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.


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

  • Contribute 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.

    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
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.


    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.

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

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


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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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 . . .

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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%.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

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


      [ 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.


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

    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...)


    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.

    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?

    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?


    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.  

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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?


    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.

    I still wonder about Indiana (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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

    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?

    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.


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

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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 / 0) (#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.


    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
    BTW, TPM didn't put the WV results on the front page, as they've done for every other primary where I have checked.

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


    Surely DNC knows that (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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 / 2) (#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?


    The MSM double standards (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    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:




    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.


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

    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.

    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 . .   ;)


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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 / 1) (#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.  

    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?

    Well, if you count creatively, sure. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    Once again (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:06:28 PM EST
    winning is losing and losing is winning. Is the new talking point going to be 'we always meant to lose in WVA'?

    Well, he only outspent Hillary by 2 to 1, (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:22 PM EST
    so it wasn't really a fair contest.

    True enough (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:56 PM EST
    But his surrogates are all bleating that he didn't really campaign so it doesn't actually count. If he had, would he have outspent her 3:1 or 4:1? (and still lost?)

    too (none / 0) (#127)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:37:45 PM EST
    bad he didn't spend more

    hope he spends a gazillion in Ky


    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by janarchy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:16:34 AM EST
    I always get a good laugh at watching him spend gazillions of dollars and still lose.

    the primary results are best analyzed (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:00 PM EST
    by states voting before and after Wright and Bitter/Cling-gate. imho
    Tonight - WV overwhelmingly voted for an inclusive candidate who respects ALL people.

    Can someone sling up (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:31 PM EST
    the number of voters per delegate each candidate has earned, please?  Because some seem to have forgotten that O won caucuses where only a handful of people turned out.  WA is a perfect example--the primary turn-out was (I believe) more than double, and folks knew their vote didn't count.

    Oliver, the OFB looks pretty nutty to us. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by lorelynn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:14 PM EST
    We just don't think you guys are trading in reality. I'm not sure how Clinton takes the nomination, but I'm even less sure how Obama wins in November - and that is, of course,  how Clinton wins the nomination. You guys say this stuff and you sound like you're trapped in a bubble. You've defined reality and you seem to have no awareness that a helluva lot of good Democrats don't see it the way you do.

    Defining Reality By Reality (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Oliver Willis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:41:00 AM EST
    Sen. Obama has the lead in delegates, which is the way one obtains the Democratic nomination. That was true before the election began, that was true after. There is no way for Sen. Clinton to get around that truth. The argument you guys are making is kind of like the Patriots saying they should have gone 19-0. They got really close to 19-0 but they did lose the Superbowl. No amount of wishing it otherwise creates that reality.

    superdelegates are part of the rules (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:27:45 AM EST
    Deal with it.  Another part of reality is that even pledged delegates can change their vote as demonstrated by the one yesterday who switched to Obama in a state Clinton won.  The math is irrelevant at this point except the final tally at the convention.  On to Denver.  Enjoy the wait.

    He won mainly unrepresentative caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by andrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:19:17 PM EST
    How unrepresentative they are, for all the reasons given in the last couple of months, was shown in Washington and in Texas where they had both.

      But again the caucuses showed he was strongest with young activists and those who don't have to worry about taking time off from work or family to spend hours at caucuses and travel long distances to them too.  The primary in Washington was done 10 days or so after the caucuses although the voters were told the primary would NOT count -- only the caucuses would, and 550,000 turned out, relative to about 200,000 for the caucuses (some say 120,00 -- hard to tell with caucuses).

      The general election will include more than the young Obama activists and those who don't worry much about health care.


    Oliver (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:26:20 PM EST
    I am not bashing your candidate. I am advocating for mine and giving my opinion that she is a stronger candidate against McCain. I've said I'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee, but he isn't yet.

    I close threads at 200 comments. The blogs advocating for Obama have many hundreds more per post. And they don't weed out the trash insults or outright lies. I may not get them all but I do a pretty good job.

    What is so terrible to you about a few hundred people who come together to share a viewpoint?

    I blog to express my opinion on crime and political news. Your attempt to label my thoughts "nutty" is not appreciated.


