Oregon Results Thread: Obama Wins

Update (TL) 9:12 pm MT: 17% in, CNN joins NBC in projecting Obama the winner.


(Big Tent Demorat): My understanding is that the telephone polling in Oregon shows a double digit (56-43) Obama win. I personally am not going to stay up following it too closely.

For some reason I feel it is going to be closer than expected, say 9? But I have no basis for that.

In any event, CNN results board for your perusal. Here are the CNN Oregon Exit Polls. BTW, Obama STILL has a working class voter problem in Oregon, despite the claims of the Obama News Network (NBC), Clinton win voters earning 30k or less by 54-43. Clinton wins non-college voters by 54-44.

Again, talk about Oregon or anything you like. J. is out celebrating a real life triumph, the TL Kid became a full fledged lawyer today, taking to oath.

Night all. My usual post mortems in the morning.

By Big Tent Democrat

Update (TL): I'm back. A big thanks to BTD for keeping the threads going tonight. I'll be here for the duration.

Comments now closed.

< Obama To Sort Of Declare Victory Tonight? | Hosting Provider Says Sites Down Wednesday AM >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'll say what the "phone poll" (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM EST
    said when CNN puts it up shortly.

    Here's where we are: (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:04:02 PM EST
    Obama 55.85%, Clinton 42.25%, according to the phone poll.

    Test on exit polling. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:05:23 PM EST
    For this kind of election.  

    Well, it's not an exit poll (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:06:39 PM EST
    it's just a well-run (we hope) phone poll. Just like what any pollster would do.

    "exit poll" (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:07:49 PM EST
    I bet the exit poll outfits are lobbying against mail in votes.

    Edison/Mitofsky does both (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:08:58 PM EST
    and a phone poll is frankly easier to organize. I'll bet they woudln't complain too much.

    With the DNC (Do Not Call) (none / 0) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:58 PM EST
    list, Caller ID, and cell phones replacing land lines, phone polling is going to get more and more challenging.

    Other states are moving toward all mail-in, too.


    DNC doesn't apply to polling (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:38:25 PM EST
    Your other concerns are valid, but so far there's never been a race where they've explained polling errors.

    Generally speaking, phone polls are pretty good. That's why campaigns spend a small fortune one them. (I know BTD sez that they all su*k, but whatev.)


    Voting by mail is great! (none / 0) (#216)
    by Newt on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:18:36 AM EST
    I hope other states take it up as well.  As an Oregonian, I can tell you that progressive candidates have historically taken a beating when it rains on voting day.  Not anymore.  Nowadays we throw parties and you have to come with your ballot in hand (no expectation of sharing how you voted, secrecy is still respected).  

    The parties/BBQs tend to get people talking about issues before actually voting, or people talk about the issues at the party.  Either way, we end up with a much higher percentage of voting Democrats than before mail-in and it seems like the average voter is more informed.  


    It won't be 9 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by blogtopus on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:05:17 PM EST
    even if it is 9.0001%.

    They'll claim it as 10 and bray about a 'double-digit' win. /s

    Yes, but. (none / 0) (#16)
    by kpatton1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:10:51 PM EST
    Both sides do this, you know.

    I'm not sure how you could criticize anybody for this.  It is politics, after all.


    Actually, no it's the hypocrisy. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:20:01 PM EST
    You mean... (none / 0) (#33)
    by mindfulmission on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:19:31 PM EST
    ... how everyone said Hillary won Indiana by 2%, even though it was really 1.1%?

    A win is a win (none / 0) (#36)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:20:18 PM EST
    period. end of story.

    umm... (none / 0) (#53)
    by mindfulmission on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:24:24 PM EST
    ... that wasn't my point.  blogtopus was complaining about how a 9.1% win would be spun as a 10% win for Obama, and I pointed out that the same thing happened in Indiana, but benefiting Clinton.

    But sure... go ahead and spin it around to mean something that I wasn't even talking about.


    sorry... (none / 0) (#57)
    by mindfulmission on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:25:38 PM EST
    ... that should be 9.00001 or something like that.  :)

    how in the heck (none / 0) (#124)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:59:19 PM EST
    is that spinning?

    damn you people are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO hyper-critical.


