Sunday Night Math Homework: Electoral Votes

Bringiton at Corrente does the heavy lifting. An overview of the Democratic nominating process is here.

My view of the math is found at The Electoral Map and the Battleground States. It's based on William Arnone's analysis here.

The three of us concur: Hillary has a better chance of accumulating the electoral votes necessary to beat John McCain. It doesn't mean we think Obama can't do it. It means we think Hillary is a surer bet.

All comments related to the electoral math vote count are welcome. As Bringiton says, "please do not clutter up the discussion thread with meaningless repetition of [Obama] talking points; if you have nothing new to offer, kindly hold your peace.]

< Obama Supporting PA Rep Vows Concerted Opposition To Unity Ticket | Server Upgrades Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    there's one thing that everybody can agree on:
    The democratic primary process needs to be completely overhauled no matter what happens.

    Anyway, our system is not designed to find the best candidate, only the candidate who can appeal more to certain demographics within the Democratic party not the voting population as a whole. This might be one of the main reasons we have lost election after election since it was changed from winner take all.

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    certainly would have a very steep hill to climb in a general election.

    The party knows Hillary can win (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:01:48 AM EST
    and Obama can't.  But they will take the nomincation from Hillary and give it to a man who will not contribute to the strength and well-being of the party.

    Just like the Harvard Law Review.  So many people point to Obama winning the title of Editor of the Harvard Law Review his senior year at law school there.  He was the "first Black" to win it.  But he has an even more important distinction:  Barack Obama is the ONLY Editor the Law Review has ever had who never contributed a single word of writing for the Review.

    Won the highly prized/coveted subcommittee chair of European Affairs of the US Senate in his very first term and never chaired a hearing or set an adgenda or contributed anything to the Senate on European Affairs.

    Look like a pattern?


    Typo city; time for sleeping. Sorry. (none / 0) (#205)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:03:20 AM EST
    I have a question (none / 0) (#221)
    by Melchizedek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:05:51 AM EST
    What does Obama's HLR position have to do with electoral votes? Anything at all? I guess "meaningless talking points" are OK when it's for Clinton.

    Taking the Nomination? (none / 0) (#216)
    by Niffari on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:14:51 AM EST
    But Hillary did NOT win it. Period. There's nothing taken, she just lost. I agree we need to overhaul the electoral process, it's too confusing and the superdelegates need to go. However, this is what we have now. Frankly, the fact that Clinton couldn't beat Obama thus far under rules she has known for almost 2 decades should give you some pause.

    The rules changed (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:45:03 AM EST
    just this year here in MN. Previously the caucuses were straw votes/presidential preference ballots, and non-binding. This year they changed it to a binding paper ballot (well, slips of note paper, really) at the caucuses. Word went out to the party units a couple of months before Feb. 5. The party made an effort as the date drew near to inform the electorate of the change. Many voters I called...from the strong dem list....did not know about the change, and were confused about the importance of the caucus vote.

    Just saying...however, the campaigns should have known, and Clinton did not do a strong get out the vote effort, while the Obama campaign did, especially with college students. 96 people showed up to vote in my precinct caucus (there is a student residence within the boundaries). About 60 took off after casting their vote (allowed by the rules), leaving 38 to do the rest of the caucus business. I hope those students voters will be around for the GE, especially to support our Dem congressperson.


    Yes, and the primary process (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    is currently heavily weighted in favor of the states we can't win.

    LOL, makes me laugh when I think about it.


    actually.... (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    the bias is not to GOP states, but to Democrats in GOP states.

    This is because a state's electoral college vote provides half the weight in the formula for allocating delegates -- the other half is total number of Democratic votes in the last three presidential elections.   The EC vote is completely redundant -- the larger a state is, the more democratic votes it is likely to have, so there is no need to "weigh" a state to emphasize the importance of larger states in elections.

    So while Alaska is allocated 1 pledged delegate for every 17210 Democratic votes in 2004, 2000, and 1996 combined, while Massachusetts is allocated only 1 pledged delegate for every 48461 Democratic votes.

    And Delaware, where there were 446,477 Democratic votes gets only 15 pledged delegates to the convention, while Idaho, with fewer Democratic votes (and thus fewer Democratic voters) get 18 pledged delegates.  The three year Democratic/GOP vote difference in Delaware was +12.1% in favor of Democrats.  In Idaho it was -32.7% in favor of the GOP.  The sole reason that Idaho Democrats are given more weight than Delaware Democrats is because Idaho has one more electoral college vote than Delaware.

    (the mean is 40722 Democratic votes per delegate -- that based on the 129+ million democratic votes, divided by the 3181 pledged delegates allocated (does not include FL & MI))

    I calculated what would happen to the delegate count if all democratic votes were treated equally before the IN/NC primaries, and found that Obama's lead in pledged delegate would decline by 39.

    The states where the Dem/GOP 3 year vote difference is in favor of the GOP by double digits has a mean delegates/voter average that is 40% above the mean delegate/voter average for all states.  There are 18 states in this category, and in the last three presidential elections, the Democrat has won a single contest -- Clinton won Kentucky in 1996.

    Its simply insane --


    What's the average (none / 0) (#120)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    Democratic votes per delegate in Nebraska?

    Do you have that?

    I'll probably just have to do the math.


    Light dawns (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:05:39 PM EST
    16 delegates in Nebraska

    45179 votes per delegate.

    Nebraska hasn't gone Democrat since Johnson.


    its 24 pleged delegates (none / 0) (#150)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:19:22 PM EST
    (your number is based on 16 "district" delegates).

    While the "district" delegation is determined directly through the formula (and that is 16) the "pledged" delegates also include "at large" delegates and "PLEOs", both of which are based on percentages of the "district" delegations.


    OK (none / 0) (#153)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:13 PM EST
    With 24 I still get 30119.54 votes per delegate.

    What's your total for votes?


    oops (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:02:32 AM EST
    I used the wrong three years for my three years totals...

    30119.4 is correct.

    glad you caught that before I actually did a whole post at corrente based on vote totals from 2000, 1996, & 1992.



    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by phat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:16:42 AM EST
    Glad I could help.

    I'll see you at Corrente.

    I'll expand on this when you post over there.

    I have an odd idea about how the weighting should be. It's not really a good idea, but interesting. Shouldn't the swing states be weighted more?

    Given the basic ideas of game theory and all, it would seem that states that are closer should have more of an edge by percentage than states that win or lose miserably.

    The weights should at least be based on state percentages, not total turnout. Using total votes is insane.


    in theory.... (none / 0) (#181)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:27:16 AM EST
    the swing states should be given the most weight, based on the principle that those voters are the ones we have to worry about the most.

    But i don't like the idea of the appearance of a disincentive for states that are heavily democratic.  

    Someone else below used 'volatility" as a metric -- swing states are generally defined as states that are close, but I think that the idea of volatility or (better yet) a combination of margins and volatility would probably provide a better definintion for "swing state" rather than just margins.


    one other thing... (none / 0) (#183)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:34:07 AM EST
    another reason why I don't want to weigh swing states more heavily that "reliably democratic" states is that because campaigns work harder in swing states, turnout tends to be higher.  

    I also think that the formula should be based on 5 elections -- but with the mose recent elections given more weight....


    From what I understand though, (none / 0) (#187)
    by phat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:54:30 AM EST
    if you assume that your opponent understands the theory than their turnout will go up too. If they don't know the rules of the game very well, you have even more of an advantage.

    So closer margins matter more.

    Volatility is really only a different way of looking at closeness. It's still a description of how close the margin is.

    It is dependent upon payout, too. If some states swing wildly, but have fewer electoral votes, you still have to find the states with bigger payouts that have closer margins.

    I think it all comes out in the wash. Especially since the electorate are more partisan than they have been in almost 30 years.

    I'll use an example, but I could be way off here.

    If one state swings over a period of time from 60% Democrat to 40% Democrat over a period of time and one state swings from 51% Democrat to 49% Democrat over the same period of time I'll likely take the second state over the first state. It seems more likely to me that a strong field game will have more of an effect on the second state than the first state. A 20 point swing is going to be very hard to explain. A 3 point swing is much easier to understand.

    These numbers are made up, of course, but it's just an illustration.

    Ultimately the second state could be just as volatile as the first state in an electoral college fight. Comparing the 2 states EC votes would make the whole exercise more valuable.

    5 elections, weighted by time is most definitely a better model.


    nebraska (none / 0) (#139)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    28558.54 Democratic votes per delegate.

    OK (none / 0) (#145)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:16:30 PM EST
    I must have done my math wrong.

    That number makes it worse.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#151)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:21:50 PM EST
    I get a different number still.

    It's not good.

    But it's still different.


    Why don't we see this in the press? (none / 0) (#207)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:10:11 AM EST
    Has anybody heard Chuck Todd or John King give this analysis when called upon to explain the math to the audience with their maps and delegate lists?  How about the Wapo or LA Times or USAToday.  (If we had evidence that Frank Rich was a reader, we could send it to him.)

    If we have any favorite media voice still, let's send this data to them and encourage investigaqtion and coverage!  Or at least use it to challenge the conventional wisdom  before it totally self- actualizes.


    More math education for the press: (none / 0) (#210)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:20 AM EST
    While we are on to the press, we have to keep reminding them that the nominating number is set by the number of total delegates seated at the convention, divided in half, plus one. It is not half plus one of the delegates so far approved for seating when you think you want to call yourself the victor and start referring to yourself as the nominee as I heard Obama do today.

     Since Dean promises fifty states will be seated we already know it will take way more than Obama's 2025 to get the nomination. A fifty state convention is 2209.  We need to make some noise about that number before Obama celebrates his victory May 20.


    Facinating (none / 0) (#220)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:51:33 AM EST
    thank to p lukasiak and phat for all this info.

    It is nuts...and undemocratic. But then again, so is the US Senate and the electoral college.


    Mostly agreed. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:50:53 PM EST
    Getting Democrats energized in every state and territory has been a great side effect of this race.  So to that extent, proportionality has been good.  But it remains to be seen whether or not you're right and candidates suited for one race can't win the other kind.  I'm hopeful, but, who knows.

    And this superdelegate crap has got to go.


    Jeralyn, Do You Think (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:39 PM EST
    this matters to the superdelegates?  So far as I can tell they're the only thing that will carry the nomination for Hillary but they don't seem to be buying the "electability" argument.

    I'm afraid what we're going to be left with next November is the cold comfort of being able to say "I told you so."

    Superdelegates can change their mind (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    up until August. It's not over unless Hillary decides to drop out. If something happens between now and then that convinces them Obama is riskier in November than Hillary, and she is close to him in the popular vote, regardless of the pledged delegate count, anything is possible.

    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM EST
    I was beginning to wonder what the point was.  Reading the trad media these days one would think the nomination is decided.  They're already touting a McCain/Obama contest.

    It's good to be reminded that it ain't over till it's over.

    Let's hope the superdelegates wake up to what a lightweight Barack Obama is.


    Re: Thank You (none / 0) (#168)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    I think more than anything that the media's reasons for trumpeting Obama's imminent victory is that they got tired of saying "still no change" and wanted to report the ending.  The problem is that A) while NC/IN didn't end it, it sure made it a lot more difficult for her to catch up, and B) perception is everything, and as soon as the supers began to believe she was finished, they set about working to make it a reality.

