home

Hillary Wins West Virginia

Update: First laugh of the night: On CNN, Donna Brazile says tonight is not a loss for Obama, it's just a win for Hillary. Do they bother to think before they open their mouths?

MSNBC says the exit polls show it was Obama's poorest performance in any primary so far. Neither Gore nor Kerry took W. VA. Bill Clinton did. Translation: John McCain just picked up 5 electoral votes if Obama is the nominee.

Update: The media is fixated on pledged delegates, talking about how close Obama is to winning the magic number. They don't want to mention that the 800 superdelegates can change their mind any time until August. They sure talk about it when one jumps from Hillary to Obama. As long as Hillary stays in, the superdelegates can consider electability in November. Obama has not shown he can win PA, Ohio, FL and those are crucial in November. [More...]

Update: Unbelievable. An Obama superdelegate from W. Va. is on saying he will vote for Obama even though Hillary won his state because that's his job as a superdelegate, to vote for the best candidate in his view. When Hillary suggests superdelegates vote their conscience, people scream about how they are violating the will of the voters.

The polls are closed. The media immediately calls the primary for Hillary Clinton. She will win by 2:1. Hillary will speak in a half hour or so. I'll live blog it when she does.

Hillary beat Obama in the Independent vote as well as the Democrats.

Ann Lewis says there are enough uncommitted superdelegates left to swing the total to Hillary. She also says that Hillary will be ahead in the popular vote by June 3. She agrees the race won't go to August.

Comments now closed.

< Hillary Says The Race Goes On | Florida And Michigan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Go Hillary, can't wait to hear the speech! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:26 PM EST


    Independents (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:32:20 PM EST
    She won them 54-42.

    and those with college degrees! (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:34:03 PM EST
    hrm, does not compute! ;-)

    Parent
    traitors to the creative classes! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:35:23 PM EST
    running dog proletariat!

    Parent
    Heh, he has pink eyes as well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:36:27 PM EST
    Judas Iscariot.  

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:12 PM EST
    And they are still going on that only the stoopid people vote for Hillary. She won the college degrees by 11 points.

    Once the media get in their narrative rut, they can't get out.

    Parent

    This is proof of one thing... (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    that many of us have been saying all along.  The Rev. Wright issue has HURT him badly, with voters all across the board, including Independents.  Despite media attempts and the Obama camp's attempts to hide that issue - it's there.  It's a matter of judgment if nothing else.  If it takes Obama 21 years to figure Rev. Wright out and disavow him - do we really want him selecting Supreme Court justices?

    Parent
    Can we be honest about this now? (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:13:40 PM EST
    Or is it still taboo?

    Obama does not really disavow Rev. Wright or his views. He is still a member of that church, and it is the overall philosophy of that church that is the problem, not just what Rev. Wright said. Further, the new Rev. Meeks is just as bad as Rev. Wright in the same ways. So, now he'd have to pretend to disavow Meeks as well.

    Everyone must think we are all really stupid!

    Parent

    College Grads too (none / 0) (#208)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:46 PM EST
    Hillary also won a majority of college graduates in West Virginia.

    Parent
    Clinton wins whites 69-28 (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:32:31 PM EST


    Clinton won Ohio whites 64-34 (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:34:32 PM EST
    Pennsylvania whites 63-37.

    Parent
    Must be why Fred/Frank Barnes (none / 0) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    just said there are lots of states like W VA.

    Parent
    Matthews tell Ohio Congresswoman (none / 0) (#177)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:37:45 PM EST
    he doesn't like the words "white people" !

    (can't think of her name - Hillary supporter)

    Parent

    Jones-Tubbs? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:51:44 PM EST
    that's all I can remember

    Parent
    yes thanks (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:59:38 PM EST
    Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and she rocks!

    Parent
    yes she does! a great advocate for Hillary (none / 0) (#210)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:06 PM EST
    It's a 2:1 margin. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by facta non verba on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    Obama gave his concession speech from Missouri. I didn't see it but both CNN and Fox said it was "poor" and "rambling."

    Awful (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:34 PM EST
    MSNBC called it a seance.  Uniform derision for the speech - in which the only action was provided by the gum chewing of a supporter behind him.

    Parent
    I caught the first couple of minutes (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:44:37 PM EST
    but hit my "uh, uh, uh" limit faster than usual with this speech.  So I switched to the channel not showing it, Fox, to find people who can talk without driving me crazy.  And to say that about Fox shows how bad it has become in the media.

    Parent
    uh uh uh (none / 0) (#93)
    by facta non verba on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    you might like this then:

    Obama Drinking Game

    Parent

    gum chewer.  lol

    Parent
    Wish obama Would Just Ramble Off Into The (none / 0) (#137)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:06:50 PM EST
    sunset.  I posted earlier they would declare victory for Hillary about one minute after the polls closed and they didn't let us down.  Please...someone wake up the SD's.