    Someone already explained this (none / 0) (#219)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:31:08 AM EST
    but here goes attempt number two. Traditionally, when the media report election returns they round each candidates percentages to whole numbers. They then take the difference between these two whole numbers and that is listed as the percentage lead of one candidate over another.

    Thus, when Clinton won 50.56% of the vote in the Indiana primary, the number was rounded up to 51%, since 50.56 is greater than half way between 50 and 51. And when Obama got 49.44% of the vote, the number was rounded down to 49% because 49.44 is less than half way between 49 and 50. So then, 51% minus 49% leaves a difference of 2%. This is standard, nothing out of the ordinary.

    The media has always done the conputations this way. But some well known Obama bloggers decided that the convention needed to be overturned when Obama lost Pennsylvania because it made them feel better to say that Obama lost 54.6 to 45.3, or by 9.3 percent, so that they could claim it wasn't a double digit loss.  Before that I am aware of no one who was petty enough to care about stating election percentages to the tenth, in order to assuage their own feelings.


    A "Blow Out" by Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:06:09 PM EST
    is the lead in to the local news. They are now on Teddy as the main story but I'm looking forward to hearing more about the "Blow Out"  ;)

    Oh, and DWTS was a fun show tonight. I'm guessing by the comments in the other thread it beat the heck outta watchin' Obama, lol!~

    NYC local ABC news had Obama winning majority (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:14:52 PM EST
    of pledged delegates tonight, but said Clinton contested this take on things.

    Map, not math for me.


    Same station :) (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:28:56 PM EST
    They led in before the news with that followed by the shirtless Jason Taylor. I'll take the shirtless Jason Taylor TYVM!  :D

    Fine, more Christiąn for me :-) (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:42:58 PM EST
    Actually, I don't follow the show but I've absorbed the Jason / Christiàn wars from random sibs and co-workers.

    In closing, WOW.


    John King is amazed (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:07:11 PM EST
    that votes mailed in weeks ago can already be counted.  God.

    NBC as you would expect (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    calls it for Obama.. the only network to do so. Candies for their staff..

    ok candies for Wolf too. (none / 0) (#17)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:11:53 PM EST
    Hee hee hee (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:12:04 PM EST
    I love open threads.  Allows for a little mischief (not much).

    I think that MT may go more for Hill than BHO.  SD, Daschle will try to deliver that for BHO.  It would be fabulous if it fell flat on his face that it didn't come to pass.

    A losing Democratic senator trying to shore up a solidly red state.  We can all look forward for SD to be put in the win column in Nov for BHO.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:16:46 PM EST
    Well Montana in recent years has seen an influx of a lot of the wine track liberals fleeing the urban centers.  A western version of Vermont in the making.

    I would think (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:23:06 PM EST
    Bozeman may be pretty good territory for Obama.  Didn't know about the changing demographics and the influx of the creative class/wine-sipping types.

    However, there are surely more natives there than this group.  Wishful thinking but I hope that they equate Hillary's strength with an Emersonian style of just doing it for yourself way, much like those in the West are perceived to be.


    so many wine-sippers who want ranches (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:29:45 PM EST
    that the locals cannot afford housing.  Ted Turner and some pals set up a fund to help subsidize middle class, working MT's who want to buy homes because they can't afford them on their own.

    He's ahead in MT right now, (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by eleanora on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:28:41 PM EST
    by @eight points last poll I saw, and has been blanketing our state with ads. We don't watch much tv at our house, but I've already gotten completely sick of them. Haven't seen one ad for Hillary yet, hope she gets enough $ tonight to do a few. Too many ads actually tends to backfire here, even candidates with lots of cash learn to go easy.

    I so wish Gov Schweitzer and Senator Baucus would go ahead and declare for Hillary. Scuttlebutt says they're in her corner, but it would really help to have that boost so they could campaign for her. Haven't heard one way or another about Tester.


    300 plus million dollars and it's still a tie (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:31 PM EST
    Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:12:14 PM EST
    No surprise.

    A surprise would have been nice (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:14:56 PM EST
    On to Puerto Rico!

    Let's blow Chris Matthews' mind!!!


    Oregon (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:13:52 PM EST
    Obama cleaning up in Multnomah (Portland) and Lane (Eugene) Counties.  Hillary competitive in Marion (Salem) and tied in Wasco.

