A Blogger Call With Hillary Clinton: It's the Map Not the Math

Update: Taylor Marsh has posted the audio of the call here.


We had a great blogger call with a very hoarse Hillary Clinton today. It was just for bloggers so she could thank us for our support.

She is staying in the race. She is ahead in the popular vote by 50,000 votes, counting Florida and Michigan which must be counted. She intends to continue to lead in the popular vote when June 3 comes around and everyone has voted.

The number one message: It's the map not the math. In addition to the popular vote, the electoral map shows her with a cushion and Obama with a deficit. She has won 311 electoral votes to Obama's 217. While a few of her's like Texas and Oklahoma will be a challenge in November, many of his states will be: Alaska, Idaho, Utah, to name a few.

It's especially important to focus on this because it’s what superdelegates are supposed to be doing, exercising independent judgment to determine who would be the better candidate against John McCain in November.

She's in Oregon today, she'll be doing a televised town hall tonight that Obama was invited to participate in but declined. He won’t debate her or stand side by side with her to debate issues. That's a disservice to the people of Oregon.


She also talked about the blogosphere, saying she deeply regrets the vitriol and mean spiritedness and insults that have been thrown around at bloggers for supporting her and at women in general, but this too shall pass. She said she's imperviious to the insults and almost sees it as a perverse (reverse?)form of flattery.

Further reading:

Comments closed.

< Friday Afternoon Open Thread | Friday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hope someone told her to do something about her (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:37:10 PM EST
    throat.  Can't have her unable to talk tonight--unless Bill or Chelsea could do the speech!

    I am encouraged by your figures and her determination.

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    Thanks for this "hoarse race" post, Jeralyn.

    Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by scribe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:39:20 PM EST
    Friday afternoon humor.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by barryluda on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    We're warned to expect a hoarse HRC (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    in little more than an hour then, when she will be on a call-in with phonebankers from around the country.  And then on to an evening event for her?  I get tired just thinking of reading her calendar.

    And her attitude -- a reverse/perverse compliment? -- is one I'll take with me, too.  I remember being besieged by horrible so-called male colleagues spreading rumors and doing awful attacks in the workplace, when it was a man I trusted who helped me see it for what it was: Others who were coasting at work felt threatened by competence.  

    I gotta work on a great chuckle like hers, if it happens to me again.  (And it will; it's life in the workplace for women:-).  What an example she is.


    "Reverse/perverse compliment." (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:14:03 PM EST
    Hoping Hillary Clinton telling her supporters how she views the unmitigated misogyny will instruct her supporters to move on, talk about the merits of her candidacy, why she is better able to win the GE, why she will be the best President.

    Agreed 100% (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by ghost2 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:46:14 PM EST
    She is a tremendous role model.  I love her. She sticks to the her goal, despite the unison battle crys from men and boys (media, blogs, politics).  What is it they say? Polite women never make history?

    This election brought out the misogeny in the media and proved sexism exists far MORE among political insiders, the media heads, and the elite, than the normal working class voters.

    It's our task to NEVER forget it.  That's my motto.  I shall remember.


    Hillary call is at 7pm eastern (4.75 / 4) (#119)
    by karen for Clinton on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    The OR and KY Get Out The Vote participants will get to hear it from her directly on the phone. That will surely be inspiration to make calls.

    The DNC sent me a fundraising request and had the gall to include this line in reference to republicans: "They're gearing up for a Swift Boat offensive on our nominee"

    I wrote back stating "you have no nominee and it will not be swift boating it will be the truth" and followed with a ranting two page letter that nobody will bother to read but had to come out.


    Her graciousness is so (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:31:36 PM EST
    inspirational, and unique for someone in a position where so few can see beyond themselves from that elevation.

    Ha! I did the same thing! (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by Lysis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    It wasn't quite two pages, but I basically said that I saw no reason to be a Democrat if the party doesn't stand up against sexism. If Obama's the nominee, there's a good chance I won't be voting in the presidential race.  

    Glad to hear the campaign will talk up the map (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by kempis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM EST
    In the end, all that will matter on election night is which states turn blue and which turn red. Right now, according to the state polling, it's looking like Hillary Clinton has a better chance of flipping Ohio, holding PA and MI, and flipping FL.

    Obama's chances to flip small western states or NC and/or VA are, in my humble estimation, overrated. So is his ability to hold on to PA.

    I agree with BTD that Obama's a media darling and as such they give him a nice coating of teflon. But even with media-applied teflon, even with $$$ and a superior organization, even with the implicit endorsement of most of the DNC leadership, Obama lost Ohio, PA, WV, RI, IN, TX, and next week he'll lose KY.

    A significant number of voters, particularly voters who have more in common with the bulk of GE voters than Obama-supporters do, aren't climbing aboard the Obama bandwagon.

    This is a serious problem best illustrated with those electoral maps. I hope to see people talking about them on the cable/network news programs--if I could stand to watch those programs anymore....Maybe it's more honest to say that I hope to HEAR about people talking about them. :)

    P.S. Maybe people will begin to wonder (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by kempis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:55:41 PM EST
    ...why the hell the superdelegates are marching to Obama's side like lemmings. And maybe then they'll wonder what's behind their decision that Obama is the best candidate to go up against McCain when McCain beats him in most electoral map models but loses to Hillary.

    Nah. Even a lot of the smart commenters (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:07:08 PM EST
    here don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance that would come with confronting the answers, it's clear.  And believe me, I hear from a lot of really smart -- well, educated -- folks I know who simply can't acknowledge realities of the electoral college (even one who went daily to the sites on that in the last two elections and emailed constantly about it; he ignores it now), realities of DNC rules and that delegates can switch, realities of Republican attack ads ahead . . . and especially, realities of sexism -- in themselves.

    It's so much easier for them to keep talking about "teh math."  And sending me stupid anti-Clinton cartoons and really nasty emails.  Oh, and the worst are from family members who say they love me and just want to correct the error of my ways.

    What an eye-opener it all has been, huh?


    yep, it's been frustrating and heartbreaking.... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by kempis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:15:05 PM EST
    And, like you say, I'm stunned by the blind spots that my Obama-supporting friends have, all of which keep them from giving any serious consideration to that electoral map.

    I do not understand what the educated (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:17:14 PM EST
    class sees in Obama. I would think that the business and management types would be the ones to swoon over his empty rhetoric.

    Two reasons (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:48:48 PM EST
    The bulk of his base is comprised of:

    a) students who don't know any better than to believe the empty promises of a politician.

    b) old-school uber-liberals who are completely caught up in the idea of electing the first AA president.  At the risk of being accused of racism, I think Geraldine Ferraro was right on the mark.  It's the only logical explanation.  Yes, his speeches are inspirational, but anyone over the age of 30 should be skeptical of anyone who offers so much fluff with so little substance.


    Yes, yes, yes, exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:56:30 PM EST
    I would amend the old timers (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:02:14 PM EST
    description to some who want to appear "hip" while they struggle to cross the line between 50 and 60, 60 and 70, 70 and 80, etc.

    At least the ones in my circle fall into the denial group.


    Party (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by tek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    pressure has everything to do with that.  Remember, the Republicans didn't want Dubya, except for the clique that supported his candidacy (and the fundies, of course).

    NYT letter to the editor (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by jackyt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:30:57 PM EST
    There's a letter on the op-ed page today by someone who clearly believes that everyone who votes for Hillary is a racist. This person is so narrow-minded that he cannot conceive that anyone could have any other criteria for casting a ballot. Talk about bigotry!

    Think that is going to be the same (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:34:35 PM EST
    attitude they show during the GE?

    Thanks for this post!! (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Andy08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    I am thrilled to hear HRC is upbeat and fighting on.
    We are with her.

    Doesn't Obama realize how weak he looks making such a huge effort to avoid debating HRC ?

    What is he afraid of?