    Parent
    she wins, first up... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Lil on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:34:17 PM EST
    Richardson?!

    My estimation of him is going down (none / 0) (#20)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    very rapidly

    Parent
    what a jerk he is. n/t (none / 0) (#25)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:11 PM EST
    Super D's are the good guys now per Bill R.! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:58 PM EST
    I can't even watch Bill Richardson now n/t (none / 0) (#79)
    by kempis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:46:50 PM EST
    Didn't Judah hung himself? (none / 0) (#133)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:04:34 PM EST
    Please (none / 0) (#195)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:14:56 PM EST
    not Richardson.  The GOP could use a completely stupid Richardson interview in the Great Lakes states.

    Parent
    Bob Beckel, whoever he is (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:35:00 PM EST
    says it's remarkable for an underdog this late in the race to win so big against the supposed nominee.

    He's been the presumptive nominee... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:31 PM EST
    ... since the end of February, and certainly by the end of March. What does it say that so many people are turning out to vote for someone everyone says lost a long time ago?

    Parent
    The way the media (none / 0) (#211)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:22 PM EST
    behaved he was the presumptive nominee after the Iowa caucuses.

    Parent
    Obama's Campaign (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:41:08 PM EST
    How much did Obama outspend her?  He was running a stealth campaign while he hid from the WV voters.

    Not the mark of a leader - hiding from voters in WV.

    Parent

    2 to 1 (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:52:39 PM EST
    He outspent her 2 to 1.

    Parent
    Judas is on tv (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:35:09 PM EST
    Man, is his career finished or what?  Who can trust a loser like that now?  He is creepy as well.  

    Nah (none / 0) (#24)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:36:29 PM EST
    he's the peter principle in the flesh.

    Parent
    Everytime (none / 0) (#28)
    by Lil on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    I hear him, I can't believe he was a contender...oh nice he says she'd be a stong running mate...hmmmm.

    Parent
    His resume was a contender (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:14 PM EST
    Not so much he himself.

    Parent
    Woolf...says it (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    He outspent Hillary 2:1.  

    Poetic justice (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:43 PM EST
    she beat him 2:1.

    Parent
    He cannot buy the votes if he wanted. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    Mail Order Votes (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:52:15 PM EST
    That's the elitism os Obama - essentially trying to order votes by mail without deigning to visit the state.  Using money rather than work.  Very wrong in this state - but revealing about Obama.

    Too busy running victory laps to campaign this past week.

    Parent

    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:46:25 PM EST
    that he refuted Richardson's point about this being a state in which Clinton campaigned very hard (and Obama not by implication).

    Donna Brazile is being rather restrained -- but framing this as a big win for Clinton rather than a loss for Obama.  We apparently now have two person races where there is no loser. :-)

    Parent

    Odd, how can you not be the loser (none / 0) (#85)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:49 PM EST
    if it is a 35% margin?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:57 PM EST
    Donna is using her 'inside voice' tonight and trying to stay unemotional.  I guess she can't afford another incident like the one after IN/NC.

    Parent
    lol!~ I noticed that. (none / 0) (#149)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    Hey, we're all West Virginians now (none / 0) (#150)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:12:32 PM EST
    ...everybody wins...

    -The New and Improved (or just Chagrined) Donna Brazile.

    Parent

    myiq2xu at correntewire (none / 0) (#198)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:25:27 PM EST
    called it at 9 AM.

    Obama finishes second in WV, Hillary finishes next to last.

    They're so predictable.

    Parent

    And he had surrogates (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    out there campaigning for him (Rockefeller, for one), and he had campaign offices all over the state, and he spent lots of money there.

    Parent
    Oh, boo (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:19 PM EST
    Fox analysts are talking about the unity ticket.  I don't believe she's still in the race b/c she wants to be Obama's VP.

    wolfson, they've got to beat us. Yes! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:42 PM EST


    "They' are (none / 0) (#64)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    And 'they' will.

    OR will go to Obama. Kentucky will go to Hillary and then the last remaining ones are pretty small - so the wins will be insignificant. I think Obama will win Montana and South Dakota. She will get Puerto Rico.

    Parent

    Obama goes to PR tomorrow (nt) (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:10 PM EST
    Chelsea is down there celebrating (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:13:37 PM EST
    with supporters right now. I wonder how Michelle will do contrasted with Chelsea?

    Parent
    No Contest....Chelsea Has Heart...michelle (none / 0) (#165)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:24:14 PM EST
    not so much.

