home

Media Misses the Electoral Map Issues

MSNBC just did an electoral vote segment. They made some critical errors.

They assumed Obama would take PA because John Kerry did. Barack Obama did poorly in PA, like he did in Ohio, with rural and blue collar voters. It's more likely in my view that the Democrats will lose Ohio and PA if Obama is the nominee. Hillary has a better chance of keeping PA and winning back Ohio.

They gave no thought to Florida going Democratic in November. They assumed it will go to McCain. Hillary puts Florida in play.

Their silliest comments were that Obama could make the southern states competitive because of the large African-American turnout. Not that he would win them, just make them competitive and make Republicans nervous. But when you're talking about the electoral map, coming close doesn't count. If the Democratic nominee doesn't win the popular vote in those states, the Republican candidate gets the electoral vote.

More...

They posit that if Obama wins Colorado and Iowa, it could make up for losing Ohio. Again, that calculation gave Obama PA, and it's unlikely he'll win that state.

I don't see Obama winning Colorado. Should McCain pick Romney, it's even more of a long shot since Romney crushed McCain in the Colorado caucuses. No matter, all the small western states, even adding in the midwestern Iowa, doesn't make up for losing states like PA, Ohio, FL and Michigan.

The funniest thing was when they said Obama might take Indiana in November. The last Democrat to win Indiana was in 1964.

Another factor: Democrats have been losing voters in recent elections among four key constituencies: older voters, female voters, Catholic voters and Hispanic/Latino voters. Hillary is stronger with those groups.

My electoral calculations are here.

There are 15 solidly Democratic states that will go Democratic regardless of whether the candidate is Hillary or Obama.

There are 17 battleground states, broken down as follows:

  • 11 that have tended to go Republican in recent elections. (Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia). Together they have 114 electoral votes.
  • 6 that have been more likely to go Democratic in recent elections. (Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.) Together they have 76 electoral votes.

Now that North Carolina and West Virginia have been decided, I call it:

Hillary 317
Obama 265, tops
Needed to win: 270

< There is No Nominee: On To The Five Remaining Primaries | Hillary's Win Grows in West Virginia >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    John King (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:17 PM EST
    doing a decent job talking about Clinton's electability argument and outlining her strength in Appalachia and how that helps her in Ohio, PA, etc.

    OTOH, he claimed that Clinton would have to get the party to "change the rules" to get to 2209 even though the rules permit the appeal that would seat the delegates.

    81% of precincts reported (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by felizarte on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    Clinton 67%; Obama 26% according to CNN.
    WOW!

    [ Parent ]
    90% and over 130,000 lead in popular vote!! (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think Edwards should congratulate (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:08:49 PM EST
    Hillary on her fine win over him and Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Gentlemen (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:30:11 PM EST
    Rumours of Edwards demise are greatly exagerated.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:18 PM EST
    is in serious danger of losing Pennsylvania. I believe it's likely that he would, in fact.

    I Don't See How (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:19 PM EST
    He makes up PA, OH, and FL.  If he can't carry at least one and most likely two of those states, McCain will be president.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget MA (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:12 PM EST
    and a couple other states he's gonna have to work harder for than Hillary. There's a lot of land he's going to need to cover to pull off those states while making a play in the battleground states


    [ Parent ]
    And Oregon, outside of (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:13:14 PM EST
    Portland. is not a sure thing for Obama.  Outside Portland and 2-3 other cities, which are quite liberal and compose around 1/3 of the electorate, there is a large and growing independent and republican population.  These are not automatic Democratic voters.

    I could see McCain winning many of these.  Other Republicans, probably not.

    [ Parent ]

    Is there anyone here from Oregon? (none / 0) (#177)
    by derridog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    I'd like to know what they think.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, right here (none / 0) (#184)
    by seeker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:24:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Don't You Find It Odd obama Couldn't Win (none / 0) (#172)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:03 PM EST
    the MA primary with the help of both senators and the governor?  That, in itself, says a bunch about the uphill battle obama would have there.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Can Easily See (none / 0) (#10)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:17 PM EST
    Obama winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college.

    Perhaps that will be Obama's contribution to the "new politics" - the dissolution of the electoral college.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, rules are rules. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Lysis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No, rulz are rulz... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:14 PM EST
    according to the Boyz.

    [ Parent ]
    You know that hardline (none / 0) (#72)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:55:12 PM EST
    syance is going to bite us in the backside.