    He says he'll do side-by-side (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    debats with McCain w/o moderators.  Isn't that enough?  <snk.>

    Enough to infuriate me! (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    Exactly. What a jerk. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    How many debates have he and Sen. Clinton (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    done to date? 23 or so? Why more, now? He knows he's the presumptive nominee, and he serves his party better by campaigning against McCain instead of Clinton now.

    About 4 side by side. (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:14:23 PM EST
    People sure seem to want to see them debate.  

    I don't want to see any more debates (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:17:21 PM EST
    between Barack and Hillary. I've seen enough. Clinton supports seem to want more, hoping that somehow this will change the predicted outcome. Oregon mass media probably wouldn't mind seeing more for commercial reasons.

    After watching Charlie and George moderate the last debate, I think I've seen too much.


    I know why (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:26:23 PM EST
    No one wants to see him debate Clinton any more.

    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    Why Obama supporters don't want debates (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM EST

    He serves himself ony (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:17:37 PM EST
    He's hiding out.  The large debates were with panels where it was sound bite responses.  The few debates they had by themselves had huge ratings. If Obama was interested in the voters, he would let them get to know him, but the reality is his weakness is debating.  A primary debate would be a safer crowd than a GE debate will ever give him.  Let his supporters do the booing garbage with Repubs and see how that goes over.

    presumptuous not presumptive (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by moll on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:19:26 PM EST
    He knows he's the presumptive nominee

    too bad the voters don't.


    I prefer 'he assumes he's the nominee' (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:27:29 PM EST
    since we all know about assumptions  ;)

    I Don't Know About That (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    The Democratic Party in N.C. lost over 300,000 dollars in revenue when he refused to debate there. That money might have done a lot of good for the Democratic Party in N.C.

    Don't worry. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Fabian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:48:44 PM EST
    If the NC Party pledges fealty to Teh Obama then I'm sure He will compensate them.

    They should send the bill to (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM EST

    A clear vision of him pushing her off to the side (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:58:09 PM EST
    as not worth his time. And, he wants her supporters to move into his camp.

    How can he behave this way and not realize that, should he get the nomination at convention, he will forever be viewed as having stolen it?


    yeah and I like how he wants to call out JMcSame (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    like he's the bigger of the 3 for a debate.

    He better get a reality check. He's trying to minimize Hillary, yet, if he THINKS he's in, he has another lesson to learn from the pro, Mrs. Clinton.

    and she is the pro. The votes haven't been counted yet in Oregon, but he's fighting attacksf from the president, McCain, et al, from all sides. Of course this is helping Hillary

    wow, just wow.

    I think he's hemorrhaging and he doesn't even know it.  


    Not MRS. Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by tek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    SENATOR CLinton!

    She even gave the better protest on his behalf (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    Yesterday he made a statement about the Bush speech. She made a better objection one. So today he had to redo his protest speech and make it stronger. She got the headline yesterday.

    I was just talking to my GOP neighbor who turned Dem because she wants Hillary for Pres. She said to me, I don't think I can vote for Obama. I just do not think he is ready. She is so smart and knows about all topics. He hems and haws and says he will get back to you. I found that interesting.


    He'll get back to you...sweetie (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:55:09 PM EST
    apparently he also called Senator Boxer a "cutie" last year per Reclusive Leftist - I wonder if thats on Shakesvilles 99 examples list?

    It is condescending (5.00 / 2) (#247)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:08:31 PM EST
    for a man to use pet names on women who are in a higher position, and are older than they are.

    Do you have any polling data (none / 0) (#56)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:12:14 PM EST
    suggesting that he's bleeding?

    yes indeed (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:02:35 PM EST
    a great way to end the week

    Why should the presumptive nominee (5.00 / 13) (#47)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:08:44 PM EST
    debate the delusional middle-aged stalker who refuses to understand she's already lost the nomination?

    Of course, he won't say it that way. He'll just think it. Sweetie.


    It's deluded Obamies that don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by ANewDay2008 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    that the race ain't over.



    Shameful comment (none / 0) (#59)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:13:35 PM EST
    You're better than that.

    Well (5.00 / 17) (#63)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:15:29 PM EST
    I suppose she could have been like you, and claimed that Hillary knows she's already lost but is lying to her supporters about it to get their money.

    You have no room whatsoever to be lecturing anyone about shameful comments.


    Have you noticed how often the shame (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:27:12 PM EST
    card is played around here lately? Trying to shame us into submission? Definitely not working.

    McCain is still (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:31:46 PM EST
    presumptive.  Nothing is done till the convention.  Can people get that in their heads.

    why not go the whole hog (none / 0) (#229)
    by Saxon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:51:58 PM EST
    and say nothing is certain until the elections - you know he might die before the election and then he is not really the nominee!

    Hillary shows us right there at the top: (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by felizarte on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:54:21 PM EST
    "reverse compliment."  Thanks Hillary!  Now I feel like I am also wearing that kind of armor.  I no longer feel my blood pressure rising.

    She knows her only chance is some catastrrophic (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:21:10 PM EST
    scandal hitting Obama between now and August. She is too smart a politician not to know this. So, yes, she is deceiving her supporters by not acknowledging this reality, but it's a deception that's common in political races. She can't really come out and say "look, I know my chances are remote here."

    Actually it wouldn't take much. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:25:27 PM EST
    For instance: set 2209 as the magic number, and Obama is no longer the presumptive nominee.

    "catastrrophic scandal" (5.00 / 13) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM EST
    like counting all the votes?

    That typo was accidental (none / 0) (#99)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:33:24 PM EST
    but I might consider making more of them, if that will increase your sense of well-being.

    there was a typeo? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:48:20 PM EST
    Oh, stop it. No one has been nominated yet. (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    He peaked in February.  She's the best we got.  There really is no persuasive argument for nominating a candidate who has become weaker over the stronger candidate.  Look if you want to make it about delegate counts fine.  But don't fool yourself that this is a tremendously popular candidate, and she's squat.  They are about even in votes and she has outperformed him since the first week of March.

    maybe that's the problem in a nutshell (5.00 / 10) (#160)
    by Kathy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    women have no tolerance for a man who peaks too soon.  Men want to give him every advantage and second chance possible.

    check out Erica Jong's post (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST
    Erica Jong's postit is excellent

    Some of the comments (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by zfran on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:18:43 PM EST
    posted below the article are atrociously wicked. I think some of these Sen. Obama supporters think this is American Idol or something. One remarked how those of us from the 60's and 70's cannot stand that we are now irrevelent and old....ah, can hardly wait for 20 or 30 years to pass for them..where will they be!!!!

    oops..s/b irrelevent, I guess (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by zfran on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST
    my fingers don't work like when I was younger!!

    Snort! (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    Diet Coke on monitor and keyboard.

    Thanks for the laugh!


    i am a man (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by arjay on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:14:01 PM EST
    and i think this comment is funny but I also hate this idea that Hillary supporters are all women.

    digdug.... (none / 0) (#256)
    by oldpro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:28:42 AM EST
    We all know what the score is...Hillary knows and her supporters know.  She's not concealing anything from us...

    It's still a race (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by barryluda on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    and I'm glad that Clinton is staying positive -- rather than using the chance today to attack Obama, instead she appropriately attacked Bush / McCain.  She's a class act.

    As I've said, IMO whoever wins this thing will have earned it, no matter what happens.  The Supers will decide it -- that's the rules.  Everyone, especially the candidates, have every right to try to influence them.  But in the end, it really isn't the Map, the Math, or anything else.  At this point, it's the Super Delegates.

    This candidate OBVIOUSLY (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:49:34 PM EST
    has all the right stuff in all the right measure to be our next President during these very challenging and trying times.

    I've always said she's tougher than I am :) (5.00 / 12) (#23)
    by kempis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:52:12 PM EST
    She also talked about the blogosphere, saying she deeply regrets the vitriol and mean spiritedness and insults that have been thrown around at bloggers for supporting her and at women in general, but this too shall pass. She said she's imperviious to the insults and almost sees it as a perverse (reverse?)form of flattery.

