Looking Ahead: Oregon Is The Test

While we can pretend there have been recent ebbs and flows in the campaign, the reality is that from Super Tuesday on, almost invariably demography has been political destiny. Tell me the demographics of a state and I can tell you roughly what the electoral result will be. Consider North Carolina and Indiana. In North Carolina, Research2000 has Obama up 7. In Indiana, Ras has Clinton up 5. Why? To put it bluntly, it is because there are many more African American voters in North Carolina. Clinton leads among whites by 36 points in North Carolina and by 19 points in Indiana. She trails among African Americans in North Carolina by 88-5 and in Indiana by 90-4. In North Carolina a third of the electorate will be African American. In Indiana, 10% will be African Americans.

Clinton can not win in North Carolina. Period. And in Indiana, it is looking like Obama can not win. Looking forward, Obama has no chance in West Virginia or Kentucky. Where can he break this demographic narrative? Oregon. More . .

The latest SUSA Oregon poll has Obama leading by 6, 50-44. But what is really important for Obama is the fact that he is leading among whites 50-44. There is virtually no African American population in Oregon. 90% of the vote is white. According to SUSA, 3% is Latino and 6% is Asian. SUSA says Obama is holding his own with these groups in Oregon (he lost these groups 2-1 in California.)

In Oregon, on May 20, is where Obama can finish this race. By winning. If I were a super delegate, I would want Obama to win the race, not have him crowned by superdelegates. Let him win the nomination in Oregon, superdelegates. If he can.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Harmful, Divisive And Fallacious Petition From Color Of Change | Indy Star Endorses Hillary Clinton >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Does Oregon Matter? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:02:19 AM EST
    I'm seeing that even if he loses, he will be excused.

    He hasn't done much since February.  His foot has been in his mouth for 8 straight weeks.  He's losing support from voters.

    And yet a superdelegate comes out for him and blames Clinton for "destroying the party."  Dean is pushing to close the election down.  "Inevitability" is discussed in rank terms of how the AA voters will be angry if he's not nominated.

    So does it really matter?

    If he loses Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:04:19 AM EST
    He will lose all of the remaining contests.

    He will lose the popular vote.

    He may lose the nomination.

    If he wins Oregon, he wins the nomination, he does not have it handed to him by superdelegates.


    Oregon (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:10:23 AM EST
    could confirm his actual win.  I see that.

    However, if he loses, the same things that are being said now could also be said then:  

    We're afraid of AA voter/Youth voter revolt and, therefore, will give him the job.

    The demographics of his weak base are actually working to his favor was my point.


    I think we better fear the revolt (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:15:15 AM EST
    of white working class voters now.

    yes... (none / 0) (#25)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:26:49 AM EST
    ...we might get 36% of the white vote instead of 38% this time.  

    Do you really believe that? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:47:18 AM EST
    You have no conception do you? Kerry won 47% of the white working class AND LOST.



    And Kerry won Penn by 2% (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:51:25 AM EST
    it was a 49-51 state.   That's too close for comfort. Factor the demographic breakdowns into the mix state by state and it's a worrisome prospect.

    cite? (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:04:50 AM EST
    He won 38% of the white vote and lost by 3 points.  Clinton in '96 won 42% of the white vote.  The point is, we're not going to win a majority of the white working class, with either candidate, and will have to build a broad coalition, as always, to win.  Alienating A-A voters would be just as fatal to our chances in November.  

    False (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:31 AM EST
    He won 41% of the white vote but 47% of the white vote earning 50k or less.

    The exits I saw... (none / 0) (#197)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    ...said 38%, not 41.  Which exit polls are you referring to?

    Just as fatal (none / 0) (#206)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    Would be the leadership of the Democratic Party handing this nomination to Obama because they're afraid of threats, either violent or other, by Obama supporters.  

    Exit polls (none / 0) (#32)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:30:43 AM EST
    have been consistent for 3 races now...loss of around 28-30% from Hillary's voters.  I personally do not think it's the "mad" people either.  That's the older Dems and as, BTD says, the working class whites mostly.

    I question whether.... (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:44:40 AM EST
    ...Clinton could hold onto the votes of many of the working class whites who voted for her, in a heated contest against McCain in the general, considering even her husband, the ultimate "Bubba", never managed more than 42% of the white vote, and more recently Kerry only managed 38%.  This is without even talking about the difficulties she would face overcoming her negatives.
    At the same time, unless it is blatantly obvious to them that Obama is too damaged to be the nominee, any outcome which strikes them as unfair is likely to depress African-American turnout in November.  Even a drop of a point or two in AA-derived popular vote could be fatal to our chances in the fall.

    Polls show she wins the white working class (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:48:23 AM EST
    vs McCain and that Obama loses it.

    Playing Ostrich does not change this.


    heh... (1.00 / 0) (#74)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:01:45 AM EST
    ...you actually believe that will hold up 6 months from now?

    I think it could get worse (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:55 AM EST
    I agree and lets be clear White Women were the (none / 0) (#185)
    by Salt on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST

    largest demographic in the electorate in 04 41 percent and Catholic's 27% and that was before heavy Hispanic registration and turn out. Howard Dean IMO is wrong again anti Bush hate A will not carry Obama to victory Nov.

    I sure do (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:07:26 AM EST
    Especially if they're not voting for him for the reasons Ed Rendell gave a month ago.

    It's the women's vote that will matter (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by esmense on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:41:46 AM EST

    For decades, Democrats haven't been able to, and won't this time around, no matter who is the nominee, get the white male vote.

    The Democrats will get the African American vote, no matter who is the nominee -- but that community is likely to be more energized with Obama on the ticket.

    McCain will have more strength with Hispanic voters than most other Republicans no matter who is the nominee, but Clinton's popularity with that demographic may make her a better contender in that community than Obama.

    But more than anything it will, as it has for many election cycles now, all come down to women. Will they show up in large enough numbers, and vote for Democrats in large enough percentages to overcome the huge Republican advantage with men? When they do, Democrats win (as they did in 2006, '96 & '92). When they stay home (as they did in '94), or split their vote between the parties (as they did in 2000 and 2004), Democrats lose.

    It's that simple.

    So why no serious discussion of this among the pundits and the party elders?



    Hillary (none / 0) (#136)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:50:14 AM EST
    could get that white male vote.

    I'm convinced.

    She has won them over.


    That's a big hurdle to overcome (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by esmense on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:13:41 AM EST
    ...AnninCA, but, while I don't expect Clinton or Obama to perform much differently from other Democrats with white male voters, I do think Clinton could do much better than most people, pundits especially, suppose.

    I'm Hillary's age -- watching her with O'Reilly the other day I was reminded of something that successful women of my generation know is true; no woman of our generation could be successful (working in what for us was always a "man's world") if she wasn't a woman who both REALLY liked and respected men, and understood how to, and was willing to do the work to, gain men's respect.

    I know that is contrary to popular mythology, that sees feminist, groundbreaking, successful women as man haters. But, if you think about it, you quickly realize why the popular mythology couldn't possibly be true.


    I Do Not Think Either Candidate Will Get The (none / 0) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    majority of the white male vote. What would win the WH is while women and her strength in the Latino communities.

    I hope this isnt true... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Thanin on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    because if it is, the real question is why were women voting for bush?  Even worse, why were women voting for bush the second time?  See, this is why present day democrats need to hate republicans, because when we dont 4000 Americans die in a needless war.

    Bubba was running in three way races (none / 0) (#129)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:45:12 AM EST
    Without Perot in the mix each time Bill's numbers would have been higher.

    Without Parot... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Thanin on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:16:39 AM EST
    bush would have won.  Parot was their Nader.

    Nope (none / 0) (#215)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    Go back and look at the vote state-by-state. You would have to give Bush all of Perot's vote and we know Perot drained about equally from Clinton and Bush.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Thanin on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:04:19 PM EST
    we dont know that at all.  What we'd have to go by is who perot was appealing to, which was republicans more than democrats.

    you miss out Gore (none / 0) (#141)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    I wonder why?

    given the reversal (none / 0) (#148)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:18 AM EST
    in popularity among blacks that Wright has experienced, after he was a star turn at the NAACP--I suspect the popular opinion of the AA  community is flexible.

    Not taking it for granted but the speed with which Wright became a paraiah among AAs suggests loyalty runs inch deep.


    That is a very ignorant thing to say... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Thanin on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    Its not a question of loyalty but a demonstration that theyre intelligent enough to recognize wright as a fool.  

    reread. (none / 0) (#198)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:00:52 AM EST
    He was hailed as a hero at the NAACP and after Moyers on Sat Sun.  Defended to the hilt on Monday, right up until Tuesday when Obama decided to chop him off at the knees. Today his name is Mudd.

    There's obviously no intellectual consistency in the support for Wright or Obama.  Obama posters on Dkos were halling Wright a genius over the weekend...now he's an incubus.

    It's so obviously insincere when support evaporates and reappears like that.