    Congratulations to TL-Kid, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:13:58 PM EST

    Ditto. You must be so proud and happy, Jeralyn. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:16:28 PM EST
    Ditto. Congratulations! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:20:27 PM EST
    So far, they've counted (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:16:02 PM EST
    Portland and the college counties (marked with Eugene/Salem (Corvalis)).

    That's where (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:19:30 PM EST
    everyone lives.  

    Wow lots of empty land in Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:21:46 PM EST
    I mean no one lives out there.

    Oh wait, or is this the new "map" where any area no overwhelmingly not supporting Sen Obama gets erased from the map (a-la KY, WVA, FL, MI)?


    Maybe someone can guess on OR (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:26:52 PM EST
    but I know that in MT, the population is so low and the state so big that every person could stand alone with one square mile of empty space around them.

    OR has 3.7 million people.  KY has 4.2mm.  


    In Montana, we have less than a million (none / 0) (#82)
    by athyrio on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:32:52 PM EST
    folks in the entire state which is the 4th largest state in the union land wise....the latte set live in the west mostly....My hubby and I already voted absentee and for Hillary....:-)

    Hence the horse reference in your name! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:34:01 PM EST
    Exactly Kathy!! We raise horses as a hobby (none / 0) (#103)
    by athyrio on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:42:07 PM EST
    as well on our section....Love it here....

    Okay, it's time to hear from MUSA (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:46:40 PM EST
    'cause you have lots of moose there, too, right?

    Let's see if they can call the primaries as well as Kathy's cats.  No actually polling required; just see if the mooses can call this horse race for us!


    Nope lots of empty land (none / 0) (#64)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    Eastern Oregon is mostly mountains and desert.  A couple of pockets of towns but not a whole heck of a lot.

    A good majority (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:20:34 PM EST
    of folks live there, but since they haven't counted rural areas yet, it's going to get much closer.

    I'll stick (none / 0) (#42)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:21:44 PM EST
    with my 15 point win.  

    Everyone who "counts" (none / 0) (#41)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:21:31 PM EST
    to Obama, you mean -- cause it is only 30% of the vote per Fox & CNN.

    What? (none / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:22:58 PM EST
    Where did I say that certain votes count?

    20% of the population of Oregon is in the Portland area.  


    You don't know the meaning of (none / 0) (#55)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:25:06 PM EST
    "everyone" either?

    Wasco 50 50 71percent reporting (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Prabhata on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST
    Maybe the rural vote will be closer and make BO's win less than 10.  I hope so.

    Congrats (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:17:03 PM EST
    Criminal defense I hope?

    yes, criminal defense (5.00 / 7) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:27:33 PM EST
    with a great Denver firm specializing in it. He's been clerking there for 6 months and they offered him an associate's position last month. He's thrilled. He's been doing federal crack cocaine sentence reduction motions all month so it gives us a lot to chat about.

    Can't wait to watch him in court.


    Thats amazing (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Jgarza on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:07 PM EST
    My mother, single mother, got her PhD while When i was in my teens.  I know it really helped me when I was in college.  I also know it helped my brother when he went to law school(also criminal defense).  I'm sure the example of your achievement meant a lot to talkleft kid.

    how wonderful to see (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:32:11 PM EST
    all your hard work and love and sacrifice embodied by such a wonderful young man.

    May I share? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by suisser on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:18:56 PM EST
    Emailed popular WNYC radio host to point out numerous errors he made today regarding HRC, ie "she campaigned in FL" , " Broke rules" "Is 20 Mil in debt to herself" and on and on

    I get this back

    "It's a talk show and I misspoke. Listeners called in and corrected me.
    That sort of thing happens when a guest doesn't show up and you're
    forced to ad lib with no preparation. It wasn't part of a misinformation
    campaign and it wasn't like I was claiming I had ducked bullets on the
    airport tarmac in Bosnia."

    2 cheers for the media say I

    Sheesh (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:20:50 PM EST
    Aren't you picky expecting folks to hae their fact straight before they speak? ;)

    Jeralyn, congrats to you and your son.


    whoa... (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Tess on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:24:30 PM EST
    What a knucklehead!  And this is what they call journalism?  

