being "played" for 32 years. These people don't want to win. I don't know what they're about, but winning and actually doing something to solve the health care crisis and get us out of Iraq and develop a coherent and productive Middle East policy and push for a Manhattan Project for alternative energy--all those things they must not really be that interested in because they sure don't seem to want to put themselves into a position where they could control the Congress AND the White House and actually, you know, DO STUFF. It's apparently more lucrative to talk about what they'd do if only they could....

    So I've had it too, Ann. The minute the superdelegates hand the nomination to Obama, this life-time Democrat is an Independent. My protest will not be to withhold my vote for Obama and hurt the country, but I will voice my disgust with this nomination process with my feet and leave the Democratic party.

    Parent

    Changing to Independent (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by stefystef on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    if Hillary wins the majority of the remaining states and the party STILL ignores her for Obama.

     Then I'm done with the Democratic Party.  I think more people are thinking this way.  So you are not alone.

    Parent

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    you have to deal with republican policy for 20 years.

    I have no issue with it.  I cannot stand Bush's policy for the past 8 years but this country reaps what it sows.  Policy only indirectly affects me, and most financial policy by dems is not in my favor.  But having grown up poor, I definitely understand how welfare made a difference in my life then, so I will most likely always vote demo.

    What makes me callous about your feelings is that your feelings as expressed are selfish.  50% of the dems are voting for Barack that is half the party.  So you think your candidate should be nominated OR ELSE, and the other 50% are supposed to cave?  No.  We pound the pavement to replace a stubborn voter.

    you are certainly not the first to feel as passionate about an issue so important as this but with half and half arguing, methinks entitlement and selfishness are mean things to say but entirely appropriate.  Same goes for any dunderhead saying the same thing about Obama.

    I love both candidates and voted for Barack in my primary. I will happily vote for Hillary should she win.  If McCain wins, goodbye AMT TAX HOORAY for me, that is a significant financial gain for me.

    So I am not casting you aside nor is the party, you are casting yourself out to live with a party that is non supportive of single mothers, callous about healthcare for all, dismissive of the significance of welfare and equal rights in education.  For every one of you out there, there are 3 people who don't know the difference between the parties and Barack has one thing right, mobilize, knock on their doors and tell them the difference.

    Parent

    Here's another perspective (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee and by a miracle wins the election:

    He will have to deal with a war on two fronts, a bad economy, the mess with the Constitution and Justice Department, China, North Korea, the situations in Africa, etc.

    More than half the Democrats in the party do not believe Obama has the chops to deal with these and other issues because he has little experience, and frankly, doesn't seem to interested in any job he's ever had for very long.

    In many of our opinions, he will make such a mess out of the war and the economy (not to mention health care and who knows what kinds of judges he'd appoint), that in 2012 the Republicans will sweep into power, and he will devastate the Democratic party for at least 20 years. So, while I won't vote for McCain, really, what's the difference if it's going to be a mess either way.

    Will Hillary be perfect or be able to deliver on everything she's promising? No, but most Democrats believe she is better equipped to handle the enormous tasks before us.

    Parent

    Exactly... (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    within two years of nothing the RNC will take back Congress and we are cooked again.  This is not a there is no difference in policy anymore between Obama and Hillary.  Obama will collapse if by a miracle he is elected.  Nothing will happen.  This is not the right time for another amateur.  

    Parent
    More than (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    half the party thinks that Hillary is not up to the job either.  More than half of the voters have voted for Obama.  

    By your argument, "our half is the smarter half so the party better stick with the smarter half"

    Sounds a bit elitist to me.

    I have news for you.  No president is up for the job at this point.  American credit debt is at an all time high and people are starting to pay their credit down.  When people pay their credit down, they are not buying the GI Joe with the KungFu grips and the accessories that go with it.

    When the largest consumption country slows down its consumption, companies slow down their mfg and products to market.  People stop spending money freely because they are paying down their debt.  Job losses follow because people are not spending.  People spend even less because they are worried about losing their jobs, vicious cycle you see.

    Now when Bill C was pres (i loved Bill and still do) he had the largest productivity gain since the early 1900's as a result of the information age and all the interconnected parts that go with it.  you want a computer, how about s/w, h/w, maint, wiring, laptop, desktop, printer, gadget after gadget.  New companies sprouted to service and mfr everything.  Did Bill create that?  Of course not.

    Now where is that kind of "boom" going to come from?  What product out there in design is going to create a supply and demand mania that comes around every 60-70 years (methinks solar but repubs are too stupid to see the light and pushed us back 5-10 years).  

    So we don't have an industrial revolution in our pocket as we did during Bill's presidency.  What we will have for the next 10-14 months is controlled spending by the american public until they can get out of debt to a major degree.  People are carrying more debt than ever and until that debt goes down, new jobs and casual spending will be on hold.

    We have been here before, there is no magic bullet of the early 90's (thank you Bill Gates - Steve Jobs) to fall back on.  And we are in a really stupid war that neither candidate has said the right thing on, which is END IT RIGHT NOW.  Bring them home 2 days after being in office.  12 billion a month can create a lot of gov't jobs to fix roads, bridges and schools while we wait for the private market to develop the next industrial revolution.

    Parent

    Incorrect (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    A majority of Democrats voted for and support Hillary. Obama got his from  "Dems for a Day" and such. I don't want them deciding the Democratic nominee.

    Parent
    Than change the (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:33:56 PM EST
    way the primaries are held.  Your party created it, your party lives with it unless you stand up to change it.  You gonna do something about it or just stand there and bleed?

    Parent
    need i remind you (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:40:14 PM EST
    that "independents" swung the last two elections "right".  As much as you might like to separate them from your party you ought to know that you need them to win the big one.  

    Parent
    True (4.50 / 2) (#222)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:46:10 PM EST
    We need independents to win the GE, and I have no problem with indpendents who truly want to participate in the Democratic process (although, then they should register - not just the day of the election).

    However, especially as of late, Hillary does better with independents and moderates (of whom there are many more) than Obama. And right now, she's outpolling Obama andoutpolling or tied with McCain.

    Parent

    I have never (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:48:22 PM EST
    argued that we should not let the race play out as long as possible, in fact i am in favor of it.  If Hill can keep a sustained momentum and close strong and raise more money there is a valid argument.  But the "either my candidate or i go right" is either immature or narcissistic or both.  On either side.

    Parent
    I guess we disagree (5.00 / 4) (#229)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:54:55 PM EST
    A candidate doesn't get my vote just because he has a "D" next to his name - he has to earn it. And if I think someone is going to hurt the country and the party in the long run, it is my absolute duty to not vote for him. (I won't vote for McCain, but I will not vote for someone who doesn't seem to take an interest in what people like me need and care about).

    Parent
    and I won't cower (none / 0) (#237)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:10:11 PM EST
    to someone who says my candidate or else.  As i said, a repub in the office does me a world of financial good, I would rather see Barack or Hillary in that order but I lose no sleep over people who threaten to leave the party.  Being that there is very little difference in the platforms of BO adn Hill i find the arguments from demos on both sides histrionic and immature.  If BO has not earned your vote I would never expect you to vote for him.  I voted Nader 8 years ago and Kerry only because of my disdain of the policies of this admin, not because i was enamored with Kerry.  