    Why Can't You (And Armando) Accept Criticism? (1.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Oliver Willis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:49:43 AM EST
    The case you are making doesn't make any sense. I know you think Sen. Clinton is great and that's great (I used to) but in the process of that you are trying to use all these yardsticks which have no place in reality. I am a huge Redskins fan, but they lost in the first round of the playoffs. No matter how much I wish that weren't the case... it happened.

    You guys are getting to the point where when Obama in all likelihood hits the 2025 delegates, you're going to still say Clinton can win it... somehow. The measure of this race is delegates. Yet, Clinton and her supporters have found every way possible to justify bull. First it was that caucuses didn't count. Then it was that primaries in small states didn't count. Then red states didn't count. Then open primaries didn't count. Now it's states with large black voting blocs don't count. It's a shame and it's stupid.

    Now the justification boils down to states where Hillary Clinton won are the only ones worth counting. Give me a break.

    Your post here is saying that the young voters and independent voters and black voters that Sen. Obama don't count. I don't think that the older voters supporting Clinton don't count, but its always the case on your blog and a few others that if a bloc supports Obama, to heck with it.

    And heaven forbid someone not support Sen. Clinton. No matter the stuff they've written again and again for literally years in support, because they didn't go with her in this election (and trust me, if she hadn't voted for the war I was mighty close to supporting her), they're clearly sexists.

    I don't understand why other bloggers can handle a critique, someone - shock - disagreeing with them, but you and Armando reach for the fainting chair.


    why are you even bothering? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:30:37 AM EST
    If Obama cannot lose, then why the anxiety?

    Who cares what some Clinton supporters are saying on a blog?


    HOWARD DEAN says it's about Electability (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:31:39 AM EST
    You're trying the patience of Jeralyn who's paid for a site where we can talk reasonably without the ugliness of most places.   Your weakness shows up with your calling views not yours "nutty."  It's embarrassing.

     Dean has said 'Dlectability' is now the thing.

    In an interview with The Financial Times, Howard Dean gave his thoughts as Chairman of the DNC re the following:
    [as reported -- excerpts below)

    The Democratic party's "superdelegates" have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election, according to Howard Dean, chairman of the US Democratic National Committee.
     . . .
    He said there was nothing in the DNC's rules that would prevent the party's unelected superdelegates, who make up about a fifth of the overall delegate tally and who will ultimately pick the winner, from "doing what they want".
     . . .
    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

    He said that clearly, on April 25.  The pundits either didn't see it or are ignoring it.  I suspect that internal polling has shown lessened strength in Obama's numbers post-Wright, when it comes to conservative votes in the GE, since the rest of the world (not just Democrats) will be choosing in November.  West Virginia was a real illustration of that.

      Note that Dean puts emphasis on the last 6-8 contests and to momentum.

      Also, it is never over at this point - the superdelegates are allowed to change their minds until they've voted in August.  Even Anderson Cooper didn't know that.  He told John King he thought that they decided and that was it.  No, it's not.  This helps a party that wants to avoid a McGovern rout (the reason the superdelegates rules were created).

      Be glad they also changed in the past from winner-takes-all, to this newer proportional method, or Hillary would clearly be the presumptive nominee now.  As it is, NOTHING is 'clear' or any sure thing and you really ought to stop insisting on it even if it's mainly to make yourself feel better about things.


    Electability is Dlectability, I suppose! (none / 0) (#157)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:33:16 AM EST

    But Hillary's win (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by samanthasmom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:12:32 AM EST
    was delectable!

    You Left Out A Couple Of Demographics (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:06:45 AM EST
    Clinton's base include seniors, women, non AA working class and Latinos.

    Also, please provide me with the name of any president who won with only the AA, youth and "Creative Class" vote. I can't think of one. Can you?


    Not ALL voters (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:07:10 PM EST
    ie. Gore vs. Bush 2000, Remember ....How could this happen??? They stole the election... MORE people voted for Al, But we won ?? Didn't we. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!!! Remember?

    Ask Donna Brazile about popular vote.
    Sore spot? huh??

    Are you not TIRED of LOSING? Obama was damaged the minute the good Reverend Wright hit Fox News. Over and Over and Over.


    Was this Chuck Todd or some other (none / 0) (#12)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:02 PM EST
    smoe?  Chuck is usually pretty good, but if was him saying this stuff I am really disappointed.  Maybe someone slipped him kool-aid.