    There was a time in a galaxy far far away when you'd get fired for a comment like that!



    The "Big Rally" in Oregon (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Leisa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:19:32 PM EST
    Here is the a very probable reason for the turnout for Obama on Sunday...

    This makes me feel more hopeful that this will be a tight race.

    Propaganda at it's finest (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:22:12 PM EST
    and what we can expect from an Obama campaign and administration.

    I read this somewhere else (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:23:50 PM EST
    but did not hear one news person mention it.

    Wow, just like Bush's Potemkin rallies (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:06:54 PM EST
    Ideally some semi-awake journalist will see if the free (unmentioned) concert had free beer too. Any coverage I saw made it seem like all those people were drawn to Obama's magical Hope You Got Change platform.

    John King just said "Sen Clinton can't win by any traditional math!"

    What the frackety farkin FRACK???

    The Dems need to explain this or step in and issue a correction.


    I saw a lot of photos that made it look (none / 0) (#187)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM EST
    like a cross between Woodstock and a frat party.  Lots of boyz without shirts on but lots of paint on their hairless chests.  Ugh.

    That's a major difference from Clinton rallies.  We don't go topless. :-)


    You're now... (none / 0) (#203)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:04:01 AM EST
    ...linking to stories promoted by Robert Knight???

     I mean....that...is...something.  Not sure what to call it, but something.  

     Celebrate Senator Clinton's win in KY, but don't promote Knight, of all people.  


    When did right winger (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:22:07 PM EST
    Gergen become the big Civil Rights fighter, telling Hillary what to do.  

    But isn't it just great for them? (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:26:21 PM EST
    ...they can wipe away years of bigotryand intolerance on their parts by this one vote for Obama. It's like being born again.

    That conversation offended me. She should (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Teresa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:29:38 PM EST
    tell any racists out there that she doesn't want their vote? Will Obama tell the anti-woman vote the same? I voted for HC and I volunteered a lot of my time for Harold Ford here in TN. It's not his race, it's what he speaks for. I say speaks because I'm still not sure what he stands for.

    If they had asked me, I would have said race is important to me...it's a huge leap forward for our country. But I would still have voted for Hillary.


    I was offended as well (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:43:12 PM EST
    It made me change the chanell and run from the room. Gergen asserting that the race issue and the Wright issue is something Hillary has to fix.

    And then Toobin saying Hillay needs to look at the larger picture.


    Why the F*** does she have to (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:03:18 PM EST
    fix everything? Let Mr. Unity do it. It's his schtick.

    I'm e-mailing them.. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by kc on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:14:09 PM EST
    even though I didn't see it. I've been boycotting CNN and MSNBC for a while now.

    Not that my e-mails achieve anything, but it makes me feel that I am doing something. What a double standard.


    No one should tell racists not to vote for Hillary (none / 0) (#221)
    by Newt on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:44:20 AM EST
    but Hillary should not encourage racism either.

    "...hard-working Americans, white Americans..."

    I'm sure you've covered this on another thread.  


    I have the tv on mute (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    I can see the #s on the bottom of the screen just fine without the comments from the peanut gallery.

    Stella, (none / 0) (#75)
    by Lil on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    that segment just made me sick. Racism: IACF and they are to a person talking about her being out. I'm just sick. expletive again deleted. They all make me sick, especially Gergen. And the condescending attitude about Clinton having a long career ahead of her...

    Welllll..... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Spike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:30:58 PM EST
    Remember that right winger Gergen worked in the Clinton White House.

    So, you are saying he's an Obama supporter? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:03 PM EST
    An Obamacan....only after the NC poll with (none / 0) (#95)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    Hillary winning with the help of Republican women we need to come up with a name for Clinton repubs.

    republican women for Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:41:12 PM EST
    Let's call them what they are:  winners.

    "I'm going to keep making our case until we have a nominee, whoever she may be."

    No Idea (none / 0) (#104)
    by Spike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:42:32 PM EST
    I have no idea who Gergen is supporting. Someone asked why Gergen was trying to advise Clinton. I was only pointing out that Gergen was an advisor to Bill Clinton. I assume that he and Hillary Clinton are friends.