    And you are calling my observation ignorance?  


    I would say... (none / 0) (#205)
    by Thanin on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    vast generalizations like this: :There's obviously no intellectual consistency in the support for Wright or Obama." are ignorant.  Are you seriously making an absolute asserion that there is ZERO intelligence for supporting Obama?  

    Look, right now Im leaning towards HRC because her tenacity has won me over.  But for one thing, I'll vote for either since McMuffin is bush the 3rd and two, overwrought posts with flimsy arguments dont credit your candidate.


    EDIT... (none / 0) (#208)
    by Thanin on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:41:06 AM EST
    Are you seriously making an absolute assertion that there is ZERO intellectual consistency in support of Obama?  Ever?  No where in the universe has anyone ever demonstrated this?  

    You make this claim as an absolute, so I reiterate: overwrought posts with flimsy arguments dont credit your candidate.


    LOL. (none / 0) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:32:29 AM EST
    Yes. No worries. Obama can win with the young and AA vote.  And the white latte drinkers.  Good luck. You're gonna need it.

    Get outta here... (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:46:27 AM EST
    ...with that "latte drinkers" garbage.  Why diss 51% of the Democratic electorate?

    We need BOTH (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:47:36 AM EST
    to win.

    What 51 percent? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Prabhata on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:00:46 AM EST
    What makes you think all women drink latte??? nt (none / 0) (#154)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    Apparently (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:31:17 AM EST
    you're about the only Obama supporter who seems concerned about this. Most are "they won't vote for us anyway" types.

    You have statistics... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Thanin on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM EST
    to back up the claim 'most'?

    Just (none / 0) (#214)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    from talking to his supporters. Most of them have zero concern for his lack of appeal to working class voters. And the Obama campaign hasn't really even tried to appeal to those voters until it became obvious they have a problem with them.

    IMO That Horse Has Already Left The Barn (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:08:05 AM EST
    and will only get worse after Republican 527s go full force during the GE. Obama has given them abundant ammunition in his own words and those of his associates that the ads could almost write themselves.

    Though After Oregon (none / 0) (#39)
    by The Maven on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:40:35 AM EST
    there are only four contests left, and several of those are in deep red states:  Idaho on May 27, Puerto Rico on June 1, and then the final duo of Montana and South Dakota on June 3.

    Idaho is done (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:05:44 AM EST
    for the Dems. Happened in February.

    but he will lose the remaining contests after losing  most of the previous ones.


    In your opinion (none / 0) (#95)
    by soccermom on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:10:59 AM EST
    it's also important to remember (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by ccpup on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:06:44 AM EST
    that the Polls had Obama ahead in IN not long ago.  I think once people in Oregon get more of a look at Clinton -- as well as Obama --, those numbers will tighten considerably and Hillary will pull ahead.

    If that's the case, Oregon becomes without a doubt a Must-Win State for Obama.

    and every single poll had Clinton (none / 0) (#61)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:53:41 AM EST
    up by 20 in almost every state.  the more Obama campaigns, the more people support him (even in ohio, pennsylvania, etc. - like it or not he was down by more than 20 in December in those states).  so don't know if your theory holds.

    pre- or post-? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ccpup on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:03:49 AM EST
    Since March 4th, Obama has been one, long continuous gaffe.  The States where he's cut into her leads were a lifetime ago in politics (mainly February and early-March, yes?).  Besides, even with the Media insisting Hillary get out now and an impressive fund-raising machine, if all he can do is cut into her lead yet still not win, what's the point?  More and more, people are seeing Obama talks a good game but has trouble delivering the goods.  Down and out and on-the-ropes, Hillary manages the left hook which seals the deal.

    She's a Closer, he's not.  OH, TX, RI, CA, NJ and PA have shown that to be true.


    If he is the inevitable nominee (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:55:12 AM EST
    he should win huge--everywhere. These remaining contests should be formalities.

    Why is he losing so many votes?


    Protest or loyalty votes (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    after the race is really decided are not an accurate analogy to what is going on this year.

    But that "calendar" (none / 0) (#212)
    by DWCG on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    Happens to include several large states and swing states.

    These should be the "bell weather" states if you will.

    This is a NATIONAL RACE for the presidency so one has to consider how campaign fairs in large states.  

    And he was coming off the best month of press and narrative you can HOPE for and he still lost huge in Ohio and lost Texas.

    Understand that a lot of people just are not convinced by a campaign who for the overwhelming majority of their wins can only point to wins in small caucus states, blood RED states, and states where the campaign has a unique advantage (which is not unique enough to turn them from RED to BLUE in the fall).  I'm talking about Southern states with large black populations.

    That's not to say those states and people don't matter.  It's just to say this is an ELECTION - a national one at that and there are ways of winning it.  A candidate for the nomination should have to prove - through the primary elections - such capacity.


    That's not a fair comparison (none / 0) (#224)
    by ChrisO on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:57:37 PM EST
    Huckabee polled 20% in Pennsylvania because he has a cadre of tru believers who are determined to send a message, amd McCain didn't even campaign. You can't compare the outcome of an election when one candidate alread has the nomination with an election like Penn., where both camapigns were making a huge effort. Obama did absolutely everything he could to win, and spent more on ads than any candidate ever in the state. He still lost by 10 points, which isn't inconsequential.

    It's just infuriating to Clinton suppoters to hear "it's over" and "Obama's won," while we're seeing him fighting like crazy and still getting swamped in important states.

    That said, I appreciate your message about seeing the qualities in both candidates. I'll gladly vote for Obama in the fall, although I must say I'm beyond the point where I can work for him.


    Interesting observation, but (none / 0) (#211)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    your premise is flawed. You presume that
    He's managed to stir up something deep in the hearts and minds of an awful lot of dedicated, life-long Democrats. And he's managed to attract scores of new voters to our Party, moreso than any other modern candidate."
    means that he is qualified for the job of President. Your own words
    She's managed to throw-off the shadow of her larger-than-life husband and prove to America that she's ready to lead on her own merits. That she's managed to connect with and have a conversation with the folks who've felt for so long that they've been passed-by by the American Dream. I don't know how she's done it, but she's managed to speak to the better nature of dedicated Democrats in a way that no candidate has since her Husband."
    pretty much say it. She is qualified and ready. He isn't. I think the vitriol from the Obama camp comes partially from the realization that he doesn't have the qualifications for office and charisma and pretty oration isn't going to get the job done.

    I am so tired of that dumd arguement (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:48:59 AM EST
    Of course if you go back far enough you will find a poll with Clinton up by 20% based on name recognition. But after PA, where a six-week, 30 million dollar blitzkrieg failed to get him one vote (10% before, 10% after) you would think you would drop it.

    And now in NC, his dream state, Obama's 25% lead is down to 5%. Once again this is with wall-to-wall ads.


    I seriously doubt (none / 0) (#117)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:32:48 AM EST
    he was down by 20 pts if the undecideds were pressed a bit.   It's not like he fought back in Penn to even get close to her, so you are kidding yourself about his performance.  He UNDERPERFORMED in Penn.

    Obama's own projection (none / 0) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    is that he will win IN by 7.  He put NC by 8, these are underestimations IMO and he expected to do better than this.  The media spin is if Clinton comes within 5 in NC and wins IN, Obama has a problem.  I agree that OR is now the test as the Obama camp and media are discounting IN and NC as done deals but I fully expect OR to no longer matter if it looks like Clinton can take it.  The Obama camp has predicted they would take Montana by 11 and SD by 15 so he will end on an uptick.... and be pushed over the finish line with a rebound narrative... he finished strong, Clinton couldn't take him out......

    Finishing on an uptick (4.50 / 2) (#186)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    by winning two of the most sparsely populated states in the union.  How many Dems are there combined?  About 10,000?

    Well, I guess he has to take the uptick where he finds it.


    this is exhausting (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Kensdad on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:10:57 AM EST
    first, OH and TX were going to decide things...  then, it was PA...  finally, it was IN (and to a lesser degree, NC)...  but, no!  now it's OR???

    and if i hear another member of the media talk about obama's insurmountable lead in pledged delegates and popular vote, then my pretty (not) little head is going to explode!

    Absolutely exhausting (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by nashville on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:53:13 AM EST
    My opinion of Obama has totally changed during this campaign.  Whether it has been him or his surrogates, what a sleazy campaign!  

    Being from Tennessee it won't matter in the GE what I do if he is the nominee.  Forget TN if it's him.  Clinton only a maybe.  

    Boy, Bill C.'s word from way back when ... something to the effect that she'll have more trouble in the primary than the general when she was SO far ahead certainly seem prophetic.

    Again I agree.  First it was OH (TX was a given loss), then PA, then IN. Bill said if she won it she would be the nominee and Obama said it was the tiebreaker.  If Bill C. is a prophet then I say IN is the state to watch :)

    Now that she's ahead there and closing in NC, which he should win decisively, it's OR.  I don't disagree with BTD conclusion that supers will wait for OR if she does well Tues. I'm sure some are extremely nervous by what they see happening to the 2nd "inevitable" democrat this year.