    West Virginia may be crushing enough that we'll all be eating our words, who knows.  But I just don't see it happening.  Someone said that the contest had reached a tipping point, and I tend to agree.


    They had to report the ending ... (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:07:51 AM EST
    last week, because he's going to lose badly this week.

    Any indication that the race isn't over would make the WV results seem significant.  And they don't want that.


    Re: They had to report the ending ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:25:58 AM EST
    Ah, "they."  Of course.

    It had nothing to do with NC/IN being a very real problem for Clinton, a bad misstep when she could afford none.  Nope, it was "them."


    Ouch redux! (none / 0) (#223)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:25:00 AM EST
    hate to say it, but htere's iron in those words.

    You are precisely right, Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:11 PM EST
    Consider that once the primaries are all over there is still time between now and the convention to continue the campaign and make the case to the party and superdelegates; we should encourage Hillary to stay in the race & keep fighting.

    One thing is for sure, more people need to be made aware of how the 'creative class' cultural signals that Stoller spoke of threaten to shift the party's electoral base; not hold and expand it.  Putting all our hopes in a disaffected (which is why they need hope) youth movement is extremely unreliable.  

    Here's one reason why:

    Personally I don't want to see the Democratic party hijacked and marketed primarily to a bunch of college kids who never had to worry about politics because it didn't affect them in any way except the abstract.

    We all have transportation -- cell phones -- disposable income -- the Internet -- free time
    That says it all about what lives of privelege they lead compared to those 'racist white people' in WV.

    Link goes to Huffington Post (none / 0) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:48:54 AM EST
    and the threat of riots.

    I try never to give HuffPo a "hit" on their web site.


    I understand and agree (none / 0) (#211)
    by Iris on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:18:46 AM EST
    but it was the talk about 'military-style' operations that seemed disturbing...it may just be angry rantings, or maybe even GOP tricks, and I'm probably just being alarmist.  Also I'll try to be more clear about links in the future.

    They have (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:28:03 PM EST
    said that they think Obama has electability problems but that they feel pressured to vote for Obama "because he's the future of the party." However, it seems that no one thinks that an electoral loss in Nov doesn't bring much of a future to the party. It seems to me that people wouldn't want to contribute to a party that has lost 3 presidential elections in a row.

    Given that our party has a history of failure, it (5.00 / 14) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    makes sense that we might want to continue that venerable tradition in the future. So yes, in that sense Obama is the future of our party.

    ouch! (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:33:22 PM EST
    I've read on more than one occasion (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:42:46 PM EST
    that many superdelgates believe that so long as Clinton closes the gap in pledged delegates to within the 100 range, and so long as she has the popular vote, all bets are off.  So far as electability is concerned, I think that many underestimate the fury of women like me--longtime yellow dog dems who feel completely unwelcome by the echelon of the party.  

    I have to believe that the SDs are waiting for something to happen based on the fact that the races are not over.  I really feel that there are some warring factions (Emmanuel calling out Kennedy today was incredible) and that we are looking at the kind of wounds that take decades to heal.  Fitting that Kennedy was involved in the bloodletting in the 80s as well.  

    The more I think about the unity ticket, the more I think that that might be the only way out; however, again, speaking for myself, I don't see women like me being satisfied with Clinton taking a back seat to someone who is clearly less qualified.  She still has a good chance, though, which is what all these electoral maps show me.  I could vote for Obama as second, but never first.


    Amen To That Kathy....Hillary Needs To Be (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:59:15 PM EST
    driving the bus, as I only see obama driving it into a ditch.  I posted yesterday, or maybe today, that something is up and we need to let it play out.  I am still holding out for Hillary being the nominee.  The Rahm thing was a shocker for sure.

    If Hillary wins WV by >30 (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:22:45 PM EST
    KY the same way then holds OR close winning PR, I think she'll be ahead in the popular vote with MI/FL seated.  Then let the superdelegates vote.  

    I think it would be crazy for her to be his VP, (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:03:19 PM EST
    even if he nominated her, which he won't do because, let's face it, a lot of people have problems voting for a black man and a lot of other people have problems voting for a woman.  I'm sure he'd think that combination might be deadly and will go for some militaristic white guy like Sam Nunn.

    The reason it would be crazy for her to do it, however, is that he is going to lose big time and she'd go down with him instead of staying above the fray and looking a whole lot better after he crashes and burns. She'd also have to lower herself to go out and campaign and rah rah rah for a guy she knows is a loser who isn't up to the job.

    There isn't any way to fix the divided party problem now.  Obama doesn't want to fix it. He's gotten where he is by demonizing her. That's the only thing he has.  The Obamaites thrive on having an enemy.   That keeps them in the fold and not asking awkward questions about the qualifications of their candidate.

    What would they do without Hillary to hate? (Not to mention all us post-sexual old women, who are supposed to forget they said that now and "keep sweet," as they say in the FCLDS.


    funniest Timmeh ever (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:09:40 PM EST
    talking about the 'Historic Nature" of Obama's campaign...then it was suggested that they could double up on the ticket and he said, "Oh, no, I think that's too much change at one time.  America would never go for it."

    Yeah, we'll let in ONE minority (perceived or otherwise, as women just act like minorities), but two is just way too much.


    Aren't we a majority of the pop? (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    And don't we have more women graduating from college now then men? Or are getting there?

    National Women's Party needs to be revived. Something tells me there's a power shift in the future and it's not the NDP.  ;)


    Yep, we're 51%+ of the population (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Cream City on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:53:54 PM EST
    and more than 55% of college grads, last I saw.

    And the National Woman's (one a) Party is still in existence, in its historic hq in DC.  About a decade ago, it went entirely into educational work on women's issues closed down its lobbying/political arm . . . but that could be revived, quite easily.

    As the NWP button says, Alice Paul lives!


    And more iron jawed Angels! (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:11:42 AM EST
    Yeah. I'm ready to vote for Cynthia. (none / 0) (#230)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    We can send the Dems a big fat message and vote for progressive values at the same time.

    where did Kennedy get (none / 0) (#22)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    called out, I want to see that one!

    See BTD's latest post above. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST
    Good Point, But Unlikely (none / 0) (#69)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    It is unlikely that Clinton will get closer than 150 in the pledged delegate race or come close -- let alone lead -- in the popular vote. And considering that she has now lost the lead in superdelegates, her chances are rapidly diminishing.

    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    I think she has a shot at winning the popular vote, and as for pledged delegate count, she MAY be able to get to within 100 (but not very likely).

    baloney (none / 0) (#134)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:11:13 PM EST
    it is very likely she will lead in the popular vote.

    The pattern of increased calls for her to fold (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:22:06 AM EST
    ... or to offer her a consolation prize if she does before a sure win -- echoing through long & short-pants media and other forms of messaging, like concern paTrolls and astro-trolls -- seems to be holding before WV and KY.

    I'm glad that she's taking this all the way to the convention and making TeamO and the Dems deal with Mi and FL before everything else is counted. Good for her.


    "The future of the party" (5.00 / 11) (#95)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:46:39 PM EST
    Allow me to translate that for you from the original "professional politician" speak...

    we think that access to Obama's donor lists will get us more money than access to Hillary's donor list.  And that goes double if Barry signs the plea for money.

    That is really what this is all about -- cold hard cash.  The Superdelegates are their at their future, not "The Party's" future, and think that OBama means more campaign cash in the foreseeable future.


    I agree 100% (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Eleanor A on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    But here are a couple of hard questions the DNC leadership needs to ask itself...

    • Will Obama keep raking in cash once it's clear he won't win?  And once the MSM turns on him - as it invariably will, it turns on every Democrat?

    • What happens when members of Congress, etc., in purple states run from Obama?  None of them in states like OH, MO, TN will want anything to do with him.  Are they planning on hosting joint fundraisers?  How will they raise cash for the Congressionals if Obama tanks two or three months before the election?

    MSM won't turn on Obama (none / 0) (#204)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:03:10 AM EST
    They LOVE him.  Chris Mathews leg tingles when Obama deigns to speak in his direction.  Keith Olberman's glasses fog up at the mere mention of his name.  

    PLUS, Obama is an African American, that scares the pants right off their tingling legs.  They wouldn't DARE turn on him.  They would look like fools for being so in love with him AND they are petrified that they might be accused of racism.  Obama's wearing a bullet proof shield, he's Black. It's ok to say nasty things about women like Hillary, but never, ever, African Americans.   Sad, but true.  


    The press has already (none / 0) (#213)
    by Iris on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:49:03 AM EST
    gotten most of the job done: flag pins, Michelle being proud for the first time, Wright, flag salute-gate (or whatever)....and let's not forget that the mysterious e-mail forwards continue apace.  It really does stink that this is how presidential politics is today, but it's there.

    And they will turn on him -- if you're counting on the Village to bail you out, your campaign is in trouble.  


    Any party that does not define its future (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by Cream City on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:17 PM EST
    as winning the White House -- in the short term, in the long term, every time -- is a party that has no future.

    How Is obama Losing The Election Going To (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:56:18 PM EST
    help the party?  I swear the party leaders couldn't find their butts with two hands and a flashlight.  The electoral map shows Hillary would have a better chance at winning....I say she should become the nominee.  Isn't that what the sd's are all about, deciding what is best for the party and who has the best chance at being elected?

    That's the issue (5.00 / 9) (#59)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:30:29 PM EST
    I think some folks here weren't born when Carter's "victory" turned into a tremendous defeat for the dems.  I suffered through the Reagan years.  I watched the poor get poorer.  I watched close, beloved friends waste away and die of AIDS.  The skeletal specter of their sweet faces still haunts me to this day--all while Reagan ignored them, all while weakened dems could do nothing to help any of us.  

    And, now that these same weak dems are in power, they are doing everything they can to put forth their own agendas.  I voted happily for Gore, only to see Donna Brazile convince him to stop fighting.  I voted for Kerry, though Edwards was my first choice. I took up for him when he windsurfed and dressed up in that stupid clean suit.  And I was able to do this because I thought, "at least they are representing me."

    I look at this map Jeralyn is talking about, and I think of all those people who Axelrod and Brazile say will be left out of this new democratic revolution, and it makes my stomach hurt.


    I couldn't (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:04 PM EST
    agree more with every single point you made. I too suffered through the awful Reagan years, and nearly choked when I heard Obama praising that man at the expense of Bill Clinton's legacy.

    Re: I couldn't (none / 0) (#172)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:06:02 AM EST
    Okay now, let's not get carried away.  He said Reagan had "changed the trajectory of America" and "put us on a fundamentally different path."

    eh.  While I don't think he praised Reagan, he was a lot nicer to him than he should have been.  Rereading his comments, I wish he had not said them.  But it's mainly praise of Reagan's process, not his policies, which he repudiates.  Though, again, not forcefully enough.

    He shouldn't have even gone there, to be honest.  Comparisons to Ronald Reagan are not a good way to get my vote.


    What about going back to Reagan and Bush1 FP? (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by nycstray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:10 AM EST
    Reagan's foreign policy (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:49:35 AM EST
    Obama praised Reagan's foreign POLICY. I can't for the life of me find anything about Reagan's foreign policy worthy of any praise.