    My message remains the same, don't like the candidate of the party, don't vote for them.  I will be stumping for either one and will find at least one to replace ya and hopefully 2 just in case.  

    Parent

    It's not the 50% (3.66 / 3) (#198)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:19:46 PM EST
    Even if it were 90% it is hard to stomach the unfair process and the uneven playing field. If the democratic party doesn't stand for fairness, what does it stand for?


    Parent
    Me Thinks (none / 0) (#43)
    by dissenter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    You are delusional

    Parent
    Does Joe Andrew's decree have anything to (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    do with this new fundraising deal that's been struck between the Obama campaign and the DNC?  Has anyone seen an article that explains it?  I've only seen a brief article at Time.com, via Riverdaughter.

    I haven't heard about this (none / 0) (#75)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    But I would be livid about the Democratic Party if this is the case. What is wrong with them? Are they really trying to disenfranchise entire voter blocs besides Florida? And I thought Howard Dean would be a new type of President and I really thought he was the future. I am so disappointed in him. And the DNC.

    The amazing thing is that even when Hillary wins Indiana and maybe NC, they are still going to be asking her to resign for the sake of the party. What party, we are two as it is. In fact, if someone wanted to create a 3rd major party right now, this would be the time.

    Parent

    Yeah, I really have no respect for Dean anymore! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    I worked everywhere for Dean both for his Presidential run and the DNC Chairmanship.  I also joined DFA and stayed until this election cycle.  He is not the leader or fighter I thought he was.  I've seen a real leader and fighter, that is Hillary Clinton.  I'm only a Dem for Hillary now.

    Parent
    The DNC is raising money for Obama? (none / 0) (#95)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:16 PM EST
    Jeez.  {{runs off to find article}}

    Parent
    It was up last week -- Obama and DNC (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    linked in fundraising.  An appalling bias toward one candidate, all for the sake of the party coffers -- which means self-perpetuation by Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et al., while dissing half the Dem voters (so far, maybe more than half soon).  

    Parent
    The reason the coffers are empty (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by litigatormom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM EST
    is because they are screwing two states.  I guess it hasn't occurred to them to open the spigots by unscrewing two states.

    Parent
    The DNC isn't raising money, period. (none / 0) (#113)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    That's the problem. While Obama and Clinton are busy raking in the cash, the DNC is getting nada. And they need money now to start gearing up for November.

    Last week the DNC announced a deal with Obama where they would basically tap into his money pool and use the funds to help power the DNC and other down-ticket races. They were reported to be 'in talks' with Clinton on a similar plan to tap into her money supply. I haven't heard anything else about that, though, and I'm not sure Hillary has a whole lot of money to give them in any case.

    Parent

    I used to give them a little money every so often. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    I've responded to their recent requests by stating they get nada unless and until Florida and Michigan voters get a full say in who is the nominee.

    I'm fed up with Dr. Dean.

    Parent

    Understandable. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    But surely you can understand why the DNC needs money. There are important downticket races to fund, infrastructure to put in place, bribes..uh...'contributions' to be paid. These things have to be done regardless of who wins the nomination, and they can't wait until convention. They need to start happening now.

    So they'll go where the money is. Trust me, they'll take Hillary's money just as happily as they take Obama's. It's not about the candidate...it's about the money.

    Parent

    We'll see about that. (none / 0) (#242)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    If Florida and Michigan are disenfranchised and Obama wins the nom because of that, I may just leave the party.  Not to become a Republican, but that outcome would make me question whether the party has left me.

    Parent
    I Use To Be A Monthly Contributor (none / 0) (#214)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    Cancelled that puppy when the DNC started playing games with MI and FL. Right now I'm so angry about what the party has been doing, it may be a long time before I contribute to any Dem organization again. I'm now an Indie and they better start doing something to win my vote or they will not get it.

    Parent
    Doesn't she have more money for the GE than BO? (none / 0) (#244)
    by ineedalife on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    I thought Hillary had much more money for the general because of donors that maxed out for the primary but gave more anyways.

    Parent
    I Would Not Consider Sending Any Money (none / 0) (#215)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:37:34 PM EST
    to the DNC until IN and NC primaries are completed; and maybe not even then.  Let's wait and see.  However, I am sending more money to Sen. Clinton.

    Parent
    Oregon is in play, the Big Dawg has been .. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    all over the rural and small towns and they are eating it up.  BTW.. don't forget about Guam - she's up this Saturday.  I know, very small in number of votes and especially delegates, but a big win is nice going into another Super Tuesday battle.

    The Oregon Governor (SD) (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    endorsed Hillary in December.

    Parent
    wow - I didn't know that (none / 0) (#213)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST


    Parent
    I Hope The OR Governor Stix To His Guns (none / 0) (#216)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:38:50 PM EST


    Parent
    New Mason Dixon Poll For NC - Obama By 7 (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    MyDD

    NC, Mason-Dixon has polled the primary. They find Obama leading Clinton by a 49-42 margin.
    87 percent of African Americans plan to vote for Obama, while 62 percent of whites said they will vote for Clinton. There has been very little evidence suggesting either candidate can cut into those numbers before Tuesday.



    Gallup has been tied for about a week (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:12:59 PM EST
    Today - Hillary 49, Obama 45
    are those the Oregon numbers? (none / 0) (#109)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:45:54 PM EST
    not clear if they are or not

    Parent
    National; see Gallup.com (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Democratic Party returns to its roots (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:13:18 PM EST
    as a self-perpetuating patronage-oriented machine party for which electoral victory is a fungible commodity.

    As with Tammany Hall, it is expected that an election must be lost occasionally to make sure the machine remains intact.

    Clearly the Dem old guard is behind Obama, all the "insurgent" talk early on notwithstanding. They have run the calculus: We'll gladly saddle McCain with the war and the recession in exchange for the grandest fundraiser in American history: Barack Obama.

    His beautiful loser persona can keep the war chests full for years on end while the masses are warned of the dangers of continued Republican rule in fundraising letters and e-mails.

    Obama's campaign -- the dry run of which was Deval Patrick -- is a prefabricated, Axelrod-managed template designed to separate suckers from dollars. Just the newest cog in an old machine.

    I wish people would stop bashing Deval (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    He really isn't that bad. Casino plan not the best, but other than that, he has done a pretty good job.  Massachusetts has one of the best economies in the country right now.  We have really low unemployment and violent crime is down.  Also, he's not Obama, and he wasn't running for president.

    Parent
    Deval (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    well according to SUSA the voters in your state don't agree with you. He's 41/56 approval disapproval. It's one of the main reasons I think Obama will have a hard time carrying MA.

    Parent
    I agree that it hurt Obama (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    That doesn't mean they are right.  The casino thing got a lot of bad press - rightly so, but it really doesn't paint the whole picture.

    Also, I have a really hard time believing Massachusetts will go Republican no matter what the polls tell me.  We were the only state to vote for McGovern...  When all the primary crap blows over, MA will be as blue as ever.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:50:03 PM EST
    I'm not so sure because if the full force of Kennedy/Kerry/Patrick couldn't pull Obama over the hump in a Dem primary I'm not so sure that it'll work in a general. Yeah, McGovern carried MA but you are also forgetting that Reagan carried it twice. There are lots of blue collar democrats in MA are they not? I think that's why Hillary polls a lot better than Obama there.