    [ Parent ]
    Electoral College (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:43 AM EST
    Ditching the Electoral College ain't gonna happen.

    Too many small states would be needed to approve the amendment.  It would be asking them to voluntarily give up power.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't see him winning anything (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:45:44 AM EST
    I think he's gonna get trounced.

    There will be a steady stream of attack ads if he becomes the nominee.  What we've seen so far is nothing.  A 3:00 call saying, wouldn't you rather have the voice of experience answer?  How terrible.

    His whole shtick of Mr. Hope will dissolve when all the gory details of how he was such a master of The Chicago Way they ought to rename it The Obama Way come out.  What's left after that bubble is burst?  An inexperienced junior senator with a wife who says she's never been proud of America, a minister who says God D*mn America, and a name that rhymes with two of our country's all time biggest enemies.  What's the matter, don't like to hear that?  Then don't watch TV between June and November.

    [ Parent ]

    also (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Lisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:00:58 AM EST
    I can just see the wailing and gnashing of teeth of his backers in the blogosphere, like they didn't see it coming.

    Welcome to the big time - none of the usual tactics they've employed so far will work with Republicans.

    There will be no Hillary left to vilify, rather than face reality.  That door will be closed.  She'll be back in the Senate teaching Ted Kennedy the meaning of the word class (something he'll never learn).

    There will be nobody to blame but themselves for their poor choices and insistence on living in fantasyland.  They will say, McCain is a bad man.  They will turn on each other.  But it will do no good.  

    The train will have left the station.

    Hillary has been Obama's firewall.  It comes down the day he is nominated.

    [ Parent ]

    The Problem With So Many obama Backers (none / 0) (#173)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    is that they are young, inexperienced, living in the American Idol and no accountability age, while having no sense of history.  Winning is the most important thing PERIOD!  And, when you aren't winning you lash out at the opponent.  Really, some of the vile spew that comes from the followers of obama could literally make you ill.
    We need to pass out some "grow up" pills to these people with a double dose for obama and his wife.

    [ Parent ]
    Not only that... (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by lansing quaker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:48:26 PM EST
    I find "The South is in Play!" meme is totally bogus.

    The South is in play due to AA support alone?  If Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia are any indication, most states simply aren't in play due to his deficit in courting the working class non-AA's.

    No southern state will be in play.  I remember the Netroots were pissing themselves Election Night '04 because "SOUTH CAROLINA IS TOO CLOSE TO CALL!"

    Yeah.  As if.

    I don't buy that line at all.


    [ Parent ]

    Virginia (none / 0) (#151)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:48:23 AM EST
    Will be in play if Obama chooses Jim Webb, Tim Kaine, or Mark Warner has his running mate.  

    I spoke with a republican party chair tonight, the largest county in VA.  He says that Obama's internal polls are telling him he's not likely to win Ohio, so he's going to focus more on winning VA.  He can only do that if he chooses one of the above for Veep.  Warner would be his best bet.  Webb does not play with others and gets himself in trouble.  Tim Kaine isn't all that popular and no one's ever heard of him outside the state.  Mark Warner would be the best choice.  

    But I am hoping that the candidate is Hillary and she chooses Warner.  

    Without Mark Warner, Obama will never carry Virginia.  

    [ Parent ]

    Even with (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:35:36 AM EST
    Warner could he carry VA? And would Warner want to give up a sure bet at a senate seat to be on a losing presidential ticket? I would think that he wouldn't.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, with Warner, Obama could carry Virginia (none / 0) (#183)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:30:58 AM EST
    Mark Warner is wildly popular in VA.  As Governor he had a fav rating of 75%.  But you are right, giving up a Senate seat would have to be a consideration.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh he's defending it. (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:53:47 PM EST
    MSNBC are the scum of the earth.  Absolute filth. They wormed their way into OUR primary and decided it for us. Jackals and thieves.

    Russert can drop dead. Given his swollen head an' gut he's probably on his rotten way out anyway. They lead us up a blind alley with this BS primary.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't hold back Salo (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:55:12 PM EST
    I love it

    [ Parent ]
    I (none / 0) (#117)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:21:08 PM EST
    know he will lose PA.  She'll win it.

    [ Parent ]
    Red states (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:08 PM EST
    I never understood this argument that if we make certain states competitive, we can force the other side to spend resources.  It's not like they just magically become competitive without us expending some resources too.

