home

Kentucky Prediction Open Thread

SUSA predicts Clinton 62-31, with other (Edwards is on the ballot) 5. The demos are Clinton winning whites (89% of the vote) 67-26-6 and Obama winning African Americans (10% of the vote) 82-18 (Edwards gets zero).

SUSA has in the past underestimated the African American vote and the margins by which Obama will win them. So I will adjust those numbers to 12% of the vote and a 90-10 win for Obama. But I think Edwards gets a lot less of the white vote than predicted too. I give Clinton half of his vote. so, doing my adjusted math, my Kentucky prediction is Clinton 63.4, Obama 33.4, Edwards 3.2.

Give us your Kentucky predictions and any other thoughts. We'll do an Oregon thread later. This is an Open Thread.

Oh this is funny as hell. You know what offended Publius and John Cole about Richard Cohen's column? An insult to Robert E. Lee. I kid you not.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Funding the Second Chance Act | Hillary on Sexism and the Race Going Forward >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I have a question: (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    Will Obama declare victory before or after HRC trounces him by 30-odd points in Kentucky?

    After I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:25:37 AM EST
    to try to step on her win. It's funny but Oregon doesn't even close until 8 pm PDT meaning that it will be after 11:00 EDT or even later before we know what is going to happen there. I guess he plans on having a speech at midnight? Or maybe it's before the KY win? But that certainly would look stupid.

    Parent
    Hillary has a time advantage, it seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    But the media might let Obama get away with anything.

    Parent
    they will make sure to point out to us (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    that the 30 point win is meaningless everytime it is mentioned until they can talk about Obamas decisive win.


    Parent
    Because he was unknown in Ky and (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by zfran on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    she had the advantage with the state being so close to Arkansas!

    Parent
    and they are hicks (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:08 AM EST
    but, gee, I thought ALL 57 states mattered.... :( (none / 0) (#49)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    Obama Had The Opportunity To Make (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    himself known in KY by campaigning there but he chose not to do so. Those who are familiar with the geography of the U.S. might point out that IL borders KY and AR does not. Evidently U.S. geography is not one of Obama's strong suits. Keeping track of the borders of 57 states is hard work especially when you are busy moving the Great Lakes.

    Parent
    He's Smarter Than you (none / 0) (#94)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    Florida
    Georgia
    Hawaii
    Hawaii
    Idaho
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Kansas
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Maine
    Maine
    Maryland
    Massachusetts
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Mississippi
    Missouri
    Montana
    Montana
    Nebraska
    Nebraska
    Nebraska
    Nevada
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New Mexico
    New Mexico
    New York
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia
    Washington
    West Virginia
    West Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming
    Wyoming

    This totals 61 primaries and when he said 57, that would have been Wv. So before you do what you all normally do, which is to clam Obama is an empty suit, do your homework dummy.

    Need more proof that more than 50 primaries are held? Visit http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/2008_Pres_Prim_ByState.htm

    Parent

    Are you in charge of the WORMs? (none / 0) (#96)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    Hey! (none / 0) (#98)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    you counted Michigan and Florida. So does that jibe with the Obama talking points that they didn't campaign there, so it doesn't count?

    Parent
    One more thing (none / 0) (#99)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    Those states where there are multiple primaries - one day was for the Dems and one day for the Republicans.  Unless Obama competed in both the Republican and Democratic primaries, you can't count them.

    And we're not the dummies.....

    Parent

    I See, Obama Has Now Changed The Definition (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    of the word state. State now equals primary. Have to admit I can't find that definition in my dictionary but probably it will be updated soon. BTW even by your revised definition the math is incorrect. 57 + 1 = 58 (all but 1 per his statement) and not 61. Please go back to the first grade and learn simple math, dummy.

    Never underestimate the WORM.

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#15)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    that it looks stupid no matter what.

    If he does it beforehand, then she stomps him in KY, people are scratching their heads saying "Why can't he close the deal if he's already 'won'?"

    If he does it afterwards, no one will see it, and people will still say "Didn't she just beat him by 31 points in KY?"

    It's a massively wrongheaded thing to do.