    Parent
    Endorsements (none / 0) (#142)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    Kennedy/Kerry... Ahh senators.  We vote for them out of habit.  They have been there for a while.  But no one really pays that much attention to them.  Most of the Mayors in MA came out for Hillary.  These are people on the ground with great sway in their community.

    Yes there are blue collar dems, I still don't see it going Republican, but that's just my opinion its not based on any facts.

    Parent

    Wasn't there a governor - a Republican - (none / 0) (#122)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    named Romeny or something like that elected in Massachussetts?  /s

    Blue isn't always so true.

    Parent

    Mitt (none / 0) (#131)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    Wasn't he the governor?  I recall he was also popular.  If McCain shifts enough to the center, MA could be in play.


    Parent
    Not Popular (none / 0) (#147)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM EST
    Especially not when he left.  Not at all.

    We had a number of republican governers.  Mitt is the reason we don't currently have one.

    Parent

    He is an Axelrod creation (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    down to the speeches, which were simply transferred over to Obama. This is simple fact.

    Parent
    Great economy in MA -- not! (none / 0) (#106)
    by Coral on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM EST
    In MA waiting to see if my husband brings home a pink slip from his teaching job today. The economy sucks, and Patrick has done nothing to improve it.

    We desperately need money for education. School districts are in dire straits after years of cuts, this year we are being asked to cut more.

    We're losing jobs. Gas prices are through the roof.

    Patrick's heart may be in the right place, but he is an ineffective governor.

    Parent

    Polls Indicate That Others In MA Agree (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:06 PM EST
    Boston Globe

    A mere 31 percent felt that Patrick has shown he can deliver on his campaign promises, and 48 percent of those interviewed said he has not met expectations, including 42 percent of Democrats. The poll, conducted March 31 through April 4, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points
    .

    Parent
    Polls (none / 0) (#153)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:20 PM EST
    Tell us public opinion, not right and wrong.  Polls also told us to go into iraq.

    I am not saying Deval isn't a liability.  I am saying he shouldn't be.

    Parent

    Darn Those Pesky Voters Having An Opinion (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    Must be wonderful going through life knowing that you are the only one who is right.

    Parent
    Me and the other 40% or so (none / 0) (#203)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    I also am not saying he "lived up to his campaign promises".  I am saying he's not a bad governer.  He is subject to a lot of baseless attacks and I just wanted to defend against that.

    People are entitled to their opinion, I am not trying to say he is well-liked, that's obviously not the case.  I am just saying, that doesn't mean he is bad at his job.

    Parent

    economy (none / 0) (#114)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    It's not perfect, we are in a national recession.  We are still above and beyond other states.  A little perspective helps.  We have very low unemployment figures, some of the best education in the country.

    Gas prices are lower here than most surrounding states.

    Parent

    I'm so sorry -- we go through this every year (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    with brother and sister-in-law, art teacher and school social worker, respectively.  Those jobs have been cut back and cut back for years now, so every year is nailbiting time in their school boards' debates.  We need more and better teachers, not fewer.  I hope all goes well for your family today.

    Parent
    Has there been any more revelations... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    ...that Axelrod's "artificial grass" company (an ad agency that makes ad campaigns seem like they come from the grassroots) is working overtime on the Obama campaign?  

    Parent
    as goes oregon (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Turkana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    so goes the world. it's time everyone realized that!

    Oregon is the new Pennsylvania ;-) (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:17:10 PM EST


    Parent
    according to the new york times (none / 0) (#54)
    by Turkana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    our restaurant scene makes us the new new york art scene of the '50s!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/dining/26port.html

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    only in the New York Times can you read about "restaurant immigrants."

    Parent
    to be compared to the '50s ny art scene (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Turkana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    is about as high praise as is possible from the nyt!

    Parent
    How come HRC had to win PA by 10, but O has no (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by jerry on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    How come HRC had to win PA by 10, but O doesn't have to win NC by 10?

    I am not asking for fairness, just what is the difference between PA nad NC such that anything less than a 10 point win was a loss for Clinton and nothing of the sort has been mentioned for Obama?

    I would like to think that a 5 point win or less should dramatically change the situation wrt sooper delegates.

    Because Clinton was behind (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    Before PA she was significantly behind in popular vote and delegates, so she needed a big win to catch up.

    Obama isn't, so he doesn't.

    Parent

    I think it is because she is so far behind (none / 0) (#38)
    by maritza on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    in pledged delegates.  Obama is so far ahead in pledged delegates that he just has to split the delegates with her over the next few states.

    Parent
    Pledged delegates one of several factors (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    In a contest this close, the pledged delegates are no longer the only consideration.  The pledged delegates are flawed as a metric (e.g. Texas).  SD's must and should consider.

    Popular Vote.
    Electability.
    How they finish.

    BTW  Note how we stopped hearing about superdelegates following their constituents/states.  Hillary would win if they did that by virtue of her large states victory.

    Parent

    "so far ahead" (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    Can you post the numbers here?  
    Can you also tell us about MI and Fl?  

    Parent
    Wrong N/T (none / 0) (#76)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama needs to win both (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by maritza on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    North Carolina and Oregon.  If he wins both even by 1 vote, I think that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.  If he loses one of them, Hillary will be the nominee.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#78)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:33:04 PM EST
    That is a very clear and honest assessment. But I think if he wins NC barely and loses IN badly then its a mess again.

    Parent
    so it's not a mess right now? (none / 0) (#174)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:06:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Order your popcorn (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by herb the verb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:35 PM EST
    by the truckload.

    IN and NC will be all night ordeals before a winner is declared. This will hurt Obama badly and much worse than Hillary (but only if she wins Indy). NC was supposed to be a blow out for him and Illinois borders Indiana. Why can't he win anything anymore will be the meme and they will have all night long to squawk about it. Then WV where he will get trounced in a no-doubter. Then what? More trickle of SDs either way?

    How can the party give the nomination to someone who gets creamed in 95% of the elections leading up to his "win"?

    Despite what Dean, Brazille, etc.. want, this WILL come down to Florida and Michigan deciding the nominee. Either through being disenfranchised, or through being counted and either way, disaster is likely.

    Do we need more proof that Donna Brazille is the most damaging Democrat in America?

    I think after Wright, the media isn't expecting (none / 0) (#42)
    by maritza on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    Obama to win Indiana or have a blow-out in North Carolina.  Thus if he just wins North Carolina, he will be okay.

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    It will still matter a great deal how he wins.  The superdelegates and the media will be looking at the white working class % for Obama.

    Parent
    Everyone keeps talking about Teh Math (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:35:10 PM EST
    but the math also shows us that it is impossible to win a general election with weak white support. Throw in Obama's weakness with Latinos and that's ball game.

    But as we've established, Obama's dollars and downticket appeal (read: increased AA turnout) easily trump winning the White House for this feckless party.

    Bottom line, the Dems are happy to have Congress and its pursestrings. They are too lily-livered to want actual responsibility for the executive branch.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    Over the course of many elections, I think to myself, "why aren't the Democrats fighting over <whatever election issue>" in this election?  Do they not want to win?

    Finally, I've come to terms with, Ohhhh, they DON'T want to win.  It's either money or it's something else, but they really don't want to win.

    Parent

    agreed (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:00:14 PM EST
    I have come to the same conclusion.  If you think about it, what have Democrats really "won" at the national level if we take Bill Clinton out of the equation?  Congress in 2006? Hah, that now seems more like a loss.