    With friends like that..... (none / 0) (#202)
    by miriam on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:04:00 AM EST
    Gergin has made several sexist remarks about Clinton.  But tonight was just plain disgusting.  Hillary is supposed to march around telling people not to vote for her if they are racists????  (My previously low blood pressure is really hurting from this campaign.)  Has anyone like Gergin suggested that Barack Obama should tell voters he doesn't want their votes if they are sexist?



    He's a Republican. (none / 0) (#81)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:32:41 PM EST
    Gee, Gergen isn't a right-winger (none / 0) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:29:33 PM EST
    He's a middle-of-the-road straddler.  He was in Bill Clinton's White House for a while, remember?

    Kudos To Jeralyn's Kid (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:23:03 PM EST
    What a joy it is when you know they're going to be okay.

    All ways the high road for Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:23:51 PM EST
    CNN panel saying she should tell her supporters IF you are voting for me because Obama is Black.. then I don't want your vote..

    Again they are calling Hillary supporters racist.. I just don't get these pundits..

    Gergen particularly (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:25:38 PM EST
    the old geezer Republican telling anyone to "take the high road"

    He used to be (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by MonaL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:08:56 PM EST
    pretty centrist until he fell into the kool-aid tank for Obama.  I don't think he realizes how really obvious his love for BO is. Not much credibility anymore.  Toobin on the other hand, seems to be playing devils' advocate often.  He's a nice contrast to the rest of them.

    IMHO, Toobin is nuts (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:39:24 PM EST
    He's trying, but he said earlier tonight that his prediction was that Obama would get Chelsea (not a typo) to play a huge role in his GE campaign and thus heal the wounds.

    I have no idea why he's allowed to pontificate on politics.  He's a decent legal analyst, but simply isn't competent on political stuff, I think.


    Obama's supposed to "pimp" (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:06:47 AM EST
    the Clintons' daughter now?  What will David Shuster have to say about that?

    I wish the Gergens and other guys having their male midlife crisis meltdowns all over the toob would just retract their claws, put down their teacups, and periodically make some sense.


    The educated dummies---people (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:26:00 PM EST
    who think they are better than the "rifraf" because of a degree.

    So should Obama tell his AA supporters the same (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:26:11 PM EST
    thing....why is it always Hillary has to come to the rescue.  Never once has anyone called on him to make things right. Furious.

    oh because she is the big MOM of the party (none / 0) (#115)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:53:32 PM EST
    can they NOT discuss the sexist issue with same (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:30:53 PM EST

    I hope they also said Obama should tell his (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by bridget on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:45:57 PM EST
    supporters IF you are voting for me because Hillary is a woman and not black ... then I don't want your vote.

    Which one of those highminded pundits said that?

    I guessed it. Zero.


    Wow, CNN (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Lil on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:26:39 PM EST
    I wish I had a number to call CNN right now. Just wow. Yeah we are all racist because we vote for Clinton. And Donna Brazille gets to sit there being all quiet...wow, just wow. I'm sick and really doubt the party is gonna get unified anytime soon.

    yes the core democrat (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    constituents especially we the working class white voters are racist.. get over with it.. and one more thing.. the leaders of this party are sexist.. I know I have to live with that.

    Speak for yourself (none / 0) (#151)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:17:13 PM EST
    I'm not now, nor have I ever been racist.

    Boycott them people... (none / 0) (#161)
    by kc on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:26:29 PM EST
    Hit them where it counts----ratings/money.

    Nope. I've decided that as the Dems (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:10:38 AM EST
    have decided that I'm racist, I'm going to stop donating and working for my African American member of Congress, my African American local officials and judges, and I'm just going to save my money and time.  Maybe I'll spend it on Jeff Foxworthy CD's.

    Then, when white males win all those seats I worked for here, maybe the white males on tv will stop intoning at me that I'm a racist.  Because when they return the white males to their rightful place in the world, and we only have white males again in office, there will be no racism again.  That's how it works in their miniscule minds.


    Donna may be hearing us (none / 0) (#135)
    by MonaL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:06:06 PM EST
    She did concede that HRC supporters were passionate and they'd be very important in the GE (or words to that effect).  She, or maybe all of the DNC are getting it, don't dismiss Hillary, don't take us for granted or we walk. It's finally sinking in.