    Sorry, BTD, but I told you so. The man has no freaking clue how to Unify anything. You're either with him or against him.

    Parent

    Kos is totally oblivious! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    the polls were all conducted after Obama's "bitter" remarks and WrightI & WrightII. Voters don't like being called "racists" nor voting for a candidate that sat in a pew for 20 years listening to Wright's racist rants.

    by kos
    Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:20:20 AM PDT
    Check this out:

                  Clinton  Obama
    SUSA, 3/28-30:   58      29
    SUSA, 4/12-14:   62      29
    SUSA, 4/26-28:   63      27  
    SUSA, 5/03-05:   62      28
    SUSA, 5/09-11:   62      30
    SUSA, 5/16-18:   62      31  

    Note that Clinton has essentially camped out in Kentucky all week (and the region for several weeks), while Obama has made nothing but a perfunctory visit or two. Clinton's numbers haven't budged for a month. Support for both sides in the state have solidified, and it seems as if nothing could ever pry additional numbers loose in Clinton's direction.

    It's really odd to see numbers that unmoving across so many polls. I've never seen anything like it before.

    Parent

    That's It (none / 0) (#104)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    You are either with one or the other. How is that not true.

    He may not be able to unify you because you have made this into a woman's issue, not a presidential issue. So many woman will never go to Obama because the woman lost.

    I have serious question. I really mean serious. I am a woman as well and I want to have a female president one day myself.

    My question is this and I would like to have an intelligent conversation about it. Maybe you can change my mind about my views on this, I don't know.

    If two people agree prior to the start of a race and there are three flags, one blue, one yellow, and one white, on both sides of the road and the participants must pick up each flag when they approached it along the way and keep it until the finish line. They have a predetermined amount of time in which to make it to the finish line with at least two flags in hand.

    Both participants agreed that the yellow flag marks the halfway point of the race. So they are running toward the finish line and prior to getting to the mid point one of the participants drop the first flag they've picked up. Remember the rule is to keep the flags and bring them to the finish line.

    So that person has to run back to get their flag and the other keeps going, just prior to the finish line the participant that had to go back and get the first flag he/she dropped says it is not fair that the other participant is winning because they had the flag, but dropped it and had to go back to get it. He/she seems to feel that it would be more fair to add extra time to the clock because its just not fair, after all he/she had to go back to get the flag and that is the only reason the other person is winning.

    Should rules be changed because of this? If so, why? If the rules were changed what effect would that cause? And what would happen the next time this same race is repeated again, and the same thing happens? Would changing the rules that both participants agreed to initially, in the middle of the game, be fair to all of the cheerleaders of the one that played by the rules have and won?

    I say this because it seems that we have lost something really important in this process and I am not sure that it is fair, just because one's supporters want it that way. Does treating people fairly have any place in this process? Is that not an important part of our having rules and laws to abind during such technical races?

    I don't know, but I would like to hear your views on this, honestly. I hear the cries and I see the tears that this primary season brings.

    Parent

    He'll probably declare ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by dwmorris on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:28:07 AM EST
    about 30 sec after she starts her KY victory speech.

    Parent
    I've heard various places... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Binx on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    I've heard there will be no "victory" speech from Obama tonight.

    Parent
    What I'm hearing now (none / 0) (#74)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:13:00 PM EST
    is that he only plans to announce  that he has the "majority" of the elected delegates, based on the 2025 number, which of course excludes Florida and Michigan.

    Parent
    And which of course - (none / 0) (#102)
    by minordomo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:49:13 PM EST
    - is according to the rules as they stand at this time.

    They may well change on May 30/31st (though we don't know how - it's conceivable that the delegates are seated at 50%, for example), but as of the end of today Obama does have an absolute majority of the pledged delegates that are in play.

    And he's ahead in superdelegates, with that lead expanding by the day as well.

    Parent

    delegate (none / 0) (#105)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    As it should, this is what they agreed to before this race began.