    Chuck Todd is a mere (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:29 PM EST
    shadow of his former self.  He has been intoxicated by the fumes of the media  Kool Kids Klub.

    Such a shame.


    It was Chuck (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:50:43 PM EST
    Todd and I was surprised because I usually like his commentary.

    A Shadow of His Former Self (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:56 PM EST
    Like everyone at MSNBC, you assimilate or die.

    I have a question about the white vote. (none / 0) (#21)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:52 PM EST
    Obviously in every Democratic primary, there is a 100%  pie of white voters to split up.
    Is there any comparison between primary performance in that demographic and GE results?
    How did Kerry do with white voters in the primaries?

    Kerry? Probably better than Obama.... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:50:26 PM EST
    he is after all a white man..... What people forget is I, like many many suburban people HAVE NEVER voted for anybody but, a WHITE male. Thats all there ever were. I only live 20 miles east of Pittsburgh and yet Obama is foreign to me and my family. I graduated in 1984, out of a class of roughly 600, TWO were black and one was adopted...... 20 miles east of Pittsburgh. So by Obama skipping off to Missouri today is like a big F-U to rural/suburban white folks in these three big battleground states.. PA, WV and Ohio. Obama after getting creamed by West Virginia and never really showing up.... I don't think s. He is in worse shape NOW than ever. I think if Kentucky is the same or as close as WV, then the Latinos in Puerto Rico pick Clinton he is really screwed. Remember the Puerto Ricans have no dog in this fight, they can't vote in the GE, but they can play spoiler. I think BO is DAMAGED GOODS.... On the other hand I think Hillary could beat McSame on POLICY alone.

    I respect you for your honesty on this (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:09:48 AM EST
    But I have to ask, why are you afraid of a black person getting elected?  I'm genuinely interested.

    We're not afraid of him getting elected (4.50 / 2) (#141)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:24 AM EST
    we know he won't.
    But if we were, it's because we're afraid of an inexperienced, questionable-judgment, misogynist politician getting elected. Skin color got nothin on it.

    I was asking Mrwirez (none / 0) (#169)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:35:13 AM EST
    about his/her comment above.

    He never said that. (none / 0) (#181)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM EST

    And this comment was race baiting if I ever saw one.

    I loved the confetti raining on the crowd! (none / 0) (#103)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:10:30 PM EST
    and I agree with you.

    See mine up above. (none / 0) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:36:48 PM EST
    Per CNN;s (none / 0) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:49:33 PM EST
    old 2004 Primary data

    OH Kerry primary White men 40%, women 41%, GE 44%.  Obama primary 34%.

    PN I don't see primary results.

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

    I'll keep looking.


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#75)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    o/t but on media (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    Why is CNN showing Huckabee and Paul numbers but they're not showing Edwards in their election results are?

    Maybe they want us to believe 7% pushed (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:38:28 PM EST
    the wrong button!

    Pressing the wrong button! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:55:09 PM EST
    That does bring to mind again the unreliable button-pusher:

    David Shuster reacts (video) to Obama's pressing the wrong vote buttons, with apologies, on 6 different votes.


    obama is a maroooooon....keep him away from (none / 0) (#180)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    the nuclear button please.

    New Jersey (none / 0) (#36)
    by joanneleon on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:40:25 PM EST
    could be in play if Obama is the nominee.  Hillary would win it, but for Obama it's questionable.  If McCain ran Christie Whitman as his VP (heard her mentioned as one of the possibles) it makes it even more difficult to win NJ.

    yep. since bill clinton left office, (5.00 / 0) (#147)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:34:51 AM EST
    we've lost major ground in NJ--from an 18% margin win by bill in 1996 down to single digits (7%) with kerry in 2004.  against a repub like mccain, i wouldn't be surprised if NJ flipped red thanks to obama.