    Yeah, if Obama made a bunch of campaign appearances in North Carolina, maybe McCain would have to do the same in order to keep it red.  But it's silly to think that we somehow gained something in the process.

    It's a "meanwhile in Pennsylvania" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:25:38 PM EST
    problem.

    [ Parent ]
    it good to make states competitve.... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:44 PM EST
    as long as your base is secure.  That's the big problem with Obama's 'expanding the map' thesis.  He probably would be more competitive in Colorado than Clinton would be - - except that he'll have to spend all his time in PA and California because both are absolutely essential to a Dem win, and McCain is going to run very hard in both states.

    [ Parent ]
    And MA and NY and NJ. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by alexei on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:28 PM EST
    Wright, Ayers play badly in NY and NJ and MA already had Obama 1 in Deval Patrick, and they are not happy.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget Michigan! (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by lansing quaker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:49:48 PM EST
    ... Even if the Democratic party has in the Primary.


    [ Parent ]
    Argument Loses A Lot Of Credibility (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:35:12 AM EST
    when you consider the fact that Obama outspent Clinton 2 to 1, sometimes 3 to 1, in some states and still lost.

    Also, time spent in NC is time not spent in OH, MA or PA.  

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary won Independents by 13%!! (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:50 PM EST


    No one in the MSM wants to admit it (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by hornplayer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:25:35 PM EST
    Barack Obama is increasingly weak every day, in the Democratic Primary and in the General Election.  John King thinks nothing of putting FL in Obama's column even though he trails 57-38 because he can't put him over the top without including him.

    Looking at the map in the fall for Obama, I feel like we're in a worse spot than we were with Kerry.  Why does it feel like no one in the media wants people to think that?

    Floridah? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:01:37 PM EST
    lol. Hilarious.

    [ Parent ]
    Psssst (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    The media doesn't want us to win. It's a conuit for corporate America and having a Democrat in charge doesn't benefit corporate America.

    [ Parent ]
    The day after the (none / 0) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:24 AM EST
    the 2006 elections I was brought back down to earth with the realization that the media would do everything possible to keep the White House in GOP hands.

    All evidence to date supports that realization.

    [ Parent ]

    PA (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:13 PM EST
    iirc, John Kerry won by a very small margin, and was helped by Theresa Heinz-Kerry's history and popularity there. She has invested heavily through her foundations in the state, especially in the Pittsburgh area and is very well known. Obama doesn't have quite that advantage.

    THK stumps with MO (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:30 PM EST
    not sure how helpful that is though . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry, but THK and MO... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:45:27 PM EST
    are not especially the dynamic duo.

    In fact, the two of them together could do more harm than good.

    [ Parent ]

    obama lost Pennsylvania this week... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:03 PM EST
    He's pretty much told everyone in the middle of the state to drop dead by refusing to show up in West Virginia.  

    And while I don't know Ohio that well, I suspect that state is somewhat similar...

    There are parts of Michigan... (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:49:26 PM EST
    that resemble the middle of PA and WV, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama does worse than Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:56 PM EST
    in this article.  I don't know if anyone referenced this article that is referenced from RCP...Obama, Underperforming Kerry Among White Voters

    [In state after state, Barack Obama is drastically underperforming John Kerry's general election numbers among whites among a voter pool almost entirely limited to Democrats.

    In the Ohio Democratic primary, Barack Obama carried 34 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 44 percent of the white vote.

    In Pennsylvania, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 45 percent.

    In Missouri, Obama won 39 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 42 percent of the white vote.

    This phenomenon occurs in states that aren't seen as teeming with those classic Rust Belt/Midwest demographics. In Connecticut, Obama carried 48 percent of the white vote; John Kerry carried 51 percent.

    In New Jersey, Obama carried 31 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, Kerry carried 46 percent.

    In Rhode Island, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election Kerry carried 57 percent of the white vote.

    In Maryland, Obama carried 42 percent of the white vote; Kerry carried 44 percent in the 2004 general election.

    There are a few states where Obama's primary percentage outpaces Kerry's general election share. In North Carolina, Obama carried 37 percent of the white vote. In the 2004 general election, John Kerry carried 27 percent. (So much for help from John Edwards.)

    In Indiana, Obama carried 40 percent of the white vote; Kerry carried 34 percent.