    Love it. She's one tough cookie and I appreciate her efforts to model gracious thick-skinned-ness to us all. I aspire to be impervious to insults, too, when I grow up. :) In the meantime, I sure do admire her resilience and her ability to maintain focus on something positive. Really extraordinary quality. I admire her more each day.

    Thanks for the report.

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:10:49 PM EST
    "I am flattered by your fascination with me."

    It's hard to see how anyone could fail to admire Hillary's tenacity.  I wish my daughter were old enough to understand what an inspiration she is.


    Dude (5.00 / 13) (#68)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:18:15 PM EST
    She actually said to Bill O'Reilly, "Americans don't like demagogues[.]"  

    As much as I like Hillary, I'm not sure I've ever been as impressed by any mainstream democrat as I was with her during that O'Reilly interview.  She got him to agree to pay a higher tax rate and to subisdize working families' health insurance.  


    how long we have waited for a (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:59:09 PM EST
    Fightin Dem like that!

    I prefer Obama but (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by trublueCO on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:58:12 PM EST
    in the end, I think we have a great chance with either Obama or Clinton. Kudos to Hillary for showing some tenacity. Kudos to Obama for beating everybody's expections (at least when this all started) for how long he would last.

    I think, whoever ultimately gets the nomination, that the party should trot both out on stage on national television and give them a standing ovation. Both have done an extraordinary job re-energizing core Dems and bringing millions upon millions more into the fold. We are creating a movement that will last for a decade!

    Exactly how I feel (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by barryluda on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    Yes, I hope there is not the usual booing (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    of her for all to see on national tv, if it happens again at the convention.

    That behavior seems to be growing, not declining, and it really turns off a lot of older voters, they tell me.  And, of course, it turns off a lot of us.

    Obama's campaign ought to be able to stop it in a Chicago minute.  That they don't is so telling.


    That would seal the deal (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:04:48 PM EST
    for me, and I would hope at least some of his SDs would realize they needed to change their alliance before they vote.

    The jealousy must be blinding.


    Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:52:50 PM EST
    the Democratis Party won't make it!

    Who were the other bloggers (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:00:14 PM EST
    Besides BTD of course. Obama bloggers or just Hillary ones? Dud Obama do something like this and were you invited because of TalkLeft and your position for Hillary.

    interesting questions (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by CanadianDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:12:57 PM EST
    I always get reminded of the feeling I got when Bush et al used to have sitdowns with the redstate etc bloggers...although I'm thinking it's not really the same, still get that feeling though.

    I would think that blog readers (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM EST
    would be excited that Hillary reaches out to her supporters in the blogosphere and gives us encouragement.  It's a stark contrast to the way Obama has dissed the blogosphere and tried to simply control us.

    Did you use search function here (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    to see?

    Glad to hear (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by tek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:08:42 PM EST
    Hillary will be the nominee.  Now I can enjoy the weekend.

    The Clinton Juggernaut (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:09:41 PM EST
    Why Clinton is stronger in the GE than Obama.  With nifty charts!  

    great analysis - thanks! (none / 0) (#156)
    by Josey on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    intersting link from Corrente shows the (none / 0) (#242)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    Obama campaign, in its famous internal spreadsheet that was accidentally sent to Bloomberg News some time ago, put Indiana solidly in Obama's column in its post-Feb. 5 projections. In fact, at that time the Obama campaign estimated that his margin in Indiana would be almost as big in North Carolina (seven points versus six points).

    7 point win in IN? Nope. 3 point loss.


    its the MAP not the MATH (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by neilario on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    thanks for the post. somehow it didnt sound right the way you have it in the post title. i am listening to the audio and senator clinton says  its the MAP not the MATH  which makes much more sense... fyi :}

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by gmo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    ...just listened to it as well.  I believe she says it's the MAP not the MATH.

    that does make a lot more sense (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:24:35 PM EST
    I believe that is what is known as (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by independent voter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:24:57 PM EST
    Freudian slip

    Obama backsliding since early March (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by pluege on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:18:10 PM EST
    Obama peaked in early March after winning a bunch of  states that won't vote democratic in November. He's been all down hill across the board from there, except for the A-A constituency. Not only has he not solidified the non-A-A constituencies, but he's been losing strength in every key demographic and being exposed as having numerous serious weaknesses. At this point its pretty clear that superdelegates would be crazy to coronate him and would not be fulfilling their function.  

    Specifically (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:24:10 PM EST
    his last win in a contested state was Wisconsin on Feb. 19.  His last win in a blue state was Vermont on Mar. 3.

    He's been sliding ever since.


    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by glennmcgahee on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:18:35 PM EST
    Is is true that her post was edited by Mydd.com because she wrote about Obama's hiring of 400 bloggers to make Hillary go away so he could declare victory May 20 as rumored? I hope this is not true. I always thought the site was practical and unbias, certainly not a site to censor a writer of her caliber.

    Yes.... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Josmt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    this is really starting (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:51:39 PM EST
    to get scary.
    in a bad Orwellian way.

    Aye aye, captain, and weird and creepy, too (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by lookoverthere on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:48:40 PM EST
    riverdaughter appears to have been hit by a troll-for-a-dollar-a-day.

    I've been thinking that way (none / 0) (#203)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:22:21 PM EST
    for a long time.

    Quite Frankly (5.00 / 8) (#141)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    Hillary is my hero. I can't think of one other politician in my lifetime who could have stood up to what she has - the misognyny, the hatred, the media barrage, the meanness and hate from her own party. Seriously. Who but Hillary Clinton would still be standing, would still have her sense of humor intact, would still have a positive attitude, and would still be going full steam ahead?

    Beyond her clear superiority in experience, intellect, and encyclopedic knowledge of policy and foreign affairs. Beyond her clearly superior electability. It is her awesome courage and willingness to fight that has me hooked. We have all moaned and groaned the past 8 years as democrats in Congress caved over and over again. Why would we elect someone who can't fight when we have Xena still kicking butt and landing punch after punch, even after the kitchen sink, the stove, the refrigerator, and the dishwasher have been thrown at her?

    I agree 100% (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:13:37 PM EST
    and I respectfully ask any Obama supporters here to go back and rethink some of the misperceptions you have/had about Hillary.  I know personally because I shared some of those misperceptions, but the integrity of her campaign, her command of the issues, her willingness to stand and fight, have quite convinced me.  She pushed hard for universal health care.  No one else has really done that, and I just don't see Obama really drawing a line in the sand on any issue of importance.  Hillary is fighting for US and we need to stand with her!

    It's like Jack said, "let's get serious about the future."


    And despite all of this... (1.00 / 10) (#146)
    by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:03:19 PM EST
    and despite her name recognition, party base, her husband, her daughter, she still can't win.  

    I'm glad she's someone's hero.  I know people that have been through a lot more, and stood even taller.  Those are real heroes.  Fortunately, none are politicians.  But if your heroes a politician, more power to you.  You can find good apparently where there is little.


    She can win. They each have an argument. (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:09:11 PM EST
    His will be delegate lead(but not 'nuff), her's will be the map, and they will be about even with her somewhat above in the pop vote.  If I were her, I'd also argue that she's grown stronger since February, earning far more votes than him, while he's grown weaker since he peaked in WI.

    Is there some reason... (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by gmo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:15:22 PM EST
    ...you feel compelled to make personal attacks on other commenters?  

    Please stick to the topic on hand, not on belittling other people who post here.



    Man (5.00 / 7) (#157)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST
    What sort of petty person listens to someone talk about a person that inspires them, and decides to mock them for it?

    Do you think if someone tells me that Barack Obama is a hero to them, that just because I'm a Clinton supporter, I go "neener neener, you're such a loser if your hero is a politician"?  Sad and pathetic.


    The answer: a frightened and small person (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:21:49 PM EST
    Of course this is a theoretical answer and not in any way directed to any commentator on this site, because I would NEVER violate the rules here... ;)

    So! are you one of the people... (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by jackyt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    who is trying to woo me?