    Parent
    An Obama supporter at HuffPo (none / 0) (#91)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:30:09 PM EST
    had this to say today

    Today is the beginning of America"s psycho-spiritual awakening into a new era of politics in which the democratic proclivities of the concerned public will shape the political agenda of the day. What a happy day
    .

    Parent
    Since this (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:23:28 AM EST
    is an open thread I guess I can talk about the defections that Obama is starting to cause. Ferraro announced that she won't vote for Obama along with Koch. Byrd's office in WV has been swamped with callers upset with his endorsement of Obama.

    You mean the defections (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    that Obama is (hopefully) going to suffer?

    Parent
    Well, if you think Obama can't win the GE (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:38:59 AM EST
    and shouldn't win the nomination, please take a look at my petition, and sign if you are so inclined.

    I plan on delivering it to the DNC within a week or so if I get enough signatures. :-)

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by minordomo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM EST
    Look, if you want people's votes to be counted, you also have to be open to the notion that that process results in someone other than your preferred candidate being chosen. The American people followed the process, the voices of all primaries are being heard - and Obama is winning more delegates. And unless one wants to pretend that there are no Obama voters in Michigan at all (though this logic will not fly with superdelegates), including MI and FL will not give Clinton a lead.

    As for Obama's alleged "narrow base of support" and Clinton's "broader base of female, Democratic and Independent voters", consider this: http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx

    Obama now leads Clinton -

    among women: 49% to 46%
    among Hispanics: 51% to 44%
    among high-school graduates or less: 47% to 46%
    among Easterners: 52% to 43%

    and is even among non-Hispanic whites: 47% to 47%

    You may also be familiar with the recent SUSA poll in PA (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e658e86c5), which shows Obama leading McCain by 8 points... in a big swing state.

    It has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but in the end only one winner can emerge, and in the fight against McCain and in the interest of putting an end to the failed Bush policies, it is in the interest of everyone who supported any of the Democratic candidates to support the Democratic nominee this fall. Certainly having first supported Clinton and then opting for McCain makes no sense unless one took part in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos.

    Parent

    Think I already did--real name, tho (none / 0) (#62)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:27:49 PM EST
    What about equality? (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruckus83 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    I can not understand why so called "feminist" would think its a hillary or no Democratic??? Someone please tell me how superiority is equality? I think it is a great measurement of the nation finally reaching equality that everyone, without fear or retribution, can vote and support whoever they want not based on race, sex, orientation or ethnicity. Why then do you attack Senator Obama just because he might win?? I want Hillary to stay in the race for as long as she wants, but please don't say you will vote for a warmongerer and someone who opposes raising the minimum wage and does not support equal pay for women (McCain) over someone who does (Obama). Please people think about what you are saying, this is beyond comprehension.

    Parent
    Ferraro Qualified Her By Saying May Not (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:47:32 AM EST
    Ferraro, in the NYT story, terms Obama "terribly sexist." And, as a result, she says she may not be able to cast her ballot for him if, as anticipated, he gains the Democratic presidential nod.  LA Times


    Parent
    The only problem with Koch is (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:19:40 PM EST
    he's kind of in the tank with the Republicans in general and has been for a while. He was critical of Clinton, Gore and Kerry, voted for Bush and lauded him. So I'm not sure I would necessarily call him a defector since he's kind of in the same category as Lieberman as a DINO.

    I am proud of Ferraro. After what they put her through, there's no reason why she should show any party loyalty at all. Sadly, there will be many of us going along with her, including myself.

    Parent

    well (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:40:52 PM EST
    I do agree with you but for some uncanny reason he always picks candidates that tend to win the general election hence this isn't good news for Obama if he is the nominee.

    Parent
    Can't argue with that (none / 0) (#76)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:19:55 PM EST
    Sadly, I think Obama's not going to win if he's the nominee either.

    Parent
    How can he win (none / 0) (#114)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:27:30 PM EST
    if all the democratic women remain angry because their candidate did not win.

    Come on, we need to stand behind Obama if he is the nominee and likewise if Hillary is the nominee.

    Wake up dems!

    Parent

    Um, we're awake (none / 0) (#118)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:57:31 PM EST
    and aware and not going to be played.