    Re: Reagan's foreign policy (none / 0) (#191)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:16:07 AM EST
    I did not see those quotes, I only saw the ones where he praised Reagan's paradigm-shifting whatever.  If you have a link to those I'd be grateful.

    By the way Reagan had some (some) very significant foreign policy achievements.  Dealing with Gorbachev and working towards disarmament mainly.  Not sure if that makes up for tens of thousands of dead across Latin America and a million dead Iranians, though.


    Link (none / 0) (#234)
    by tree on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:24:45 AM EST
    Link here

    "The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said.

    And I'd have to disagree with you on Reagan and the USSR. He was too belligerent for too long and this undermined Gorbachev. Before the "axis of evil" there was the "evil empire". And of course, besides the carnage in Iran and Iraq and Central America, there was Lebanon, Grenada, and Angola, and Reagan's  "constructive engagement" in South Africa that thwarted efforts at boycotting the apartheid government. Nothing to praise.


    Lambert is making the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:31 PM EST
    argument to Pelosi, Dean, and Reid based on the belief that they control enough SDs to swing it to the most electable candidate.  If this is true, haven't Dean and Pelosi, in particular, already decided it will be Obama?  Lately, Dean makes noises about electability, but if they really were going to base it on that wouldn't they have already figured out how to seat MI and FL to take the sting out of an Obama loss?  If it is in their hands now I am very, very nervous.

    HominidViews is Best of Breed ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:36:52 PM EST
    ... at least as regards application of current "if the election were held today" state-by-state, head-to-head polling data.

    Today, Obama sim's out at 8.6% probability of beating McCain; Clinton is coasting along at 83%.

    OMG how can the democratic party SD's (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by athyrio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:48:28 PM EST
    ignore those facts.....WOW....It is like taking the great chance we have of winning and tossing it on the table in Vegas....

    Becaue (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:50 PM EST
    they really don't want to win in Nov. I've decided that they want McCain to be president. Exactly for what reasons I don't know.

    Interesting Speculation (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    I've had the same thought vis a vis Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Democratic sellouts in Congres.

    What the heck is going on?


    Divided (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    government. They think if a dem wins the WH that they'll lose the house and senate. And if Obama's the nominee and he loses in Nov. they can always blame his race for the loss.

    Re: Divided (none / 0) (#177)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:19:18 AM EST
    You can't possibly believe that.  I mean it's okay to blow off steam if you're annoyed at certain politicians, cool.  But you can't literally believe that Congressional Dems would blow off the White House, in not just any presidential election, but one following the most unpopular president in history who's also a Republican?  With our best chance to win in decades?  They're just going to take a dive?

    Why not? (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:14 AM EST
    They've done it before. The people supporting Obama have put forth electoral loser after loser.

    If they were so concerned with winning then they wouldn't be putting forth a candidate who has a dubious background and very little chance of winning in Nov. And they wouldn't be trying to tell large blocs of voters that they don't need their vote. Does that sound like people who want to win? Not to me. Or they are absolutely clueless.


    Re: Why not? (none / 0) (#232)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    With all due respect, it has been the Clinton campaign, or more properly, figures within the Clinton campaign, saying things like "Little states don't count," "Caucus states don't count," "States that have historically gone Republican don't count."  That was the hallmark of the Clinton/Penn strategy of swinging to the center/right and attracting enough independents to squeak by with 50.1% support.

    You can certainly argue whether or not the 50 State Strategy is a good or a bad idea.  I tend to think it's good, but not foolproof.  But the notion that the Obama campaign has told anyone "You're not necessary" just sounds ridiculous to me.  Even before I supported him I don't recall him saying anything like that.  What did you mean exactly?


    They don't want McCain (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:08:53 AM EST
    But they are cowards.  So they won't risk alienating their African American base, even if they are only 11% of the electorate, and even if it means losing in November.  Funny thing, they don't see to have any problem alienating women who are 51% of the electorate.  I guess some people count in the party, and some don't.  

    what sort of comment is that? (none / 0) (#144)
    by seesdifferent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:37 PM EST
    please think about the irrationality of that comment.

    No he's not (none / 0) (#21)
    by andrewwm on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:44:10 PM EST
    using Monte-Carlo simulations for this kind of thing is really not very informative. Voting isn't randomized behavior. All these simulations tell you is that Clinton does slightly better nationwide in head to head polling than Obama.

    Furthermore, since they're almost tied with McCain (Obama behind by just a little, Clinton just ahead by a little), it's pretty much deterministic that they're going to win. So if the polls are 100% accurate than the candidate with the most EV votes will win. Well, duh. It understates how close both candidates are.


    Voting isn't randomized. Sampling is. (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:55:14 PM EST
    Holman's Monte Carlo simulations give an accurate composite of what the many state-by-state polls indicate, given random sampling in each.

    Sorry, your second paragraph is just incomprehensible incomprehension.

    Reread teh FAQ and try to improve your understanding.


    the whole point is (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    the whole point is that voting isn't "randomized"... the more random numbers you use, the closer to a "true mean" the random numbers add up to.

    In other words, the results aren't really "random" at all.

    I personally think that there are flaws with the methodology -- he 'mormalizes' undecided voters, when undecided voters don't distribute themselves in the same proportion as "decided voters do -- instead of "random" voter behavior, I'd start with the 'fixed' percentage of voters for each candidate, subtract the margin of error from each candidate, then do a "randomized" vote where there is a "randomized" undecided vote factor based on a logarhythic scale.

    Or I'd do that if I knew how! ;-)


    maybe I am mistaken, but are you (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
    making the comment that the two democrats are close based on national head to head polls?
    The point is, I think that according to the electoral college she wins and Obama loses and it is not close at all.  She beats McCain in the big swing states we need and he loses to McCain in those states.

    Thanks for the link, but please credit... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    ... Corrente contributor bringiton, who did the real heavy lifting.

    But please,  check out the haiku duel starting here, between an Obama canvasser and several Hillary supporters (The haikus are scattered throughout the thread...)

    Stadiums and crowds
    Baritone anaphora
    Con men smile, always

    Haikus are fun for the whole family!

    I hope that haikus... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:41:17 PM EST
    ... are not "clutter." They are actually a terrific way to make a very concentrated point, and maybe one or two will go viral.

    hmmmm (none / 0) (#152)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:22:33 PM EST
    Belicose ramblings beg
    "She must exit stage left--now!"
    "Foul shot!" chant the Base.

    A new idea for a unifying device. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:40:47 PM EST
    Anaphora (none / 0) (#222)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:14:31 AM EST
    Anaphora...what a great word. Learn something new every day. Led me to the related epistrophe as well.

    Both, (according to my dic.) came into the English lexicon in the 1500's!

    Both from Greek, obivously.

    Classical Greek  is such a great language, expressing in one word ideas that require a whole sentence or paragraph in English. So we steal it....and that's a good thing.



    There's one problem with that analysis. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    The assumption there is that either Clinton or Obama has the nomination and it then asks what their chances are.  The problem?  There's no way that Clinton can currently get the nomination without some sort of floor fight over Michigan and Florida.    I'm willing to believe that if Clinton somehow were to get the nomination the path would be easier, but the ways that she would be able to achieve that would do more damage than the advantage she has.

    Obama has a much higher probability of unifying the party not because of anything about him, but because he has the delegate lead.  An Obama nomination would be over in a few weeks and we'd have enough time to attack McCain.  A Clinton nomination would involve Rules Committee meetings, and minority report votes, and back room meetings,  and all of this would happen in late August.  That's why this discussion is moot now.  A slight advantage in electability doesn't outweigh a huge disadvantage in the timeline with the additional consequence of angering a core constituency.  

    Considering (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    how poorly Obama has done when he has gone up against McCain I don't think that he's going to do much better if Hillary is out of the equation. The only thing that does is leave him no one to blame.

    You missed my point (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:06:08 PM EST
    It's not about Obama's chances, it's about Clinton's.  How does she get the nomination at this point?  Barring an incredible upset in Oregon and Obama not getting to the viability points in all of the other states (and yes, THAT would be a strong argument for Clinton), it's going to have to be ugly.  

    Every time Obama is attacked this summer, instead of defending him, Clinton would have to argue that that's the proof that Obama is less electable and the supers should overturn.  We'd spend months tearing down the person who would be at that moment the presumptive nominee and then have to have a ton of supers flip or have pledged delegates flip or have Michigan suddenly count with Obama getting 0 delegates or something.

    There's very little chance for the party to heal after a nomination is stolen.  Even if Clinton would have been the better candidate if she had won more delegates, she'd be a much worse candidate now due to what it would take to get her the nomination.


    The popular (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:13:32 PM EST
    vote is her only shot imo. If she leads there the super delegates will nominate her as the "will of the people". MI & FL votes are going to be added May 31st.

    Fact of the matter is, the odds are that we are going to lose in Nov. If people feel that Hillary won only because people gave it to her then it won't help.

    Right now a huge chunk of the party won't vote for Obama and that's unlikely to change. He's also losing any independent support he once ad post Wright. And all this is before the 1000 page dossier is released and the GOP has started their four pronged attack on Obama.


    sigh (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Nadai on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    The nomination can't be stolen - it doesn't belong to either of them yet.  And it's going to be ugly no matter who wins.  They've each got about half of the vote.  No matter who ends up with it, the other one's millions of supporters are going to be unhappy.

    there's no chance of this party healing (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by kempis on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:58:48 PM EST
    as long as one half accuses the other half's nominee of attempting to "steal" the nomination--all the while Obama's chances depend entirely on the DNC helping him to preserve his slight, structural lead by not resolving MI and FL unless they are neutral with respect to that structural lead or they actually favor Obama.

    In other words, at this point it's fairly obvious to a growing number Clinton supporters that there's some hanky-panky going on between Obama and the DNC. I won't call it theft, just collusion.

    There's also no chance of healing as long as Obama supporters continue to assert that Hillary and her supporters are racists.

    All in all, I'd say there's very little chance of this party's healing, whether the nominee is settled now or in August. This process has been tainted and the rhetoric on both sides has been acrimonious to the point of deep insult.

    The Democratic party has been divided and it will be conquered in November. Ironic, isn't it? All that talk about "rising above the politics of division." Well, to paraphrase Michelle, if a candidate can't unify his own party, he can hardly unify the nation. And at this point, thanks in part to his own MIA stance during beyond-the-pale attacks on Clinton, and thanks also in part to the incredible arrogance of his supporters, there are millions of Democrats heading for the exits. I'm one of them.

    I'll vote for him--I think. But I won't work for him. And if he loses, I won't be terribly upset because quite frankly I don't think McCain will be worse than an ambitious and inexperienced guy from the Chicago machine who's only been in national politics since 2004.


    The nomination isn't stolen when no one has won (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:26 PM EST
    yet.  I'm not sure why it is necessary to repeat this truth over and over, but neither of them can win the necessary delegates without the votes of the Superdelegates. The superdelegates can vote  either way. I remember the days when these things routinely went to the conventions and the world did not come to an end.