    Congratulations to Jeralyn and her son (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by athyrio on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM EST
    on such a wonderful achievement!!! So happy for you both!!!

    Ditto, good news for you. congrats (none / 0) (#88)
    by Lil on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:54 PM EST
    Oar-uh-gone (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:29:22 PM EST
    I hope that the actions of the NARAL chapter in OR would have been an vote changer.

    Since NARAL is a liberal organization, and OR is a pretty liberal state, it would give those there pause...like, "I wonder why they aren't jumping on the Obama bandwagon?"  "Maybe they know something I don't?" "Why are they rejecting the national endorsement?"

    It would certainly make me pick up the phone and call NARAL and ask them why.  It would have been a fair question.

    BTD was close (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Melchizedek on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:51 PM EST
    9 points was just about it. Well, we can at least pretend.

    Crazy. Gergen says Hill should tell her voters (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:36:50 PM EST
    don't vote for me because I am white.  No word on BO telling white liberal men don't vote for me because I'm a man.

    That was funny (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MonaL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:02:23 PM EST
    Did you see how really quiet and serious he was when he said it.  In a later segment, Begala said, "uh, I don't think a white woman who's running behind should say that."  Jamal even agreed with Paul.  Great moments in pundit-head TV.

    Earlier than that Toobin thought it'd be great if Chelsea started campaigning for BO, the rest of the panel looked at him like, "are you crazy?"  another great moment.


    lots of late votes (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Robert Oak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:39:11 PM EST
    so while I expected Portland to be the stronghold and it still might be it looks like stoner Eugene are the ones who really voted for Obama heavily.  ...once again yet another college town sort of area and unfortunately DeFazio (who I love, fantastic rep) endorsed Obama.

    60,000 (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:41:33 PM EST
    Obama's lead with about 50% in is 60,000 votes.  If he doubles that to 120,000, Hillary still will have netted 130,000 votes on the day.

    Nada.. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:49:27 PM EST
    50% of the precincts already reported seem to be all in the pop. heavy western corridor. Methinks he won't gain much more.. Here's hoping :-)

    Spoke too soon.. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST
    Eugene and Portland still seem to be coming in heavily for Obama.. so he could still rack up big numbers there. Sigh. The 'entitled generation' is firmly in his corner -- LOL!

    MSNBC Follies (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Decal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:43:36 PM EST
    Chris Matthews interviewing alleged independent commentator Michelle Bernard (a Hillary hating Republican).  Matthews asks about Hilary's complaints about sexism (he never uses the word media of course).  Bernard says the constant complaints about it from the Clinton camp aren't helping.  She then contrasts that with how the Obama campaign has completely refrained from talking about racism!  Matthews seemingly assents to all this.  What color is the sky in MSNBC world?  

    there is no sky in MSNBC world (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:46:37 PM EST
    only big dart boards with Clintons face on them.  They have lost all credibility, the only reason to watch occassionally is for the comedy value.  But I have boycotted Keith's show completely.

    Ministry of Truth n/t (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:48:45 PM EST
    This is excellent (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by MonaL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:55:39 PM EST
    Hillary's camp thought they'd lose OR by high double-digits.  I was expecting 19-20 points.  If it ends up at 13-15 points, I'm thrilled.

    And she still wins the less-educated, blue-collar vote not matter how the Obama News Channel tries to spin it.  I'm really glad I don't have to spend 2 hours of my day watching KO and Tweety anymore.

    Clinton/Obama 08!

    I was just thinking that! (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by eleanora on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:02:56 PM EST
    I thought she was expected to lose OR by at least 20 points, maybe more. So anything in the teens is pretty sweet o/

    Donna says they might reduce the penalty for MI/FL (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:55:46 PM EST

    Isn't that sweet. I say count no (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:57:22 PM EST
    votes from FL for Obama, since he advertised heavily there.

    The rulez (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:02:04 PM EST
    only apply when they benefit the Annoited One, you silly.

    If Donna doesn't look happy lately it must be because she's taken a look at the electoral maps. It appears there are an awful lot of "racist" states that won't vote for Obama in an Obama McCain head to head.


    when 8 in 10 Clinton voters... (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:07:18 PM EST
    say they'd be DISsatisfied if Obama were the nominee; about 60% of Clinton voters in Oregon said the same... you know why Donna is so gloomy.. the SD's would also be looking for some answers WHY?