    You can stand behind whomever you chose. Some of us will do what we please. Personally, I stand behind no one.

    And here's the thing, sweetie, we're not angry because our candidate did not win. We're angry because your candidate has not won either and yet he's the presumptous nominee.

    Parent

    Koch is an embarrassment for (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    HRC's campaign, imo.  A real character and a bit of a nut.

    As in his opinion that Junior will be judged favorably by history (Iraq, WoT Israel) just as the once-despised Truman was.  Oh, and he voted in 04 to "re-elect" this nitwit.  Don't get me started about Eddie ...

    As for Gerry, much more my kinda Dem.  Feisty feminist fighter (who got stuck running with the hapless Mondale ...) who's beginning to convince me to not vote for O if he's our nominee.   I may decide to do a Molly Ivins, here in solidly blue CA, and not vote the top of the ticket.  

    Much will depend on how The Anointed One handles the Hillary supporters and whether he addresses the sexist and dishonest way she and her family were treated and owns up frankly to how he and his backers should have spoken out against it sooner.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:49:37 AM EST
    hold out any hope for Obama. He hasn't tried to get her supporters during the primary and has even gone to the point of implying that they aren't needed.

    Parent
    But shortly after his campaign (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:51:16 PM EST
    put out the rumor about Hillary trying to poach Obama's SD's, he actually did poach one of hers. Has someone told him that it's all the  voters who decide the GE, not the SD's? I really wonder about that..really..because not worrying about the popular vote because he has "the delegates" is rather stupid, or ignorant. Who does Obama think is going to vote for him if not the people in the states he is not bothering to campaign in?? Does he think he can get their votes after basically saying he didn't need them in the primary?? And they are heavily populated states compared to say, Utah or Idaho. Didn't Obama learn to count in one of those fancy schools he went to?? My Dad went to Harvard, and I am pretty sure they made sure he knew how to count before he went. Heh.

    Parent
    Obama's Blame (none / 0) (#106)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    And somehow this is Obama's fault. Listen, people need to take responsibility for their own actions, and others need to put the blame where it belongs. So you don't want to vote Obama, that's ok, but do you have to blame him for every action a person makes.

    Any person that is not on Clinton who does not support Clinton is somehow deranged? This is too much. Jeraldine Ferraro was never going to vote Obama in the first place.

    Do you all truly believe the Byrd being as one of the longest standing political minds is somehow delusional as well? Is every one delusional that does not support your candidate?

    I can't believe how one sided your views are about the people that will or will not support Obama or Hillary.

    Parent

    Can (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:09:37 AM EST
    Obama ever take responsibility?

    You don't realize that we have huge problems with Obama. We think he would be a terrible President. He's unqualified and divisive. He's condescending and arrogant. That has nothing to do with Hillary.

    Parent

    I agree with your prediction (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM EST


    Hope (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    Hillary: 70%
    Ojama:   29%
    Edfurd:  <1%

    Parent
    And you thought I was kidding (none / 0) (#116)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:24:36 PM EST
    HA!!!!

    Parent
    I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:12 AM EST
    how this will look if Hillary does win KY by over 30 pts and Obama wins OR by 13? I guess we'll hear about all those racists in KY but the wonderful voters in Or? Right?

    Denver in August (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Athena on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    Why was it OK for Ted Kennedy and Gary Hart to take their campaigns all the way to the convention?

    And Ted was challenging a sitting President!

    Women's Equality Day (the national holiday that marks women getting the vote) is on August 26 - during the convention.

    There's a great way to celebrate this year.

    I expect Hillary to go to the convention as a leading candidate and compete.  It's not over until the convention votes, people.

    Re HRC going all the way (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    to Denver, I have heard some scuttlebutt in the MSM and AAR about that recently.  Apparently, O backer Rachel Maddow seems to think Hillary has this in mind.  Me, I doubt it.  Too much party pressure to concede.

    As for Ted K in 1980, remember he could take it to the convention because he was running against the MSM-despised Jimmy Carter.

    Though after it was over, his top aide, Bob Shrum, wrote him an interesting memo detailing exactly how to behave wrt Carter on the stump -- in favor of re-election but "not too enthusiastic" about it ...