    In New Mexico, Obama carried 55 percent of the white vote, Kerry got 43 percent. (Of course, in that state, Kerry carried 56 percent of the Latino vote (32 percent of the electorate that year), while Obama carried 36 percent of that key demographic in this year's caucus, according to exit polls.)]

    ........................
    Interesting side by side.

    but was Kerry weak with white (none / 0) (#63)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:51:49 PM EST
    voters in the primaries, when they were contested?

    [ Parent ]
    Here's more on Kerry (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    OH Kerry primary White men 40%, women 41%, GE 44%.  Obama primary 34%.

    MO Kerry primary w ment 51%, w women 50%, GE 42%.  Obama primary 39%

    CT Kerry primary w men 59%, w women 61%, GE 51%.  Obama primary 48%.  

    RI Kerry primary w men 71%, w women 69%, GE 57%.  Obama primary 37%.

    [ Parent ]

    The Massacre of '08 (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:13:57 PM EST
    It'll be biblical.

    [ Parent ]
    McGovern Part Deux (none / 0) (#153)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:56:18 AM EST
    This is so depressing.  We're going to get hammered.  Republicans nominate a moderate, with tons of experience, and we go with someone way far left who no one really knows.  Great.  Just great.  We're screwed.

    [ Parent ]
    In The Last SUSA Poll For MO 4/11 -13, (none / 0) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:46:16 AM EST
    Obama is at 39% of the white vote against McCain. Looks like that percent could hold. Don't think Obama will be able to win over small town or rural MO. A visit to Cape Giraudo, Limbaugh's home town, will not do the trick.

    [ Parent ]
    RE battleground states: (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:31:17 PM EST
    I think Hillary could take OH, PA, NH, IA, WV, and very possibly FL. She might also have a shot at MO, IMO, if she does the kind of campaigning that she did in IN, NC and WV--the heavy personal contact campaigning where she makes her case directly to the voters.

    Recent polls do show her beating McCain in Fla (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by andrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:38:59 PM EST
    while Obama loses to McCain there, and of course it would be worse once Obama successfully prevents Florida's votes from counting in the actual nomination, which would also 'move the goal post' as they like to say to include, omigod, all 50 states.  What a concept.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]
    she also has (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:23:29 AM EST
    very good chances--better than obama's--in NM, TN, KY, AR, and NV.  despite what BTD says, i stand firm by the statement that hillary's stronger than obama against mccain in NM and NV.

    plus she wouldn't have to expend as many resources to keep CA, MI, and NJ blue.

    [ Parent ]

    She would have to have the full support (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:53:15 AM EST
    of the AA community to win MO. With that support she would have a good chance of winning the state. The conservative Dems seem to like her. OTOH Obama cannot win MO without the conservative Dems who seem more than willing to vote for McCain rather than Obama. I don't think he will be able to turn that around.

    [ Parent ]
    Any analysis that ... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:46 PM EST

    ... ASSUMES Obama will win Pennsylvania is bogus.

    Maybe, maybe not.   Gun to my head right now, I call the Keystone State for McCranky.  

    Delete if OT (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:07 PM EST
    HuffPo's front page has NOTHING about Hillary's win in WV; at least not when I checked at 12:25. An omission that HUGE is news, in and of itself.

    However, there is still a story and a photo on the speech Obama gave earlier today.

    I can hear the editorial discussion (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:09 PM EST
    Oh that is just those people, you know them in W VA, not worthy of the front page...and we don't want our fragile youngsters to know he got beat by 41%, and that 7% voted for Edwards.

    [ Parent ]
    HuffPo's headline? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:46:38 PM EST

    BUSH: I GAVE UP GOLF IN 2003 OUT OF RESPECT FOR U.S. SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE WAR....

      [ Huge font and capital letters ]

     [Sub-header in smaller font and normal capitalization]

    Meanwhile... Clinton Wins West Virginia... Obama Focuses On November... The Bottom Line: Clinton's Win "Doesn't Really Matter"...

    It's a shame because they once had respect as a "news"-gathering outfit which gave us actual info on which we could mull and decide things.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]

    Oh, they do news there? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:14 PM EST
    again?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm waiting for (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    Lawrence O'Donnell to write another article about how West Virginian voters are holding back Obama due to racism and therefore their votes should not be counted.

    (for anyone who doesn't know, he wrote a screed about Edwards doing just that while he was still in the race...)