    Parent
    You didn't get (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:25:16 PM EST
    what she was actually saying?

    She was saying that in the context of wealth redistribution, that if the wealthy gives back, they get more in terms of an investment in their country.

    Please, next time, listen to the interview rather than taking what KOSsites tell you at face value.

    take it easy with that Poster (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    Do you know how hard it is to type with one hand clutching a tippy-cup of Kool-aid?

    Seriously.  I've seen bootleg YouTube footage and it looks downright terrifyingly treacherous!

    (snark)

    Parent

    ccup (none / 0) (#132)
    by libfighter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    Kool-aid comes in Clinton flavour as well, but then from your post I guess you already know that.

    Parent
    I'm actually allergic (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    to Kool-aid.  One sip and I break out in hives and start having delusions of grandeur.

    Oh well.

    Parent

    Clinton chose not to be pretentious (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:26:00 PM EST
    ...which falls in the opposite of elitist category.

    She acknowledges she is rich and blessed for what she has instead of pretending she was just another working class middle-class American in 2008.  Her and her husband earned their way to wealth so I don't see how anyone would take issue with them being rich.

    But Michele is being sent out to gather (none / 0) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    the middle class in. Reuters reported this morning
    Obama's wife joins push to court working class
    Then later the Yahoo headline was :  
    Michelle Obama describes years of working to 'keep up with bills'
    Listen, most of went through the struggle to become our own. Neither Bill or Hillary were from wealth. Michele saying this is conscending mainly because so many have struggled all their lives to keep up with the bills. She would have a point if they were still struggling, but not now. Not for a long while.

    BTW, headine now is:

    Reverend Wright's Honorary Degree Canceled by Northwestern
    Well that should make him unhappy quite a bit more. They are siding with BHO and not the Rev Wright. That has to hurt.

    Parent
    Michelle (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    is exactly the wrong person to try to court the working class. I guess they have to give it a try though. I wonder if she thinks they are all "sloths and complacents"?

    Parent
    ballet lessons are expensive (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    if she can sell that to Indiana, Obama is golden there.

    Parent
    That's what I was thinking too (none / 0) (#160)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    she's a freakin' VP at a hospital. How exactly is she going to appeal to blue collar workers?

    Parent
    And BTW (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    Yes, we do remember that she voted for the war.  We also remember that Obama wasn't in the senate at the time, but if he had been, given his track record of funding the war, never speaking out against it while in the senate, he would probably have voted for the war.

    In addition, we remember that even though he didn't vote for the war (because he wasn't in the senate at the time) he has a whole host of supporters, including Kerry, who DID vote for the war.

    So really, stop raising strawmen over here.  It doesn't work.

    He has spoken out against it (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
    That said he hasn't been very forthcoming with solutions short of telling us the citizenry needs to rise up and insist that 16 GOP Senators et some common sense. As far as a productive solution, it isn't and is one of the ain reasons I don't like his "we must appeal to the GOP" philosophy. It doesn't work with the GOP leadership in Washington and the certainly don't seem to care much about any of their voters who don't have a corporate logos.

    Parent
    North Carolina more important than MI/FL (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by magster on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:27:54 PM EST
    If Obama loses NC, all bets are off.

    Simply put (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by AF on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    Obama wins a Clinton state: Obama is the nominee

    Clinton wins an Obama state: Clinton is the nominee

    Both candidates hold their states: Obama is the nominee

    True, but there are wild cards in this deck (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:38:02 PM EST
    We do not know if another damaging character will pop out of the woodwork regarding Obama. It's a thin reed on which HRC should base her campaign, but another Wright-like story and he's done, finished, kaput.

    Just off the top of my head I can think of two possible eruptions: Ayres and Rezko. Let's face it, the man has shown horrible judgement of character, to say the least.

    Parent

    Looks to me Obama doesn't worry about Rezko at all (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by bridget on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:18:41 PM EST
    Saw an Obama campaign clip a few days ago. He  complained about HC's attacks and said he would much rather talk about health care, Substandard Housing, etc.

    I heard Substandard Housing and immediately was reminded of all the run down housing pics in his district. It looked pretty bad.

    Why is Rezko and the Obma housing problems being ignored by the media and stenographers? Ah yes. Too much Obama Kool-Aid.

    Wouldn't that be something Michael Moore could get excited about? He could. But he also fell in the Obama Kool Aid tank and can't get out.

    Parent

    IIRC Wasn't Indiana Originally Considered An (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:38:26 PM EST
    Obama state?

    Parent
    You do recall correctly (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST


    Parent
    It was supposed to be something of (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    a slam dunk I believe because of its proximity to Illinois.

    Parent
    New poll (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    out of IN Clinton 48 Obama 38. Apparently according to this poll, voters are leaving Obama in droves.

    I'm trying not to get too excited (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    but I can't help it. I still hold out hope despite the certain knowledge that this thing has been preordained by Dean, et al.

    Parent
    Here's the (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    link:
    http://www.theindychannel.com/politics/16106143/detail.html?rss=ind&psp=news

    The poll says that voters are leaving Obama and switching to Hillary much like the Gallup and Rasmussen have shown today.

    I guess reading the whole article is the best thing.

    Parent

    Whose poll? (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:44:34 PM EST
    Link?

    Parent
    I suspect (none / 0) (#118)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    she was thinking of this one...if not, then we apparently have 2 polls where she's ahead by 10 and Obama's bleeding men:

    Link

    Parent

    I posted (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:47 PM EST
    it below.

    Parent
    Very profound & new argument (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    All here now are seeing the light and go BO

    Nomination Path (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:08:19 PM EST
    My conclusion:  DNC and SDs will succumb to PC politics and risk losing the GE.  The race card has been played, it's being played and the cowards are lining up.  In the end the DNC like the RNC will be a puddle of fake new alliances that lead to nowhere.  America loses and the Corporatists win.  Thank you netroots, Obama and DNC.  

    Addendum (none / 0) (#185)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:13:10 PM EST
    Even if Obama wins, Corporatist America will win.  He will be weak ineffectual an he does not hold dear the Dem core issues, or at least what I thought were the issues, health care, changing taxation, foreign policy changes, etc.  etc.  They hold us hostage for the Supreme Court now, to vote for truly an inept and incompetent Democrat cause their primary system is idiotic and they have it rigged.  

    Parent
    My version (none / 0) (#187)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    If this trend holds (don't know yet, Obama has bounced back from stuff that would have ended a lesser campaign) you may see a backroom deal, but not the type everyone thinks. A candidate does withdraw from the primary, but not the one everyone thinks.

    Parent
    Clinton Town Hall Sunday (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Salt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" snags Clinton for Sunday morning voter town hall from Indiana, with additional questions asked by voters in North Carolina. Will happen simultaneous to Obama's full hour on "Meet the Press."
    Obama supporters will love the news (none / 0) (#202)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    If they had conspiracy theories before about ABC and George, just watch now....

    Parent
    Hillary vs. Obama Nomination (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by STLDeb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:26:18 PM EST
    I had lunch with a friend today to celebrate her birthday.  

    We normally don't discuss politics but I asked her about Hillary vs. Obama.  Now for the record she is a lifelong Democratic (late 40's in age).  