    Parent

    Why Not? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Athena on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    What's the downside?  Why not have a historic balloting process in Denver?

    I think that August 26 and its reminder that women fought to even get the right to vote argues for Hillary taking it all the way.

    Last time the Democrats were in Denver for their convention - 1908 - uh, women did not have the right to vote.

    History argues for seeing this female candidate stay in until a nominee is "elected" - not selected.

    That's August, in Denver.

    Parent

    I'm not arguing against it, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by brodie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    but merely noting how I suspect the party "elders" and probably a number of delegates and SDs will come out strongly against it.  

    Part of their calculations will be, not unreasonably, that it's a damn long time from the end of the final primaries to the convention (nearly 3 full months) time in which they would want our party united and decided on a nominee.

    The only way plausibly for HRC to counter this constant drumbeat to step aside and concede will be for her team to really pick up the pace in the media discussions and very aggressively take that case to the public.  From what I've seen lately, her surrogates and backers have been sending mixed signals about this, at best, certainly they've been lukewarm about taking the campaign that far.

    Me, I'd like to see her fight on, but I'm doubtful it will happen

    Parent

    So is the 40th anniversary of (none / 0) (#87)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:58:32 PM EST
    Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. Aug. 28. Which some people think is the day that the DNC intend to make sure Obama is nominated. So it boils down to which group the DNC thinks is more important in the GE, the 20% AA voting bloc, or the 51% women's voting bloc. Anyone want to bet on which bloc they pick?? Anyone?

    Parent
    Wow.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:44:11 PM EST
    You're making me wish there was a freedom extremist of lebanese/irish descent who likes to get high running so I could have a bloc to join.

    I feel so left out:)

    Parent

    It is a sad state in America (none / 0) (#108)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    Shouldn't this be about two presidential candidate and not about women, although we should be proud to have a woman running for president. This is why you all hate Obama so much, it is not that he would not be a great president, it is that he is not a female. Wow!

    I thought racism was bad in our country, it no longer top sexism from women that is. Maybe the males should create a man's organization. This has gotten to be the worst primary in the history of this country.

    Parent

    Yeah, oddly (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:29:51 AM EST
    I think the real effect of Edwards' endorsement of Obama will be that voting for Edwards will no longer be considered by voters to be a "protest vote", as it was in WV, and so Edwards' numbers will go down, and Hillary's likely go up a bit, to Hillary's benefit in terms of overall margin.

    Obama's Position On Iran Varies By State (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    Barack Obama, last night in Portland, on Iran: "They don't pose a serious threat to us."

    Barack Obama, earlier on the afternoon of May 19th, in Billings, Montana, on Iran: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

    The Fault

    The opinion of this candidates may vary based on audience preference.

    This guy is not to be believed. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:40:34 AM EST
    And you can take that both ways. ;-)

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST
    I watched the videos.  That is embarrassing.

    Parent
    Embarrassing And Ironic (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:03:02 PM EST
    One of the justifications for Obama running now rather than waiting until he had more experience was that the GOP could not use his record against him. IOW they couldn't accuse him of being a flip flopper.

    GOP won't need Senate records. Obama is going out of his way to provide the GOP hours upon hours of video proof of his statements and opinions flip flopping all over the place. Kerry will look consistent by  comparison.

    It will be interesting to see the WORM for this one.

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    that calling him a flip-flopper was one of the new rules that BO came up with that the GOP is not allowed to do. Along with going after Michelle and a few other things.

    Yeah, like the RNC is really going to listen just cos he says it.

    It's pathetic that even with no record to speak of, they'll be able to find such things so easily. He's like fish in a barrel, isn't he?

    Parent

    Ugh (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    double ugh. He hasn't got a clue. We're going to get shellacked if he's the nominee.

    Parent
    I wonder if Fox News has (none / 0) (#44)
    by zfran on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:55:01 AM EST
    picked up on this?!