    [ Parent ]

    I remember that screed (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:09:58 PM EST
    Edwards made some comments that were pretty much supported by facts and got called racists. I kept waiting for the apology right after Obama bascally sad the same thing. All I heard ws crickets. Such a surprise. Not.

    [ Parent ]
    That's when I lost (none / 0) (#108)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:26 PM EST
    any respect I had for O'Donnell. As if Mr. White Bread there had any right to tell anyone such a thing. I was appalled -- did anyone call him on it at all?

    [ Parent ]
    He was called on it. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:01:02 AM EST
    At Daily Kos, even.

    It was the most incredibly tunnel vision statement I had see that far.  The white man holding the black man back?  As if out of some sense of noblesse oblige, Edwards should politely step out of the race to benefit Obama.

    Of course, that was before narrative that Hillary should never, ever criticize Obama or his policies or his campaign was carved in stone.

    Now what O'Donnell said sounds familiar - WWTSBQA?

    [ Parent ]

    O'Donnell Has Had A Bug Up His Butt Since (none / 0) (#174)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    The West Wing got canceled.  What the hell is his problem?  You would think he would want the dems to win no matter what.  His anti-Hillary b.s. is out of line any way you cut it.  

    [ Parent ]
    HuffPo (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by daria g on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:57:55 PM EST
    Maybe I should be glad they're ignoring West Virginia, not long ago they ran a piece about Obama trying to appeal to rural white voters and used a hideously offensive photo of two redneck type of dudes, heavyset with no shirts on, bad teeth, sitting on the porch steps drinking beer.  Some liberal Democrats they are at that publication. People complained enough that they quietly switched it to a photo of Obama bowling.  LOLs.

    [ Parent ]
    41% margin now with 77% of the vote ! (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by andrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:23 PM EST
    Sorry for the interruption!

    - Andrys


    North Carolina masked a collapse (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:36:19 PM EST
    Obama's numbers today cannot be ignored.  41% margin and it might get even larger because there are some STRONG Clinton counties that are still only halfway through reporting.

    [ Parent ]
    His Ongoing Collapse (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    And he collapsed further tonight.  In NC, the media decided he had a big win despite the warning signs in the exit polls.  He has only declined in the white vote since NC.

    And that's with more money and more coverage and a coronation from Russert - and he's only looking at 26% tonight?

    [ Parent ]

    I personally did not take NC seriously (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:02:04 PM EST
    Here's how I saw it. Before his repudiation of Wright he was running 28-30% ahead of Clinton in NC. On election night, he won by 14%. His support among AA possibly went up 3-4% which means he LOST every other category by around 10%. That trend was what the MSM and other polls were picking up right before the election leading to the suspicion/expectation that Clinton might actually win. I think it was a big mistake on her campaign's part not to tamp down that expectation game successfully which is what has led to her media/donor and other troubles in the past week. It remains to be seen whether WV (and the emerging NE primary results -- which BDB pointed out in another thread) really get the attention they deserve in the MSM, and what they portend for the Fall. Note that those primary numbers may also end up strengthening Hillary's argument about the popular vote (which in all this talk of 2025 vs. 2209) seems to have taken a back seat.

    [ Parent ]
    I still wonder about Indiana (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:32:02 PM EST
    I think the Clinton campaign had good reason to have raised expectations there, but somehow the result was strangely tight... Honestly I think it was a little fishy what went down.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's gained an almost lopsided (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:40:10 PM EST
    number of votes in Marion County in Indiana which made his final tally v.close to Hillary's. This was the county with the largest number of voters. Whereas everwhere else the results were not as lopsided. I am still not clear about the demographics of Marion county and

    [ Parent ]
    I Do Too. And What Happened With The IN Is (none / 0) (#175)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    the tie-breaker talk?  What exactly did that mean, or were the goalposts moved?

    [ Parent ]
    Last time he won a state Dems can win? (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:16:01 PM EST
    Wisconsin.  Mid-February.  Three months ago.

    And the polls say he could not win it today.

    For the good of the party, the country, Obama must quit.  It's clear.

    [ Parent ]

    Please, interrupt with this kind of (none / 0) (#44)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:13 PM EST
    news anytime!

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry only won PA by 2 points... (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:44 PM EST
    ...and Kerry was Catholic and running against a fairly unpopular Bush. McCain is pretty popular in Pennsylvania and Obama is pretty unpopular.