    Parent
    I heard that Michelle (none / 0) (#162)
    by vigkat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:23:19 PM EST
    was going to PR tomorrow.  Perhaps they are both going.

    Parent
    There are beautiful beaches there (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:30:33 PM EST
    She should stay on one of them and just wave at everyone.

    Parent
    I agree with these predictions. (none / 0) (#158)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:18:52 PM EST
    But, thought the wins may be small, the calls to resolve before August will be huge. At which point, the SD's will be totally running the show.

    Do they go with their original pledges, their consituents' votes, their guts, their chances for their own re-elections...


    Parent

    Why did they (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:42:11 PM EST
    Go to Judas FIRST at CNN?? I hate Turncouts ie. Lieberman. I sincerely hope Judas has his day


    If Super-Delegates don't wake up (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by chopper on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:44:03 PM EST
    there will be hell to pay.  There are petitions up where people won't vote for Obama.  There are polls with majorities saying they won't vote for Obama. There is a Hillary Write-In website coming up.  There will be lawsuits about FL and MI being deprived of their right to vote and be heard.  The victims of the caucuses, particularly the TX caucuses, may press charges. And, most importantly OBAMA WILL LOSE.

    I want to know where that website is (none / 0) (#88)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:48:39 PM EST
    that's what I have been thinking about doing - writing her in in November.

    Parent
    www.writehillaryin.com (none / 0) (#135)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    Not all 50 states (none / 0) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:13:30 PM EST
    allow write-ins, and some won't allow writing in a candidate who lost the primary in the state.

    She's still got a decent chance at the nomination, so it might not be necessary to even consider an alternative.


    Parent

    76 percent of those affected by recession... (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:44:54 PM EST
    ...voted for Clinton.

    That, way more than the racial divide, is the real story, imho.

    CNN shocked: 45% say Hillary=change (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:45:07 PM EST
    SHOCKED, I say.

    "But here is the surprise: Obama and Clinton nearly split those voters who named change as the most important quality, 53 percent for Obama and 45 percent for Clinton. That margin has been much wider in other states.

    So it looks like she's made some headway in West Virginia, offering herself as the candidate of change."

    Are any of YOU "surprised"?  


    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:56:35 PM EST
    A Hillary Clinton presidency with some decent coattails - and yer damned right there would be some change.  I think that's why the "corporate" media has been so firmly against her.

    Parent
    They always attack the real change candidate (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by dotcommodity on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:26:26 PM EST
    Obama is running as the bipartisan who will reach across the aisle and cooperate with the rethugs...so,...how is that change again?

    Parent
    His entire change (none / 0) (#212)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:55:13 PM EST
    schtick was complete crap from the start.

    It never made a bit of logical sense.

    Parent

    Oh yes, shocked! (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    How could people think a female president would mean change!! They really are low information voters snark

    Parent
    Donna: (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:46:22 PM EST
    "not a loss for Obama, but a win for Clinton."

    um, ok.

    He spent gobs of money (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:49:08 PM EST
    He did not, not contest, he thought it would be a cake walk.  The presumptive nominee should not be losing.  

    To keep saying he did not compete, its telling those voters, ef you.  

    Parent

    2 x as many offices (none / 0) (#207)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:46 PM EST
    I believe Obama had twice as many field offices as Clinton did in W. VA

    Parent
    Jesus these journalists. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:49:14 PM EST
    That's pretty much the final evidence that Obama can't win the border states and the foundry.

    If the Dels pick obama we are dependent on a wholey experimental map for getting the electoral college win.

    Parent

    It's the K-6 elementary school mantra (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:50:38 PM EST
    that nobody ever loses.

    Parent
    Donna Brazill says its not a loss for obama- (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:46:41 PM EST
    it's a win for Hillary ????!!!!!

    Donna knows about losing (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
    and not even fighting to win, with her advice as Gore's campaign manager for him to give up in Florida.  She's just the one to lead the Dems to a loss again.

    Parent
    Evidently (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:57:53 PM EST
    Donna got some pretty ugly mails telling her good luck with her "new coalitiona and now she is treading carefully because she just might need ome of the "old" coalition. The new moron is the Obama superdelegate who had the audacity to insinuate that the Democratic party superdeleates who are undeclared are doing Hillary a favor by allowing her to make her case. What an arrogant as on speak on behalf of others who haven't chose to do as he has.

    Parent
    KO - can't bear to say 'loser' (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:48:21 PM EST
    about Obama. Instead he says 'the person on the 1 side of the 2 to 1 ratio".  LOL

    For realz? (none / 0) (#95)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:50:36 PM EST
    LOL!

    Parent
    Oh yeah, I heard it. Too funny (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:47 PM EST
    He went WAY out of his way (none / 0) (#122)
    by livesinashoe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    to avoid calling Obama a loser.