    Correct as usual, King Friday (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    The primary was always going to be worse for Clinton. Anyone who thought about it for ten minutes could see that. Her vote for the authorization was going to be bandied about incessantly and she was going to be hammered non-stop with it - as has happened. Her vote for Kyl Lieberman as well and KL was nothing but a hammer for the election. First a hammer for Dems to beat each other over the head (which they kindly obliged the Republicans and Joe Lieberman on) and should it actually help to take Clinton out (it's primary goal), a hammer to beat the nominee over the head with. If you read what's written in that sense of the senate, it's obviously completely meaningless legislation.

    Clinton decided it was better to lose the primary than lose the general, and she has run her candidacy accordingly. She has erred on the side of making sure Dems can win in November.

    McCain is going to have a tough time running against her. He's not going to be able to prattle on effectively about her being soft on terror or not knowing how to handle the economy - no one's going to buy it. No one's going to buy that Hillary is going to run  up the deficit by buying welfare queens new cadillacs - or whatever he decides to accuse her of. I doubt it will be an epic landslide but she's voted for the center on issues that are definitive for the center, and with the Republican brand in toilet, she'll be tough for them to beat.


    Whenever (none / 0) (#12)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:14:06 AM EST
    Hillary has momentum and is doing well, the chorus about that steps up.

    It IS exhausting to hear constantly.

    As I said yesterday, the message to her supporters, traditional Dems and women, is pretty non-stop:  Go Home.

    So even if he lost Oregon, I'm not sure the SD's wouldn't all just jump and close down the voting.

    They don't seem particularly interested in what Dems want this year anyway.  


    The message to traditional dems and women (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:11:45 AM EST
    that I'm hearing is, we don't need you anymore -- we're going to attract a whole new group of people into the party who will vote for Obama, and your vote will no longer count.  The other message I hear is: don't worry, they'll come around.  What other choice do they have?  They'll do what they're told.  They always vote dem and they will this time too.

    I've been fighting against the feeling of wanting to say: oh yeah?  You want to take my vote for granted and stack the deck?  I'm just going to drop out of this whole stinking process.  I'm wasting my time, effort and money.

    But I haven't gone there yet.  This election is too important.  I have to vote for the dem.  But I may just become an independent after this is all said and done.  I've pretty well had it with this party.  


    Me, too (1.00 / 0) (#111)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:27:13 AM EST
    because the are saying that.  Dean is terrible.  He's sent a message that he thinks we'll be in the bag.  

    That's offensive and would make me want to "show them" just on principle.

    But I'm convinced I'm a new Independent who will, in fact, probably vote Dem, regardless.

    I do not think that's the case for older Dems and many other pockets.  They have strong self-interest reasons to not do so.

    I guess what I'm seeing is that the party has devolved into pockets of self-interest, and that will be the way the Fall vote goes.  Party loyalty cannot be touted when, in fact, the "inevitable" nominee is clearly not the choice of the registered Dems or the traditional bloc.

    So that's out the window.


    And depressing. n/t (none / 0) (#16)
    by Lil on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:15:41 AM EST
    Words Matter (none / 0) (#131)
    by LeftyFan on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:46:14 AM EST
    The pundits always say 'obama's nearly insurmountable lead' or 'obama's almost insurmountable lead', which, of course, is just a longer way of saying his lead is surmountable.

    Every time I hear pundits describe his lead as that, I think of females being 'almost' or 'nearly' pregnant.


    Mid 90's California/Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:15:50 AM EST
    In the mid 90's, (I lived in San Diego then)General Dynamics and other defense contractors moved out of Calif. Some banking institutions went also when they were doing the S&L mergings too. People generally moved to Washington, Oregon, or Arizona. There were always big complaints from Oregon & Wash about the Calif exports of people. Oregon, especially Eugene, have really become liberal towns. Unlike some East coast states, Oregon does not have the long time roots and thus might not fit the demographics of East Coast blue states. So it will be a battleground state.  

    Policy or process voters? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by herb the verb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:19:44 AM EST
    Who are Oregon's white voters? on Corrente there was a great post recently about process voters (Kos, MoveOn, etc., people who care more about politics as a sport rather than how it affects their lives) vs. policy voters (people whose lives are actually affected by the changes in government policy, i.e. the working class of all races).

    It was pretty illuminating to me, especially when I listened to yesterday's interview with that odious little weasel Joe Andrew yesterday (I wouldn't have described him as such if I hadn't listened to him speak). He actually said there is no difference between their policies, just their "approach" to politics and that is all he cared about. Go figure.

    My question is, what is the demographics of Oregon voters by class rather than race? I think that will tell us as much about how Oregon will play out as anything else.

    I have family in the NW (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ccpup on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:30:55 AM EST
    and all I know is that economic issues and the huge loss of jobs are key to many who live there.  If you don't have specific answers as to how you're going to fix the problem and get people back to work, it'll be hard to win the State.

    Oregon Demographics (none / 0) (#167)
    by 1jane on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM EST
    Portland metro area liberal, high tech, Nike and Portland State University, Reed College. Eugene, University of Oregon. Corvallis, Oregon State University. Ashland, Southern Oregon University. Bend just turned majority Dem for the first time in 40 years. High end Bend, upper middle class, educated transplants.

    My brother teaches at OSU (none / 0) (#170)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:18:04 AM EST
    and from what he says it is a real mixed demo in Oregon, with the coastal area more upscale-liberal, especially the Portland area, and the interior more rural and conservative. The Corvallis area is a rural area outside the university. I would think that most of the registered Dems are in the Portland areas and along the coast, and at the universities in Corvallis and Eugene, with most of the interior being more Red-state territory.  It seems like the kind of western red state Obama has done well in previously.

    The problem is that Oregon doesn't address (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:29:29 AM EST
    the problem. Obama has a demographic problem in the electoral vote rich states that we need to win.

    Obama can still win Oregon and end up behind in the popular vote (including Florida). That will be my standard for what I think the super delegates should do.

    isn't this demographic issue totally out of.... (none / 0) (#55)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:51:44 AM EST
    context.  This is the democratic primary.  do we really think african americans won't vote for clinton in the general?  or that white dems won't vote for Obama.

    Complete nonsense and a silly statement to push.  Dems will rally around the nominee, period.  Remember, early in the campaign Clinton had tons of black support... and Obama has won some very white states - wisconsin, iowa, north/south dakota, wyoming, etc.  


    I think that white dems in the NE (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:59:39 AM EST
    who vote for Clinton are largely weak dems. Yes, I think Obama could lose quite a few of them to McCain.

    I also believe that Hillary will have a problem with African Americans, but that they have historically been easier to bring back into the tent.


    but didn't (none / 0) (#77)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:02:34 AM EST
    obama win iowa and wisconsin for instance?  Seems like he's in a better position there right?  

    just think all these arguments continue to be out of context.  reality is that both candidates are in a good position against McCain.  once they lay out the choice, i think the spread (for either obama or clinton) will widen quite a bit.  but who knows...


    That 's before he became The Black (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by felizarte on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    candidate. Now that the AA vote has held steady at 90/10 in Obama's favor, notice how the white vote in his favor has gradually decreased.  I don't know how he can put the genie back in the bottle.  The Jeremiah Wright situation has also divided the AA community, the polls show.  It will be useful if a poll of the states that already held their primaries were to come out.  But perhaps the Gallup daily tracking poll is a reflection of the changing attitude towards Barack.

    I'm from Iowa (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by rnibs on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:19:18 PM EST
    and the caucuses are not representative.  They're mostly attended by affluent people and college students.  Obama will not win Iowa in the GE with voting as opposed to caucusing.  Clinton might.

    They don't cancel each-other out (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:03:47 AM EST
    A Democrat will find it pretty much impossible to win the WH without OH and PA. Just check electoral-vote.com .

    He did win (none / 0) (#84)
    by DJ on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    but that was before people got a chance to know him a little better (or not)

    So weary of seeing Wisconsin results (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:30:37 AM EST
    so misunderstood, with the massive Republican crossover here.  I've gone into the primary results again and again and won't use more bandwith on this blog for it now.

    But see the more recent results of the April election in Wisconsin and how the first AA on our state supreme court did in attempting re-election.  Not.  And it was a nasty, racialized campaign reminiscent of the Willie Horton ads.  And Wisconsin responded as usual.  

    Those Republicans won't be back in fall.  They were Dems for a Day.  As for the Dems who went for Obama, a lot has happened since, and I doubt he would keep them.  That would turn Wisconsin red.  After all, it was the closest state in 2004; Kerry won with less than half of one percent of the vote.  Obama still will get Milwaukee and Dane (Madison) counties, but he won't get Waukesha County again with the crossover.  That's about it, right there.  He may get La Crosse, but it won't be enough.