    Parent
    All the mistatements (none / 0) (#109)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:19:49 PM EST
    He said the Iran was not as large as our enemy the sovient union and does not pose that kind of threat that the sovient union posed and therefore, why not talk to our enemies in Iran.

    Parent
    Kentucky prediction (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by liminal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST
    Hillary: 60.5%
    Obama: 31.5%
    Edwards: 3.5%
    Uncommitted: 4.5%

    (Note: "Uncommitted" is a choice on the Kentucky ballot.)

    So Obama gets the "uncommited" (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:43:16 AM EST
    votes, natch.

    Parent
    A colleague who voted for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    but now supports Obama just mentioned today's primaries in OR and, was it Kansas?  Funny.

    Obama on Iran (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by facta non verba on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:59:21 AM EST
    Again, Obama is telling different audiences different things and this time on the same day.

    Make Up Your Mind

    Don't they have a name for this? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    I can't remember - flub-flapper? No.  Flan-flamer? No. Flot-flubber?  No.

    Hmmmm....

    Parent

    The painful thing about Iran? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    Despite its tumultuous history, Iran has one of the most stable and democratic governments in the regions.  There's a lot of potential to be tapped there.  We need all the help we can get with Iraq.

    I look at Iran as a long term ally, if we can convince them that it is in their best interests to create a stable Middle East instead of making nuclear noises.  Unstable Iraq, huge refugee problems - not good for the ME, not good for Iran either.

    Parent

    Breaking News on Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by facta non verba on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:11:41 PM EST
    Senator Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor. The media is breaking the story now.

    The word is the tumor (none / 0) (#57)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    is inoperable.

    Parent
    How terrible (none / 0) (#61)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    I hope the doctors are mistaken somehow.

    Parent
    Oh no. (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:24:52 PM EST
    Best wishes to Senator Kennedy and his family.

    Parent
    Oh sad (none / 0) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:25:39 PM EST
    malignant brain tumor over the left ear.

    Parent
    End of an Era (none / 0) (#64)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    He wasn't perfect, but this is very sad.  It was always nice to have him on our side.  We will miss his presence here in MA as I'm sure people around the country will as well.

    Best wishes to him and his family.

    Parent

    Oh no (none / 0) (#84)
    by Emma on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    I'm so sorry, for Sen. Kennedy and his family.

    Parent
    Im Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruckus83 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:27:03 PM EST
    I am just beyond words at the level of hatred towards a Democratic candidate for President, thats all. I thought this was a Democratic left leaning blog but it seems Republicans outnumber me in here. I apologize for hurting your feelings.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#82)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:36:35 PM EST
    This is nothing compared to the longstanding pattern of hatred for Hillary Clinton on the supposedly liberal blogs.  I assume you regard all those people as Republicans as well.

    Parent
    You're not outnumbered (none / 0) (#97)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:45:04 PM EST
    by Republicans here, but more of us are becoming Independents daily.  You just might have convinced a few more.

    Parent
    I Wouldn't Dream (none / 0) (#7)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    of making a prediction.

    But I'd sure as hell settle happily for 62-31.

    I'm actually more interested in Oregon.  If she can keep the margin down there it would put a whole new face on this nomination.

    I heard that Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    is planning to give his speech well before the polls close in Oregon.

    Everyone repeat after me... (none / 0) (#90)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    Dear God,
    Please let Hillary win the Oregon primary, and have all her best numbers come in after Obama gives his victory speech. Please grant us this one boon, and we promise not to bother you with politics any more. Well, not too much, anyway. Thank You!!

    Parent
    God Bless Obama (none / 0) (#110)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    Heavenly Father, please teach women a lesson all around the world that you created us equally and you have compelled us to do what is right and to obey the laws of the land. Please make them understand that the rules are the rules no matter how many times you win after the game is over.

    Please let them accept the things in life that are right in their faces and hold on to those truths.

    Amen!

    And then Bless Barack Hussein Obama to be granted the nomination as he has followed the rules and earned the most pledged delegates, regardless of who feels otherwise.