    Here's a little history lesson from Wikipedia"

     The 1960 election.  The 1960 National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States nominated John F. Kennedy for President and Lyndon B. Johnson for Vice President. It was held in Los Angeles, California at Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena. Senator Frank Church of Idaho delivered the keynote address.

    On July 13, 1960, the Democratic Party nominated Kennedy as its candidate for President. Kennedy asked Johnson to be his Vice-Presidential candidate, despite clashes between the two during the primary elections. He needed Johnson's strength in the South to win what was considered likely to be the closest election since 1916. Kennedy had held a steady lead over all of the other candidates during the primaries, having won 32.5 percent of the votes, while Johnson did not enter primaries.

    Kennedy's candidacy also faced a potential challenge from former Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Thousands of people flooded into the convention on opening day carrying Stevenson signs and banners. Eleanor Roosevelt proposed a Stevenson-Kennedy ticket. Among the other candidates were Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. Senator from Texas and Majority Leader; Stuart Symington, U.S. Senator from Missouri; Hubert H. Humphrey, U.S. Senator from Minnesota; and, Pat Brown, Governor of California.

    Two Johnson supporters, including John B. Connally, brought up the question of Kennedy's health. Connally said that Kennedy had Addison's disease. JFK press secretary Pierre Salinger of California denied the story. A Kennedy physician, Dr. Janet Travell, put out a statement that the senator's adrenal glands were functioning adequately and that he was no more susceptible to infection than anyone else. It was also denied that Kennedy was on cortisone. (Geoffrey Perrett, Jack: A Life Like No Other, New York: Random House, 2002, pp. 253-254)

    In the end, the Kennedy-Johnson ticket was assembled and went on to secure an electoral college victory and a narrow popular vote plurality (slightly over 110,000 nationally) in the fall over the Republican candidates Richard M. Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.


    Exactly. In assessing electability, (none / 0) (#231)
    by RickTaylor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    one has to take into account that If Hillary Clinton wins through the super-delegates over-riding the pledged delegate count and the official popular vote after she's made arguments about her electability based on her appeal to white working class Americans, that's going to skew the turnout.

    This is a fair point, but it does not (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    answer how Obama is going to explain not counting MI and FL and blocking the revote. His win, if he wins, is a little bit messy too. And it hurts his chances as well. It works both ways, but you are correct as well.  Clinton could end up alienating some voters if it did go all the way to the convention. But I don't think it will. SDs will be going on record in June, right?

    I fully expect... (none / 0) (#48)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:09:46 PM EST
    ...for Obama to be able to find some sort of compromise solution to get the delegates seated once the nomination is clinched.  A 50% haircut and Obama getting the uncommitted delegates doesn't net Clinton anything close to what is needed to close the gap, so something like that will happen a month or two down the road.  It's hard to argue that being offensive to MI/FL since the Republicans had a similar penalty.

    The problem would be if Clinton's camp insists not only on there being a seating of the delegates, but on giving Obama none of the uncommitted votes and having no reduction of their seating.  That's the only way they can become determinative and that fight would be ugly and destructive.


    I am torn because I (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:14:42 PM EST
    understand BTDs argument that Clinton should have taken the MI deal this past week (on an intellectual level), but I am still really pissed about MI and FL and the fact that he blocked the revotes.  As far as winning ugly, I get what you are saying, but again you are underestimating how some of us feel Obama is "winning" - by casting the Clintons as racist to secure the Black vote.

    Michigan is a really difficult situation now. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:26:49 PM EST
    I keep going back and forth about what the right solution would be.  The problem is that we had the poll in January that obviously is problematic but once that happened, all of our other options started to close.  A completely open election would be prone to gamesmanship since there would be literally nothing at all for Republicans to vote for.  Limiting votes to those who voted on the ballot last time shortchanges those who might have wanted to vote for Obama but stayed home or chose the other ballot since that wasn't an option; moreover that data will not be allowed to be released outside the parties anyway.  Since Michigan doesn't register by parties, there's no way of holding a standard closed election.  

    As an Obama supporter, I personally was rooting for a revote in Michigan because I felt that it would be a tight race and would get rid of an open question that was preventing closure.  However, I'm just not sure of how a revote could have been organized, especially since it would have needed a 2/3 vote of the state assembly and the Republicans were enjoying the chaos and the Democrats didn't want to foot the bill.  


    what about a closed primary (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:33:52 PM EST
    held in Aug?  I know some rules would have to change, but why not just let all the dems vote again, and both candidates campaign?  FL and MI both have scheduled elections then, so cost should not be a factor.

    And I say closed because Axelrod believes that Limbaugh is affecting the vote, so let's just take that out of the equation.


    No party registration in MI (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:37:25 PM EST
    A closed election would have been the easiest solution but there's no way of knowing who is a member of a party in Michigan.

    I have tons of solutions for this situation, but all of them would have had to be enacted before the mess started up.  Once the election happened, the chance for a clean resolution ended.  


    Re: Michigan (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:12:25 PM EST
    I just don't think the solution is as difficult as everyone is making it out to be.  Obviously, at this point, any solution is less than ideal.  However, there was an election and that is the most acceptable place to begin.  Clinton took 55% and deserves all of those delegates.  Beyond that you give Obama the 40% uncommitted.  This is a good compromise for Obama because he does not actually deserve all of those votes and it is a decent compromise for Clinton because she gets closer in the delegate count and allows her to count the Popular Vote.  It also opens the door up for Florida to be counted as is.  Anything less than this for Clinton is not a compromise worth taking about and it is dishonest and underhanded for Obama's campaign to ask for anything more.  I understand BTD's argument that she should have taken 69-59 but I do not believe it is fair and I respect her more, yet again, for taking the stand.

    By the way (none / 0) (#140)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:52 PM EST
    I am pretty sure that if the MI delegates go 55-40% and the FL delegates get seated as is, and the upcoming contests go the way they are expected to go, Clinton gets within that 100 delegate range.  Not that I expect the SD's or the media to pay attention at this point.

    And insulting one or another constituency... (none / 0) (#77)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:02:02 PM EST
    ... on a daily basis.

    Don't underestimate the anger (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by davnee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:34:23 PM EST
    I think the Dems should be wary of forcibly exiting Clinton stage left before the process plays out.  Rushing her off the stage before the (by the way morally correct) counting of FL and MI, not to mention WV, KY, and PR simply feeds the bitterness of her core followers.

    Now I recognize that letting this process play out may feed a narrative of stealing the nomination from Obama for AA's, who have been lulled by the media into the belief that he is the inevitable nominee.  That's problematic.

    But let's talk about the demographic groups that could really care less about Clinton or Obama as their identity candidates, which would be (imperfectly speaking of course) seniors and working class whites.  These groups aren't going to be activated by bitterness.  They are going to be activated by something else in the GE.  So who is positioned to win these groups, which happen to be mandatory to victory?  I don't doubt that racism is a salient factor, as is sexism.  I'd never pretend otherwise.  But I think factors such as experience, a bread and butter issue platform, and yes Americana, are much more telling.  Who can battle McCain more effectively on these points?

    And finally, I'm not afraid to say it, what if racism is the most important factor in the vote of the white working class of all ages?  I don't think it is most important, but what if it is?  Are we willing to forego an excellent winning candidate for president just to prove a politically correct racial point?  Perhaps if Obama was the best candidate in the race, I might say damn the torpedoes and be willing to die on principle.  But this guy is not even remotely worthy of such principled devotion.  Why are we risking on principle losing on the inferior candidate?  That's what I can't wrap my head around.  That's what has got me so flummoxed.


    Excuse me. Obama had a chance of (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:13:07 PM EST
    unifying the party before he accused fellow Democrats of being racist and encouraged hatred  and viciousness in his followers.

    Too late now for Mr. Unity, I'm afraid.  On the other hand, he's more than anxious for unity with the Republicans. i'm sure if he gets in we'll see that in action.If you like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the current Dem congress and how well they stand up to the Rethugs, you'll be getting more of that in spades from Obama, a man who has never stood up for anything in his life.


    He's the new Bush (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:53:23 PM EST
    It's always the fault of someone else.

    It's ironic that as much as people in the party profess to dislike Bush they seem to want to put up a candidate just like Bush.

    excuse me? (none / 0) (#224)
    by seesdifferent on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:46:16 AM EST
    Bush and Obama are similar? if you mean they both have charisma, I can understand that. But in politics it is important to be able to attract voters. Obama has proven he can do that, and that is a great quality for the Democratic Party. Extemporaneous remarks are always, by definition, less polished.
    And Bush has always had concrete proposals and it was not at all hard to predict much of what he would do. By no means was Bush saying nothing. His ideas were bad, but they were certainly there.
    Bush is hated here.
    Is that actually what Obama shares with Bush?

    The fallacy (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by s5 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:04:14 PM EST
    The fallacy here is saying that primary results are predictive of how people will vote in the general election. If they were, we could argue that Democrats will win every state in the general, because one of the two Democrats won every state in the primary. (And believe me, I would love that argument to be true!)

    The choice in states that Clinton won could very well be Clinton > Obama > McCain, in which case neither is more or less electable than the other. For me as a strong Obama supporter, I've always felt that I would fight for Clinton over McCain no matter what, and I know I'm far from alone. Outside the angry world of blog comment flame wars, this is the prevailing opinion among Democratic voters.

    My feeling is that both are electable for slightly different reasons, with the overriding reason being that people are sick of Republicans.

    Sorry (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:18:01 PM EST
    but it's not the truth. Large numbers of Democrats have already stated that they won't vote for Obama. And it's largely for reasons that he can't rectify or has refused to rectify so far. It has nothing to do with Hillary or his race.

    large numbers of McCain voters in 2000 (none / 0) (#68)
    by tsackton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:38:27 PM EST
    said they would never vote for Bush, and then promptly did.

    Now, obviously, if Clinton (or Obama) loses and decides not to campaign strongly for the winner, that could make a huge difference and lead to large numbers of Democrats staying home. But I think it is pretty much guaranteed that the loser will campaign for the winner. Hopefully (probably) that will mean that by August the primary fight will have faded for most Democrats, and they will support the nominee.

    Plus, the fundamentals say this is basically an impossible election for Dems to lose, and however much working class voters and seniors may prefer Clinton to Obama, McCain is going to spend the summer talking about how we need to privatize social security, about how rich people need another tax cut, and about how people who are losing their homes should just get a second job. That is going to cost him a lot of support among people who might like him now because they think he's a different kind of Republican.


    I keep hearing this (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    invocation of Bush/McCain as an example of why dems will vote dem, and I have to say: no.

    I have been voting straight dem since I was 17.  I have worked for the party my entire life.  Not adult life--life.  Being a democrat has been part of my identity for as long as I can remember, and as of the last month, I no longer consider myself a democrat.

    If you think that rift can be healed, then my hat is off to you.  And I realize I have the luxury of saying this because I am in a solidly red state (GA) but I feel so strongly that the dem party of my lifetime has failed me.  The sexist, ignoble crap that has come out of their mouths is just beyond the pale.  Even as we lost race after race, I always felt we had the high road.  Until now.  


    the other thing... (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:10:53 PM EST
    the other reason I feel okay about saying I will sit out November rather than vote for Obama is that he'll be as much of a disaster in the White House as McCain will -- if not more.  McCain v Clinton is about whether or not we drive the car into the ditch or not.  McCain v Obama is just about the route we take on our way to the ditch.