    She said if Obama was the Dem nominee she would have to hold her nose & vote for McCain.  She would not vote for Obama.  

    Now this is middle America (Missouri).  Why doesn't the DNC see that they are hurting their party's chance of winning in November?  I don't quite understand, makes no sense.  

    Isn't that the ultimate goal -- whether you're Republican or Democrat, is to get your person elected president?  

    Well I hope Hillary has a strong showing in Indiana & North Carolina.  

    because (none / 0) (#245)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:35:20 PM EST
    the party should not be hijacked by people who are as self serving as your friend.  50% of the party like the other person, and should not succumb to extortion even if it means defeat.  I don't see many obama heads saying that but maybe i am just missing it.

    You can personally thank your friend if she does vote for mccain, he by some miracle wins, and gives us 4 more years of nucular politics.  She will have to live with him as much as the rest of us and if she can stomach it, well so can we.

    Parent

    Days of danger? (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:08:42 PM EST
    Hyperbole much?

    Here are the real numbers:

    If Obama and Clinton split the remaining pledged delegates, Obama will need the pledges of 87 PLEOs to reach 2024. Clinton will need 212. 290 remain. Clinton needs 73% of them. Obama needs 30%.

    Even if Clinton wins each remaining contest by a 10 point margin and the proportional delegate assignment corresponds with that in PA, this increases Obama's need for PLEOs by only 11.

    There is no substantial danger to Obama here in the remaining contests. At this point they only thing that will derail his nomination is something incredibly stupid or scandalous.

    If being the operative word (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    IF the magic number is 2024.

    IF MI and FL do not count.

    IF they split the pledged delegates.

    If, if, if.

    Parent

    These assumptions are not controversial (none / 0) (#35)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    As I said, even if Clinton wins each remaining contest by a 10% margin, an assumption so favorable it borders on unrealistic, this nets her only an additional 11 pledged delegates.

    So far as Florida and Michigan are concerned, not gonna happen, at least in any way that significantly alters the current probabilities for each candidate.

    If MI and FL are going to be given a voice before the nomination is decided, their voice will by reason of political compromise be politically neutral. Thus, the math will not change substantially.

    In some ways your posts are reminding me of the traditional media that's trying to keep this looking like a horse race to cultivate viewer interest.

    Parent

    So much for... (none / 0) (#77)
    by jackyt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:32:19 PM EST
    the Supers must vote according to the will of the people!

    Parent
    Supers can choose any rationale (none / 0) (#110)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:47:53 PM EST
    they want for their votes.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#190)
    by jackyt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:14:56 PM EST
    When Hillary's leading

    Parent
    IF pledged delegates (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:42:11 PM EST
    and SD's don't break their pledges and go th other way.  This is especially easy for SDs to do, as we saw today.

    None of the math is carved in stone.  Let's wait and see what the voters have to say.

    Parent

    Math doesn't have to be carved in stone (none / 0) (#120)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    to be useful.

    Here it possesses good predictive value. Considering all reasonable assumptions, short of catastrophic scandal, Obama will be the nominee. This allows for noise, such as superdelegate defections in either direction, provided there is no stampede. Again, the only reason to predict a stampede would be by reason of catastrophic scandal.

    Parent

    There might already have been (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:27 PM EST
    a catastrophic scandal.  That's going to be what everyone is looking at in the tea leaves of next Tuesday's votes.  If Clinton wins both NC and Indiana and if people come to believe that he can't hold onto working class voters based on vote totals, you may see a lot of super delegates start to think very differently about Obama's prospects for the general election.

    Therefore, the math could easily change pretty dramatically and it isn't impossible to think that Clinton could take the remaining 70% of the supers if Obama performs poorly in these primaries.  It isn't impossible to think that some supers would switch from Obama to Clinton if she won all of the states BTD listed either.

    Parent

    What odds would you offer on Obama? (none / 0) (#183)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:11:22 PM EST
    99:1, 20:1 ?

    I'd take Clinton at 1:3.

    Parent

    yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    only danger to Obama's general election chances if he leaves out Fl/Mi as you've just done.

    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#49)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    Obama can win without Florida.

    Parent
    This is why (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by rnibs on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    Obama will never win the GE.  There will be no DNC to say FL and MI don't count and no SD's to throw the election his way when he's flailing at the end.
     

    Parent
    can he win without Ohio and PA, too? (none / 0) (#152)
    by kempis on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes if he manages to win in France. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    kidding...

    Parent
    not the only one (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:24:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Math ad-nauseam (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    Math doesn't matter. Keep saying that as you rock yourself to sleep.

    All that matters: will the SDs break with the inevitable nomination if Obama loses badly enough or sinks badly.

    Its not the math, its the psychology. And there is no math for that one my friend.

    Parent

    Actually there is math for that (none / 0) (#72)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    statistics and probability feature prominently in the field of psychology.

    You probably knew that, though.

    At this point we can agree, I imagine, that the likelihood of Obama getting 30% of the remaining PLEOs is higher than the likelihood Clinton will get 75% of them.

    How much higher is a matter of debate. My own view is that short of catastrophic scandal, Clinton cannot win.

    Parent

    It would seem (none / 0) (#115)
    by miriam on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:49:40 PM EST
    that we've just had a catastrophic scandal.  Apparently you haven't caught up with that fact yet, but the poll numbers dropping for Obama (and we aren't done with them yet) should give you a clue.  In the meantime, how many super delegates are willing to risk their own political careers at the hands of Republican "God damn America" ads in their states?  How many super delegates are now looking more closely at those miniscule voter numbers in the caucus states O "won"?

      And don't think they won't be another catastrophic scandal either.  Rezko, Auchi, and Ayers are still to surface in full bloom. Plus there always seems to be yet another Obama "association" ready to rear its ugly head.  The DNC isn't the only game in town.  The Party's contributors may not be as invested in losing the GE as Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are. To say Obama has this sewn up is optimism in the delusional range.

    Parent

    Watch the polls over longer time periods (none / 0) (#128)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    bounces within one or two days of an event mean little.

    Parent
    Clinton's bounce began before Pennsylvania (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    if you look at the polls -- it was the effect of bitter, cling to God and guns, blah blah blah from Obama.  Then her Penn win added to the bounce, then his Wright debacle accelerated his decline, etc.  So averaging all polls now (realclearpolitics.com) nationwide, with the margin of error, it's a tie -- and with momentum on her side.

    We shall see what shows as the Wright debacle continues to surface in the polls.

    Parent

    Bounces and dips (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    within one or two days mean a lot when those days are election days.

    There's a reason why the "October Surprize" phenom can be extremely dangerous to the candidate that has been surprized.

    Just sayin'.

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#197)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    if she does better than expected, watch a bounce for the next set of primaries - people like to get behind a winner.

    Parent
    And yet, despite the (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by eric on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:31:50 PM EST
    overwhelming odds, there are still a significant number of superdelegates that haven't committed.  Why is that?

    I don't think it is because they don't have a favorite - by now they surely do.  Instead, they haven't committed becasue they want to go with the winner.  And they don't know who that is yet.

    Does this tell us something?  Yes.  The superdelegates don't have faith that this is wrapped up.

    Parent

    Why haven't they committed yet? (none / 0) (#103)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    I think the word came down from the top -- Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi -- to hold off until the last primary is over. I think it's apparent to party leaders now that the best chance for repairing the rupture in the party is to give democrats the appearance of a fair and deliberate process.