    Parent
    11 to 1 word ratio (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:23:26 PM EST
    He does have that pseudo-clever way of speaking sometimes.

    Parent
    Giving up a rock concert never felt so good (5.00 / 0) (#92)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:49:35 PM EST
    As when I gave another $50 yesterday.

    $200 (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by vigkat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:25:36 PM EST
    Just because.  Depending on her speech, it may be more.

    Parent
    She's a millionaire... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:09 PM EST
    and you're going without one of the best investments I know of, a rock-n-roll show?

    With all due respect I think you're nuts...but whatever makes you happy.  

    Parent

    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:21:15 PM EST
    of which your post had none.

    Parent
    Fair enough Bo.... (none / 0) (#201)
    by kdog on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM EST
    my bad.  I just hate to see good people who give a sh*t throw their money down the crooked tubes.  

    No matter which stooge wins I think we're all gonna need our cash to pay for food and energy.

    Parent

    Electability (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by Missblu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:01 PM EST
    I really would like to hear more critically thought out reasons from these Supers as to why they are supporting Obama. I have heard a new beginning, or my children like him, or he brings hope. I want to hear a more detailed analysis as to why they think he can win in the real election. Hope is not going to do it.

    What I really would like is a TOWN HALL where voters could question some of our party supers.  It really looks like Mc Cain to this observer.

    That would be so cool, a SD townhall (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:53:03 PM EST
    I would pay to watch that one!  

    Parent
    Remember all the cash (none / 0) (#180)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:42:20 PM EST
    he has donated to various Congresscritters.  Hillary has made donations, too.  But not as much.  Of course, she spent days campaigning for many of them.  But, I guess that does not count.

    Parent
    here's the list -- (none / 0) (#191)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:01:29 PM EST
    And Obama (none / 0) (#213)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:59:21 PM EST
    spent days campaigning for Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary.

    The a-list boyz have conveniently disappeared that little nugget of information.

    Parent

    MSNBO theme is clear (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:09 PM EST
    Hillary just has too high a hill to climb, even with this win...er, excuse me KO, being on the 2 side of the 2 to 1 ratio.

    Never mind that any delegate can switch at any time, as we have seen with HRC delegates switching to BHO.  They can switch right back.

    Roland Martin - we don't need WV, OH, PA... (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by Lysis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:46 PM EST
    Unbelievable.

    "You can concede West Virginia, you can even concede Ohio and Pennsylvania."

    His logic?

    Missouri has a lot of evangelicals and they don't like McCain, so that state is in play.

    Even Lou Dobbs called BS on that one.

    Think we can get Roland Martin to make Obama's case to the superdelegates?


    Evangelicals (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:56:09 PM EST
    also don't like the worshiping of false idols (aka false Messiah's).

    He's not going to take the evangelical vote.

    Parent

    Roland Martin is an Obama surrogate (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:59:47 PM EST
    if we are being honest here.
    But please don't say "even Lou Dobbs called him on that" -- I've been watching him a lot lately (only one on CNN I can stand) and he has been calling out the DNC on a lot of their bs this season -- especially regarding MI & FL -- and he has been calling out the media bias against Clinton -- so, I let him slide on the immigration thing. ;-)

    Parent
    Fair Point. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Lysis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:02 PM EST
    I'm so used to anti-Clinton punditry that I tend to lump them all together!

    Parent
    And while they're at it (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Nadai on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:23:49 PM EST
    they can concede 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Parent
    Roland Martin Doesn't Know His @ss From (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:57:59 PM EST
    a hole in the ground about MO. Conservative small town and rural Dems won't even vote for Obama because of Rev. Wright and Obama amusing his SF donors by dissing small town folks. Obama's campaign is so on the ball about MO that they held his Town Hall meeting tonight in Rush Limbaugh's home town which voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

    Parent
    I saw that (none / 0) (#115)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:57:16 PM EST
    I was flipping channels and caught that.

    Unbelievable indeed.

    Parent

    is it (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:03:48 PM EST
    meltdown time with Obama pundits? or what? That's the most incredibly stupid statement. Has he looked at polling for MO? Obama can't top 40% in that state. These people are really, really out of touch with reality.

    Parent
    So he's happy (none / 0) (#214)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:02 PM EST
    to trade 46 electoral votes for 11.

    We low information voters no doubt fail to grasp the stunning intellectual insight behind Martin's calculations.

    Parent

    Juan Williams (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:52:04 PM EST
    I like him.  He says Hillary's victory is not just race, but if he raises the issue, he's a "Tom and a crazy person".

    Isn't it (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:57:28 PM EST
    kind of bad for Obama to run about calling himself the "presumptive nominee" when the voters of WV just handed him his *ss?