    TheKSG (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by djcny on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST
    I suggest you remain silent if you have nothing interesting or useful to say.  Who are you to try and critique someone elses heartfelt words. Go get some self esteem and maybe you wouldn't feel the need to attack someone you don't even know on such a personal level.

    the Oracle of Wisdom has spoken (none / 0) (#217)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:39:55 PM EST
    You need to stop or leave (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:09:39 PM EST
    Your comments are violating all kind of site rules. This is really a friendly warning. Also people here will pretty much ignore you, so you are wasting your time.

    there's been a bump (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Lil on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:22:12 PM EST
    in trolling lately, I've noticed.

    400 blogger assault vehicle (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:07:27 PM EST
    Maybe that person (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by pie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:10:16 PM EST
    at NoQuarter was right.

    Still, they're not winning the spin.

    And Hillary is winning over the voters wherever she goes.


    I deleted that comment (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:38:57 PM EST
    and will review the entire thread later

    How is... (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    my post violating site rules?  I'm speaking to the absurdity of the previous poster.  Oh I get, I'm not kissing Hillary's butt.  

    If that's what I need to do, just let me know.  Otherwise, please clearly state how I'm doing anything different than most other posters, except stating an opposite view.  

    Seriously, if only one viewpoint is allowed on the site, let me know.  


    You can read them yourself (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:40:02 PM EST
    There is no rule against having a contrary viewpoint to this site, but race baiting or name calling is strictly not tolerated. Read your own post and see that you engaged in both.

    BTW I have nothing to do with the site or moderators, I am sure they will on their own clarify as needed. We are a civil bunch here and are not interested in flame throwing or trolling or chattering.


    These women say (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by MichaelGale on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    Time to Pony Up (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    And contribute even more to her campaign.

    By the way, I had an interesting experience today.  In reading the NYT on-line, there were a series of stories about Obama tangling with Bush and McCain.  But on the front page there wasn't a single story -- not one -- that mentioned Senator Clinton in any headline.  I think that's the first time I've seen that happen in a long time.

    Didn't you get the memo (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:44:21 PM EST
    Its over, we all just missed it. NYT has been pretty bad lately, and I am sure its part of the whole media meme.

    The Media is So (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by kaleidescope on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:06:05 PM EST

    Hillary can win the general election easiliy (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by josephm on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    I believe that if Hillary is the nominee, she will win the General Election easily. If Obama wins the nomination, I would put money on McCain. I do not believe Obama can win. By some freak chance, yeah, he might be able to win by a small margin, but I doubt that Obama would win.

    Then start counting the Obama goal posts (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:07:42 PM EST

    1. SD are obligated to vote by the will of the people to SDs vote whatever they want,

    2. Stealing pledged delegates is WRONG to ok we are good with it,

    3. All votes count, unless its not for us,

    4. We will compete in 50/48/47/46/well just enough

    5. We can win red states to we can't even win blue states, and the grand prize....

    6. I HAVE WON BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE 2025 or 2209, BUT I HAVE MAJORITY OF PLEDGED DELEGATES (woohoo I crossed my own made up line)

    So excuse me if I just ignore your post.

    wanna win? (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by Robert Oak on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    Firstly, only 28% of the ballots have been turned in Oregon.  Secondly, LTEs, write up LTEs.

    Thirdly, people need to write up actual policy differences and there are many.  Obama is slamming Hillary on the "gas tax" but completely ignores her entire policy plans for green jobs, R&D investment in alt. energies and how frankly Bill, due to his massive connections is the kind of guy to remove bottlenecks in the private sector to make that happen.  

    Women.  Hillary has way better plans for single mothers, especially the plan to provide funding for non-traditional students (i.e. single mothers) so they can attend college.

    People should be writing about those and in the Oregon news, Oregon blogs and in the Oregon major blog comment sections.

    I live here and frankly what Obama has is this mesmerizing stuff but when people find out about actual votes, policy positions, they pause.  Women, especially pause on their issues and there are also a lot of Green party types out here, so if they realize that she has the agenda as well as the ability to make it happen on alt. energies, that is going to very much give people pause.

    I Don't Think He Wants To Remind The People (4.42 / 7) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:36:08 PM EST
    of how unfair he has been to her....scratch that, he wants everyone to think he is the nominee.

    I am GLAD, GLAD, GLAD, Hillary is staying the in the race.  If people do their jobs, she will the nominee....


    A champion through and through! (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by felizarte on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    Unbelievable intellectual, emotional, psychological strength. If the MSM or Obama crowd is waiting for her to cry, they will have a very long wait indeed.  I can hardly wait for her to debate John McCain.

    What is absurd is:  Clinton challenges Obama to debate and Obama accepts to debate McCain.  And he is allowed to get away with it!


    Hillary Will Once Again Have obama For (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    breakfast if they debate.  obama is only good when he has had time to prepare or has a teleprompter in front of him.  Hillary knows her stuff inside and out and I am sure it is disconcerting.  However, if he wants people to remotely think he is up to the job of president, he has to go into the lion's den.  So far, he hasn't even shown he is ready for the kitten's den!

    And, he wonders why the term (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:28:24 PM EST
    arrogant is so often used to describe him.

    These are the kinds of things that keep people from wanting to unite and reward him for such disgusting behavior.

    McCain will only get one debate, if he gets any at all. It'll be PA all over again.


    Hillary will have plenty of time ... (none / 0) (#250)
    by Tortmaster on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:17:04 PM EST
    ... to debate McCain in the Senate. There, she will kick his butt.

    Taylor marsh (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CHDmom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:57:22 PM EST
    has a link where you can hear the call, sorry if this was posted already,  I didn't see it.

    Well, that was fortuitous. (none / 0) (#230)
    by pie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:52:22 PM EST

    if obama is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Saxon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:55:34 PM EST
    and loses the GE in november
    and hillary gets to run in 2012
    and wins the presidency ...

    can we send chris matthews and keith olberman and such to gitmo?


    I just got here. (none / 0) (#228)
    by pie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:51:35 PM EST
    Is there a link for the conversation?

    Such a tired position... (2.20 / 5) (#102)
    by The Troubadour on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    As has been demonstrated time and again, electoral victories in the primaries have absolutely no correlative relationship to victories in the general election.

    So the false argument that Hillary has an "electoral" lead is as laughable now as it was over thirty years ago when Kennedy was trounced in Ohio in the primaries. Anyone remember who won that state in the General? Anyone?

    And no, this isn't the only example; it's simply the most illuminative one given the parallels often made, and representative of how time and again we see that both turnout (yes Obamanites, turnout now means nothing for the general) and successes during the primary means nothing for the general

    But you guys go ahead and keep making your "she's soooooo ahead arguments." I know it's difficult to let go. But you'll get to acceptance at some point. It's inevitable.

    thanks for the reality therapy troubadour (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:40:43 PM EST
    but it is people like you that make question Obama's integrity.  Why does he attract all the snarky, self-righteous, even arrogant people?

    and why does he feel it (5.00 / 7) (#133)
    by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    necessary to hire operatives to troll non-Obama blogs?

    I will let you enjoy (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:47:24 PM EST
    your fantasy that there have been repeated demonstrations of "no correlative relationship."

    It would, of course, be impossible to prove any such thing, as you would have to run the general election twice: once with the candidate who won the primary, and once with the candidate who lost it.

    So instead, people like you are reduced to offering random, anecdotal evidence and inventing claims that the lack of a correlation has "been demonstrated time and again."

    Are you actually under the impression that studies have been conducted of this utterly untestable proposition?  Or, as you typed your comment, did you think to yourself, "if I sound really confident, maybe no one will call me on this"?


    Not that facts matter (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:49:57 PM EST
    But try looking here for yourself, assuming you have any interest in reality (I doubt it):

    Current Electoral Map

    Reality gets in the way of spin.


    Guess you didn't see the memo Obama (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:51:40 PM EST
    sent to all the SD's making his electoral argument. He says he's gonna turn his red state wins to blue in the GE, blah blah blah. Guess you should head on over to his site and straighten him out.