    The disconnect (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:40:21 PM EST
    between reality and Obamaland has been unbelievable tonight. Jamal Simmons said earlier that it didnt matter that they might not win OH because they'll win Colorado and some other states. He then claimed that because Obama is African America and a "new" politician that the rules are different than any "old" (presumably white) politician.

    Meanwhile, the current count in WVA is 67% to 26% in HRC's favour and she's leading by 120K votes and has won every single county. How do you spin that?

    Oh Yes (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:00:33 PM EST
    The Colorado argument. They are hallucinating if they really believe that. Someone needs to show them a map so that they understand that Colorado isn't just Aspen, Denver and Boulder and BO is no Salazar dem.

    There are two things Coloradans (statewide) won't vote for - higher payroll taxes and someone that wants to restrict their guns.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:03:46 PM EST
    I just don't see CO going Blue this year, especially when McCain is from a neighboring state and he's well liked in that part of the country (at least from my few friends in CO and NM). It's like North Carolina-- it sounds good but it ain't gonna happen. Plus banking on a 'might be' while losing the states that ought to be irrefutable like MA, PA, OH, NY and NJ doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    These (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:40:38 PM EST
    pundits have taken a stupid pill if they think that Obama makes any state in the south competetive. There aren't enough AA's to win with and unless you are able to get more of the white vote than Obama has shown the ability to get your chances of winning are pretty slim

    In GA aa's are about 25# of the voters. Now where is Obama going to come up with about 20% more votes to make it even look competetive? I have no idea. Frankly, Clinton has a better chance than Obama down here simply because of her appeal to working class whites and rural voters than Obama. And she has a very slim chance of taking the state. I would think that the best number she could do down here would be about 45%--losing to Mccain by about 10%.

    I am with you, buddy (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST
    No way GA will go for Obama.  He'll get Atlanta and folks on the south side and Mariette, but that won't be enough to take the state.  Folks underestimate the far-reaching damage Wright has done.  If Bill Clinton couldn't win GA his second time round, no way Obama will.

    [ Parent ]
    Not just Wright, Obama, himself (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:28:16 AM EST
    Obama has given the people so much to alienate them, it's hard to believe anyone is still on his side. Wright, elitist comments, PA debate, finger and fist to follow, negative campaign, declaration he doesn't need the working class, his snubbing Hillary when asked about VP, his snubbing the Clinton administration as a great democratic party example.

    This guy could easily lose bigger than Mondale did.

    [ Parent ]

    And IMO Many, Many AA's Will Support Hillary (none / 0) (#176)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:30:02 PM EST
    if she is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama would not be leading if (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by ig on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:51:29 PM EST
    all that we know about him now was known in January.

    Since Ohio/Texas Hillary has steamrolled Barrack, with the exception of NC.

    Clinton On Track (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:00 PM EST
    to possibly be popular vote leader at end of primaries.  See Jay Cost's popular vote counter - here.  She's going to gain more than 120,000 votes on Obama tonight.  She's already up 127k with 85% reporting.  

    It's already over 136,000 with 92% of the vote (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by andrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:49 PM EST
    What a statement tonight is !

      And I can't believe Dem leaders will want to be responsible for losing Florida and Michigan in what is already a tight race due to rules they won't modify though the rules platform allows them to modify their own arbitrary rules.

    - Andrys


    [ Parent ]

    Holy crap 67-25% (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:57:03 PM EST
    Obama is getting murdered, Edwards is catching up....Are you kidding me?

    Too bad Edwards couldn't beat (none / 0) (#81)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:58:25 PM EST
    Obama.
    BTW, TPM didn't put the WV results on the front page, as they've done for every other primary where I have checked.

    [ Parent ]
    very cool (none / 0) (#84)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:59:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    One of the mistakes (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by facta non verba on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:13:53 PM EST
    that they are making is that they compare the Democratic turnout to the Republican turnout and surmise from that it is going to be a Democratic blowout. It's not.

    The GOP turnout has been lower than normal since late Feb when the race was decided. Moreover, apart from a handful of states, the total turnout has been under 40%. In the nearly 20 caucus states, all won by Obama, the turnout has not exceeded 16.5% in Iowa. Elsewhere it all under 10%.

    And they forget that about a third of the Clinton base will not vote for Obama for one reason or another. Whether they vote for Obama or stay home, the net effect is the same. McCain wins and I would rather that to be quite honest than to see the train wreck that an Obama Presidency would be. A Train Wreck by Obama would cost the Democrats a chance at the Presidency for another generation.