    And, quite honestly, at least I have some idea of how bad McCain will be -- but Obama has the potential to be bad in so many ways its mind-boggling.  The only thing Obama has run in his life is his mouth, and the only crisis he's faced is an identity crisis.  We've seen how Obama reacts under pressure -- he gets petulant and withdraws and places the blame on everyone else.  And we've seen that McCain kept on slogging through this campaign after he was counted out by the media.  

    I will never vote for McCain, but I'd really would rather have him in the White House answering that call at 3 AM rather than Obama.


    I'm at one with what comes down too (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:59:11 AM EST
    ... but I'm writing in HRC and voting downtick so the Dems don't get completely shafted by Obama's WORMhole of an ego that sucks in all support.

    I wouldn't mind seeing McCain finish off the traian wreck over Obama and all Dems and real progressives taking it over and being blamed for the mess of the Bush era.


    Safer with McCain (none / 0) (#233)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    Sadly, I agree.  I have children, and soon grandchildren.  I want them to be safe.  I would trust McCain with their safety.  I would not trust Obama.  He's too inexperienced.  He won't know who to appoint to run State and Defense departments.  I hate to say it, but the man scares me.  I don't want my family's safety left in his hands.  I just don't.  

    You guys (5.00 / 8) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:26:44 PM EST
    keep repeating this but I'm not so sure. 2004 was the same story. We can't lose. Bush is hated by his own party etc. We all saw what happened.

    The problem is that Obama wants the campaign not to be about issues but personality. He's defined it that way and it makes it much harder for him to win against McCain with such a campaign.

    Privatize social security: Obama supports his and has even said that it's in trouble. This would be a reason to vote for McCain. You know the dems in congress will oppose McCain on this whereas they might feel obligated to help Obama privatize social security.

    Tax cuts: They expire in 2010 and the dems aren't going to pass any new ones.

    Losing homes: McCain has changed his stance on this one.

    The arguments you are making are 2004 arguments that Kerry used. I see no reason to believe that they'll work this time either. Obama isn't really offering any economic reason to vote for him just reason to vote against McCain and I see this floated constantly by his supporters.

    There are also reasons to vote for McCain, namely national security. Obama is really weak here and claiming to live in Indonesia as a child does not qualify one to be a national security expert. It sounds like the punchline in a joke.


    issues (none / 0) (#132)
    by tsackton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:07:51 PM EST
    Can you provide a link to some source that claims Obama wants to privatize social security? That seems pretty unbelievable to me, and some quick Googling provides a few sources that seem to pretty unequivocally deny it:

    He appears to have proposed subjecting income over the current cap of $97,000 to Social Security taxes, which would result in a tax increase for the wealthiest 5% of Americans.
    (source: http://abcnews.go.com/politics/story?id=3638710). But how you get from there to privatization to me is a mystery. Plus, I thought Democrats were for raising taxes on the wealthy.

    Besides, this is not the same argument that was made in 2004. Krugman has had a few recent blog posts on this issue -- the primary things that determines elections are 1) how the economy is doing the year before, 2) the popularity of the incumbent, and 3) whether one party has held the White House for 8+ years. Republicans have all three things going strongly against them. In 2004, the economy was much better than it is now, Republicans had only held the White House for 4 years, and Bush was a lot more popular than he is now.


    You (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:28:20 PM EST
    can have all those going for you and when you pick a really bad candidate to represent your party you are going to lose. You guys just keep assuming that any Dem is going to win. Not true. You have to give people a reason to come out and vote for you. A poster above said it best: Obama and McCain both represent driving the country into a ditch. The only difference is the way that we get into that ditch.

    One of Obama's main economic advisors supports ss privatization. It is in Obama's plan where he says he wants people to open private ss accounts.


    Dems voted for Bush too (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:21:43 PM EST
    Yes, McCain supporters voted for Bush, but so did Dems.  Bush wouldn't have won without his Dem support.  So when Clinton supporters say they are going to vote for McCain or stay home, you just backed it up.

    FL Bush/Gore was a good example.  How many voted for Nader? 80-90k?  How many Dems voted for Bush? 350k.

    People keep saying Clinton will campaign for him.  I disagree strongly.  She has a job and she needs to represent the people of her state.  If she is not suitable for a running mate because she is old politics, she is unsuitable for the campaign trail.


    Clinton campaiging (none / 0) (#137)
    by tsackton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:13:19 PM EST
    You really think Clinton wouldn't campaign for Obama (or vice versa, if Clinton manages to win the nomination despite the very long odds)? That just seems unbelievable to me. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats after all, and it takes some really Machivellian thinking to believe that either one would rather McCain win. That just seems crazy to me.

    Sure, Clinton presumably wouldn't work as hard for Obama as she worked in the primaries. But to think that she wouldn't do some campaigning in some key states for him in the fall just seems to me to be buying into the nonsense about how the Clinton's are selfish and petty.

    Why do you think she wouldn't campaign for Obama?


    Campaigning for too long (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:18:05 PM EST
    She is a senator.  She has to get back to work representing her state.  None of the other candidates are out campaigning for Obama when they have endorsed him.  She should not be held to a standard that isn't applied to everyone else.  Most I expect will put in time for him in their own states.

    Mostly, Obama won't want the Clinton's.  He can't smear them and Pres Clinton's legacy and then take them around with him.  I don't see Obama as a party loyalist.  He is post-partisan, non-party.  Heck he had a pro-life Dem out with him, I wouldn't be surprised if Repubs are out there with him in the GE.


    I suspect lots of Senators will be campaigning (none / 0) (#160)
    by tsackton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:32:45 PM EST
    If Obama doesn't want her campaigning for him, he's utterly crazy -- but I'd be very surprised if he didn't want her support.

    Like I said, Clinton presumably won't be spending weeks campaigning 24/7. But PA is right next to NY, and some trips to northeast PA by Clinton would be very valuable. A trip to FL or OH, maybe. She's not running for re-election this year, so it isn't like she'd have her own Senate campaign to run. Most senators who aren't running for re-election will presumably campaign for the nominee wherever they would be of most use. For most Senators, that is there home state, but Clinton is a lot more popular than most Senators.

    Plus, she's said several times that she would work hard for the nominee no matter what, and I see no reason not to take her at her word.


    The problem is (none / 0) (#226)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:44:58 AM EST
    that Obama has also said that Social Security is in danger and has advisers who might suggest privatizing at least some of it.  Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax, which affects a lot of middle class retirees who were able to make investments to supplement Social Security.  John McCain is one of them, and Obama doesn't like them. McCain will own the senior vote.

    Well, it does have to do with race, BUT (none / 0) (#130)
    by jackyt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:07:26 PM EST
    It's the race he's waged against Hillary, (not the race he is half linked to genetically).

    The Year of the Democrat (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:06:46 PM EST
    This will be a great year for Democrats. With Obama at the top of the ticket, the economy in the dumps, Iraq a disaster and America in no mood for a third Bush term, the Democratic Party is going to enjoy a once-in-a-generation election that will realign American politics. The old electoral map that has defined the polarized politics since 2000 is destined for the scrapheap. The Obama/Clark ticket will take every state Kerry took plus Ohio, Colorado, Iowa, Virginia and North Carolina -- providing more than 325 electoral votes. And the success will extend down ballot as Obama's 50 state voter registration drive boosts Democratic control of state legislatures just before the  redistricting following the 2010 census, giving Democrats a 50 seat majority in the House for the next 20 years. Finally, Democrats will secure 60 Democratic seats in the  Senate -- without relying on Joe Lieberman. With both a national mandate and the political clout to implement it, Obama will work in partnership with Congressional Democrats to usher in a new Progressive Era.

    There's (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    no evidence to support that.

    hahahaha jeez I hope you're kidding (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:19:02 PM EST
    otherwise ...

    Not at All (none / 0) (#58)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    This is what my well educated gut tells me. I've done politics in DC for 30 years -- including eight years in the Clinton White House. We are on the brink of something truly monumental. November will bring a great victory for progressive Democrats.

    Sorry Spike (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    for the insults here. I've deleted a few to you today. I completely disagree with you, but you don't deserve to be attacked for your views since you comply with our commenting rules.

    Sorry about the years of experience, (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:39:40 PM EST
    but you are delusional.  McCain will win because, if people like me,  a lifelong fervent Democrat since my first election in 1964, would vote for him, Obama is toast.

    No personal disrespect intended (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Eleanor A on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:13:51 PM EST
    but have you ever actually worked on a campaign in Colorado or Virginia, or done any state-level political work at all?

    Because I'd bet a significant sum of money that neither VA nor CO will go Dem this November.  Mostly because I used to be on a local Dem committee in Virginia and there are still a lot of rural voters who'll see Obama as "other".

    Neither CO nor VA nor any number of other states I've seen Obama supporters mention as possible wins in November (to offset almost certain losses in MI, FL, OH) has gone blue more than once or twice in 50 years...and in Colorado that one blue vote was for Clinton 1.

    I mean, yeah, we could all wake up tomorrow and decide to bring back popular worship of Mayan gods.  Just because something is possible does not remotely mean it's probable.


    Forgot to mention (none / 0) (#143)
    by Eleanor A on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:37 PM EST
    the huge Republican vote in Virginia Beach, the NoVa exurbs (Stafford County, etc.) and downstate.  The Gilmore/Warner machine is still alive and kicking there...just cause we've won a couple elections there lately doesn't mean the entirety of the state's recent history has been reversed.

    So, we get universal health care, then? (none / 0) (#81)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:08:58 PM EST
    Why isn't Obama running on it, then?

    Amen. (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by davnee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:28:20 PM EST
    This is my unanswered question.  If this is the inevitable year of the Democrat then why aren't we running the more progressive candidate?  HRC is not a left wingnut, true, but I have yet to see the slightest indication that Obama is remotely as progressive a candidate as Clinton.  He's a pig in a poke.  A CDS leap of faith.  Nothing more.  It's astonishing.  His candidacy is literally skin deep.  No check that, a 2002 speech (unsupported by later actions) and an accident of birth.  Nothing more.

    Hark, the Herald Angels Sing (none / 0) (#135)
    by jackyt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:12:20 PM EST
    ... the praises of Philadelphia Brand Cream Cheese!

    Thanks for posting Lambertt's piece (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:07:13 PM EST
    I think the most powerful argument for Clinton is the fact that voters in swing states prefer her over Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee.

    Here's another observation that actually strengthens her argument even more: regardless of how voters in a particular state might think, one might consider that voters in "early" primaries (when there are more candidates) should be allowed to affect the ultimate choice "less" than voters in "later" primaries. Why? We do not have the luxury of a revote, nor do we have a way of expressing our 2'nd and 3'rd choices in a direct way that matters -- so it is impossible to tell how the voters for say Edwards might have voted when the choices are restricted to Obama and Hillary.

    My point: if you weight the states by where they (swing-states) appear in a primary calendar -- Hillary's case is even stronger.