    What about the last three special elections... (none / 0) (#38)
    by EddieInCA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:26 PM EST
    ... including the one tonight? Democrats are winning in DEEP RED districts. I think many of you are fighting the last war. There is a new dynamic at play, and I'm NOT talking about Obama. I'm talking about a Republican brand that is so disliked that even hardcore republicans are voting for Democrats in places like Denny Hastert's old district, and two VERY Red districts in Louisiana and Mississippi, including the one tonight - where a Democrat beat a Republican in a district that George Bush carried 67-37 in 2004. I see no reason that Obama or Hillary cannot win convincingly over McCain - as long as McCain is portrayed as running for a 3rd Bush term - as he was last Sunday by Congressman Roy Blunt (R - MO).

    anti-choice, anti-gay dems (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    who vote 80% of the time with republicans are not really dems to me.

    Is this the new strategy to beat the republicans: we become them?

    No, thanks.


    exactly and Childers definitely ran away ... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by alexei on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:57 PM EST
    from Obama.  Did ads, went on TV and interviews that he didn't know Obama, was not associated with him and did not want his endorsement.  He has the same positions as his Repub opponent.  

    I will take an... (none / 0) (#90)
    by EddieInCA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:02:42 PM EST
    anti-choice, anti-gay Democrat who will vote for Harry Reid (or whomever replaces him) for Majority Leader over an anti-choice, anti-gay Republican who will vote for Mitch McConnell for the same position.

    I will take a anti-choice, ant-gay Democrat who will vote for the judges chosen by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama over an anti-choice, anti-gay Republican who will attempt to block those same judges.

    I will take an anti-choice, anti-gay Democrat who will create a veto-proof majority for President Clinton or Obama.


    What Makes You Think (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:06:25 PM EST
    He won't join the republicans and block those same judges? I will agree with you that it helps in electing a majority leader but I think that is about it.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#182)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:26 PM EST
    ...I generally love you and your comments, but what those Dems would be doing is just going back to their roots.  The Democratic Party WAS the party that was anti-everything progressive.  A higher percentage of Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.  Well before that, the Democrats were the party of the Klan...and before that (and AFTER Calhoun), it was the party that approved of slavery.  That's just a fact of history, and history states that Republicans, generally, have a better track record with race issues than Democrats.

    I think if Obama is the nominee there (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:28 PM EST
    is some danger of people voting for the Dems for congress and senate but McCain for President.  I think Obama can win too, but it is not as clear as Hillary's chances.

    Yeah I don't get the argument (none / 0) (#143)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:25 AM EST
    Why run on the 'well they hate republicans anyway' assumption with Obama when Clinton is clearly stronger?  I just don't get it.  Willful ignorance.

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:45:32 PM EST
    is getting exceedingly friendly press here in the Seattle, WA area.  He's here for some kind of "environmental summit" and they're eating it up.  (LOL!)

    I think if Obama alienates enough voters (his talent), McCain could even win Washington.  

    Obama only beat Hillary by 5% in the PRIMARY.  He isn't ridiculously popular here.


    And that was after his 10 or more victories. (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by alexei on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:55:45 PM EST
    Especially among all those voters (none / 0) (#142)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:13:44 AM EST
    who couldn't get time off, or get child care, or were disabled, or otherwise couldn't get to the caucus. Which I remember them getting dissed for at the time. "Oh, poor Hillary says her supporters are too busy working...what an excuse!"  Yeah, those lightweight nurses and service workers and plain old salt of the earth.

    Dems winning among Dems (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by andrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:02:08 PM EST
    That aspect has to be remembered.  In November, we get the rest of the country.  This is no small point.

    Obama believers say they worry about McCain but at the same time would gamble with losing to McCain with evidence staring them in the face that Obama will have tremendous problems getting the states that past Dem losers were able to get.

      Primary wins by caucuses and only among Dems mean nothing in the fully-representative ballot box general election.

      As for the Republican entries, there were Obama's open campaigns for the many-state "Democrats for a Day Outreach" etc vs the Limbaugh effect to combat it.  

      Both have had genuine Repubs/Independents too but a poll of Republican women will almost surely show an amazing number hoping to vote for Hillary.  Among many people I KNOW who never voted Democrat, they want Hillary.

      Hannity is beating on Hillary again because his cohorts are agreeing that they want Obama as he is clearly easier to beat now.  