    I look at Venezuela where Hugo Chavez is only possible because the long dominant political powers, COPEI and Accion Democratica, ran the country into the ground. I wonder if such a scenario is beginning in the US.

    exactly. (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:51:45 AM EST
    with obama, we're going to get sharply diminishing returns in the GE--precisely because he's already maxed out the population that's going to get excited about him in the primaries.  

    i'm banking that about 3x as many people will show up for the general as did for the repub and dem primaries combined--and once the pie is thus expanded, i'm all but certain that obama will lose to mccain.

    [ Parent ]

    Surely DNC knows that (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:30 PM EST
    the Super Delegates are so because of a reason especially like the one being witnessed now.

    After the initial euphoria over Obama which helped him become the frontrunner, his past associations and other sundries are now making most people have a second thought about him. Whereas Hillary started of like Obama loves to tell with a strong negative - high dislikeability factor. That combined with her initial strategic goof ups has made her lag behind Obama. But that has also worked towards making her like John Edwards said, an extremely strong and worthy candidate. She has withstood the trial by fire and has emerged stronger because of it. She has proved her toughness, her humanness and her readiness for the job.

    In such a scenario, shouldn't the SD's as per their job description do the right thing of actually picking up the right candidate instead of just robotically picking up the frontrunner who has lost his mettle.

    We know (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:42 AM EST
    that Obama threatened some African-American officials with primary challenges.

    I'm speculating that some of the white elected officials have been threatened by the Ks, etc. with a lack of financial support unless they play ball.

    And among the non-elected SDs may be threats of losing influential positions.

    The  arguments for support of Clinton are simply too strong and the arguments for Obama too weak to make sense of his current level of SD support.

    Getting rid of the Clintons, the Bubba contingent and creating a new coalition seems to me to be the goal.

    Unfortunately the goal is a loser. Not just in this election but in the future.  

    Disposing of bread and butter Democrats will make the party look more like the old Whig Party.

    The arrogant, elitist Whigs only elected two Presidents and then for only one term.

    [ Parent ]

    Attention SD's (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:16:17 PM EST
    For the "presumptive" Obama to lose in a high turnout blowout IS a story for the SD's to explain

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:26:23 PM EST
    this is a BIG loss-especially after hearing all week past that the race is oved, the delegate count, blah, blah, blah....

    the people voted anyway and delivered a 40+ point loss to the supposed nominee.

    There is BIG trouble in Obamaland...and if the DNC doesn't see it, and the Supers don't see it....they deserve to lose in November.

    Think those Utah and Idaho caucus goers would have buyer's remorse now after seeingf Wright and Rezko?  Anyone want to bet money on it?

    [ Parent ]

    The MSM double standards (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:25:24 PM EST
    are apalling. Though I should have become immune to it by now, it still amazes me how they are able to do it so blatantly.

    Now the MSM meme is that WV voted racially. Possible I am not disputing that, but where was the racial meme when AA voted 92% for Obama. Why was at that time the explanation given that it was not a racial vote but that it showed how Obama had the ability to attract the AA vote in huge numbers.


    I have tio assume (none / 0) (#124)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:16 PM EST
    that they are deliberately attempting to make people sick of Obama and make themselves look like sycophants.  That way Obama loses even harder in november.

    It's the simplest explaination.

    [ Parent ]

    The "energize the turnout" (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by zyx on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:40 PM EST
    is an interesting argument.  I can imagine that in the South and some other states, that the prospect of a heavy Democratic turnout for Obama will energize a heavy turnout by the Republicans.  Not much real need to spend a lot of money, it will just materialize.

    As to a Romney pick, I have heard that McCain just doesn't like him (most of the GOP candidates were said to not like Romney).  McCain would be brilliant to pick Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.  She is popular within the GOP, makes a pretty good public appearance, and would probably pick up a huge number of moderate women who might have voted for Clinton.  

     is an interesting

    I JUST got home (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST
    and just now seeing the can of WHOOP ASS our bestest girl opened up on Senator Obama.

    WV is just a warm up disco kittens to the electoral college tug-of-war.

    Hillary has won the MAJOR battleground states that seat US presidents.

    Not to bash our fellow Americans in nice places like Idaho and Wyoming, but elections are won in OH, PA and FL.  And Senator Clinton can deliver the goods.   I am hoping for a 60%+ blow out tonight after all the counting has done.  