    I've been saying this all along (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:04:47 PM EST
    The penalty for Florida is going to be 50%, just like it should have been from the beginning, just like the Republicans did for their primary. All of this uncertainty could have been avoided if they just set the penalty up front.

    But If It Had Been that from the Beginning (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    Then Clinton might have gotten a bump from the Florida result like McCain did.  No, better to keep your thumb on the scale until four days before the primaries end.

    I remember MSNBC... (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:38:39 PM EST
    ...totally ignoring the FL results that night.

    I couldn't believe they weren't even running the vote totals on the crawl.


    Yeah, like that was an accident (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by lambertstrether on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:03:36 AM EST

    LOL: CNN reverse spin on Obama's 'victory' speech (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:57:59 PM EST
    Tonight's planned IOWA victory speech -- :: snivel :: Where it all began!! -- wasn't to declare victory in a Mission Accomplished self-oronatation, but to celebrate that he can "see the finish line!"

    WOO HOO. I used to run track and I gotta tell you, pausing 6/8 of the way to flex and prance around like a feckin eedjit always worked for me.

    oh wait ...

    The tortoise and the hare! (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:14:43 AM EST
    Your track metaphor cracked me up -- and reminded me of the story of the tortoise and the hare.  Remember, the hare is so over-confident that he stops along the way to preen . . . while the tortoise just keep steadily moving along.  And wins.

    I think I just must celebrate the start of summer with a turtle sundae tomorrow -- but I'm going to think of it as a Hillary Clinton sundae. :-)


    Fox heavy on the sexism (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:58:58 PM EST
    discussion tonight.  Earlier joint ticket.  Now sexism in the campaign and how Clinton has been treated.  How she had to prove she was tough, then prove she was sensitive. Edwards guy called out, NH when E and O jumped on Clinton.... you're likeable enough (everyone sighed, someone went sspppphst, that one was bad)

    I like watching Fox.  I see exactly where they are going in how they are praising Clinton.  They will be able to go after Obama for denying the choice of the (working class) people for VP, go after him for his personal sexism (women), being elitist (men), how tough she is (Obama not?), he's now the machine candidate with the backing of the party elite (not change at all) interesting themes all in one night.

    I STILL don't like or trust FOX (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:05:50 PM EST
    Anyone who argues in court they don't HAVE an obligation to report the truth loses the right to call themselves a news network IMO. TV is strictly entertainment in this house.

    I don't trust Fox either (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:28:59 PM EST
    they're no friends to Democrats, they're jumping on the sexism theme because they want to promote division in the Party.  You can often take their spin as the harbinger of Repub campaign themes.  So, even though I don't know how any single one of them will be able to say it with a straight face, I expect Republicans to play up the Obama is misogynist angle as much as possible.

    This Is Part of How They Will Run Against Him (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:23:49 PM EST
    and it will be somewhat successful if only because it's true.  They will then combine it with their untrue slurs to give them credibility,

    I'll say this for them, the GOP know how to win - or at least be competitive - in presidential elections even in bad years for them.  The Dems often seem to prefer the noble loss.


    nothing noble i can see (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by sancho on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:31:05 PM EST
    about losing with obama, the noble vote-suppressor of michigan and florida. i know he's had help but he's the "leader" of the stomp-the-voters campaign team.

    McCaskill falsely Targets Ferraro (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:03:19 PM EST
    it is bitterly disappointing to me that a woman like Geraldine Ferraro would actually publicly say she is thinking about supporting John McCain,

    Ferraro said she won't vote for Obama.. she did not say she will vote for McCain..

    When a person falsely implicates you as a racist.. while himself acting in the most sexist behavior.. I don't see how she could reward that person.. perhaps McCaskill should take the high road and acknowledge Ferraro's contributions to the greater cause than go for the mudsling that she is adept at.

    McCaskill makes me embarrassed (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:07:40 PM EST
    to be a woman. Whadda moron.