    God Bless Obama

    Parent

    The game isn't over yet. Heh. /nt (none / 0) (#111)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:51:36 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by nell on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:52 AM EST
    a poster at TM who generally only posts good information says the internals in both KY and OR are NOT looking good for Clinton - KY will be much closer than they wanted/projected. I cannot verify if this is true, but the poster is a regular and generally has good information.

    So, please make calls if you can...

    Do you have a link to the comment or thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    where this appeared? I am a regular on
    TM and saw no such post from a trusted source.

    Parent
    I found it (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    I'm not sure I believe anyone who says they have access to internal polling numbers.

    Parent
    Yawp. (none / 0) (#43)
    by liminal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    And IIRC, there was a last minute "get on the phone!!!!" panic in West Virginia, as they were concerned about localized low turnout, but West Virginia had pretty good turnout.  We'll see.  I'm on the Kyohwva border, and after a day full of gloomy rain yesterday, it's a bit warmer, the sun is peaking through the clouds, and there's no rain.  All that's good for turnout.  

    Parent
    The internals in KY are not looking good? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    That frankly seems impossible.

    Parent
    Hillary camp expectations gaming? (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    Or just someone making sh*t up? Either way, I'm sure it's wrong.

    Parent
    Gaming is stupid (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:07:58 PM EST
    at this juncture in Kentucky.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#46)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    I also do not believe that internal numbers are readily available to your average, every day campaign volunteer.

    Parent
    I don't believe it. (none / 0) (#41)
    by sweetthings on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:52:40 AM EST
    Hillary will crush Obama in Kentucky. Demographics have been destiny this entire race. I see no reason why that would change now.

    Parent
    SD's should be accountable (none / 0) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:28:14 AM EST
    In thinking about the SD's and their decision making, it seems like many are choosing a candidate not based on either their own constituency or on electability. They are instead thinking about politics and what is most expedient for them. They are jumping on the bandwagon because it seems like there is only a price to pay right now if you choose the underdog. There is no price to pay if you choose Obama. Of course if they choose Obama and he wins the GE, then find and dandy. But what if they chose Obama and he looses the GE. There should be a price to pay.

    I think there should be a price to pay if they chose the lest likely to win in the GE and that candidate looses. How about if someone makes a list, and if Obama is nominated and then looses the GE, there should be a fund and an effort to replace those SD's that are politicians. After all, a big part of their job is to make wise decisions as SD's to ensure we get a Democrat in the white house.

    Perhaps if the SD's know this is going to happen, they'll think a little harder about their decision in August.

    Sue 'Em (none / 0) (#18)
    by Athena on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    I'd like a cause of action for electoral malpractice. Filed against Howard Dean, et al.

    Parent
    I think many are under incredible pressure (none / 0) (#71)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    from party bigs and constituents. One woman here finally gave in. I had seen veiled threats against her in letters to the local paper which then caused me to write them about printing that kind of letter. We've certainly seen that Dems are lacking in backbone anyway.

    Parent
    Hillary will (none / 0) (#36)
    by Binx on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:49:27 AM EST
    HRC will definitely win Kentucky by a large margin.

    Unless Obama discovered (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    the magic strategy for wooing and winning those hard working just folks, Hillary will win them.

    This late in the primary and Obama still has no plan for getting those voters, other than hoping they'll all just "come to Obama" in the GE.

    Hope is not a plan.

    Parent

    Hillary good for Obama? (none / 0) (#54)
    by thentro on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:13:53 PM EST
    If Obama does or does not get the nomination, I believe that Hillary was the best thing that ever happened to him. I remember what kind of campaigner he was before Iowa, well organized but couldn't take a hit. Now, after Months with just him and Hillary it has made him a better candidate and more prepared to face John McCain, who in my opinion is a far weaker candidate than Hillary. I think you will see more stories like this from Politico, "Obama 'stronger,' 'better' after struggle."

    That has been the media spin (none / 0) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    all along.  The media props him up no matter what happens to him, he's better (not after Wright his isn't), stronger (Clinton has the strength meme), he's getting delegates (while Clinton is getting voters) etc.  Obama has been weakening in demographics not strengthening, but the media will keep propping him up and frankly, flat out lying.  Obama is exhausted after an easier ride in the primary and is stronger?  uh... nope.