    Does he even use (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:59:00 PM EST
    the "presumptive" qualification anymore?

    Parent
    Probably (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    not after tonight. Is he still planning to crown himself the winner on May 20th? He'll certainly look stupid doing that if he gets blown out in KY on the same night.

    Parent
    Tonight is not the night she's going to (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:10 PM EST
    drop out.

    WTF?! DUH!

    Then why is Chelsea in Puerto Rico? (none / 0) (#146)
    by goldberry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    They don't vote until June 1 or something.  Why bother going there if you are planning to drop out?  Ohhhh, so she's NOT dropping out.  Ok, ok, I get it.

    Parent
    That's what they were saying on CNN (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:53:42 PM EST
    I was just reacting :)

    Parent
    Donna Brazille is on CNN now (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:17:19 PM EST
    she sounds a bit chastened. Wolfson is talking about Obama taking his name off MI ballot - Brazille looks so POed.

    Doesn't Wolfson, et al,  need to really STRESS that the GOP forced the Dems to move up their primaries in FL and MI?

    MSNBC loves (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:23:15 PM EST
    playing the "uneducated" card on its underbanner-thing

    They could have played the "highest percentage of population serving in the military" card. But no, the trailer is stuck on playing the "hillbilly" race card.

    Willie Brown gets it right (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:36:41 PM EST
    and gives Bill Clinton a lot of credit for bringing African-Americans into his administration and paving the way for a possible Obama nomination.  

    Honestly, it would not have cost Obama one vote if his supporters had been speaking that truthfully and respectfully of Bill Clinton all along, and it would have prevented a large part of this division now.  They really played that angle all wrong IMHO.  There was no reason they had to dis Bill just because Hillary was in the race.  

    By the way, KO is being a real a** about this speech.  I didn't hear what McAuliffe said, but KO is way over the top ridiculous.

    excellent point. (none / 0) (#181)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    It's great to see that Obama's marketing... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by AX10 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:02 PM EST
    and money machine can't buy the election in every state.

    Electability? (1.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:54:19 PM EST
    Who cares if Hillary is more electable?
    The primary process has her behind. If she can convince the Super Delegates then fine. But it is not like this process hasn't been fair.

    the whole reason for SD's (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:08 PM EST
    was to pick the most electable - if it isn't the same as the winner of the pledged delegates.

    Parent
    Electability (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:00:42 PM EST
    matters if you want to win the election. I mean we can nominate Obama but we are going to go into the election knowing that we're going to lose.

    The primary system has not been fair. Caucuses are undemocratic. IMO, no matter who gets the nomination it needs to be redone. It's not designed to pick the best candidate for a general election. When someone loses the votes and gets more delegates in a state that says that there is a big problem.

    Parent

    She knew the rules (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:06:58 PM EST
    Hillary knew which states would have caucuses and which would not. She knew all the way back in 2004. Isn't it her fault [and her problem] if she could not get a team together to figure out how to dominate the caucuses?
    You cannot call something 'unfair' after the fact. Especially if you have lost. Can you imagine an athlete preparing for an event and then after a loss saying the rules were unfair even though he fully knew what the rules were when he started the event?
    He's be laughed off the court.
    She knew the rules. She did not have a good enough campaign to win.
    Now, the Super D's may decide otherwise but I don't think a win in WV or KY will sway many.

    Parent
    Donna, is that you? (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    If not, great transcribing of the CNN coverage!

    Parent
    Actually, that's not all accurate (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:32:37 PM EST
    Here in WA the state Dems did not vote until just a few months ago to apportion all the delegates by caucus. So nobody knew what our situation would be, least of all Clinton's campaign.

    Parent
    I'm (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    not defending her problem with caucuses but to say that they are equal to primaries is a grave disservice. It disenfranchises many voters and the number of people who participate is way below the number that votes. Look no further than WA state. Obama had a huge win in the caucuses but the primary he only won by about 5 points. Primaries give everyone an opportunity to participate. Caucuses do not. Caucuses are only attended by people who can stay for long periods of time.

    Well, if the super D's decide to go with Obama they are saying that they want a President McCain in the fall.

    Parent

    A win this big in WV should sway them somewhat (none / 0) (#174)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    Since Dems have carried the state in every presidential election they've won.

    We can't do it on Wyoming/Alabama/South Carolina/Texas/Idaho.

    Parent

    Kansas (1.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:01:42 PM EST
    When Hillary lost to Obama in Kansas 74% to 25% I don't recall anyone saying, 'how come Hillary can't win Kansas?'
    Or, 'You can't win the country if you can't win the middle of the USA.'
    So I'll ask it now.
    Why couldn't Hillary win Kansas? And why ultimately did it not matter?
    [She lost Missouri too].