    Tell that to Color of Change (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:52:33 AM EST
    Only they really (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by DJ on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    are not equally-matched candidates IMO

    don't think they (none / 0) (#71)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:00:19 AM EST
    represent everyone.  there are a few people who have let emotion dwarf reason.

    the vast majority of people are rational (i think!!!)


    Nooo (none / 0) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:34:27 AM EST
    Only a foolish conspiracy theorist would compare the two situations.

    How do you equate WVWV with Color of Change? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    Because they have women in their name and she's a woman? That is quite a reach. CofC is smearing her and advocating for him. WVWV is not doing the same in reverse.

    Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:29:50 AM EST
    called Indiana the tiebreaker...

    Is that a meaningless comment now?

    If he loses Indiana by double digits hasn't he already doomed his campaign by his own statements?

    expectations have been reset (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by angie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:48:10 AM EST
    didn't you get the Obama camp memo?

    I'm very surprised a Clinton (3.00 / 2) (#62)
    by independent voter on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:55:22 AM EST
    supporter would want to go down that road.

    what road? (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by angie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    stating what is being said repeatedly on kos?
    you want to take a shot at me kid, you need to bring more then that.

    people from day 1. A 2 point win in NH was spun into some enormous, amazing victory and it has continued ad nauseum through remaining contests. THAT is what I am saying. Whining about Obama's team resetting expectations is ridiculous.

    take a breath (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by angie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:41:00 AM EST
    before you accuse me of whining again. The argument you are trying to make is a stretch even for the Obama crowd. Have you been paying even passing attention to this race?  Clinton has never been the one reseting the expectations in this contest -- it has been the Obama camp & the msm to try and prop him up.  The only reason Hillary's NH win was "amazing" was because after Iowa, the msm had written her off as dead. She had always been expected to win NH before she "lost" Iowa (by a small margin, I might add). The expectation then became that whoever won the big states on Super Tuesday would get the nomination -- and Clinton won those (CA, MA, NY). Then the expectation became she had to win OH to get the nomination -- she did. Then the expectation became she had to win PA -- and she did.  Then the expectation became "IN is the tie-breaker because Obama is going to blow her out in NC."  Now that those two races are tightening, the new expectation is that OR will be the tiebreaker.  Furthermore, this phrase "the expectations have been reset" is the EXACT phrase that the Obama camp is using to explain why it doesn't matter if Obama loses IN & if NC is close -- the Wright "flap" has reset expectations.  I'm surprised an Obama supporter doesn't know that.  Check your email.  

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by soccermom on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:56:12 AM EST
    I know BTD is an Obama supporter.  I am sure he has examined the two candidates and thinks Senator Obama has greater experience, is a uniter, has a tireless work ethic, and would be the best choice for all Americans in these troubled times.

    So, maybe he's not suggesting that those of us who support Senator Clinton prepare to set aside our doubts and fears about Senator Obama if he wins a "toss-up" state like Oregon.  You know, preparing the ground so we won't feel like we've been shafted.  Kumbaya.

    Clinton does well with middle class voters in states with a relatively high per cent of AA population.  It's a fact.  I leave why to political analysts and sociologists.  Senator Obama will win Oregon.  It means nothing.

    This process has been flawed from the getgo.  And I don't believe that overwhelming wins by Senator Clinton will stop the cabal that pulls the strings for Obama.  But I want the string to play out.  I will keep sending $$ to Senator Clinton's campaign just to make the superdelagates show their hand.  Stay in the race, Hillary.  It's not only about Obama, but the entire screwed-up process.


    He said "possible" or "could (none / 0) (#218)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    be" tiebreaker.

    What? (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Davidson on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:32:08 AM EST
    He has already "proved" he can win the white demographic (WI) so why is OR now The Test?  Wasn't IN supposed to be it?  Now, that he's not doing well there we see the goalpost move--again.

    Why does he only have to prove himself a few times (if at all) when he has such a horrible track record in big or battleground states and is doing badly in SUSA polls against McCain?

    He cannot win the GE.  Period.

    He lost them (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:41:29 AM EST
    that's why.  His "gaffes" has seriously hurt him, even though the media suggests it's "over."

    It's not over.

    The kinds of mistakes he has made have revealed a character flaw that people frankly just don't warm up to.  He seemed more likeable to many.

    But then he compared his pastor to being like a "crazy uncle."
    He trotted out his grandmother as an example of racism.
    He suggested that she was a "typical white woman," scared of AA men on the street.
    He called working class people bitter and suggested that (unlike him) they cling to religion and guns.

    and the latest?  What offended him most about Wright?

    Was that Wright pointed out the obvious that he's a politician doing what he has to do.  

    Those are the types of remarks that turn people off big-time.


    to the untutored eye (none / 0) (#134)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:49:01 AM EST
    Obama's comments seem slightly unhinged--especially if you list them like that.

    Plenty of dumb stuff for Rove to exploit on Obama's great 'strengths'.


    I think it's more than just (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:42:04 AM EST
    the "working class" voters who are questioning Obama now.  We've got a lot of moderate dems around here, and the ones I now (granted, small sample and anecdotal) are wondering if he is the best person for the job, and questioning his judgement.  These people are not the so-called lunch pail demographic, they are degreed white collar workers and professionals.

    They may go for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    for 4 years.

    We have two friends from Oregon (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:57:29 AM EST
    and this is what I'm picking up from them.  The Wright stuff is another form of extremism and it doesn't seem like they are impressed with that at all.  I have to give them a lot of credit as they are people who believe in playing well with others but the Wright stuff is not what they classify as playing well with others and that was what they thought they were getting by voting Obama.

    SurveyUSA (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by 1jane on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:52 AM EST
    Survey USA does land-line automated telephone polling. The Oregon poll: 1600 registered voters were called and a sample of 650 likely voters with a margin of error of 3.9% made up the results.

    Oregonians receieve their ballots in the mail today. We have until May 20 to mail in our votes. Approximately 85,000 new Democrats have registered to vote, many many party switches. There are 845K Dems in Oregon and 683K R's in Oregon.

    The poll reveals that Obama has a small lead in the Portland area, largest urban white city and has a much larger lead in all other areas of Oregon. Quite the opposite of PA.

    The Clinton campaign throughout Oregon relys on phone banking exclusively. The Obama campaign which organized locally over a year ago ( In my Oregon County over 200 locals have been meeting and holding events for over a year) paid Obama staffers landed in state about a month ago, before the Hillary paid staffers arrived, about 2 weeks ago. Full disclosure the field rep for the Clinton campaign has been living in my guest room. She has been working alone until 2 days ago when some reinforcements from the Clinton campaign arrived.

    The Obama campaign has focused on new voter registration and now is launching over 300 canvasses statewide directed from their 13 offices throughout the state. Local volunteers continue to hold events, yesterday Obama supporters statewide gathered thousands of veteran's statewide to mark the anniversary of 5 years since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."

    Senator Obama and President Clinton have spoken in my county. The Obama crowd was huge. The President Clinton crowd was small and mostly attended by older folks.

    Oregon has a long history of rejecting the statas quo politically. If Oregon is the firewall for Obama he will win my state.

    In my county there are 8 people in the running to become a delegate to the DNC national convention. Seven want to be a delegate for Obama, one for Clinton. Oregon superdelegates who've declared are evenly split but all Party superdelegates have stated they will follow the popular vote.

    The cost of a divided party is clear. If we don't unite, we will all be spectators at the inauguration of John McCain on January 20, 2009.


    Interesting....... (none / 0) (#163)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:12:07 AM EST
    and many thanks for the birds-eye view!

    Intriguing insights; thanks (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:38:50 AM EST
    as sad to say, it sounds like the Clinton campaign there may repeat its poor performance in Wisconsin, where it also was realized too late that it would matter even after Super Tuesday was to close it for Obama.

    I thought that this wouldn't happen again under Maggie Williams, who has done so well since the Wisconsin debacle.  The candidate is so much better than her campaign overall, and I hope the latter gets it together in time for Oregon -- but with ballots already arriving, it sounds like it's too late.


    Personally (none / 0) (#76)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:02:32 AM EST
    he'd have to recapture that first blush, I think, to carry Oregon.

    We all know.  You get one first kiss.  


    You're in CA (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:05:55 AM EST
    You probably have a better idea of the public mood up North than the rest of us do.

    No, I'm (none / 0) (#109)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    one of the awful CA's that invade the state.  :)

    But I think he's lost the educated, more affluent whites.  

    Oregon doesn't like Bill Clinton, for sure.  However, she's been very successful in separating herself from Bill's policies.  That part of her campaign has been fascinating to watch.  He can stump for her, raise money like mad, but she is still convincing that she is not interchangeable with his policies.

    So I think she'll overcome that factor in Oregon.

    Oregon is also, as someone pointed out, not Washington.  It's more conservative except in pockets.

    We'll see.  Or maybe not, if the SD's drive her out.