    Parent
    Never mind the appearance (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Manuel on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:03:04 PM EST
    The process has been anything but fair and deliberate.  The party establishment seems intent on not doing anything about it.  Only the democratic party can make hamburger out of filet mignon (dem candidates).

    Parent
    Andrew apparently didn't get that memo (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by kempis on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    about not screaming "we gotta stop this thing now! It's killing us!" C'mon, fellow superdelegates, move!

    Parent
    Um Reid and Pelosi seem intent (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    on getting this wrapped up as soon as possible and have even gone so far as to leak a discussion about telling all the supers to pick a candidate NOW - how is it that you think they've told them to hold off in light of that whole story?

    Parent
    Ha. DNC party officials are put there (none / 0) (#162)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:02:50 PM EST
    by the super-d types, so who takes orders from whom is the reverse of what you say.  There have been plenty of articles about super-d's saying so, saying they are waiting to see how the political winds blow -- and those winds are blown by the voters.  What comes from the DNC is just hot air.

    Parent
    Heh, you didn't even have to open your email ;) (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM EST


    Parent
    You are making the assumption (none / 0) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    that Florid and MI are still not being dealt with and that no supers jump from the USS Obama.

    Parent
    I am assuming (none / 0) (#56)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:26:08 PM EST
    that Florida and Michigan will not be given an outcome-altering voice before the nomination is sealed.

    There may be some superdelegates that go from Obama to Clinton, but I assume that, if this happens, it will probably be matched by delegates such as Joe Andrew today. In any case a few defections here or there will not alter the numbers much.  

    Parent

    you do know what happens (none / 0) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    when you assume right?

    Parent
    It's time to retire that bromide (none / 0) (#85)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    I know you think it's clever, but the fact is that people by necessity make assumptions all day long. There is nothing remotely clever about your comment.

    Parent
    So you're assuming, too (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    that your nominee will win the primary and lose the general?  Because that's what will happen under your "likeley" scenario.

    Parent
    No, I'm not. (none / 0) (#86)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:36:44 PM EST
    But you do good service pointing out other people's typographical errors.

    Parent
    Your assuming three things, though: (none / 0) (#40)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    1. That Obama will have enough votes to win on the first ballot at the election.  Yes, Hillary needs alot to WIN on the first ballont, but so does Obama: He needs roughly 45% of the remaining pledged delegates and 40% of the supers, if not it goes to a second ballot. What happens in a second ballot scenario when pledged delegates can vote for whomever they want?

    2. Your assuming that all the supers that pledged to Obama ath height of Obamamania will stick with him. I'm willing to bet that their are some post Wright elected officials in swing districts or swing states that might jump ship to Clinton, if it looks like she's close enough. Plus, ALOT of supers just pledged to Obama because they were told he had it all wrapped up, but if there is a plausible scenario where Clinton can win, they will jump back.

    3. That Michigan and Florida delegations won't be seated and vote on the nominee. Howard Dean said just last Sunday that he was very confidant that both states would be seated and vote for the nominee.


    Parent
    If obama gets @ 90 more PLEO endorsements (none / 0) (#98)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    then he will, to a near certainty, have enough votes on the first ballot.

    There is no reason to believe in a fairy tale stampede of PLEOs from Obama to Clinton.

    The only thing that can derail Obama now is catastrophic scandal.

    There are probably about 45 PLEOs who have signaled that they are going to go with Obama already, but whose votes are not yet counted.

    These odds are way too long for intelligent gamblers.

    Parent

    You're in denial if you do not think Wright and (none / 0) (#108)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    Ayers are catastrophic scandals. Right now Obama is flirting with losing North Carolina -- a state that has 40% African Americans in the primary!

    Parent
    Catastrophic scandals? (none / 0) (#134)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:39 PM EST
    Ayers?

    Nonsense.

    Parent

    That's what some said about Wright (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:00:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Mutual friend: Ayers + Obama="friends" (none / 0) (#218)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST
    This "six degrees of separation" stuff is absurd. If Hillary Clinton hung around with a former terrorist who famously said "kill your parents!" it would be devastating. The fact that this story hasn't come to fruition, is reason to worry, not reason to dismiss.

    Plus, their is all kinds of Obama + Farrakhan/Nation of Islam stuff that will be a deep well of resource for the GOP in November if he is the nominee.

    Parent

    Don't count out that stampeded to Clinton (none / 0) (#145)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    I just finished reading this:

    It is scarcely a fortnight since Nancy Larson announced that after much agonising -- and despite a "heartbreaking" last-minute plea from Chelsea Clinton -- her super-delegate vote would go to Barack Obama. Now she is not so sure.

    "Our role is to keep gauging and re-gauging what the public wants. Although I'm comfortable with the decision I made, there is nothing to stop me changing my mind," said this Minnesotan yesterday.

    She cited how the controversy of Mr Obama's pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright, "keeps cropping up" and said that his comments over bitter small-town Americans "may bother some voters", saying: "We have to ask ourselves who will be able to go the distance when it counts in November. We have a big responsibility."

    Parent

    They 't plit the remaining pledged though (none / 0) (#81)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    Alot of the remaining areas left to vote favor Clinton. The simple fact of the matter is that Clinton has been very effective(helped by the Obama camp and their making this a race narrative) at pointing out that Obama has problems with making inroads into the white working class and that is problematic for the general. I think momentum will matter and agree with BTD that he needs to win big in Oregon. One way or another the superdelegates will decide ad it may not be based on who has the delegate lead or even the popular vote.

    Parent
    Even if Clinton wins each remaining contest (none / 0) (#107)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:45:23 PM EST
    by a low double digit margin, she will still need 70% of the remaining PLEOs to endorse her. Obama will need 33%.

    I disagree about momentum. Momentum in this election is largely a function of which states get scheduled at what point in the process. This is particularly true when, as here, race, gender and demographics feature so prominently.

    Parent

    The majority of super delegates (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by miriam on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:57:13 PM EST
    remaining to pledge are in white working class districts that favor Clinton.  Remember, too, that many, if not most, of the names being dragged out by the Obama campaign during "bad" days are ones who signaled their commitment long ago and who may well have buyers remorse today.  I think you are way over confident.    

    Parent
    Exactly. The DNC set a schedule (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:50 PM EST
    that was friendly to Obama, to tie it up on Super Tuesday.  He didn't do so, now he deals with more Clinton-friendly states and territories . . . with  no caucuses.

    Parent
    The vast vast majority of Clinton PLEOs (none / 0) (#170)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    are those who endorsed her before a single vote was cast. I think she's received all the easy endorsements she's going to get. You may well be right that the majority of the remaining PLEOs come from districts that favor Clinton. Still the point remains: she must get about 75% of all unpledged PLEOs to get to 2024. Obama needs only 30%. Obama is up 12 PLEOs since PA.

    Parent
    But you have to admit (none / 0) (#129)
    by eric on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    that limping to the nomination with a string of losses would look very bad.

    Parent
    No, I don't agree (none / 0) (#141)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    I think it'll be lost almost as quickly as the general election campaign heats up. More importantly, for purposes of this discussion, I think most PLEOs are too sophisticated to allow schedule-dependent "momentum" to affect their endorsement one way or the other.