    No one said that (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:11 PM EST
    because Obama can't win Kansas either and he is unlikely to win Missouri.  And not winning Kansas or Missouri does not mean that you can't win the White House.

    Losing WV is not tragic in and of itself, but it's an indicator -- Obama can't win WV, and for the same reasons that he can't win WV, he's unlikely to win OH or PA. How many Colorados does he have in his back pocket to make up for losing OH and PA?

    Parent

    You mean the Kansas caucus? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:05:54 PM EST
    Obama 27,172
    Hillary Clinton 9,462

    Um, that's why.  

    Also, Missouri she lost by what, one point?  If that?


    Parent

    win is not a win...right (1.00 / 0) (#141)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:44 PM EST
    Oh, right. When Obama wins it doesn't count. Forgot that....

    Parent
    That's not a win in the GE. (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:09:59 PM EST
    You asked
    'You can't win the country if you can't win the middle of the USA.'

    You can't win a state with 26,000 votes either.  Don't B.S. me.

    Parent

    Obama Will Not Win MO In The GE (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:03:15 PM EST
    without the small town and rural conservative Dems. He lost all those counties by large margins. He has two chances to get their vote in the GE. Slim and none.

    Parent
    Ah, I see now- (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    Are you on the wrong site?

    Parent
    Kansas (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST
    was a caucus. Obama wouldn't win MO if the primary was held there again.

    You have to realize that Obama has lost a lot of support because of Rev. Wright. That is why his demographic numbers are so bad.

    Parent

    he barely won MO as is (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:18:39 PM EST
    By one point and they split the delegates.

    Parent
    Reasonable questions... (none / 0) (#142)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:08:58 PM EST
    Kansas was a caucus.

    Missouri was a lot closer.

    I happen to think that Obama can win the general, but it's becoming clear that he does have his vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities make it appear that he'll have to write off West Virginia.

    Parent

    It should also be noted that (none / 0) (#209)
    by Politalkix on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:28 PM EST
    HRC lost Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Washington, Louisiana, Georgia and many other "swing states". She is also probably going to lose Oregon. If one argues the way some of HRC's supporters have been arguing, one should say that HRC's losses in the mentioned states throws her "electibility" argument out of the window.
    McCain, also, did not win many of the Key states that the Republican nominee has to win in the GE-states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, Michigan, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Colorado, West Virginia, Nevada and Iowa. He also has problems with key constituencies that have enabled Republican victories in previous elections. That does not necessarily make him unelectable.
    The dynamics of primaries and GEs are not necessarily the same.....


    Parent
    As soon as the numbers come up on CNN (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:12 PM EST
    I'll tell you exactly what the exit poll predicts Hillary will win by.

    Exit Poll says: (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    Hillary 65.12%, Obama 31.9%.

    I actually expect Hillary's margin to go a bit beyond that.

    Parent

    I was hoping he would be under (none / 0) (#9)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:41 PM EST
    30

    Parent
    My intuition tells me (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:34:23 PM EST
    that it's going to break 35%.

    Parent
    I believe Edwards may still be on the ticket... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:35:30 PM EST
    ..which would explain the missing 3%?

    Parent
    Yup, could be (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:36:10 PM EST
    fox said Edwards at 4% n/t (none / 0) (#32)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    I guess he has a white voter problem, too... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:58 PM EST
    ...(obvious, obvious joke).

    Parent
    That's kind of awesome (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:14 PM EST
    That's a kick in the pants for Obama.

    Parent
    67-31-2 (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:35 PM EST
    Is my prediction.

    Parent
    Sounds right (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:41:01 PM EST
    Hillary won women by more than 70%.

    Parent
    And white men (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:45:53 PM EST
    2/3 to 1/3

    Parent
    By which I mean that the MARGIN (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:43:04 PM EST
    will break 35%.

    Parent
    Higher (none / 0) (#34)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:03 PM EST
    Matthews just said maybe 80%.

    Parent
    Fox just said that 80% is from (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:42:45 PM EST
    the Obama camp -- what she needs to do, they say, for West Virginia to mean anything at all.

    The fools, do they think the way to win the vast majority of West Virginia's voters today is to call them meaningless?  That reaffirms exactly what they think Obama thinks of them.  

    Parent

    WTF?! Are they that daft?! (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:29 PM EST
    That attitude (none / 0) (#215)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:48 PM EST
    from the Obama camp speaks volumes.

    Parent
    I don't see Obama going below (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    25%.

    Parent
    Why would the exit poll data be 15% off? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:51 PM EST
    Matthews is just playing with the Bill Clinton/Obama 80% number for effect, as a prop to clown with. She will likely not get 80%.