    Wrong in my opinion (none / 0) (#132)
    by Faust on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:47:51 AM EST
    I'm from Washinton but I've spent a lot of time in Oregon. There are some notable differences between the states but they are very similar in many ways. If anything the liberal pockets of Oregon are MORE liberal than the liberal pockets of WA. The rural conservative cultures I think are also a little different but in the end both are equally conservative.

    Well, I will (none / 0) (#139)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    bow to your locale.  I think of Oregon as more like Colorado.

    And I think Colorado regrets its Obama vote.  :)


    Oregon general overview (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by wurman on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:58:46 AM EST
    Portland OR is a medium city that shares a Metropolitan Statistical Area with Vancouver WA.  The state has a very long tradition of so-called "independent" politics with GOoPerz who become DINOs, loopy wingnutz who win goofy elections, etc., & Death with Dignity which has been hounded by Bu$hInc for 7.6 years.

    There will be 34 delegates allocated in 5 congressional districts; one of them is GOP, the rest reasonably middle-of-the road Democratic.  Another 18 are selected, proportionately, by the statewide tally.  There are 13 delegates not chosen by the vote; 52 of a 65 total are elected.

    Sen. Wyden is a liberal Democrat.  Sen. G. Smith is a foolishly conservative republikon who is trying to drift toward the center this election.  There are 5 reasonably reliable Democrats in the House; 1 GOP, Walden who votes Bu$hInc 94%

    Oregon is an odd mix of urban, suburban, farm & timber market cities, rural & wilderness folks.  The I-5 corridor tends to be hip, liberal & kewl.  The rural areas have pockets of radical rightwing zealots that astonish some observors.

    The state votes by mail.

    Outside the I-5 corridor, it is difficult to buy advertising media that can either penetrate or broadside--only satellite TV, mixed local radio, small town papers, nickel savers & penny posters.

    The Clinton admin. destroyed the timber industry, which was an economy unto itself & a way of life.  Many of the agricultural ops. rely on migrants.  Much of Oregon is Federal land.  The commercial fishery is weak & Federal policies have made it worse.

    The Portland area is home to Nike (Beaverton) & Freightliner.  The Port of Portland sort of went out of the container business a few years ago.  Oregon State U. is in Albany; U. Oregon is in Corvallis--along with Portland probable Obama strongholds.

    Check out Blue Oregon.

    The timber industry (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ccpup on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:08:34 AM EST
    suffered greatly in the 1980s, pre-Clinton.  Not sure how Clinton is the cause for the destruction of an industry that was already bleeding bright red before he took Office.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#146)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:55:13 AM EST
    if right wing talk radio is to blame, but my Eastern Oregon/Western Idaho relatives always blame the decline of the timber industry on Clinton.

    To blame anything on Ronnie?  That would be sacrilege.


    It's more simple than that. (none / 0) (#199)
    by wurman on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:07:28 AM EST
    The Ronnie Raygun depression of 1981-84 took the US & World economies into the tank & the timber industry suffered generally with all businesses, however "resource" based operations suffered even more.  Still, timber came back, especially in Oregon where specific species, private land from which saw logs could be exported, & the pulp + paper industry which opened new overseas markets.

    The real HIT came later.  From Oregon History Project:

    President Bill Clinton convened a team of biologists, economists, and social scientists in Portland and charged them to find a way to allow for some logging of federal forests while preserving enough habitat for imperiled or sensitive wildlife. The ensuing 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, under which federal forests in the Northwest are now managed, protects up to 80 percent of remaining old-growth forests and sets harvest levels on the rest at 1.2 billion board feet -- down 70 percent from the levels of the 1970s.

    This is a table adapted (by me) from oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/FRP/docs/OregonsTimberHarvests.pdf
    State Combined Total
    thousands of board feet
    1981 -- 5,695
    1982 -- 5,758
    1983 -- 7,464
    1984 -- 7,550
    1985 -- 8,127
    1986 -- 8,743
    1987 -- 8,215
    1988 -- 8,615

    1989 -- 8,420
    1990 -- 6,219
    1991 -- 6,080

    1992 -- 5,742
    1993 -- 5,294
    1994 -- 4,167
    1995 -- 4,304
    1996 -- 3,922
    1997 -- 4,081
    1998 -- 3,532
    1999 -- 3,759
    2000 -- 3,854

    2001 -- 3,440
    2002 -- 3,922
    2003 -- 4,002
    2004 -- 4,451

    The drop from 1994 is often attributed to the Spotted Owl effect, which is not factual, but it's the conventional wisdom from Coos Bay to Bend to Tillamook.


    Correction on university towns (none / 0) (#202)
    by BrucesReality on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    Just a clarification.  The University of Oregon is in Eugene.  Oregon State is in Corvallis.  I know, it's not a huge mistake, but believe me, if you are a real Oregonian, you would never make this mistake.  After all, they don't call the annual Oregon/Oregon State football game the "Civil War" for nothing.

    I Wouldnt count out Hilary In NC just yet (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Saul on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:02:21 AM EST
    Have you seen todays polls?  Plus latest Ram. poll that shows 58 percent believe that Obama threw Wright under the bus for political expediency. That is major blow and contradiction to his campaign image of running a pristine campaign.  The poll also indicates that  many find it hard to believe that  Obama did not agree with some of Wright's controversial beliefs otherwise he would have dumped him even if he was not running for president. The connotation of the poll is  if you are truly against a person teachings then it should not take running for a political office to rid yourself of him.   Obama by dis inviting Wright from his presidential announcement indicates he knew more of Wrights controversial beliefs than he is letting on he knew. This whole incident  contradicts that his judgment is flawed and his  argument against Hilary that his judgment is better is also flawed.   People are seeing through this as they go to the polls on Tuesday.

    I Agree (none / 0) (#110)
    by Saul on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    but I think you will see from here on out that the negative trust factor is starting to go against Obama due to Wright incident. It created doubt about who Obama really is and his judgment. That negative image effects those voters who are on the fence and even some Obama supporters who might  switch to Hilary.   The election on Tue will tell the whole story.

    Deciding Factor? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Saul on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    The Wright incident will play a major role in the rest of the primaries and a role in the election if Obmama is the nominee regardless of the issues that are more important than Wrigth.  It's human nature.  Just like newspaper prefer to report on controversial issues.  Happy issues are just not news worthy.  The feel that goods news should be the status quo and deviations from the status quo is what we report on.

    Many kissed off the Kerry Swift Boat 527 ad that came out and said whatever that's no biggie and that won't be a  problem in the election and we all know what happened after that.

    To me the only major immediate salvation to this is a unity ticket.  That makes about 85 percent of all voters in both camps happier and will control the division.  A unity ticket will be a slam dunk against McCain.  He won't stand a chance.


    I think this all gonna be over soon (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by ajain on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:57 AM EST
    The super dels are constantly coming out for Obama. So despite his terrible week and all, I sincerely have more and more doubts that Clinton has any realistic chance to win the nomination. Sometimes I dont even know if Clinton will be allowed to finish the race. There seems to be this real uneasiness that has settled in.

    Whenever Obama stumbles Super Dels comes out to save his ass from the perception problem and now we have Colour of Change and Al Sharpton and all getting all worked up. I hate that this race has gotten so icky.

    I believe McCain is the next POTUS.

    Icky is right (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Prabhata on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:16:05 AM EST
    I abhor race baiting.  It turns me off against anyone who plays it because it brings out the worst of human beings.

    beware of the corporate owned media! (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Josey on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM EST
    The media sold us Bush in 2000, the Iraq War - and now Obama.
    If you liked the first 2 - you'll love Obama.

    do you seriously believe (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Josey on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM EST
    Obama could have made it without the media and press promoting him while concealing damaging info about him?
    If Hillary had lied about her own father to obtain a key endorsement - don't you think it would be headline news?
    Obama lied about the Kennedys bringing his father to America. But we don't see those lying videos on TV 24/7.

    MSNBC conceiled ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    ...info, I wouldn't be surprised if memos to supress evidence show up in a month or two.  Like Matthews didn't know how devastating Wright would be!  

    Obama made a great effort to hide it and those Wright tapes made the rounds in various news rooms before Iowa. Fox had them but intended to save them until October.  MSNBC set out to defruad the Democratic base to instal their favoured son.


    ABC News went with the story (none / 0) (#219)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    They ran the tape in the morning and since Sean Hannity had been talking about Jeremiah Wright (but not showing the tapes) for many months he didn't want to let ABC get the credit for the story.  So he went into overdrive and pushed the Wright tapes big time to reclaim his "marked territory"  My theory.

    It's a long way to August (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Manuel on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:08:20 AM EST
    As we have seen SDs can change their minds.  Hillary owes it to her campaign and supporters to finish all the primaries and try to get as many votes as she can.  After that, get FL and MI settled and let the final batch of SDs decide.  If we don't follow the process, Unity will suffer.

    Hmmmmmm* (none / 0) (#164)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    He got 5.  She picked up 4.

    I don't think I agree with you yet.