    Do you folks (5.00 / 2) (#244)
    by denise on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:06:35 PM EST
    have the slightest idea how many Democrats you have alienated with your arrogance? Well, I think you're about to find out.

    Democrat of 35 years here, at least until now: I am right this minute printing out the form to change my party registration. "Unity" - what a joke. The Obama campaign has fostered more divisiveness than I've seen in my lifetime, and that's with the people you supposedly are allied with. Way to go.


    not only that...it isn't how we determine (none / 0) (#108)
    by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:38:10 PM EST
    who wins the primary.

    So! are you another one for whom... (none / 0) (#185)
    by jackyt on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:58:17 PM EST
    my heels are supposed to get reeeeeally round?

    Nixon won Ohio in the 1960 GE. eom. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Nigel on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    Typical (1.00 / 7) (#117)
    by The Troubadour on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:45:06 PM EST
    More evidence that Hillary's staunchest followers model themselves more in the image of the Bush administration than liberal, critical thinkers.

    Jeralyn doesn't like the "content" of my reasonable and rational post, so she censors and deletes it.

    Fortunately for the rest of us, Jeralyn, your need to utilize such Gonzales-style policies will soon cease after June 4.

    Your self-importance has gone to your head (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:30:43 PM EST
    Watch it, it can explode with all that hot air.

    When you post (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by djcny on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:07:41 PM EST
    why don't you post something discussable instead of blabbling about how righteous you are and how everyone else that thinks differently than you is wrong. Or you could just go away, there are plenty of other blogs, with like minded people as yourself, to "play" in.

    The author is wrong. (1.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Mawm on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:44:26 PM EST
    Clinton said, "It's the map, not the math".

    You got the quote WRONG!

    You got it backwards.

    Can't you tell why it doesn't make sense to say "It's the math not the map"?

    Listen to the recording again.

    Think about it.

    Nastiness (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:04:00 PM EST
    is uncalled for and unnecessary.  Stop it.

    I wasn't being Nasty. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mawm on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:20:54 PM EST
    I was trying to correct the huge MISTAKE in the reporting.

    Have you listened to the recording of the event?  This post actually distorts some of the things Clinton said.  She discounted her wins in TX and OK.  


    Do The Math (1.00 / 2) (#205)
    by peter357 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:26:04 PM EST
    First, according to RealClearPolitics, the only metric where Clinton is ahead of Obama in popular votes is where Clinton gets all the votes in Michigan and the other 40% of the votes cast in Michigan to "other"are dumped in the trash can. In this case, Clinton is ahead by 29,471 NOT 50,000! And the only reason that Obama's name was not on the ballot was that he complied with the rules that Clinton agreed to yet decided to ignore.

    Second, the idea that the electoral college totals should count instead of the delegate counts has no merit unless Clinton actually believes that this is a three party race. Some of the states in Clinton's column (California and New York for example) will go for the Democratic candidate regardless unless the party's candidate fails to keep his or her base. The only thing that counts for the nomination is the delegate count.

    As it stands now, neither Clinton nor Obama have enough delegates to claim the nomination. But if Clinton keeps trying to redefine the rules (just like she wants to do with Michigan and Florida) she will only help to kill the Democrats chance of winning the White House.

    If there was a rule (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Nadai on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:32:58 PM EST
    requiring the candidates to remove their names from the ballots of the offending states, why did Obama leave his name on the Florida ballot?

    Oy. (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by pie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:48:04 PM EST
    He wasn't allowed to remove his name under Florida election law.

    He sure would have otherwise.


    So sad. (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by pie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:46:25 PM EST
    and the other 40% of the votes cast in Michigan to "other"are dumped in the trash can.

    Too bad Mr. Assured-of-the-nomination took his name off the ballot.

    Isn't it.


    Please... (none / 0) (#236)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:58:58 PM EST
    ...without a revote, we can't say anything about how MI would have turned out. The turnout was lower, there were crossovers into the Republican Party and voters in MI were told by the DNC that their vote wasn't going to count.

     Arrogant attacks on Senator Obama doesn't change that.


    Sorry, you're wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by pie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:03:05 PM EST
    ...without a revote, we can't say anything about how MI would have turned out.

    The people who cared enough to vote in the primary did so.  I didn't know if my vote would count at that point.  I thought the DNC would get its act together and resolve it.

    Silly me.


    Why argue over it? (none / 0) (#218)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:41:34 PM EST
    Are the SD's buying any of these ludicrous arguments? Obama started out down by over 100 SD's, he's now up by 20. After Oregon he'll receive another flood.

    You're not going to convince any of the deadenders with logic or reason.


    I do find... (none / 0) (#220)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:45:04 PM EST
    ...this interesting:

    Second, the idea that the electoral college totals should count instead of the delegate counts has no merit unless Clinton actually believes that this is a three party race.

     Agreed.  Of course, the Obama camp has been guilty of that as well, earlier.  

     Primary wins are a very poor indicator of general election performance, for rather obvious reasons.  


    To think that all these dem bigshots (1.00 / 2) (#238)
    by Seth90212 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:00:13 PM EST
    and superdelegates are flocking to Obama because he'd be the weaker candidate in the fall. Could it be that they're right and you're wrong?

    The popular vote does not count. (1.00 / 2) (#251)
    by Laureola on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    But if one wants to make such a case (especially while trying to rig it with elections that were annulled according to party rules), then you have to be honest about it and assign some representative number of votes for caucus states.  In that case, Obama buries Clinton once again.

    when you say (none / 0) (#1)
    by CanadianDem on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:34:50 PM EST
    FL and MI must be counted and that she would then lead by 50K, what are your numbers for each from those two states?

    I'm relaying what she said (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:35:48 PM EST
    That's my understanding as well, check the sites calculating the popular vote using alternative methods.

    Just so everyone's clear - this is (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    essentially a live-blog of the conference call, right?

    No it's a recap (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    I typed as she was speaking but I didn't write the post till after we hung up.

    A Question (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Athena on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:03:10 PM EST
    Jeralyn - did you get any sense of whether she is definitely going to Denver with her delegates rather than heed calls to drop out before that?

    The call is up at Taylor Marsh (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Rhouse on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:49:13 PM EST
    right near the top.  Here's a link ( as if needed):

    Thanks. Excellent. (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    "Brilliant prologue," says Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    Clinton to Armando's pre-question speech.

    I'd enjoy hearing Armando and Hillary have a side-by-side discussion.  


    Ok. (none / 0) (#9)
    by scribe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    For perspective, that's one-tenth of a point (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    dividing our candidates in the popular vote -- of all voters -- according to RealPoliticsCom.

    And Clinton has been gaining momentum in many recent and crucial primaries, while Obama has not had a real win other than North Carolina (which will be red, anyway) for three months now, since mid-February.

    That's why it's tough for super-delegates.  That's why it still could keep changing, because even those who committed can switch again -- and so can pledged delegates, as Obama's campaign itself said this week.  There isn't and won't be a reliable delegate count for a long time to come.  And it ain't over -- no matter whether media and one candidate want to call it next week.  (I understand the framing, but I really think that is unwise if it turns again.  As it could, this close.)


    Uh, out of more than 33 million voters (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:01:53 PM EST
    I ought to have added, for context -- one-tenth of a point out of more than 33 million voters so far.

    'Way too close for any mission to be called accomplished.


    Votes (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by wurman on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:08:27 PM EST
    Clinton, Hillary Rodham   870,986      49.77%
    Obama, Barack Hussein  576,214      32.93%
    Edwards, John Reid       251,562      14.38%

    Clinton, Hillary Rodham   328,309  55.23%
    Uncommitted                238,168  40.07%


    She earned 200k more votes than (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:30:09 PM EST
    McCain that night.  He came in behind Romney.  Interesting.