    Parent
    It was off by several points in IN and RI (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:41:44 PM EST
    I think we may have a RI situation tonight.

    Parent
    With 54% precincts reporting.. (none / 0) (#203)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:23:02 PM EST
    Hillary at 65% Obama 28%. And the more precincts come in, the higher her numbers get and the lower his get. She is ahead by 37%. So far. Heh.

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:42 PM EST
    how many delegates all 39??

    10 of them are super (none / 0) (#68)
    by Faust on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:44:15 PM EST
    I think it's 29 pledged.

    Parent
    oops (none / 0) (#72)
    by Faust on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:44:56 PM EST
    11 super 28 pledged according to cnn

    Parent
    FOX CALLS IT FOR HILLARY! TUNE IN (none / 0) (#4)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:31:57 PM EST


    My math says (none / 0) (#22)
    by cloudy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:36:14 PM EST
    at least 35.  Does anyone have rough turnout numbers?

    Richardson just did in Oregon (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:32 PM EST
    He called it " Ore-gone".  He just lost Oregon for Obama, they hate that east coast pronunciation  

    hold on (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:26 PM EST
    It's a Spanish word.  He's a Spanish speaker, so he may know a thing or two.

    Parent
    Nobody in Oregon (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:45 PM EST
    calls it Ore-gone.

    Parent
    We hate that Ore-gone pronumciation. (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by caseyOR on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    Aye. Call it Ore-gone, and they want you gone. (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    Pronto.

    (Now there's a good Spanish word.)

    Parent

    Noone in Oxford calls a college Mag-Da-len (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:41:20 PM EST
    ...it's Maudlin instead.

    Parent
    Nope... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:41:58 PM EST
    it's what they call it in Oregon, and they get peeved.  

    Parent
    As a native Oregonian, (none / 0) (#172)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:32:20 PM EST
    I thought it was a native american word.  Oregon was never part of the Spanish Empire.  That extended only into CA.

    Parent
    Yes! (none / 0) (#170)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:29:42 PM EST
    That is one of the stupdist mistakes a politician can make.  Barry has a number of politician endorsers here.  One would think they would educate their fellow supporters.

    Parent
    any projections on the popular (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:37:45 PM EST
    vote ?

    400,000 (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:42:22 PM EST
    people voting and Hillary getting 2/3 of the vote equals about 268,000. Isn't that more than Obama won NC by?

    Parent
    She'll pick up even more votes (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:44:27 PM EST
    and Delegates here than she did in PA. The win is that big.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#82)
    by smott on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:22 PM EST
    ...she needs to beat Obama by 200K+ just to erase NC. That probably won't happen.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:53:19 PM EST
    she's going to beat Obama's number in NC in one little state.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#84)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    I was just about to ask that question.

    Parent
    The margin would be 1/3... (none / 0) (#86)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:48:02 PM EST
    ... or about 133,000 votes. Which would be quite a pickup for such a small state.

    Where did you hear the 400,000 number?

    Parent

    I heard more than that, earlier today (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM EST
    in predictions, since it was more than 400,000 in the last election, and this was to set a record.  And 70,000 in early voting, another record even before polls opened, is remarkable.

    Parent
    Poblano says 109,00 net (none / 0) (#183)
    by fuzzyone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:51:38 PM EST
    for Hillary based on a 39% margin of victory.

    Parent
    fox has a good analysis going on now. (none / 0) (#35)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:19 PM EST


    Good grief (none / 0) (#37)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    Next Faux commentator says the Clinton campaign has devolved into nothing but a race issue.  I believe it will be the illustrious Marion Barry.

    All Those Typical White Women n/t (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:55:51 PM EST
    oh yeah, the one who went to jail (none / 0) (#48)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:40:29 PM EST
    and was elected again as mayor of dc. yeah, right!

    Parent
    Obviously (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by stillife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:41:33 PM EST
    he's still smoking crack!

    Parent
    what is this meme (none / 0) (#42)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:39:37 PM EST
    about having to get 80-90%???

    from an Obama memo (none / 0) (#59)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:42:38 PM EST
    should come as no surprise by now that the msm picked that up.

    Parent
    silly me! Obama rules. n/t (none / 0) (#190)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:00:45 PM EST
    Exit Polls have it 65-35 -NT- (none / 0) (#55)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST


    Why did McCauliffe say (none / 0) (#63)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:43:06 PM EST
    she was going to give a great speech?  That doesn't seem smart to build up expectations.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Rashomon66 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:45:04 PM EST
    So he should have said she is going to give a really lame speech?

    Parent
    just because (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:57:59 PM EST
    it gives Olbermann a chance to bash her all night.  Don't bash me - I'm a Hillary fan

    Parent
    Roland Martin said (none / 0) (#94)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    we don't need W VA, PA or OH to win, uh?