    The argument Lambert makes about "blue" states -- I do not find complete. Two reasons: It could be argued that these states will remain firmly in the D column regardless of the nominee. Second, if one has to consider Clinton's advantage in these blue states, it would have been fairer to Obama had Lambert included the "red" states that Obama supporters insist will be put into play should he become the nominee. I find that arguemnt hardly convincing, and even if one were to cede those red-states -- I think the electoral math still comes out in Hillary's favor -- but his article would have been more balanced had he considered that point.

    All this leads me to my final point. Electoral math and electability is but ONE factor that the superdelegates consider. As the politics of money indicates, Obama's Hope fund, and his campaign's use of internet technologies to raise money for other Dem. candidates also factors into their decision -- whether they say it out loud or not. I know we'd like to believe that the SD's will do what's necessary to win. Question is: in which election? Their own, or  the Presidential?

    Smart comment (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:10:18 PM EST
    Not my post (bringiton's) but I'd like to call out this sentence:

    I know we'd like to believe that the SD's will do what's necessary to win. Question is: in which election? Their own, or  the Presidential?


    Battleground states (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by zebedee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:09:30 PM EST
    Rather than take a subjective view of which are the battleground states, I looked at the swings between votes cast in 2000 and 2004. No state changed more than 10.85% either way. This is for all states, not just ones that changed hands. So it is safe to assume that for 04-08, all relevant swings with be less than 11%.

    Counting only states with a margin less than 11%, Clinton leads by around 235,000 votes. This is with giving Obama all the uncommited Michigan votes but without the caucus that didn't report votes (IA, ME, NV and WA). Using the RCP derived estimates for these, Obama gets an extra 110,00 so HRC ends up with a margin of 125,000.

    Of course, it will be claimed that who the voters prefer in a primary doesn't affect the GE preference. Apart from this being counter-intuitive, it's the opposite of the claim being made when Obama "puts red states in play" and "has been doing better amongst independents". It's also tantamount to saying that if our main aim is to get back the White House, the primary process is irrelevant.

    great criteria! (none / 0) (#100)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:02:10 PM EST
    That is a truly good criteria -- did you do a delegate count based on that criteria?  

    Have you written about this anywhere?.. since you've already done the work, I'd love to see the data (especially the list of states that fall into each category).


    marginal states (none / 0) (#174)
    by zebedee on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:07:50 AM EST
    States less than 11%: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, maine,michigan, minnesota, missouri, nevada, new hampshire, new jersey, new mexico, ohio, oregon, pennsylvania, virginia, washington, winsconsin. I also counted non-state votes like American somoa etc.

    For those states, Obama still wins pledged delegates by around 100 due to 0 dels for FL and MI plus caucus dels that are disproportionately delegate-heavy. Hillary, though, wins electoral college for those states by 180 to 115.


    What's up with MT and SD (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:35:39 PM EST
    kind of OT.  Clinton needs to pick up popular vote to give superdeez a reason to pledge for her.  She'll pick up votes in KY, WV and PR, that will depend on turnout and split. OR I still give to Obama as the polling doesn't seem to be shifting in her favor.

    My question is... Clinton will lose popular votes in MT and SD.  Why?  What is it about the demos there that favor Obama.  Are the wealthy, lots of universities?  Anyone know...

    This is a very good question, (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:19:41 PM EST
    because, as I see it, this year, the will of the voters is going to mean less than the power struggle going on within the Beltway Dems--aided and abetted by some in the blogosphere. The Mountain States are seen by these "new coalition" Dems as representing the best opportunity to counter the Southern Strategy of the Repubs.

    As best I can tell, there are many in the Dem party who would like to write off the South entirely as an electoral strategy. This would mean being able to throw out the influence of the Carters, the Gores and the Clintons. Of course, they can't do this without replacement states to make up the votes. What they're hoping is that they can cobble together enough Libertarians in the Mountain States and the border states, such as Virginia and Missouri, to re-draw the electoral map. Obama is the candidate that they chose to draw these voters into the Dem fold.

    The problem is that the big electoral votes are still in states where the voter demographics favor Clinton. IMO, the neo-Libertarians will do anything to stop Clinton in order to execute the first part of their strategy--including taking a loss in the GE, as long as they think they can pick up the congressional races. They're trying to prove a point here, IMO, whether or not it means winning back the White House. There's also a problem in that Libertarians are not Democrats, so we are seeing a fight not just for votes but for values.


    You make a sound argument (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:45 PM EST
    but I find it so hard to believe that any faction of the dem party can be that organized.  We are a train wreck waiting to happen.

    Look at the electoral map that is posted.  Why on earth would we abandon our base at a time when the issues most important to the base--poverty, healthcare, tax cuts, welfare, the economy--are CENTER in the presidential election.

    To quote a great dem: we don't need hope, we need help.


    You're absolutely correct, Kathy (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:46:15 PM EST
    I'm not defending them, simply explaining them. My guess is that they believe it's now or never, and that due to the state of the economy, the Iraq war/occupation and Bush's approval ratings, this is the time for the coup.

    BTW, I do believe it is an attempt at an internal coup. IMO, the comments by Brazile were a slip-up in her anger--we weren't supposed to know that we were being told to go to the back of the bus and stay there, at least not until November. However, now that the plan is out there, you have people like Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller extolling the virtues of the new, neo-Libertarian party, formerly known as the Democrats. Maybe they think we'll change our minds once they tell us how wonderful everything is going to be under the new order. It's Animal Farm redux, best I can tell.


    I keep wondering (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:07:58 PM EST
    what this new party of theirs will look like.  What will they stand for?  What issues will they triumph?

    I just cannot believe that a latte-sipping Oregonian living in a state that has 1.9% aa population will have the same goals as an aa living in the middle of Watts.  Or Georgia, for that matter.

    I just don't see where Brazile thinks this is heading.  I think the goal is to grab the power, then figure out what to do with it later.


    I'm 100% with you (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:23:02 PM EST
    That was always the problem when Bloomberg et al talked about the unity party. Other than a dictatorship, is there another democratic-style government you can think of that doesn't have competing factions--and for very legitimate reasons? I think the real reason Bloomberg didn't run is because Obama filled the bill for those folks. I haven't looked carefully at the money behind Obama, but I'm confident that plenty of it is Republican.

    I think that... (none / 0) (#121)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:50:01 PM EST
    the first order of business in an Obama administration will be a new law requiring all subsequent laws to be written in the for of power-point presentations, so he can memorize the big points and not worry about the details.  ;-)

    OMG, chancellor, you keep taking the (none / 0) (#209)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:00 AM EST
    words right out of my mouth and saying them better than i ever could!!!  :)  i am so on your wavelength.

    your analysis is spot on. (none / 0) (#208)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:40:14 AM EST
    excellently put.

    Obama does best among white voters.... (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:10:28 PM EST
    ... in states with the lowest percentages of African Americans.

    I discovered this while looking at the gender gaps for McCain v Clinton and McCain v Obama.  As the percentage of African Americans increases, the support for Obama among white voters decreases at a far higher rate than does support for Clinton.

    I also have looked at SUSA GE polling that was done in late February and mid-march (when the first Wright controversy was at its height).  those the sample of states is limited, in states with very low percentages of AA, the poll numbers changed very little.  But in places like Missouri and Ohio, where african americans are a higher percentage of the populous, there were significant shifts.


    Economically secure people (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:40:35 PM EST
    Who can afford to take a chance on someone who might not know what they're doing.

    verboten, I think (none / 0) (#115)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:33:54 PM EST
    no matter how true.  The percentages of not just aa's, but all minorities, is shocking to someone living in Georgia.  If not for Katrina, WA and OR would be even lower.

    not enough voters and those states (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:55:45 PM EST
    have no chance of going Democratic in November. Montana last went Democratic in 1992 and has 3 electoral votes. South Dakota last went Democratic in 1964 and also has only 3 electoral votes.

    Picking up votes (none / 0) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:00:12 PM EST
    I know there is no chance of getting those states, my question was surrounding Clinton being able to pick up enough popular votes to overtake Obama.  If she gains 100k in one state, will Obama's wins in MT and SD wipe it out.  I was just wondering why Obama was so favored in those states and if she could get closer to maintain her popular vote gains in the remaining states.

    Montana has one congressman for the (none / 0) (#117)
    by athyrio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:37:04 PM EST
    entire state (a republican of course) and a population of less than a million folks in the entire state but the state by land mass is the 4th largest in the union....so not alot of popular votes to pick up here at all....

    Electability (none / 0) (#128)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:04:09 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is political poison in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West, mostly because of left over baggage from the '90s.

    And now (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:07:32 PM EST
    Obama is political poison because of his baggage from the last two months.

    Edgar08 you made me laugh out loud -Camille (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Linda on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM EST
    Paglia is the perfect running mate for Senator Obama.  She's all heat and no light and he is all light and no heat.

    A laugh before retiring for the evening (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by davnee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:47:07 PM EST
    From Broder's column today:

    "That said, there is still a price to be paid for letting the nomination campaign drag on.
    At the most personal level, it denies Obama the rest he badly needs. His friends talk with real concern about the fatigue he constantly feels and often shows. But as long as Clinton is campaigning in states that are potentially competitive in November, Obama cannot fail to show up, lest their voters think he is taking them for granted."

    And this is the guy that is going to run a nonstop GE campaign to get that EC vote, not to mention then be president for 4 years?  Is he aware that it is a 24/7 job?  I'm sure HRC would be more than happy to send the much younger BHO home to Illinois so that he can catch a nap!

    Runner up for parting guffaw of the day (off the AP wire):  
    "Undeterred by Obama's concession of Kentucky to Clinton, Linda Shircliff of Louisville said voters here still will give the Illinois senator a strong showing of support.
    "He's being realistic," Shircliff said. "It shows he's willing to say whatever needs to be said about any particular issue.""

    A joke? (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by NWHiker on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:22:50 AM EST
    His friends talk with real concern about the fatigue he constantly feels and often shows.

    Was Broder joking? Because... come on! If you can't take the schedule of a primary, run for dog catcher or whatever.

    Poor poor Barack. Needs a vacation, he's so tired. And that nasty Clinton woman just keeps on going and going...


    O.K. I laughed. (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    Time to turn in my homework (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:10:54 AM EST
    Hillary's math--

    She would win Arkansas and West Virginia. Her odds of winning BOTH Florida and Ohio are over 50%.

    None of these states are even in play unless Hillary is the Dem. nominee.

    Bad assumptions=bad math (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by indesq on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:16:40 AM EST
    These assumptions rely on the idea that a number of states are automatic republican, and that Senator Clinton is more likely to carry them.  I regect both of those premises.  

    1.  Despite the fact that Indiana has gone republican every year since god knows when, we have a democratic house, have had a democrat senator, have had democrats as governors for 16 years, and have a nearly 50/50 split on Federal House seats.
    The democrats have an excellent candidate in Jill Long-thompson for governor, and an AA at the top of the ticket will increase AA turn out  exponentially.   I might remind that we actually had a female AA attorney general in this state in the late 80's.

    1.  Montana has two democrats with senate seats, a democratically controlled house and senate, and governor.

    2.  Colorado is a toss up state.  Perhaps a Colorado governer, or senator could bring in the western vote.

    3.  Wyoming voters for the first time in the history of the state are throwing out republicans.

    If Obama selects as a Vice presidential candidate someone from the western states, then he has a much better chance to win in the general election.   If he pulls a Gore (who is great now), and selects a senator from a safely democratic state, then I would say he pulled the biggest blunder in the world.