    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by BDB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:37:21 AM EST
    Obama is supposed to win Oregon.  This isn't a breakthrough of the other's demos.  Obama has won whites, he just hasn't won them in big states other than his home state.  Oregon is not a big state.  As you say, he does well in the West.  Just as Hillary winning West Virginia won't be a breakthrough in her demos.

    The only state recently that looks like the person expected to win won't win is if Hillary hangs on and wins Indiana.  

    I think Hillary can win the nomination by winning Oregon.  Just as Obama could win it by winning Pennsylvania.  If Obama wins Oregon, that's just things playing out as expected.

    What he really needs is a good showing Tuesday in NC to help him in the popular vote.

    But if Obama is going to win Oregon, he's going to need to do better than this:

    Speaking about the need to "Clean up our Water", Barack made this solemn pledge to the people of Oregon:
    [H]e will continue his leadership in protecting national treasures like the Great Lakes from threats such as industrial pollution, water diversion, and invasive species.

    Read the whole thing about Obama's Change Oregon Can Believe In.  Somebody has a very tired campaign staff.

    Change you can cut and paste (none / 0) (#125)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:41:36 AM EST
    It's that darn (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by soccermom on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM EST
    "devil in the details" and "paperwork stuff" that confounds and bamboozles him.

    Gaffe and Paste (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    He must have been thinking Ohio.

    Worth Repeating (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by tdraicer on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    >Obama has been leading in Oregon for MONTHS by double-digits and always been expected to win there. Now you say if he barely squeaks out a win that validates him and he wins the nom? Sorry, this makes no sense to me. A small win by Obama in Oregon should be seen as a loss!!!


    In any case, OR isn't the test in the general: OH,PA,FL, and MI are.

    You just moved the goal posts on Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    It's going to Puerto Rico.  I'll move the goal posts on her behalf right now.  If Hillary wins Puerto Rico, she has the nomination!  See how easy that was?  It makes about as much sense too.

    Oregon-majority White (1.00 / 0) (#9)
    by 1jane on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:11:59 AM EST
    The recent polling in Oregon has Obama up by 14 points.

    the recent polling (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:13:53 AM EST
    from SUSA, released last night has Obama up 6 points.

    Try reading the post before commenting next time.


    one poll BTD (none / 0) (#68)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:58:13 AM EST
    I think it is helpful to, yes, see the trends and aggregate polling data... so his post is helpful in conjunction with yours.  

    The best pollster (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:04:22 AM EST
    by far.

    SUSAs (none / 0) (#201)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    is a good operation.

    how many undecideds? Those are going for (none / 0) (#222)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    Hillary 90% of the time and that is going to be the real story. If thats the case yeah, he's not in a very good place.

    how many undecideds? Those are going for (none / 0) (#223)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    Hillary 90% of the time and that is going to be the real story. If thats the case yeah, he's not in a very good place.

    Yep, seems fair... (none / 0) (#5)
    by outsider on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:08:18 AM EST
    If he loses Oregon, of course, given that he is currently up there, it will kill his claim that "the more people get to know me, the more they like me".

    Incidentally, BTD, do you buy into the narrative that NC is Obama's PA?  This post might be taken to imply that there is nothing particularly to interest us on the primary calendar before Oregon, since all the results are predictable.  But "some people say" (sorry 'bout that!) that he needs a big win here to counteract the impression he's dying a slow death...

    I think if Obama loses North Carolina (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:14:37 AM EST
    then he is unelectable.

    excuse me... (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:27:42 AM EST
    but in your post you said Clinton can not win in North Carolina. Period. Now you are saying 'if' he loses...

    If Obama only gets 30% of the white vote in NC, he loses regardless of who actually wins NC.


    And that's what we're headed towards. (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:33:28 AM EST
    But he wins the primary (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:33:30 AM EST
    barely cracking 50 (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by bigbay on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:12:25 AM EST
    I've noticed he is at around 50% in all the polls there...if Hillary picks up the mostly white undecideds (college degreed ?), it could very close.

    why? (none / 0) (#107)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:21:41 AM EST
    that seems irrational? cause of demographics?

    then why is Hillary electable when she couldn't win Wisconsin or Wyoming or Colorado or Kansas?

    don't get it.  


    You (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:28:23 AM EST
    are counting caucuses as a gauge of electability? Sorry but LOL! Obama definitely loses WY and KS in a general election. He's unlikely to win CO either. He does slightly better than Hillary in WI.

    Obama has severe demographic problems as evidenced by the primaries since WI. WI was his high point and he has been in a decline since then only picking up upper income whites and AA's.


    I haven't see any polls (none / 0) (#123)
    by mmc9431 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:38:37 AM EST
    That suggest Obama can win in these states either. A lot of his red state wins will do the party nothing in Novvember. UT MS SC SC AK KS are going to be very hard to turn blue.

    Last polls still put him barely up (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    in Wisconsin -- give him that -- but that was before he called us bitter and clinging to God and guns, plus before the recent Reverend Wright problems.  

    It's McCain's state now, I would guess.  I think Clinton could win it in fall, with the economy getting worse and worse.  But it could be a real battle between those two.  Obama maybe could be rehabilitated sufficiently, but I don't think so.


    OR (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:09:42 AM EST
    has tightened. Of course does winning Orgeon tell us anything more than he can get creative class votes? Dukakis carried OR in 1988. I'm also wondering if blowouts by Clinton in KY and WV will make a difference. I don't know that they will.

    What is the $ demo in OR? (none / 0) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:13:59 AM EST
    Is it a lot of higher income Whites or rural whites? That is the difference, methinks. And if it's upper-class whites, he'll win it.  

    It is a mix (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:10:55 AM EST
    More upscale around Portland and along the coast, very rural, middle class inland.

    How bitter are they?  Don't know.


    hillary can win (none / 0) (#13)
    by isaac on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:14:09 AM EST
    north carolina.  the bradley effect used to be known as the gantt effect.  i would guess, white support for obama could still be about five to ten points off

    Obama (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:21:11 AM EST
    has offended many AA voters with his handling of Wright.

    If his AA turn-out is lower or if some switch to Hillary, that would have a huge effect.

     A great many pastors are not happy with him.  They are often the ones to truly motivate their congregations.  

    Back to Oregon, I don't think Oregon is going to stay with Obama.  Just my "gut" feeling.


    Prof. Adolph Reed (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:56:48 AM EST
    has an opinion published in The Progressive this month lambasting Obama. Corrente has the link.

    I think there's a portion of the AA community, church-goer or not, that didn't take kindly to the way Obama threw Wright decidedly under the much mentioned bus.

    I actually felt indignant on behalf of Wright (though I still find the delivery of his message  inflammatory) and I doubt I'm alone.


    So Did I (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:45 AM EST
    This was a story where the man demonstrated, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how retro he was.  I mean, the discussion about the right brain/left brain was absolutely all that needed to be said.

    However, when you explain like Obama did as an academic, that's dismissive.  When you call someone a crazy uncle, that's insulting.

    Obama's "outrage" was phony.  His nonsense that he didn't know what Wright thought, ridiculous.  Even Wright called him on that one.

    This man was very hurt, and I empathized a lot.  Obama has not learned that just because you run for president, you can't just walk over people.

    I think it will hurt his AA numbers.  We'll see.  NC is a real test.


    Read an article in the Times (none / 0) (#23)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:25:23 AM EST
    this morning saying that preachers are standing behind Wright while parishoners are blaming him for making Obama look bad. So who knows.

    I can tell you who will win..... (none / 0) (#28)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:28:02 AM EST
    the pastors.  LOL*  

    Now, how much of an impact?  Dunno.


    It is impossible (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:16:06 AM EST
    Clinton will have to win whites 75-25.

    If she does, Obama is unelectable.


    agree, Obama will win NC, but... (none / 0) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:21:53 AM EST
    If he wins by less than 10, it's a big blow. If somehow he does loose, it's over.

    I think Obama will hold on and win Oregon. But like NC, if he looses, it's over too.

    Others raised a good question, will the SD's and party bosses pick him anyway. But perhaps if that happens, it has nothing to do with picking the person who can win, he can't, it's about some other party politics.


    If they do (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:26:23 AM EST
    They will have chosen the popular vote loser.

    And you know what? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    We are REALLY, REALLY screwed.  It's only democracy, you know?

    Since when do political-party kingmakers think they're God, anyway?  I don't remember reading sh!t about Howard Dean or anybody else being able to take away people's votes when we were studying the Constitution in school.

    Makes me madder than hell even thinking about it, along with the fact that A LOT of activists out in states have been working their asses off to get verified ballots in states, to undo the Diebold damage.

    What good is it all going to do if Dean/Pelosi is just going to fix the candidacies to begin with?!