    Parent
    Positive (none / 0) (#80)
    by thentro on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:32:56 PM EST
    Not the media talking here, just me. I think Hillary gave him a hell of a ride in the primary, even if the media did not. Obama was a much weaker candidate before the campaign started, and he has Hillary to thank for it.

    Also happy to see BTD post this story on the front page too :)

    Parent

    edit (none / 0) (#81)
    by thentro on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    ...and he has Hillary to thank for his improvement

    Parent
    Paper Money is unfair to blind people (none / 0) (#56)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    LINK

    "A federal appeals court Tuesday ruled that the U.S. Treasury Department is violating the law by failing to design and issue currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a 2006 district court ruling that could force the U.S. to redesign its money so blind people can distinguish between values."

    Size? (none / 0) (#63)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:01 PM EST
    Doesn't it seem size would be the easiest way to do this?  You know, less technology so less cost...  Of course, if the solution is that easy, we know that is exactly how it won't be done.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    Size is exactly how you do it.  At least, that's how they do it in Namibia...  Works pretty well.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#70)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    What about standard wallet sizes?  And more importantly - vending machines and ATMs and such that take dollar bills?

    Might be interesting....

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:03:04 PM EST
    Well, you could standardize width and just change the length (vending machines).  ATMs in Namibia didn't have a problem dispensing cash.  And most wallets have wiggle room for the bill, plus, you could just make the new bills smaller.  I have also never had a problem fitting international money into my wallet...

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    Kentucky prediction (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:44:05 PM EST
    I'm going with 61/35/4.  Obama with 90% of 13% AA and 28.5% of the non-AA vote.  4 pts for Edwards.

    Is this a Right-wing Blog? (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruckus83 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    I thought this was a Liberal Blog and most people on here were Democrats, opps I guess not. Sorry to bother all of you McCain voting Republicans. My parents are hardline Republicans so I mean no harm.

    Sticks & stones . . (none / 0) (#89)
    by felizarte on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    calling me names will not keep me from voting Clinton; never Obama.

    Parent
    You must have the wrong number. (none / 0) (#95)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:38:57 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:39:13 PM EST
    he isn't trying to reach out to us. After telling us he either "expects" our vote or his surrogates telling us "we're not needed" we got the message long ago. Besides, even according to you, we're all "racists". Disgusting.

    Links? (none / 0) (#101)
    by minordomo on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    After telling us he either "expects" our vote or his surrogates telling us "we're not needed" we got the message long ago.

    If those are actual quotes, could you provide links please?

    Parent

    Can Senator Clinton still win the Nomination? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Kedar on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    I am really saddened (and bored) by constantly hearing people say that Hillary Rodham Clinton has already lost  --  Honestly, can Hillary R. Clinton still defeat Senator Obama and win the Democratic Nomination?

    NO (none / 0) (#115)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    Not if they abide by the rules initally setforth.

    The nomination is won by pledged delegates, not popular vote, and that is the truth.

    Parent

    Eastwood's Clinton remarks (none / 0) (#93)
    by nellre on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:36:35 PM EST
    More MSM crap

    article
    Headliner on Yahoo too

    The gist of Eastwood's comments was respectful, the headline was sexist.

    Clint Eastwood feels 'sorry' for Clinton


    Obama on Clinton (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:55:34 PM EST
    I thought this was nice:

    "No doubt there are certain burdens for Senator Clinton running as formidable but first time frontrunner as a woman, in the same way I've got to deal with some issues as an African-American. Ultimately I think the American people are fair minded and for those who would not vote either myself or Senator Clinton because of gender or race. There are those who are excited about the prospects of the first woman or African-American. There is no doubt there have been occasions where Senator Clinton has had to overcome particular hurdles and that is part of the groundbreaking nature of her campaign."

    I got this off of poltico, sorry, I am bad with links.... so I just cut and paste (in quotes so as not to plagiarize)

    They don't care (none / 0) (#113)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:20:24 PM EST
    They don't care, its all about the woman winning at any cost.

    Forget about the rest of the world.