    Popular Vote (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:39:02 PM EST
    According to Real Clear Politics, Hillary is only ahead in the popular vote if you don't count Iowa, Maine, Washington, or Nevada caucuses.  Now I am all for including Michigan and Florida, but that doesn't mean it's okay to exclude caucus states.

    those states didn't (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:44:28 PM EST
    count the number of people who attended the caucuses. RCP has created estimates. I'm going by your recitation of the states, I have to run out now and don't have time to check your comment.

    That's true (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:47:04 PM EST
    They are estimates.  But to talk about "popular vote" I think it is important to include all the states - omitting them because they are caucuses is as bad as omitting FL and MI.  I also think those states need to release their data ASAP so we can see the real numbers.

    In any event it is very close and the next elections should decide this once and for all.


    Do the primary votes from NE and (none / 0) (#22)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:51:40 PM EST
    WA count?

    Depends (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    You can count it or not, either way Obama is ahead if you include those states, primaries or caucuses.  Again, it is very close though, the margin is thin, and can still swing one way or the other.

    Obama's margin gets thinner by -50K (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by tree on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:09:34 PM EST
    if you use the Washington primary vote instead of the caucus totals, according to realclearpolitics. And I think the primary results in Nebraska also produced a smaller differential by about -10K or so. So that puts Obama at about +20K with all states votes counted, and WA and NE primary votes used instead of the caucus counts. After all the votes are in, Clinton will  very likely be the winner by that metric(w/FL & MI, all state totals added, in cluding caucuses where there were no primaries, and with primaries used where applicable).

    Right (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    I agree it is a very thin margin that seperates the two.  I don't know who will be the "likely winner" after all the votes are counted.  Let em vote and we'll talk about it then.

    Since they are so close, I see no (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    reason for the SD's to depend on the popular votes total. I see two legitimate ways for them to use their judgment. First, they could simply go with the voters of their district.  No one could fault them for doing so. Second, they could vote for the person they think will win in the fall.
    What I don't like are people giving mushy, inarticulate reasons---or worse yet, saying that they will vote for Obama because Hillary has been mean. This is a reason that several SD"s have given, and I find it very insulting. How does that represent the will of the people in any way?

    Or because their kids told them what to do (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:52:50 PM EST
    I cannot tell you how appalling a reason that is from super-delegates, many of them elected to be leaders of this country.  It explains a lot about our incredibly ineffective Dems in Congress.  They were waiting to be text-messaged what to do, like, omigod.

    How about their independent judgment (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:54:37 PM EST
    as to who would make the best President and who is most experienced and ready?

    You can't use a non-binding primary (none / 0) (#235)
    by democrattotheend on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:58:10 PM EST
    A lot of Obama supporters who attended the caucus did not even bother to vote in the primary because they knew it was meaningless. I guess you could include those numbers, but you can't count them and not the caucus, when voters were told that the caucus was the measure by which Washington was apportioning its delegates.

    You haven't caught on... (none / 0) (#249)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    ....to the idea yet: You count all primary votes, including MI, discount all caucus states, and then argue that the primary is a mini-GE.

      You also start implying some states don't matter at all in the GE, including toss-ups like Colorado.  

     This would all make sense if voters and superdelegates were idiots, of course, but they're not.

     You have to understand that this is a prominent Clinton site.  Jeralyn isn't off the wall, but there are a lot of posters here who seem to believe that Senator Obama is the anti-Christ.  As with people who are Obamamaniacs, it seems to cloud their judgment.


    Really, where the popular vote is now (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    doesn't matter as much as where it will be in June. I expect it to be very close, and that Hillary will win. Again, here's Jay Cost's spreadsheet. You can choose to include or exclude just about whatever you want.

    The popular vote won't matter much then, either (1.00 / 2) (#34)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:01:28 PM EST
    because by then Obama will have passed 2025. The superdelegates who have trended strongly toward Obama since NC and IN are highly unlikely to
    reverse course based upon a popular vote argument.

    In my opinion Hillary knows it's over but is making like the race is still on for purposes of retiring her campaign debt through more contributions.


    Her debt will obviously only increase (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    So I think that's a ridiculous reason.

    Obama isn't quite as inevitable as you make him out to be.


    Her debt will decrease (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    if she reduces her campaign spending. And I think you'll find she has considerably reduced it. On your other point, the only thing that will derail an Obama nomination now is some catastrophic scandal arising between now and the convention. Senator Clinton has no other path to the nomination, and her campaign knows it.

    Even if you don't agree with the 2210 number (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:11:31 PM EST
    we will have to wait until May 31 to see what it is according to the DNC.  I doubt it will stay at 2025.

    Even so, doesn't he get to 2,025 by (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by FLVoter on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    Superdelegates?  Aren't Superdelegates able to change their mind at any time prior to casting their votes at the Convention?  Am I wrong about this?  If I am right, isn't it awfully risky to set an imaginary date as a "Victory" when you are relying on Superdelegates to reach 2,025. Or will he reach 2,025 without Superdelegates?

    Neither candidate will make it to the 2025 number (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by ANewDay2008 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:32:26 PM EST
    until the convention in August.  Even if Obama wins all of the remaining primaries, he still will not have enough confirmed delegates to reach the 2025 mark in June.  That's how close this race is.  Sure - he has more Superdelegates who have announced that they will vote for him in August.  But they're not set in stone - which is why some have switched from Hillary so far.  In spite of media endorsements, Superdelegates are up in the air until the convention.

    Why do you think the Obama people are pratically BEGGING Hillary to quit?  It's not because they want to "unify the party."  It's because they realize that the longer this race continues, the greater the chance that Obama will lose his current crucial Superdelegate support.  And Obama's beginning to look less attractive to more voters with each passing day.


    Furthermore (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:01:54 PM EST
    the votes are not definitive till the convention.  You think those SD's are going to resist holding the power to choose all summer?

    Actually... (none / 0) (#147)
    by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    Any delegate can change at the convention.  I hear that Paris Hilton even has a chance to win.  It's good to stay optimistic.  Anything can happen at the convention   :-)

    2025 isn't enough (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by litigatormom on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:11:49 PM EST
    Unless Obama is willing to admit that he has no intention of allowing MI and FLA delegates to have more than symbolic passes to the convention hall, rather than actual votes.

    have you ever wondered why (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by kempis on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    ...the SDs seem apathetic about the popular vote, which is a more accurate measure of support than the weirdly-derived delegate count?

    they have other interests (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:21:33 PM EST
    it is the only thing that explains so many voting against their districts and states, e.g., Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, etc.  They are thinking about themselves not the party. And then they have the nerve to call Clinton divisive.

    The SD paradox (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:26:24 PM EST
    At the beginning SDs were admonished by Move-on etc to vote the way of their voters and to not suppress the voice of the people.  Well, turns out, money is the voice that they listen to.  The potential for money.  

    No, it's not (4.00 / 1) (#87)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    it's a far less accurate measure of electability. The reasons for this would require several paragraphs to explain, but it has to do with the assignment of the number of delegates from red states vs. the assignment of the number of delegates from blue states. Blue states get more delegates proportional to their population.

    The popular vote from a solid red state primary is going to be meaningless in November. The popular vote from a solid blue state primary is also going to be meaningless. The only votes that matter, popular vote wise, are those arising in swing states necessary to achieve electoral victory.

    In short, the popular vote is a total crap metric, even if its accuracy weren't fatally tainted by the lack of primaries in those states that chose, as allowed under DNC rules, to caucus instead of hold primaries.

    Those opinion leaders who continue to tout the popular vote as magic pixie dust are doing us all a grave disservice.


    Fine, let's count the popular vote from OH (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    PA and FL and be done with it!

    How about we stick to the original rules (none / 0) (#95)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:31:22 PM EST
    and count delegates, instead? This isn't Calvinball.

    The rules allow SD's perfect freedom. (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:33:21 PM EST
    YOU are the one who suggested only considering swing states. Are you having second thoughts? I hear there's a lot of that going around in Obama circles.