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:52:14 PM EST
    being a Dem this year requires believing in articles of faith.

    They're going to take us all down with them, aren't they?

    Parent

    How about FL? n/t (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by lilburro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:04:13 PM EST
    Heck, we don't need OH, PA, or FL (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by shoephone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:27:07 PM EST
    Didn't you hear? We're going to win it with Wyoming and Idaho.

    Parent
    Roland Martin (none / 0) (#97)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:50:59 PM EST
    says that the Dems can concede WV.  And apparently OH????  And PA? Apparently all the rules are out the window this year because of the historic nature of the campaign.

    ::sigh::

    It's not THAT historic. (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Lysis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:52:27 PM EST
    McGovern did it in '72.

    Parent
    ROFLMAO!!! n/t (none / 0) (#187)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:54:49 PM EST
    Martin was really stupid (none / 0) (#182)
    by RalphB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:49:05 PM EST
    And speaking of stupid, does Bob Casey have a brain cell?  He's just a standing talking point and they're not even good ones.  Jeez.


    Parent
    Ah, Bob Casey (none / 0) (#197)
    by Seth Warren on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:24:34 PM EST
    ...the democrat who only got my vote because he wasn't Rick Santorum. Rest assured that his Obama endorsement has given me yet one more reason to go shopping for a real Democrat once his term is up in 2012.

    Parent
    Casey on CNN (none / 0) (#175)
    by badu on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:35:59 PM EST
    He seems like a real zero.  I can't imagine him winning against anyone but Santorum.  But I guess he's popular in PA?

    I agree over-all (none / 0) (#178)
    by ruffian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:37:49 PM EST
    but I will admit to you 100 of my best friends that I love his voice.

    Parent
    He is not popular here (none / 0) (#179)
    by smott on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:41:28 PM EST
    We just had to rid ourselves of Santorum

    Parent
    Casey (none / 0) (#186)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 13, 2008 at 07:54:05 PM EST
    He was the most practical choice to get rid of Santorum.

    Parent
    KO just called Hillary's email a ponzi scheme, (none / 0) (#193)
    by jawbone on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:06:20 PM EST
    that she's just trying to get money out of donors.

    He is not a good man.

    Yes (none / 0) (#216)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:26:56 PM EST
    and when Hillary exhales KO can call it adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

    I wonder what KO calls Obama's fundraising emails?

    Maybe he's auditioning for a gig on FOX after the elections are over.

    Parent

    Electable (none / 0) (#196)
    by mikesan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:21:11 PM EST

    The democrats are really in a tough situation.  Both Obama and Clinton claim different electoral maps to win in November; focusing on PA, OH, or WV for Clinton, CO, WI, or VA for Obama.  

    But here is the tough thing.  Even if Clinton is the more "electable" person (if you can really calculate that this far from November) the superdelegates will have to take the nomination from Obama, despite a very well run campaign.  This will not make for a happy party come convention time.  Even if you sincerely think Clinton is more electable before the convention, if the nomination is taken away from Obama, I guarantee she will unelectable after.  

    And... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Seth Warren on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:29:38 PM EST
    if Clinton has the popular vote and the nomination is taken away from her - what say you then?

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#202)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:13:50 PM EST
    won't be taking the nomination from Obama because he doesn't have it.

    I know, I know, it really doesn't matter that Obama has been proven to be unelectable. You'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton.

    Parent

    Can't... watch... tv... anymore... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Lisa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:08 PM EST
    Why is it only Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough are making any sense?

    Has the Democratic party always been this lame?  

    Between loathesome (Brazile and Bernstein) to laughable (Kennedy and Kerry) to living in la la land (all the rest).

    My God, I've been a Democrat all my life - have I been a fool, or has the party quite simply deteriorated beyond recognition.

    The short answer to this (none / 0) (#217)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:43:01 PM EST
    "Has the Democratic party always been this lame?"

    NO.

    There once was a time, now long ago, that the Democratic Party was sharp.

    Parent

    Electable, II (none / 0) (#206)
    by mikesan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:39:25 PM EST

    The only way Clinton has a lead in the popular vote is if you count while standing on one leg eating a peppermint.  Please.  And as our friend Mr. Gore can attest, it is the delegates that vote.  

    But that isn't my point at all.  My point is that no matter what your thoughts are, the party will explode if Obama's coalition feels he wasn't treated fairly.  And I guarantee that trying to use the racism vote to grab the nomination will do exactly that.  

    So (none / 0) (#218)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:46:35 PM EST
    you're suggesting that the Democratic Party give in to extortion?

    Yeah, that'll give the electorate confidence in the party.

    Parent