    You don't know "deep red states" (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:25:41 PM EST
    if you are making this argument -- I grew up in NOLA, which is and isle of civilization in the wilderness of Louisiana, and believe me the "two party system" is in name only in states like LA, MS, etc. Almost all D who gets elected on a statewide level is a DINO (Dem in name only) (exception to a certain extent is Sen. Mary Landrieu from LA, but she won because of NOLA). And that matters a lot, whether you want to accept it or not, because the fact that there are "more bodies in your column" does not translate to a progressive agenda getting through the House & Senate. Unless, of course, you only care about having a DINO Congress and not a progressive agenda. Point in fact, the only reason Childers calls himself a Dem is because it is a long tradition among certain political families in those states to not be a member of "Lincoln's party" -- that changed after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and people in states like LA & MS decided slowly to be "out and proud" as Republicans, but it doesn't change the fact that they are both, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from each other on policy issues.

    McCain is not a generic Republican (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:14 AM EST
    People do not believe he's George Bush II.  We can chip away a bit at that in the GE, but Obama cannot seriously go after him without totally blowing his "unity" schtick.

    Hillary, OTOH, can beat him on his own terms.

    You have to come to terms with the fact that the high negatives for Republicans simply do not apply to McCain.  There are even people here at TL who say they are entirely comfortable voting for him.

    And btw, from what I understand, the guy in Miss. felt the only way he coudl win was by distancing himself heavily from Obama.  Think about that.


    McCain is going to distance... (none / 0) (#51)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:46:42 PM EST
    ..himself from Bush, and I can already hear the line that McCain will use against Obama...

    Senator, during the democratic debate in ???? you told Hillary Clinton that you didn't know if you were running against her or her husband.  I know you don't have much experience in government, but after 3 and a half years in the Senate you should be able to tell the difference between me and the guy in the White House.

    I think that Obama's (none / 0) (#39)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:46 PM EST
    I think that Obama's huge margins in the African American community -- especially after all the Wright mess -- are making it possible to express racial resentments that people usually keep silent.  This is going to be a very ugly election and even if Obama wins, racial tensions will be high if he squeaks through in states like PA because of massive AA turnout.  

    I am sure that part of his strategy is to make (none / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:02 PM EST
    the prospect of running against him, with his huge AA support, very ugly, with many charges of racism being thrown about.

    the false charges against the Clinton's (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    provide a whole lot of insulation for the GOP -- they can just point to the bogus charges against Clinton, and accuse the Obots of "race-boating"

    Depends how compliant the media is (none / 0) (#80)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
     whether this will work.
    So far Obama  has been quite good at getting the media to blame Hillary for his faults.

    Won't matter with the Repubs and the Media is... (none / 0) (#76)
    by alexei on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    McCain Country.

    I assure you, MSNBC missed nothing. (none / 0) (#48)
    by AX10 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:45:31 PM EST
    They are spinning against Hillary.  The MSNBC Obama hacks have made no secret that they want Hillary out.

    people still (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:37:00 PM EST
    watch MS?NBC?

    Exactly who?

    Not the Fox people, not the Hillary voters...

    so let them spin away....they are preaching to the choir


    Disagree on PA (none / 0) (#52)
    by coigue on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:24 PM EST
    You don't need to rely on a historical Kerry win in that state...RCP have Obama up substantially over McCain.

    Pre Republican 527s vetting (none / 0) (#104)
    by andrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:12:21 PM EST
    They won't avoid many topics that other Dems would not use in primary battles against another Dem.

    Every vote is needed, and in the swing states we know from history are important, Hillary's vote-pulling is stronger.
    Including, of course tonight's 41% margin in WVa, which is indicative and post-Wright also.


    That is speculation (none / 0) (#170)
    by coigue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    and partisan speculation at that. Do you think the 527s won't go after Clinton?

    Get real. RCP has Obama up right now...and Obama is under the gun currently whereas McCain is distinctly NOT under the gun.

    FLA and Ohio VERY worrysome for Obama.

    PA....not so much.


    If Clinton gets the nomination, should (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:48:24 PM EST
    Obama be her VP?  

    for another post, ok? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:53:34 PM EST
    Let's keep this one a little on target.

    I am so sick and tired (none / 0) (#145)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:43:19 AM EST
    of the "map is changing" argument from all of the talking heads and Obama supporters.  That is code for "don't make the electoral argument against Obama".  Just like all the other things we can't argue against Obama for a myriad of reasons.