    No, I didn't suggest that at all. (none / 0) (#104)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:35:20 PM EST
    I said that the popular vote was relevant only in swing states, which is one reason why using the popular vote as the decisional metric is so flawed.

    Calvinball again (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:33:28 PM EST
    do you people EVER come up with new talking points?

    Nothing in the rules says that superdelegates have to use pledged delegates as the metric.  It's ridiculously dishonest to claim that urging them to follow the popular vote instead is "Calvinball," but you just don't stop!


    Arguing that the popular vote should be (none / 0) (#106)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:36:56 PM EST
    decisive, or nearly so, is Calvinball.

    We've Done That (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by BDB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    And ended up with essentially a tie - neither candidate can get to the magic number.  That means SDs will get to decide and under the RULES they can decide based on whatever they want.  They can even change their minds (like most pledged delegates).  

    the original rules are (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by bjorn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:36:01 PM EST
    about the total number of delegates. there is no rule that SDs have to vote for the person with the most pledged delegates.

    I didn't suggest such a rule existed. (none / 0) (#107)
    by digdugboy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:37:29 PM EST
    According to the 'original rules' (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:57:58 PM EST
    the super-delegates will decide because neither candidate has enough 'pledged' (which still does not mean committed) delegates to reach 2210.  And the rules say that they can use whatever criteria they want.  The 'rules' permit even pledged delegates to vote for whoever they want, as well.

    2025? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:58:19 PM EST
    Not enough!

    Washington also had a primary vote (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:18:37 PM EST
    there are valid numbers from the primary.

    Will The Town Hall... (none / 0) (#13)
    by AmyinSC on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:40:30 PM EST
    Be televised?  If so, and anyone knows the channel and time, I'd sure appreciate it!

    Local only I think (none / 0) (#26)
    by suisser on Fri May 16, 2008 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    but live stream I believe...  www.kgw.com

    (sorry, I stink at links)


    THANKS!!! (none / 0) (#40)
    by AmyinSC on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    Oregon Townhall w/Hillary (none / 0) (#207)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:28:03 PM EST
    Tonight at 7 pm (PDT) on Portland NBC affiliate KGW- channel 8.

    Thanks. I hope there is a means to (none / 0) (#208)
    by oculus on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:29:15 PM EST
    listen on line.

    Map not the math (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fultron on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:24:04 PM EST
    Your headline has it backwards.

    There are too many metrics in this race. The only thing that matters is electoral college votes in the fall. Everything else is smoke and mirrors (ie: popular vote with/out caucuses, with/out FL and MI, pledges vs. supers, 2025 vs. 2100, etc.).

    Any chance they'll reform the primary system so that it matches the one for the GE? This whole system of proportional representation, caucuses, and superdelegates is hopelessly convoluted, and is on the verge of nominating a candidate that succeeds with one equation but fails under the second, more important one.

    Hysteron Proteron (none / 0) (#101)
    by schmed on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:33:31 PM EST

    Most Democrats would agree (especially after the 2000 election) that the electoral college system is profoundly undemocratic, and yet, several commenters here would seriously argue this is the metric that matters in a primary system developed, among other reasons, to contrast the Democratic party with the Republicans' way of doing things!  I agree that a very pragmatic case is there to be made about the electoral maps, but why is it, do you suppose, that it's not working--many people seem to have concluded that OBAMA HAS A BETTER SHOT AT PUTTING TOGETHER A DIFFERENT MAP.  You may disagree with that, but the calculations have been made and figure into the endorsements that have been made.  Time will tell.

    We know (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:43:21 PM EST
    it's a map with 57 states.  We're very familiar with it.

    This post (none / 0) (#129)
    by kid oakland on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:49:03 PM EST
    originally was written saying that you needed 370 votes in the Electoral College to win.

    Jeralyn corrected that. Blogging, like speaking in public, is like that. No one is perfect, especially someone who blogs or speaks every day. Jeralyn knows that 270 is the actual number...and we all know that. She corrected the post, end of story.

    Attacking Obama for making a similar sort of mistake is a cheap shot.

    Harping on Obama for that kind of thing reflects on the person making the attack more than anything else.


    I am not harping on Obama (5.00 / 21) (#138)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:54:06 PM EST
    I am taking a shot at the preceding commentor, who thought it would be great fun to talk to us as if we were children.

    You, yourself, have emerged as one of the most annoying people on the planet during the course of this primary.

    When something unfortunate comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth, it's a 10-page essay from Kid Oakland about how "words matter" and this statement reveals so much about all the things that are wrong with that terrible woman.

    When Obama misspeaks, it's a self-righteous lecture about how anyone making fun of it reveals something awful about themselves.

    If you cared at all about unifying this party you would take a lot more care before opening your mouth.  Words may matter, but silence is golden.


    A cheap shot (1.00 / 1) (#195)
    by kid oakland on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
    is a cheap shot.

    People make mistakes. Harping on them gets us nowhere.


    Hey (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Steve M on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:31:51 PM EST
    "Words matter."  Like you say about every comment of Hillary's that you choose to rant about.

    Your style of alternating between snarky attacks on Hillary and wide-eyed pleas for more respect towards Obama has grown EXTREMELY tiresome.  The best thing you could do to unify the party for November is shut up.


    I've read comments tonight (none / 0) (#213)
    by pie on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:36:28 PM EST
    and yours is right on, brother.  :)

    So we can't joke about it (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:38:57 PM EST
    or be tongue in cheek?

    Damn, it's gonna be a LONG 4 yrs if this dude becomes president. Talk about over-sensitivity . . . no longer a gender issue, that's for sure. Hope manuals are being drawn up so we all know how to speak and behave properly . . .


    Hahaha!! (none / 0) (#219)
    by ANewDay2008 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:44:08 PM EST
    LMAO @ "it's a map with 57 states.  We're very familiar with it."

    Different map argument.... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by masslib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:47:37 PM EST
    McGovern.  He was going to win the plain states, and even lost SD.  Why not just go with the tried and true map and the candidate with the best path to victory?

    Obama's 'map' (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    is pure speculation and the primary results do not bear it out.  

    The GE is flawed (none / 0) (#131)
    by TheKSG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:49:23 PM EST
    Actually the GE system is much more flawed than proportional representation.  I do agree that Caucuses are bad for a variety of reasons, but winner-takes all is nearly as bad.  

    We could easily move to a situation of just counting the popular vote, but then do you know what would happen?  Well there would be no more swing states!  Shock and horror!  The candidates would have to campaign the whole country!  I know, crazy, huh.  This whole notion that you need a "southerner" on the ticket or a blue collar northerner goes out the window.  But since when did this country apply common sense and politics.


    Occam's razor (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Fultron on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:53:57 PM EST
    Call it flawed but that won't change how things wil work this November. And if you're looking for an example for reform, this year's topsy-turvy "democratic" primary method is not it.

    With respect to Obama having a better chance at putting together a new map I'd say it is a certainty because without radical new gains to make up for OH, PA, and definitely FL, he has no chance whatsoever. Unfortunately I see anything that relies on something more complicated than "Kerry plus one" as risky. Call me conservative. :)


    Wouldn't it be great... (none / 0) (#233)
    by peter357 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:55:49 PM EST
    I agree that the current system is crazy... but it is the one we started this election cycle with and it would be unfair to everyone to change it midstream.

    Remind me (none / 0) (#91)
    by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:29:41 PM EST
    was Obama on the ballot for either of them?

    Are you saying that AA voters are not (none / 0) (#92)
    by MarkL on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:30:04 PM EST
    loyal Democrats? That's a nasty slur on an important subset of Obama's support.

    They are patting themselves on the (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:40:25 PM EST
    back about their registration numbers before each primary, so what happened? How could they miss 500K or were they being less than truthful about their success?

    A lot of pollsters say AA vote maxed (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Cream City on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    out in the primaries -- already at general-election levels, and understandably so this year.  