    I was surfing cable news last night (none / 0) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:50:56 AM EST
    and it was very interesting how the meme had changed.  only a day or so ago it was going to be a "game changer" if Clinton won in NC.  last night on CNN and MSNBC I heard that she "has" to win NC.
    only Frank Luntz on FOX was honest enough to say she was never expected to win there and if she does it will be an earthquake.
    I think this change of tone is very interesting and telling.
    I believe they think something is up and they are playing the expectations game.  bobble heads think Clinton can win in NC and they are panicking.
    I feel good.  

    A little worrying (none / 0) (#60)
    by Lil on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:53:17 AM EST
    that the expectations are getting set too high. This has typically been Obama's problem, but it now is becoming Hillary's. Hopefully we are not getting all excited about an upset and then seriously disappointed next week.

    No (none / 0) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:55:36 AM EST
    I think they are serious.  This has been a set-up since Iowa.  She wins NH?  She cried.  She wins major states?  Doesn't matter.  She is behind by next-to-nothing in popular vote, she "can't catch up."  She loses only what..10 SDs after racking up a huge number when she was the only game in town, it's trumpeted as a huge sign that Obama is a survivor of his gaffes.

    It's just very disheartening to me, anyway.


    I know what you mean (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:02:35 AM EST
    but look at it the other way.
    if they are fearful enough to send out a memo (which , dont kid yourself, someone clearly did) telling them to do this something is up with internal numbers.
    they are laying the ground work to try and say the win in NC was expected and changes nothing.
    the supers are not stupid.

    That one yesterday (none / 0) (#100)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    was an idiot.  Richardson is an idiot.  I can name a few more that fall into my private "idiot" category.  LOL*

    But I hear you.  

    Hillary just repeats her talking point and says, "It's good for the party.  Look at the registrations.  Look at the voter excitement.  Anyone who thinks this is bad is simply wrong."

    She dismisses the chatter.  


    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by mmc9431 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:23:25 AM EST
    Initially I gave Richardson a very serious look. I thought he might be my candidate. Then he openned his mouth at the debates! He came off as a totally incoherent bumbler and I scratched him off the list. I've paid no attention to anything he's said since.

    while her surrogates (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    discount anyone who opposes her.  old friends, super delegates, old employees, or states she lost.   interesting strategy.

    Someone yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    pointed out the obvious.  Any former Democrat who worked in government is an "old employee."  LOL*

    It was such an obvious point and one that I, too, had missed that I laughed.

    True......if you ever worked for the White House, it was for Clinton.  :)


    let me rephrase that (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:19:50 AM EST
    most of the UNelected supers are not idiots.
    the elected ones may not be idiots but they are cowards.
    the unelected ones dont answer to anyone.  I have a feeling they take their jobs very seriously and I doubt most of them give a fig what you or I or Aravosis  or Kos thinks.
    they will do what they think is right in most cases.
    this is what terrifies the Obama campaign.

    Gantt effect? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:27:28 AM EST
    Had never heard that one, only that he was successful in NC except when challenging Helms.  He integrated the university here (and the Baptist Student Union, I heard recently).

    poll showed him up by 5 (none / 0) (#231)
    by isaac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    the day before the election and he lost by 7 or 8, i think.  hence, the polls were way off or people were afraid to admit they were voting against him

    Hey! (none / 0) (#42)
    by aequitas on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:43:54 AM EST
    I thought Pennsylvania was "the test."  How many more tests do we need until Clinton recognizes the inevitable?

    Explain to me (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:44:19 AM EST
    why Oregon is different from Indiana?  There seems to be no earthly reason why Obama couldn't win Indiana; he's done very well in the Midwest, regardless of demographics.  We've already swallowed the argument that PA was totally unwinnable because it has old people and Hillary's dad was born there; what implausible argument are we expected to swallow for why Indiana is off the table for Obama?

    I think losing Indiana damages him (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:46:01 AM EST
    Frankly, if he loses Indiana convincingly, I have to admit that my belief that he is more electable than Clinton is simply wrong.

    But Oregon can prove that white folks will vote for him in sufficient numbers to win in November.


    No it can't (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:50:07 AM EST
    because the white people are frankly different there.

    Obama does well with white people west of where Cary Grant got crop-dusted and north of Los Angeles. In the northeast, he gets creamed. We have to win in the northeast.


    Those white people (2.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:51:57 AM EST
    are for Obama. It matters.

    you can prefer the safer more practiced route to the winning electoral map for Dems, but you can not deny that Obama does better with whites in the West than does any other Dem candidate in memory.


    There is no "West" (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Amileoj on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:45:46 AM EST
    Two points BTD:

    1. "The West" is the wrong unit of analysis.  BHO got creamed in CA--the West's biggest prize.  He lost NV (in popular vote, the only relevant criterion for the general) and NM (though the latter was practically a tie).  Last time I checked all those states were in the West. But of course they are more specifically in the Southwest.  The part of the West where BHO has done well is further north--where, not coincidentally, the Latino/Hispanic vote is less of a factor, but also where the original U.S. settlement was less likely to have come from Southern and border states.  He has been strongest in the plains states and the inner-mountain West--the region that contains the most conservative states in the country (more conservative, as measured by presidential voting at least, than the deep South).

    2. The above shows that geography, not just demography, has been political destiny in this race.  There are good (though complex) reasons for this.  The political culture in these different regions really  is quite different, reflecting different patterns of original (European) settlement.  As Michael Lind (as quoted here by Anglachel) points out, "the difference between the constituencies of Obama and Clinton has little to do with race and reflects instead long-familiar regional and cultural splits among whites in the Democratic electorate."  The foundation of Lind's analysis, for those interested, is the excellent Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America by David Hacket Fisher.

    In short, Oregon settles nothing.  It's most likely role will be to confirm something we already know--that BHO's weakness among white voters is a phenomenon of special intensity in greater Appalachia and the Ohio valley.  The problem for Dems is that this is, as you say, our "practiced" route to the White House.  It is very hard to see how a candidate does well enough in the Northwest quadrant of the country, to invent a new route of equal reliability.

    The Dem party (none / 0) (#162)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:11:55 AM EST
    in the inner mountain west is something of an aberation.  I dunno if the local party is proving itself to be impossibly liberal or they thought that Obama was a centrist and thought that would play well with the local GOP.

    It's hard to get a reading on that area.


    I've been wondering the same thing (none / 0) (#175)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    since Obama made his comments on Fox about how he did not win in states like Idaho by being a chablis drinking liberal, or whatever it was he said along those lines.  My first reaction was  that those are exactly the kind of Dems who populate the mountain west - the richest, most elite of the Californians that could afford to move into the moutnains.

    Then I wondered if it was instead the latter of your options - local working class Dems just trying to get along with the GOP.

    I'd like to see some stats sometime.


    I'm mystified that there is no data (none / 0) (#187)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    Because we are selecting him based on these folks lopsided caucus results where he seems to have picked up a net of 10-20-30 delegates per state.(my math may be off here. I doubt Idaho has more than 30 dels.)

    I dearly love to know what these Dems are made of. There was some analysis very early on but i'm inclined to see them as a statistical aberation.

    No other region has really voted like them. Cal, Southwest, South, Mississipi Vally Ohio Valley, New England...


    here's (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:49:57 AM EST

    it's actually a little depressing to see how heavily skewed the caucus results are.

    A heavily contested fight like Pennsylvannia, where candidates are truly being tested with million of votes counts (and winning margin of 200,000 votes) for less than the delegate count in Idaho where 20,000 caucused.

    Obama's delegate win in Alaska based on a 8,000 caucus votes and a majority of 4,000 is worth half of teh net gain for Clinton in Ohio or Penn where millions voted and the majorities were in teh 100s of thousands.

    Aberation seems like a polite word for what's happened.



    I agree -- regionalism is so significant (none / 0) (#200)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    and explains a lot of the disparities in the Midwest, too.  Like the West, it really is several subregions -- some settled by a lot of easterners and northern immigrants, yet still as disparate as Ohio vs. Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas . . . but some like Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri settled by lots and lots of Southerners (although a lot also went up the northern Mississippi to Wisconsin).

    There's an excellent collection of essays on the Midwest, one of the few books about the black hole in many American history books.  This exception that focuses on the Midwest's 12 states -- some with origins in the remarkable Northwest Ordinance, some with origins in the Louisiana Purchase -- argues that (post-1800) settlement is destiny.  And that even later settlement still has to adapt to earlier societal norms set at that settlement.  


    But how is he supposed to win PA or OH? (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:56:20 AM EST
    He got blown out by a minimum of 30 points outside of Philly, Pittsburgh and State College in PA. Even getting back 2/3 of those voters, all of whom are Democrats, will not be enough for November.

    I'm looking at the same electoral map you are, and strength west of Chicago just isn't enough to make up for losing the swing-state trifecta in the east.


    The (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:01:03 AM EST
    problem as I see it is that Obama's support in western states was from caucuses not primaries. And even his slightly stronger support shown by general election polls at SUSA show him still being blown out in those states. Getting 35% in a ge vs. Kerry's 29% will make no difference in the larger scheme of things. He also lost white voters in CA iirc.