    We heard all this electability garbage back during the Kerry Campaign of 2004.  We see how well that worked.   Clinton's problem in the general would be her inability to differentiate her iraq vote from Mcold's.  It was the same issue we had with kerry over Dean back in 2004.  The fact is that Ms. Clinton has put herself in a nearly untenable position as a candidate.  In order to capture the nomination she would have to reject the agreements that she signed ( and affirmed verbally until she was trailing in votes).  All the republicans have to do is talk about how she can't be trusted to keep her word, and that will be it.

    As a complete aside, i really do not get how the clintons have retained labor support.  The former president was governor of a really anti union state, and his wife was on the board of directors of the most anti union and anti worker company in the country --  Walmart.

    You're right about Montana-- it might go Democrat (none / 0) (#195)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:27:45 AM EST
    If Hillary is the nominee

    Jor (none / 0) (#9)
    by jor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:35:26 PM EST
    just out of curiosity, if Obama wins is the nominee, and wins in November, what will be the consequences for people who repeatedly pushed the electability argument? Especially given the fact it has been the main reason justifying Hillary's continued campaign.  

    Obviously the proponents of the Iraq war faced no consequences when there were no WMD. If this electability argument is a house of cards (considering how far we are out from election), what will be the consequences to those who continued on this ship?

    I think you should be allowed to eat them (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    with paprika.

    It's only fair, what with you being so right and righteous.


    What do you suggest? Public (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:11 PM EST

    The consequence for me (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    will be to support Obama and hold him accountable to the promises he made.  I am not sure what else you mean.  I think if you read the post, Obama could win too, Clinton is a more sure bet.  Not sure what the problem is with that.

    But how to hold Obama accountable? (none / 0) (#79)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:03:42 PM EST
    There's nothing to hold him accountable for.

    Of course, if we were holding him accountable for bringing Unity, we wouldn't nominate him in the first place...


    Holding Dems accountable who won in 04 & 06 (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:58 PM EST
    hasn't worked very well so far.

    I will hold him accountable for his (none / 0) (#114)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:54 PM EST
    health care plan.  It may not be as good as Clinton's but he is the one who keeps saying he can get is through easier, and it would be better than what we have now.

    of course he can get it through easier; (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:50:44 AM EST
    it's essentially a policy that could have been written by the health insurance lobby, in favor of the status quo.  for decades now, incremental proposals like obama's have left us even worse off down the line; all they do is buy time for insurance companies trying to avoid the day of reckoning.

    there's really no question now that our health care system is in a serious crisis--no matter how many happy, upbeat ads are issued by insurance companies (btw, anyone else notice an upsurge these days?).  don't let obama or any of those ads fool you:  nothing short of a major structural change (e.g., mandates) is going to stop the hemorrhaging and fix this problem.


    Right (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:49:19 PM EST
    now the argument is being made that Obama won't win in Nov. is based on his demographics and polling. However, history is also a guide and candidates who haven't done well with certain demographics have gone down to certain defeat in the general election.

    What if Sen. McCain wins? (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by daryl herbert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    What then for you, and dKos, and so much of the rest of the progressive blogs?

    I'm sure pollsters will be looking to count the number of McCain voters who would have gone to Sen. Clinton.  There may be evidence, at the end of the race, suggesting that Clinton would have won it.

    What then?

    Of course, we all know the answer to that: IACF!


    IACF? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:05:51 PM EST
    An acronym I don't know...

    It's all Clinton's Fault (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by ChrisM on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:51:42 PM EST
    AKA: the Clinton Roolz v. the Obama Roolz

    they win! (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jackyt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:29:48 PM EST
    DKos, Americablog, Huff Post, et al, were built on Bush Hatred. Justified or not, they would never have developed a following if it weren't for the hate factor. Through the primaries, they have simply shifted the focus of their hatred to Clinton.

    The worst thing that could happen to the haters is for the loved one to win.


    Re: Jor (none / 0) (#175)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:13:24 AM EST
    I think this post kind of symbolizes what's wrong with us this year.  Our primary process should not be a zero-sum game.  If Obama wins in November, it's not as if Hillary supporters lose and will be cast down and discredited and reviled.  And the same goes for Clinton.  We're supposed to all be in this together.

    This shouldn't be about punishing Clinton or Obama for failure, damn it.  Whoever wins the nomination is going to need the other to fight like hell for them, and I get tired of partisans from both sides seeing nothing but scorn and venom from the "enemy" and nothing but sublime perfection from their "leader."  ugh.  Fair criticism is one thing, but everyone needs to stop shouting down the other side simply because they're on the other side.  And having been on both sides, I know that both factions are equally guilty.

    If Obama is elected president, the "consequences" for Clinton is that she goes back to the Senate and her admirers get to watch her work for the public good with help from the White House this time.  The same thing will happen if Clinton wins the nomination.  I really hate this partisan crap.


    Just for the record (none / 0) (#14)
    by ChrisM on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:40 PM EST
    the post was by Bringiton, a regular at Corrente, not Lambert.

    This is very unconvincing analysis (none / 0) (#16)
    by andrewwm on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:39:38 PM EST
    Why not use head to head polling?

    While obviously some Clinton voters are not going to vote Obama and some Obama voters are not going to vote Clinton, the majority of Democrats are going to vote for, well, the Democratic candidate. It's independents that have to be won to win most battleground states. And who won the primary doesn't tell us anything about that.

    Furthermore, the analysis turns on not counting MI as an Obama state, despite the fact that he has very consistently polled better than Clinton in the last few months.

    I'll take MyDD or electoral-vote.com over this crummy analysis any day.

    Yes, why not use head to head polls. They show (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:45:30 PM EST
    Obama losing by 30 electoral votes and Clinton winning by 22. And I found that at electoral-vote.com. And in 2 of the last 3 Michigan polls, McCain has beaten Obama.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#26)
    by andrewwm on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    but you have to realize that this turns on a couple of percentage points in the polls of a few states. Functionally, at this point, they're almost identical.

    Also... (none / 0) (#34)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    ...right now both the Clinton camp and the Republicans have been attacking Obama whereas Clinton and McCain are getting more ignored.

    ROTFLMAO n/t (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:05:05 PM EST
    Right (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:15:04 PM EST
    no one is attacking Clinton  :-)   get out much?  cause she's being hit from all sides.

    This source showed Hillary ahead for months! (none / 0) (#198)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:40:30 AM EST
    Head-to-head polling (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:42:33 PM EST
    is currently not so pretty for Obama. I'm sure you know this, as you reference electoral-vote.com .

    lol (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by reynwrap582 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    Classy...  on the electoral-vote.com map, Brown is for Obama, and Pink is for Hillary.  They were out of race/gender neutral colors?

    They're pretty close (none / 0) (#24)
    by andrewwm on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:47:07 PM EST
    It basically depends on how one state swings to determine who's better in the head to head polling.

    That doesn't add up to an Obama (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:49:35 PM EST
    electibility argument. A vast majority of the time, he loses close race primaries. Hillary, OTOH, has been a clinch hitter.

    This is where Obama's demographic weakness comes into play: I don't understand how he wins Pennsylvania, let alone Florida.


    I agree with the poster (none / 0) (#56)
    by Belswyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:26:35 PM EST
    who said that the one thing this indicates is that the Democratic primary process needs to be overhauled.

    None of these analyses is particularly convincing. I keep trying to figure out how Arnone is using margin of victory in his analysis and coming up empty. All the analyses seem to compare Obama to Clinton rather than the more valid comparison of
    Obama to McCain vs. Clinton to McCain.

    It would be great if someone could actually take the time to write a detailed explanation of how the analysis that Clinton or Obama is more electable than Obama or Clinton is done if there's something more there than simply saying things like "Clinton won the Dem primary in PA, therefore she is more likely to win the GE in PA than Obama". There are myriad problems with that kind of statement.

    he explains at length (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:14 PM EST
    Read his 11 page analysis, not just my synopsis of it. Link is in the post.  He explains the factors, and it's not just who won which primary. He also at the end lists factors that could change his analysis.

    He also places great emphasis on certain types of voters that Dems have been losing in recent years. He says Dems need to get greater numbers of these voters to win in November and Hillary has been getting them, not Obama. They are: older voters, women voters, Catholic voters and Hispanic/Latino voters. This is fully explained here.


    And Obama's p.o.-ed 3 of the 4 (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:12:02 PM EST
    Older voters, women voters,  and Hispanic/Latino voters.

    Maybe he hasn't had time to get round to the Catholics?

    Plenty of space under the bus!


    But Rev Wright has (none / 0) (#147)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:17:41 PM EST
    done some of that work for him. There are some things which should not be done in church. Ever.

    Re: he explains at length (none / 0) (#229)
    by Belswyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    I did read his 11 page analysis. Including the Section on page 8 entitled "Margins of Victory." That section has the margins of victory that Hillary and Obama have won by in the various categories of states that he uses: Republican-safe, Democrat-safe, and Battleground.

    OK. So then what? What does the margin of victory have to do with the argument? Unless, it's (as I said before), the argument is: In Democratic primaries in Battleground states, Clinton did better than Obama, therefore Clinton will do better in the GE than Obama in those states.

    At this piont, not trying to debate, just trying to understand.


    Another map /calculation link downthread (none / 0) (#197)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:37:51 AM EST
    please repost (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:02:52 PM EST
    without the url, it's too long and skews the site. I don't want to erase your comment but can't edit it. If you repost, i'll delete the first one with the overly long link.

    fixed, sorry (none / 0) (#97)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST
    another look at the race (none / 0) (#84)
    by tsackton on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:12:08 PM EST
    Here (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) is another electoral vote analysis (from Poblano) that, in addition to polling data, includes  a regression analysis of demographic variables to try to smooth out polling blips and provide a better prediction of the actual result in November. I think the danger of electoral-vote.com or other analyses that simply look at the most recent poll in each state (or few most recent polls) is that they tend to be very sensitive to minor blips in polling.

    The punchline from Poblano's analysis is that Obama and Clinton are very close, with each having about a 50% chance of winning the election based on current conditions. Furthermore, if you look at Poblano's analysis by state, you can see immediately Obama and Clinton's relative strengths and weaknesses. Obama tends to outperform Clinton  in the west (OR, WA), southwest (NV, NM, CO), and upper midwest (WI, MN, IA). He also does better, but not well enough to win, in the praire states (NE, ND, SD, MT) and the south coast states (VA, NC, SC). Clinton tends to outperform Obama in the rust belt (PA, OH), the upper south (AR, WV, MO, plus some states she wouldn't win, but polls better than Obama in like KY and TN), and Florida.

    In any case, the point is that both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses, and it is hard to say who would be more likely to win (it kind of depends on the next 5 months, after all).

    oh jeez (none / 0) (#173)
    by andreww on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:06:49 AM EST
    go ahead and throw FACTS into this thread.  How rude!