    That suggests more conservatism is called for in your estimates of great growth in that demographic.


    that's great (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Iris on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    but do you know that African Americans account for only about 10% of the U.S. population?  We can't win with egg-heads and African-Americans (the McGovern coalition).

    500K? Seriously? (none / 0) (#94)
    by coigue on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:30:41 PM EST

    You do know that the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#118)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 16, 2008 at 05:45:10 PM EST
    makes the same claims, don't you? Based on the same info. There are lots of links and info provided here for current state polling, electoral maps, etc. There is lots of this going on at various sites. Look around.

    Stop trolling. (none / 0) (#151)
    by gmo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:10:10 PM EST
    It's obnoxious.

    Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#167)
    by NYCDem11 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:32:06 PM EST
    Did Senator Clinton say "it's the map not the math" or "it's the math not the map." I recall a blogger at the end of the call stating the former. Just checking.

    Thanks for all your blogging. I'm addicted.

    I got it backwards, will it change now (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:39:51 PM EST
    How exactly (none / 0) (#177)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:48:15 PM EST
    should the popular vote count?  For what?

    Regardless of what you feel it should count for it doesn't actually count for anything and the superdelegates don't think so either since Obama now has a 20 SD lead.

    Also how does Hillary have a 50,000 vote lead in the popular?  RCP shows her with, at best, a 30K lead and that is only if you don't count some votes but do count states that are clearly unreasonable(MI)?

    if the popular vote doesn't count for anything (none / 0) (#212)
    by nycstray on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:35:08 PM EST
    why do we vote? If you are going to say for delegates, that still relies on the popular vote . . .

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:50:25 PM EST
    ...I dunno about this:

    The number one message: It's the math not the map. In addition to the popular vote, the electoral map shows her with a cushion and Obama with a deficit. She has won 311 electoral votes to Obama's 217. While a few of her's like Texas and Oklahoma will be a challenge in November, many of his states will be: Alaska, Idaho, Utah, to name a few.

     First thing's first: General Clark won the primary in Oklahoma in 2004.  Beyond that, TX remained in Republican hands throughout the 90s and through 2004.  There is no reason to believe that 2008 will be any different.  Idaho and Utah were always gonna be Republican, ditto with Alaska and Oklahoma.  Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico are the states to watch for.

     I think the historical realities are being tossed aside by some people in this campaign.  I don't think McCain is going to win it, but Michigan could have been an easy state this year.  But no, we had to play with the delegate seating (and Senator Clinton played as much as the others), and now we have to spend a lot of money there, too.  

     You can't really extrapolate much from the primaries.  Kerry and Clinton both won Texas in the primaries and lost it in the general election.  

     The Democratic primary voters gambled this year on two very unconventional candidates, and the Republican coalition was fractured and Senator McCain was able to take advantage of that.

      All of the projections about "safe" states like MI and PA for Clinton, btw, rely on high AA turnout.  Not clear that will happen now.

    Agree (none / 0) (#193)
    by Fultron on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    MI is not "safe" for Clinton at all. You may also have a good point against Clinton in PA (and FL too, though for a different reason).

    Can someone tell me what kind of polling has NV and NM as potential gains for Obama?

    NV is 8% AA, 6% Asian, 25% Latino, 60% white

    NM is neg AA/Asian, 45% Latino, 45% white, 10% Native

    Both states border McCain's home state, and we have not seen evidence for strong Obama support in the Latino or Asian communities during these primaries.

    CA, CO, OR and WA are the only states in the west that I will grant to Obama.


    I wouldn't... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:20:32 PM EST
    ...even grant him CO.  It has less to do with a reliable base in NV than the fact that NV has just barely voted Republican in the last couple of elections.  And, of course, there is the foreclosure problem.    

     From Rasmussen (regardless of candidate):

    Safely Democratic: California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New York (31), Rhode Island (4), and Vermont (3).

    Likely Democratic: Minnesota (10), New Jersey (15), Oregon (7), and Washington (11).

    Leans Democratic: Iowa (7), Michigan (17), New Mexico (5), Pennsylvania (21) and Wisconsin (10).

    Toss-Up: Colorado (9), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), and Ohio (20).

    Leans Republican: Florida (27), Missouri (11), Virginia (13).

    Likely Republican: Arkansas (6) and North Carolina (15).

    Safely Republican: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3).

      I don't think NH would be a toss-up if it wasn't McCain, personally, but with him it will be.

     I think people forget, too, that the last time a Democrat won there was a strong third party "third way" contender.  Here's hoping...


    PA will go for Clinton (none / 0) (#206)
    by RalphB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:27:39 PM EST
    in a heartbeat.  As for NM and NV, Obama has dropped in the polls from where he was when he lost them to Clinton.

    Granting CO to Obama is a mistake.  It will most likely still go GOP in the fall.


    The last election cycle... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    ...does not provide much support for that:

    Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
    Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
    New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
    New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
    Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
    Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
    Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
    Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
    Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
    Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
    Colorado, Bush, 4.67%

     That was against Bush.  This year, it is against McCain.  They are perceived as very different kinds of Republicans.

     We rely on high AA turnout in certain states, including PA, MI and OH.  


    BTD is the first questioner on the call! (none / 0) (#204)
    by catfish on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:22:42 PM EST
    Senator Clinton says his prologue is "brilliant."

    Please don't call me a liar (none / 0) (#226)
    by peter357 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:49:44 PM EST
    This is my first post to this blog and I though that I would provide my thoughts on the issue. When you use a phrase like "stop lying" you are wrong on many counts. You don't know me. I was stating the truth as I know it. Calling me a liar is no way to have a dialog and that somehow you are the arbitrator of all facts.

    Maybe you and other members of this blog have beaten this Michigan/Florida issue to death, but this is my first entry.

    I do stand corrected regarding the DNC rules... 5 of the 7 candidates at the time responded to a request of the DNC to remove their names from the Michigan ballot. You are correct, it was not mandated.

    But the remainder of my comments regarding the vote counts and applicability of using the electoral college tally versus the delegate tally remains factual.

    What I really take is objection to is the aggressive language (spew, lie...) you use to put someone you disagree to in their place. There are ways to respectfully disagree without using bullying language.

    Sorry, you have a point (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by RalphB on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:22:38 PM EST
    but this has been posted here and corrected 100s of times.  It gets tiresome hearing the same talking point over and over.

    By the way, there was no DNC request for anyone to take their names off the ballot.  The genesis of that little action was the Obama campaign getting together with others to suck up to Iowa and NH.

    Calling it a lie was out of line but it's still wrong.  Have a nice evening.


    Comments Closed and note (none / 0) (#255)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:21:17 AM EST
    to Peter 357. I regret someone called you a liar here. I deleted the comment with the accusation. All points of view are welcome here provided they are expressed civilly. You complied. The person who responded to you did not.

    "Popular Vote" metric... (none / 0) (#257)
    by mike in dc on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:35:26 PM EST
    ...to be completely fair, should include vote totals from ALL contests(including those where specific vote totals were not released and have to be estimated, and an estimate of Obama's share from Michigan, based on exit polling).  Otherwise, it's excluding at least 4 states, and disenfranchising the proportion of uncommitted voters in Michigan who would have voted for Obama had he been on the ballot.  

    I would also note that, by those metrics, Obama still leads by around 300,000 votes.  It is possible  Clinton could gain another half million vote margin from Kentucky and Puerto Rico, but also possible Obama could pick up another 2-300,000 votes from a good turnout in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota.  

    So, by counting the votes in all 50 states and other contests, and using estimates where specific totals are unavailable, the final popular vote totals are highly likely to be roughly a tie.

    Non-dispositive outcome, in other words.

    Primary Has Nothing to Do With Electoral College (none / 0) (#258)
    by MediaBrowski on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:22:03 PM EST
    I'm surprised that no one on the call asked the campaign what Democratic Primary Results have to do with the Electoral College.  The first is a contest between democratic candidates for delegates, the other is the way one determines the General Election.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but two Democrats have never run against each other in the GE, so why do Electoral College results matter in the Democratic Primary?