    Hillary Rodham Clinton=GREATNESS!

    Viva Hillary!  Mi hermana por vida!

    Low Info Voter Here (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:55:38 PM EST
    can someone bring me up to speed on the acronyms:

    OFB?

    CDS?

    thanks!

    CorrenteWire (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:09:30 AM EST
    has all those acronyms.

    OFB = Obama Fan Base
    CDS = Clinton Deranged Syndrome (an irrational hatred of all things Clinton). Keith Olbermann and Lawrence O'Donnell have CDS. Good thing a Clinton health care plan covers thems since it covers pre-existing condidtions. Otherwise, they are screwed.

    [ Parent ]

    Muchas gracias (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:44 AM EST
    up 2 speed now

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks For Asking That ? TX....I Didn't Know (none / 0) (#178)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:50:27 PM EST
    what they meant either.

    [ Parent ]
    That IS silliness! (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST

    Their silliest comments were that Obama could make the southern states competitive because of the large African-American turnout. Not that he would win them, just make them competitive and make Republicans nervous.

    SILLINESS.  Completely.

    And I totally agree about Colorado and Indiana.  I don't see Obama getting CO either (just a feeling I got) and I don't see him getting Indiana, either.  I posted this in another political forum on LJ and the Obama people whined at me.

    I bet Hillary could take West Virginia back.  Obama cannot.

    Sorry Jeralyn (2.00 / 0) (#16)
    by mbuchel on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:04 PM EST
    But close does matter.

    By threatening states that in the past have been safely Republican, it forces McSame to spend money to defend those states.  With massive money and organizational advantage Obama is going to have over McSame, it increases the likelihood that he wins the "battlegrounds"...  WI, CO, NM, NV, MI, OH, PA, etc.

    Money and organization doesn't seem (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:01 PM EST
    to be working in some of those states . . .

    money can't buy ya love . .   ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Actually, spending more money in several (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:38:55 PM EST
    of those states didn't help Obama against Hillary. Money is only part of the equation.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, Some People Prefer Substance In A (none / 0) (#179)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:28 PM EST
    candidate, along with the sense the candidate is in their corner.  Acting as though you don't need certain segments of the electorate does not make someone want to vote for obama.  And, gee, maybe he should tell us what exactly he is planning to do if he is president besides change...change what?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    is it your opinion that Obama can force McCain to spend time in additional states, without spending time in those same states himself?

    If Obama doesn't run a real campaign in a state like North Carolina, complete with candidate appearances, McCain is hardly going to feel compelled to run a TV ad for every one that Obama chooses to run.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain Won't Have To Run A Lot Of Ads (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:11:50 AM EST
    in some states. My bet is the Republican 527s will do a lot of the heavy lifting in running ads since they won't have to abide by the same rules as McCain. McCain can stay above the fray while the 527s do the dirty work.

    [ Parent ]
    If you think the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:05:19 AM EST
    money people won't close ranks and fund McCain to the hilt once they know who the Dem. opposition is, you're smoking something funny.  Same thing goes for the organization.  The GOP has wildly outorganized Dems. for years now.  Obama will have made up some of that organizational strength, but that does not cancel the GOP organizational juggernaut.

    Have you just become interested in politics this year? No insult intended, just that your points are pretty naive about the realities.


    [ Parent ]

    McCain (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Chisoxy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:14:58 AM EST
    will only have to spend resources if Obama can make the state competitive. He outspent Hill 2 to 1 in WV and its nowhere near competitive. Its not just about running commercials, you need to play well to the people in the state.

    [ Parent ]
    Just Stop (1.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Oliver Willis on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:41 PM EST
    Man, advocating for your candidate is one thing, but the kind of stuff you've been putting up is just nutty. If Hillary Clinton was the stronger candidate, she would be winning. Period. Clinton may have an advantage with certain demographics (older voters, women voters). Obama may have an advantage with another set of demographics (black voters, younger voters).

    But he ultimately has the advantage with the only demographic that counts: voters.

    He does not. You can't leave out two states. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by alexei on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:58:55 PM EST
    She has the popular vote for good tonight.  That means the most voters have voted for her.  She even won the young tonight in WVA.  Without NC and the huge AA vote, he would have been creamed there.  

    [ Parent ]
    Winning? (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:59:33 PM EST
    Like he's doing in West Virginia right this very minute, you mean?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, if you count creatively, sure. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]