    Parent
    and in other news...Rudy Guiliani (none / 0) (#179)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:09:24 PM EST
    is going to bounce back after Florida.

    Parent
    Tiresome (none / 0) (#135)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:53:40 PM EST
    And if 50 SDs leave Obama and go to Clinton (or vice-versa) then what of you math wizardry?

    I think the more likely it become Obama is about to lose the nomination the math we can expect from Obama supporters. I can see it now, as Hillary is being sworn in:

    "He has a 99.99945% chance of winning this thing even if she is sworn in."

    Parent

    What's tiresome (1.00 / 3) (#154)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:59:38 PM EST
    is watching people come up with all sorts of implausible hypotheticals that have no reasonable basis in fact and using those implausible hypotheticals to deny the predictive value of the current numbers.

    You are doing that with your fairytale stampede of PLEOs from Obama to Clinton. It's almost as useful as asking "What if Superman were German?"

    Parent

    Let's talk after IN/NC (none / 0) (#172)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:06:06 PM EST
    If you are so inclined.

    Parent
    I'm sure we will. (none / 0) (#195)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    I said before I'd have no problem with Clinton being the nominee. In some ways I'd favor her. I fear that Obama is even more of a centrist than she is.

    Parent
    Perception is often reality (none / 0) (#144)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    and in a race where the decision will be based on superdelegates perception of who can beat McCain I think you are off when you discount momentum. The folks that haven't pledged as of now may already be nursing doubts and Obama losing even by small margins will NOT help him. If this race were able to be decided solely on pledged delegates, you might have an argument. It isn't going to be though. It will be decided based on the perceptions of superdeleates about what will be in the best interest of themselves and the Dem party. I don't think we will see the Dem faithful anxious to get behind someone who is already having prolems making the case for themselves in primary states. Furthermore, if Obama doesn't win Oregon he loses one of his biggest arguments which is that he opens up opportunities for us in that region of the country.  

    Parent
    I think PLEOs (none / 0) (#157)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    will not be persuaded by momentum if it is merely an artifact of where a contest falls on the schedule.

    Parent
    We'll have to disagree (none / 0) (#180)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:09:35 PM EST
    and wait it out to see which of us is right. :)

    So far I find myself agreeing with BTD this cycle.  

    Parent

    SD's can change their vote. (none / 0) (#158)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    There is nothing written in stone with regard to your numbers. The delegates have flipped back and forth and many have said they will not commit until the primaries are over and some are waiting until the convention. I think the Dean, Pelosi et al have made a tactical error in backing the weaker candidate for the GE just because they don't like the Clintons. We just have to wait and see what plays out in the remaining primaries.

    Parent
    Yes, they can change their votes (none / 0) (#173)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    but can you offer any fact-based reason why you believe they will? Do you have any evidence that suggests a stampede of PLEOs from Obama to Clinton? If not, I'd hate to be putting all my hopes in that Easter Bunny's basket.

    Parent
    Other than you assumptions (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    and some insulting remarks, I do not see that your hypothesis is any more valid than mine. Have a lovely day.

    Parent
    You'd think 'IF' was Obama's first name (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ellie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    All of these gossamer arguments about Sen Clinton's "insurmountabile" odds have been reliant on a series of If's all going Obama's way.

    Not only have these rolls of the dice not gone Obama's way, he can't even roll them on the table.

    This amount of desperation speaks volumes, but let's see some real math behind this continuing fraud. Let's see the books that aren't cooked, the unshown "surefire" delegates in Obama's column, the actual accounts of donations not based on $2.00 buttons and spammed up databases of email addresses.

    (I'm probably on a few owing to my spam-busting habit of using a couple of bullsh!t addies to get spammers to bloat each other on their own greasy pink stuff.)

    Parent

    So you think Clinton (none / 0) (#178)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:08:52 PM EST
    doesn't make a set of crazy assumptions in support of her victory narrative? If I had to compare the assumptions made by both sides for the remainder of this contest, I'd find Clinton's laughable, I'm afraid. Obama's are realistic.

    Parent
    Jeez, you're boring and delusional (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by RalphB on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:15:42 PM EST


    Parent
    What is the delusion? (none / 0) (#251)
    by digdugboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Are there any polls being taken in Oregon? (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    It seems like Obama territory though

    Agreed (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
    it was a 10 point race the last I saw, but I don't think it's the same kind of 10 points as NC. Winnable for Hillary, IMO.

    Parent
    If she wins NC (none / 0) (#14)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    her momentum will be unstoppable. NC is the key

    Parent
    Just like if he had won Pennsylvania (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CST on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:13:04 PM EST
    And similarly, ain't gonna happen...

    Parent
    well I will say this (none / 0) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:15:09 PM EST
    One is a Clinton, the other is not.  Track record of winning elections vs track record of failing to close things out.  I'm giving her a chance.

    Parent
    Yeah but he didn't win Penn. (none / 0) (#47)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    She might win NC

    Parent
    Well BTD (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    There will be a few links to this post aroung the bsphere today.  Probably some email too about how your math is rusty.

    And what happens to the path (none / 0) (#12)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    and the current slate of supers if, by some stroke of luck and momentem, Hillary squeaks out a win in NC?

    Then the fat lady has sung for Obama! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:11:50 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

    Parent
    Obama has had Andrews in the bag for months... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    If for some reason he manages to actually LOSE North Carolina -- I know that is almost impossible-- you will see alot Obama super delegates flip back to Hillary -- especially those elected reps in swing districts.

    yep, and the nominee is Clinton. (none / 0) (#23)
    by alexei on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:13:17 PM EST


    Parent
    RE : (none / 0) (#17)
    by az on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    I would make this prediction today ,even if Clinton wins Indiana and NC

    Obama would still be the nominee.

    stay away from Las Vegas :) (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:12:35 PM EST


    Parent
    That seems unlikely to me (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:15:26 PM EST


    Parent
    I hope you are right... (none / 0) (#104)
    by NWHiker on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    I've been trying to keep up hope, but I think Obama has been the chosen one since Iowa. Clinton did make some campaign mistakes, but so did he, and his are glossed over and don't seem to take any toll, hers do. It's depressing.

    What I find very upsetting is we have a weak candidate who couldn't even finish on a high note going into the general. This just does not bode well.

    Parent

    The path to the nomination ends for Obama (none / 0) (#18)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    if he loses North Carolina.

    It's really that simple.  Things will look very ugly for the rest of May if that happens.

    Unity ticket will be necessary if that happens, imo.  With Clinton on top.

    the demographics (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Turkana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:21:18 PM EST
    make that all but an impossibility.

    Parent
    If the votes by racial demographic (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    are exactly like the deep south (Mississippi), it will be a very close race.

    Obama had better hope he doesn't lose the lattes.

    Parent

    my understanding of nc (none / 0) (#64)
    by Turkana on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    suggests that the lattes are a disproportionately high percentage of nc democrats. but if obama gets 90% of 30% and 40% of 70%, he wins by ten.

    Parent
    Sounds right (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:34:03 PM EST
    but can he hold the second 40%? I just wonder about that.

    Also, there's the wildcard of white independents. They might all choose to vote in the D primary.

    Parent

    BTD -- Did you see this? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Exeter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:17 PM EST
    LINK

    thanks goodness for Boehlert (none / 0) (#57)
    by bridget on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:26:53 PM EST
    I read it yesterday.