    Poblano? Really? (none / 0) (#182)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:31:46 AM EST
    The same guy who told me that he didn't need to revise his argument after I found information in the Congressional Record/Thomas that contradicted him because the source he got his information from was "non-partisan" (and incredibly limited in its scope)? That Poblano?

    What exactly is an Obama talking point, anyways? (none / 0) (#90)
    by tasfourohone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    Saying that the voters in all states should be allowed to pick who the nominee is, rather then the voters that Hillary's supporters hand pick to be the representatives?  That being the case, let's use this Hillary talking point to reverse things: I think the only voters who matter are the ones who voted for Obama, therefore Obama should win.  

    Gotta love that logic.

    Also, isn't it a bit ironic to continue saying that Hillary can win and she's the most electable when she hasn't even been able to beat Obama?  Any objective observer would be forced to admit that the kitchen sink has been thrown at Obama since Super Tuesday and he's survived.  Could Hillary have survived a Rev. Wright type scandal?  I doubt it -- Obama can, though.  He did such and he almost beat Hillary in Indiana afterwards, too.  Any other candidate put into the situations Obama has gone through during this primary process would be out of the race by now, yet Obama is the clear winner.  If that's not electability, I don't know what is.

    [I'm resisting writing what I want to] (5.00 / 9) (#106)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:40 PM EST
    tasfouroone burbles:

    Could Hillary have survived a Rev. Wright type scandal?  I doubt it

    You're still in Junior High, then?

    Seriously, what the Republicans did to the Clintons during the impeachment saga makes the Wright thing look like the teeny-tiny little pinprick that it is. Hillary not only survived, but prospered.


    that's just it... (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:17:36 PM EST
    When Clinton and Obama run vigorous campaigns against each other, Clinton generally wins.

    Clinton won the VOTE count on super tuesday -- but lost the delegate count by 14.  That's because she didn't bother to waste time and resources in heavily Republican states that Democrats don't win in November.  


    What makes you think Obama survived Wright? (5.00 / 7) (#109)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:18:12 PM EST
    I think you are watching a political corpse walking to the nomination, it just hasn't fallen down yet. That will happen soon enough.

    KY and WVA polling (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:35:35 PM EST
    shows people remember Wright, but they remember "bitter/cling" more.  I've been making calls all week and gotten a lot of feedback on that very thing.  Just because the media have moved on doesn't mean people have forgotten.

    they remember "bitter/cling" now... (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:01:07 PM EST
    ...because it puts a name to the message that Obama sent to those voters in the two weeks leading up to the IN/NC primaries.

    Its not what he said, its what he did.  

    The attacks on the gas tax holiday severely, if not mortally, wounded any chance of getting these voters in November.  All politicians pander to various constiuencies, and everyone knows it.  Obama went out of his way to attack Clinton for pandering to this specific demographic  -- Clinton's proposal wasn't about saving these families $2.00 a week on gas, it was about telling people who get a sinking feeling in their stomach every time they pass a gas station that the government cares about them.

    Clinton sent the message "I'll do what I can".  Obama said "I don't care, and I'm going to make this a political football at you're expense."


    One of the things I've heard (none / 0) (#149)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:18:40 PM EST
    a lot of is Michelle Obama being proud of her country for the first time.  Fair or unfair, a LOT of people don't understand this...

    They understand all too well (5.00 / 7) (#154)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:24:50 PM EST
    and they don't like a candidate whose spouse is proud of her country only because her hubby is now running for its Prez.

    Geeez, why run for Prez unless you are proud of your country and want to serve its people?    Oh. Yeah, guess there are some other reasons.    And those rural, underserved, underpaid voters may have picked that up too.  They may be undereducated but they are not dumb.


    It's a completely different (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:11 PM EST
    playing field, that's why.  The GOP is using attacks that aren't affecting Obama too much because his supporters are resistant to them for a number of different reasons.  It would be like if the press went after McCain because he would appoint 'strict constructionists' to the SCOTUS -- if anything it might shore up his support within his own party.

    That will change in the general election, and I'd argue that it will make it difficult to expand Obama's base any further than what he already has.  Plus, he'll lose a lot of Clinton supporters along the way.


    We get visitors, we get visitors... (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Camorrista on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:25:33 AM EST
    Any objective observer would be forced to admit that the kitchen sink has been thrown at Obama since Super Tuesday and he's survived.

    And just when we thought we'd get a break--perhaps a  post-Mother's Day hiatus--here comes another dive-bomber, to tell us how biased and subjective  Clinton supporters are.  (In contrast, of course, to the cool and dispassionate view of events offered by Obama supporters.)

    With all due respect (which is to say, minimal-to-none) this particular line of attack--"any objective observer, etcetera, etcetera..." hasn't worked around here for months, even when it's launched by TL regulars.  Why would any objective observer--such as yourself--think it would work when it's launched as a one-off by an (unpaid, unofficial) Obama shill?

    Ah, well, maybe you'll learn.  Maybe next time you fly over, you'll launch an attack we haven't seen before.  But I suspect not.  I suspect that at your own site you're accustomed to having your little salvos cheered on by an Amen chorus, and you actually believe you're doing something more than making anti-Clinton noises.

    Well, here's to belief!  As to electability, well....here's to belief.  


    Personality versus Policy (none / 0) (#107)
    by barryluda on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:16:51 PM EST
    The race between Clinton and Obama has been primarily about personality because they are more similar than different on policy.  All of that changes in the GE; policy differences will play a much greater role.

    Although William Arnone's numbers and analysis are amazing, I'm not completely convinced that his premise is accurate:

    The winner of the popular vote in the Democratic primary or caucus in each of these key states will have a higher likelihood of carrying that state in November.

    In the GE, it becomes a much clearer choice for voters and many other factors will influence voters.  I can't see how we can say with any confidence today that five or six months from now, with two very substantively different candidates, that Clinton has a significantly better chance than Obama to beat McCain.  I like our chances with either Clinton or Obama.

    Rove calls it: (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:51:24 PM EST
    Any move by Mr. Obama to declare victory before the last of the Democratic primaries in June, Mr. Rove said, would alienate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's wing of the party. "That's a mistake," he said. "That just is rubbing the loser's nose in it. And a lot of those supporters will remember it by November."

    In the Obama campaign war room in Chicago, where Mr. Rove's talking head was just one of several across six television screens, his counsel was taken with a heavy dose of salt.

    "Wouldn't taking his advice be a little like getting health tips from a funeral home director?" said Mr. Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton.

    Jim Rutenberg, Monday NYT.

    I hope they do it tomorrow (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:54:16 PM EST
    And announce Camille Paglia as his running mate.

    LOL! Or Dr. Kevorkian n/t (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Eleanor A on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:28:39 PM EST
    Clever clever Rove (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:32:01 PM EST
    Of course Obama's not going to take his advice. Which means Obama will continue to alienate voters he needs to win the GE.  Which only shows his naivete, IMO, and his unsuitability for POTUS.  

    Re: HuffPo Post From Link. Ugh. n/t (none / 0) (#123)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:52:14 PM EST

    538 (none / 0) (#171)
    by andreww on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:04:55 AM EST
    disagrees.  take a look - and his record has been good throughout the primaries.

    "Big tent democratic electorate." (none / 0) (#178)
    by oculus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:19:49 AM EST
    Taken from the FAQ section (none / 0) (#185)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:45:34 AM EST
    I am a relatively frequent contributor at Daily Kos. I have been a supporter of Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary.

    re: bad assumptions/bad math (none / 0) (#193)
    by indesq on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:18:28 AM EST
    I have to apologize if some of this is disjointed, i am trying to get used to wearing bifocals.  What a curse that is.

    Daily updated Electoral Map (none / 0) (#196)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:27:48 AM EST
    These maps are updated daily and have shown Hillary ahead in the electoral count for a long time.

    Electoral Vote Map

    Click on Clinton/McCain and Obama/McCain for the maps of electoral votes by most recent polls and votes.
    Certainly wish we could get the MSM and pundits to see these numbers before they stop noticing Hillary is still running and winning.

    fear in the party (none / 0) (#199)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:45:01 AM EST
    The democrats would rather lose in November than be accused of being politically incorrect, or far worse, racist.  The super delegates will not do what they know is right to win in November because they are cowards who are afraid of alienating Blacks because they fear being accused of racism.  It's ridiculous, but true.  

    Their argument that they can't overturn the will of the voters is ridiculous too.  Why have super delegates if they are just a rubber stamp for the popular vote?  We don't need them if they don't have the courage to do what is right.  

    It seems like our party would rather lose than stand up and do what they will work best for us in November.  

    Thanks to the media coverage it's going to be (none / 0) (#202)
    by ChuckieTomato on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:01:15 AM EST
    very difficult for supers to vote their conscience

    Apples are different from oranges (none / 0) (#212)
    by Arabiflora on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:48:40 AM EST
    I think I've finally realized the reason why the recurrent debate about `popular vote total' vs `pledged delegate count' argument strikes a sour note to me. Superficially, it makes sense (for superdelegates) to factor in the aggregate popular vote totals, and some have extrapolated those primary and caucus results to make the argument that HRC is more electable in a campaign against McCain.

    But here's the problem with that approach: Most electors in the Democratic primary process have cast their votes well before McCain became the Republican nominee. There is an implicit (explicit?) assumption in the Bringiton analysis that primary voters in, say, South Carolina, went to the polls way back in early '08 and voted for the Dem that they thought would be best able to defeat McCain in the GE. Although McCain won that primary, it was by only a 33-30 margin against Huckabee; Thompson as well as Giuliani still lay in the weeds in advance of Super Tuesday on Feb 5.

    It's a stretch then (to say the least) that the popular vote totals registered to date in the race for the Democratic nomination have any import regarding the will of voters regarding the GE. Those voters--hell, this WI voter-- went to the Town Hall, civic center, or fire house, and cast votes reflecting their judgment about which, among the slate of Democratic candidates on the ballot in front of them, best reflected their hopes and aspirations.

    Those votes were cast in the truest sense of what a party nomination process should distill--Which candidate best represents the ideals we believe in, and the crass calculus that transforms those votes into a $2 parlay on who will win the GE demeans the entire process.

    TL denizens may not like the result of that collective judgment (as reflected in the accumulation of pledged and super-delegates between HRC and BHO), but it seems disingenuous to conflate those totals with the will of voters come election day in November.

    It's an imperfect process (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:20:00 AM EST
    Open to all sorts of interpretations which is why the superdelegates were created.

    You point out that many votes were cast before we knew it would be McCain.

    Others are free to point out that, say, the economy has so worsened in the last three months that people are no longer interested in hopes and aspirations, but solutions we can count on.


    Yep, WI would not vote for Obama now (none / 0) (#228)
    by Cream City on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    -- not that it was Dems who voted in Obama then, as well we know in WI with the Republican crossover campaign.

    Here's another consideration (none / 0) (#227)
    by Melchizedek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:52:56 AM EST
    The fact that Clinton and Obama won the states they did when they did means those same states might have changed their preferences since then. Take, for example, California. Here's a bit of polling that suggests Obama's support in the big state of California has overcome that of Clinton's. The same might occur for Clinton in states Obama won. So we have to be careful when we throw numbers around and state that the math is "easy" or "simple." I realize desperation leads to stronger rhetoric, but the math is not easy or simple.