    Blah, blah (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:39:52 AM EST
    the bottom line is that the people who vote for Obama are far easier to bring back into the tent in November. In a game of chicken, his voters blink.

    We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Faust on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:51:29 AM EST
    I think you might be right. But there are a lot of historical firsts running around this season.

    The only person (none / 0) (#116)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:31:38 AM EST
    who is bloodying Obama is Obama.

    Three things about Obama (none / 0) (#152)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST
    1. He's tall.  Tall Presidents look more impressive behind a podium.
    2. We have something in common - we both like arugula.
    3. I like someone who fights to win, and Obama has shown that he will say or do anything to win.


    he's not supposed to be (none / 0) (#173)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    competative in MO, Penn and Ohio. He should be blowing McCain out the water.  McCain even has an outpost in New England--I suspect it will expand.

    But Clinton won CA. (none / 0) (#213)
    by oculus on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    Shrug (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:49:12 AM EST
    I am open to the argument that Clinton is far enough behind that she needs to win every winnable state, but we shouldn't get too far ahead of ourselves just because the polls show Clinton ahead in IN.  Yes, if she wins there, he has a chance to regain his momentum, but we shouldn't brush right past the significance of her winning there.  There's no earthly reason why the Democratic frontrunner shouldn't be able to win Indiana.

    Obama's Own Spreadsheet Had Him Winning IN (none / 0) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    Obama   53%   Clinton 46%

    because (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:47:41 AM EST
    he's likely to lose I guess.

    In my opinion, all "firewalls" need to be removed. Let's just accept that the voting is going to go on until all the primaries are done and let's see where we are then.


    Um, because Obama likely won't win IN? (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by herb the verb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:52:24 AM EST
    It's only a tie-breaker if Clinton loses.... Those are the roolz.



    It's about the popular vote (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:42:41 AM EST
    He needs Oregon (or Indiana) to win it.  He probably doesn't need both if he wins North Carolina.

    He only needs the states that will win him the election.  That's why Hillary needed Texas, Ohio, and Penn - she was losing.


    I believe the OR dynamics will change (none / 0) (#81)
    by Prabhata on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:04:03 AM EST
    The win in IN can have a psychological negative impact on the loser.  If OR voters see either candidate as no longer electable.  It happened to me when Edwards lost SC.  After that loss I began looking into the backgrounds of HRC and Obama to figure out who I'd support.

    Play to the base (none / 0) (#98)
    by mmc9431 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:13:00 AM EST
    I think Obama's problem has always been that being the underdog to start he focused on the fringes of the party rather than the base. Those blue collar Dems' that he dished in SF are the base of the party. Then to add insult to injury they have tried to dismiss them as the discontented fringe that doesn't support the party anyway. This will hurt the party in November as much as Rev Wright.

    Hillary wins the Mondale votes minus (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    black people.

    the "Mondale" vote (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:21:09 AM EST
    is going to be a good deal larger this year than it was for Mondale.

    At this point it is a loss that will have to be (none / 0) (#156)
    by Salt on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM EST
    Tolerated the damage is not reversible, if Obama is the nominee Dems will not win the White House in Nov. period.  Bush hate won't carry him to the White House.

    I don't know about that. (none / 0) (#171)
    by sweetthings on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:20:03 AM EST
    While we fret over whether blacks will vote for Hillary or whether Clinton supporters will bail, the Democratic Party is steadily gaining strength.

    McCain is in trouble no matter who we nominate.


    put aside reality... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    ...and character and identification and blah blah blah. If my arm had a foot at the end of it, it would be a leg.

    We almost always win the generic quiz.


    Good point (none / 0) (#119)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST
    and it is one area in which I'm a tad unfair.  :)

    ABC's The Note (none / 0) (#120)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:36:36 AM EST
    Split Screams...
    Says Charlie Cook: "The delegate math couldn't look much worse for Clinton, but the current political dynamics are just horrific for Obama."

    A rather fair and interesting take on the dynamics of this race as it sits today

    Clinton CAN WIN North Carolina (none / 0) (#140)
    by stefystef on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    I believe that Obama will lose some strength in the African American community.  Obama will not win the Independent and cross-over Republican vote and Obama will definitely NOT win the Hispanic/Native American vote (yes, there is a growing Hispanic community in North Carolina, especially in town with agriculture and poultry farms).

    Let's be real about this, Clinton does have a chance to win NC, but even if she loses, it will be so close that it will negate any so-called "momentum" from the Obama camp.

    A Monumental Upset (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by BDB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:53 AM EST
    There is no reason based on the polls to believe the AA population will abandon him in sufficient numbers or at all.  

    Obama should be able to win by 10 just on demos.


    I wonder what the repudiation (none / 0) (#169)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM EST
    of Wright might do.

    Have leading black Democrats ever chastized, ever damned one of their own Preachers?

    That's got to depress turn out to some limited extent ( but no remaining states have large black minorities apart from NC). The fear of alienating black voters must have been a factor in Obama's "Greatest Speech" failure to split from Wright.  I doubt he'd have dared to split with Wright before the votes in the South.


    I tend to agree (none / 0) (#210)
    by Eleanor A on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    Various sources (including Obama supporters on one blog where I lurk) say the mostly white, independent vote is 30% in NC.  Clinton will win most of those folks, especially since the later-breaking undecideds have been going her way.

    I'm optimistic about OR also, given that a certain amount of her shrinkage has been among women.  She can fix that, I think.


    I agree that Obama needs to win Oregon. (none / 0) (#160)
    by Faust on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    Someone said it best yesterday:

    If Obama can break heavily into Clintons core demos then he wins.

    If Clinton can break heavily into Obama's core demos then she wins.

    If neither can break heavily into each others core demos then Obama wins.

    We have been seeing some real movment for Clinton lately. Can Obama fend her off? Stop the bleeding? This will rest in part on the media and what spin they decide to run with.

    Will Clinton get some momentum in the next couple contests? Momentum has been almost nonexistent in this race but we did see some at the tail end of Obama's Feb win streak. Since Clinton has a chance to build up some wins in a row perhaps she might get some.  

    Without momentum or good strong downward media preassure on Obama I do not beleive she will win Oregon. But it's quite possible that both or either of those two things could happen.

    Sorry BTD; I do not buy your argument (none / 0) (#179)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:27:02 AM EST
    at all. Obama has been leading in Oregon for MONTHS by double-digits and always been expected to win there. Now you say if he barely squeaks out a win that validates him and he wins the nom? Sorry, this makes no sense to me. A small win by Obama in Oregon should be seen as a loss!!!

    Good diary, BTD (none / 0) (#194)
    by flyerhawk on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    Oregon could be critical to the race.  

    From Susa Oregon Clinton closes in (none / 0) (#203)
    by Salt on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:21:42 AM EST
    Clinton Closes-In On Obama in Oregon Democratic Primary: In a Democratic Primary in Oregon today, 05/01/08, three weeks till votes are counted, Barack Obama edges Hillary Clinton 50% to 44%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KATU-TV in Portland. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA tracking poll released 3 weeks ago, Obama is down 2, Clinton is up 2. Obama had led by 10, now leads by 6 -- small movement to be sure, and within the survey's margin of sampling error, but movement away from Obama and to Clinton nonetheless. Among voters younger than Obama, Obama leads by 15. Among voters older than McCain, Clinton leads by 15. The Gender Gap has shrunk from 37 points to 22 points. Among females, Clinton had led by 7, now by 4. Among males, Obama had led by 30, now by 18. Clinton leads narrowly among voters focused on the Economy and on Health Care. Obama leads among voters focused on Iraq.  

    Fallacious logic (none / 0) (#207)
    by aequitas on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    There's simply no reason to believe that if one or the other of the candidates does not win a certain state in the Democratic primary, he or she cannot win it in the general election.

    Carry on......

    Hillary came up with an Oregon-specific (none / 0) (#217)
    by zyx on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    Oregon compact some weeks ago.

    Senator Me-Too, just now, released a more general "Oregon Plan".  Meh.  There are some news articles you can google up-some are a little amusing...

    Then Obama followed on with his OR plan-- (1.00 / 1) (#221)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:08:56 PM EST
    Eriposte has post with links comparing the two.

    Seems Obama's is somewhat thin gruel, as in "Where're the deets, dude?"


    Oregon (none / 0) (#230)
    by Mike in NYC on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:51:44 AM EST
    Big Tent Democrat only got half the picture:

    (1) BO wins big in states with lots of AA's.

    He/she forgot/didn't see the other half:

    (2) BO wins big in states with almost no AA's. Like Oregon.

    He loses just about everywhere else.


    He wins group (1) due to AA vote. (Obviously.)

    He wins group (2) due to lack of, ahem, "racial polarization."

    In other words, the closer whites live to large black populations, the less likely they are to vote for BO. Word.

    Anything less than a double-digit win in OR, or NC for that matter, would be a demographic loss for BO, and a rather downbeat comment on his electability.