    Dean was dumbfounded?

    Knock me over with a feather ;-)

    Parent

    a revised question (none / 0) (#48)
    by bridget on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    What happenes if Obama loses Indiana by 10 and loses N. Carolina by at least 1? N. Carolina is the first big fire wall for Obama IMO.

    Right now that could happen. Obama may take the AA vote for granted now but if black voters lose confidence in him some may decide to take another look at what someone like Maya Angelou has to say about HC and vote Clinton. Again. In any case I doubt very much he gets anything close to 90% of the AA vote in N.C.

    That should change the nomination path for Obama - something Dean et al can't totally ignore.

    He will not get 90% (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ccpup on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    of the AA vote in NC.  People I know there plus some of the Posts in earlier Threads indicate that there are more AAs nervous with Obama's ability to be elected in November than previously thought.

    For some, it's not enough to have the first African American Candidate for President, especially if that candidate gets absolutely creamed in the General.  Makes it much more difficult to get another AA -- even if they're brilliant, have no baggage and are talented, accomplished politicians -- taken seriously the next time.

    Obama losing by a landslide to McCain would make a whole lot of people gun shy -- fairly or not -- when it comes to future AA candidates.


    Parent

    Of course he will (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:36:55 PM EST
    If he gets a tic less than 85% of the black vote, I'll eat my hat.

    Parent
    You really want to eat some hat today, eh? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    Are we hungry? ;)

    Parent
    There are more conservative AAs in NC (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    so I read, because of a lot of retired military.  And they like McCain first, maybe Clinton with her work on the armed services committee and for vets.

    I don't know their numbers, but they could have some effect.

    Parent

    and what if Clinton loses both? (none / 0) (#61)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    Howard and Nancy celebrate.  Richardson breathes a sigh of relief.

    Parent
    What type of hat do you like for breakfast? (none / 0) (#139)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    Straw? If so, I'll give TL a donation to send you one.  

    Parent
    was that meant for... (none / 0) (#150)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    people making predictions about the AA vote? LOL, I suspect it was a response to somehow else.

    Parent
    Sorry, it was meant for andgarden (none / 0) (#186)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    eating hats if the AAs votes is down to 85%.  

    Parent
    It's not about money (none / 0) (#201)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:24:58 PM EST
    A poor person can be just as elitist as George Soros.

    And maybe you think every athlete in professional sports is an elitist.

    And it appears the DNC is caving to folks who have brought nothing at all to table but threats to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way and stealing this away from the voters for you, so we'll be the one's throwing up.

    Not that much has changed in the past (none / 0) (#206)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:31:07 PM EST
    few months. Obama is going to limp his way to the nomination. Pelosi, Kennedy and Daschle will be knocking each other over with pats on the back. And then Obama will likely lose the general election. And Pelosi, Kennedy and Dachle will join the blogs in shifting the blame onto Clinton for not having the decency to be a quitter.

    If Clinton had dropped out after Iowa even, Obama would still be looking less rosey today. The more he is under a spotlight, the less shiny he looks. People used to joke about how Clinton was running as the "inevitable candidate" (I don't think she was). Well now we see the real inevitability.

    There's still hope. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    I've been watching some footage of McCain lately, and MAN...

    I realize that Democrats are doing their level best to shoot themselves in the foot this GE, but seriously, the Republicans already took a shotgun to their own.

    Parent

    who should they have nominated? (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:47:39 PM EST
    noun, verb, 9/11 guy or fried squirrel eater or the animatronic sensation or the leathery beagle?

    Parent
    Obama was a ringer (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:04:26 PM EST
    Biden and Dodd and Edwards were good candidates too. Obama was thrown in there by some who wanted to be able to control a candidate. It had to be him because they had to grab on to her AA base. He was the only one. BUT, he was not ready and should not have been in the bunch.

    Parent
    Sounds like another candidate (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by stefystef on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    Your description of  Obama as a "ringer" reminds me of another candidate- George W.

    Very good observation.

    Parent

    They may have picked the best of the bunch... (none / 0) (#228)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:52:17 PM EST
    But that just speaks to how weak their field was.

    I don't want to underestimate McCain, but I seriously think both Obama and Hillary are several orders of magnitude above him when it comes to the ability to lead a national campaign.

    Parent

    should people still go vote on Tuesday? (none / 0) (#221)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    I'm wondering why we don't see a statement from Howard Dean about this.  Tell the voters the primaries have been cancelled so they don't waste their time.

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#208)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    HRC on "This Week with George Stephanopolous" in a town hall style meeting taking questions from Indiana and NC voters.

    I'll be watching Hill. n/t (none / 0) (#209)
    by DJ on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:33:38 PM EST


    Parent
    BTD (none / 0) (#231)
    by nell on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:57:58 PM EST
    I thought you would find this interesting:

    Andrew Switch
    May 1, 2008 - 2:45 pm
    Joe Andrew's switch from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama caught Indiana politicians off guard but his behavior fits a pattern.

    Andrew loves the spotlight and never misses an opportunity to make a headline.  He may be acting out of conscience but its hard to find people who know him who believe that.

    I can't remember a time when so many party leaders used went off the record to call someone profane names.

    http://tinyurl.com/5fuplg

    I cannot speak to the quality of the source, I know nothing about it, but I would be interested to see if this is a pattern.

    Obama will leave the race. (none / 0) (#234)
    by sweetthings on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:03:28 PM EST
    When Hillary reaches 2025. (much to BTD's annoyance)

    Wanna feel good: Message from NC (none / 0) (#246)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:37:15 PM EST
    Video from Soldier in NC

    SD's (none / 0) (#247)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:42:52 PM EST
    HRC picked up 5 new SD's today - the President of the Connecticut AFL-CIO and 4 from NY:

    The state Democratic Party today elected at-large delegates for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the allocation of which was based on a rather complicated formula dervied from the Feb. 5 primary results.

    In addition, four new unpledged at-large superdelegates were elected: AG Andrew Cuomo, state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, former Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields and Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo.

    Both DiNapoli and Cuomo have endorsed Clinton. Not sure about Fields and Arroyo.

    UPDATE: According to the Clinton campaign, Fields and Arroyo are also backing NY's junior senator.

    The full list of delegates elected today has not yet been released, but Obama volunteer Richard Fields said the Obama list includes some people who ran to be delegates on Feb. 5 but didn't make the cut (Assemblyman Karim Camara and Councilman Al Vann, for example) as well as some new faces like 1199 President George Gresham and former Councilwoman Ronnie Eldridge.

    Here's the list of delegates and alternates who were elected on Super Duper Tuesday.

    UPDATE: The final numbers of the additional delegates elected today are:

    Clinton: 56

    Obama: 36

    AG Andrew Cuomo, state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, former Manhattan Borough President C. Virginia Fields and Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo.

    LINK

    Didn't you see all the headlines in the news about (1.00 / 0) (#248)
    by Marvin42 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    the 5 SD gain? I mean that is huge news. They kept talking about it and how much she has turned this around and...

    Oh, I am sorry, I was thinking of the other MSM where they actually covered news, not made it...

    Parent

    Ha Ha (none / 0) (#250)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    You had me questioning my sanity (or at least my ability to read!)

    Parent
    The Nomination Path | 249 comments (249 topical)