    You said it! (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:43:03 PM EST
    I find it bitterly disappointing (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by janarchy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:49:53 PM EST
    that a newly elected senator to the US Senate acts like a fawning teenager over a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, says she only is supporting him because her 18 yr old daughter told her she had to and then makes statements about the only Democratic president elected to two terms in the past 50 years like 'I wouldn't let my daughter be in a room alone with him'.

    McCaskill is not worthy to say a word (none / 0) (#215)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:17:31 AM EST
    about Ferraro.  Not a word.

    But then, maybe the teenage daughter who told her to back Obama now text-messaged Mommy McCaskill and told her to be mean to a former Congresswoman, the historic first woman ever on a major-party ballot.

    I thank the goddess that I am not a Missourian, every time that McCaskill opens her mouth.


    Oregon's dem turnout (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:07:09 PM EST
    was frighteningly low, while KY's was high.

    Supers...are you paying attention?

    they will come to senses when they will (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:08:18 PM EST
    lose the GE AGAIN.

    That's (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Nadai on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:32:39 PM EST
    what I thought the last time.

    Now showing the turnout (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:08:53 PM EST

    Why do you say (none / 0) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:20:02 PM EST
    Dem turnout was low in Oregon?  I looked at registration statistics, and it looks like turnout was fairly high.

    The Oregon (none / 0) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:24:24 PM EST
    Democratic registration is 869,538.

    I'm projecting that about 840,000 people voted, which is actually a VERY high turnout.


    Whoops (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:26:58 PM EST
    My projection is 809,663 voted.  Forgot to update some numbers.

    I'm also projecting that Clinton will come away with about 121,000 votes...of course, as KOS and CNN say, all of those are very bad people ;-).


    On CNN's Kentucky map (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:30:37 PM EST
    I can't help but notice that Huckabee does better against McCain than Obama does against Clinton in some counties.

    It's neither here nor there, just thought it was a bit amusing.

    CNN: John King declared Clinton run all but dead (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:31:21 PM EST
    BO spin doctor said superdelegates have promised to follow declared dems.

    Candy Crowley points out 17 million DEM voters behind her ... superdeez not on the record don't want this to go to Denver and according to her sources will [follow pledged delegates] and "fall in line for Barack Obama."

    Larry King merely looks confused that a blond woman is being eulogized who is not Anna Nicole Smith.

    I think it's time to call the Dems and demand why DNC leadership, insiders and SuperD's aren't on the record if they don't want this to go to the convention.

    Either Obama should close this officially if he has won, or Dems should insist that Clinton's participation be covered fairly and treated as legitimate.

    I'm becoming more certain that my participation in the General AT ALL, including in other races, depends on blunt, straightforward, official statement from Dem leadership on this.

    ZERO tolerance for sexism, racism and insulting Dem voters for this fraud.

    You missed chuck todd's math lesson (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:38 PM EST
    apparently it's OK for supers in states that Hillary won to vote against her

    If Clinton actually wants the nomination now (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:48:29 PM EST
    she needs advocates out there pushing for here, saying that she has actually WON---that the popular vote shows she is the Democrats' choice.
    That and the fact Obama has tanked since Mar 1 makes a case.
    I'm not sure she's actually trying to win now. I think she is trying to force her way on the ticket.. and Obama would be a fool not to let her on.

    Can someone give me a good reason (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by suisser on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:00:47 AM EST
    why HRC would want the VP?  Other than being a too loyal Democrat.

    Because she knows now (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:07:12 AM EST
    as I know that a woman can't win a presidential election.

    Women are second class citizens in this country.


    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:07:50 AM EST
    VP is better than nothing, which is what a woman will get otherwise.

    yea I get the feeling she's soft pedaling (none / 0) (#193)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:53:52 PM EST
    her advocates could be making a much stronger case for her on the airwaves but they seem to know something we don't about where this is all headed.

    If I had to make a bet, from my observations and reading the tea leaves, it appears that they have agreed to a joint ticket already.  Obama/Clinton.

    Just feels that way, especially over the last couple of days since the directive went out to be nice to Clinton supporters and the speech by Obama tonight.


    No, She's Not Taking the VP Spot (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by cdalygo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:15:03 AM EST
    Listen to her speech tonight. She outlined why she is best positioned to win the GE. She took numerous shots at press and pundits. She reassured her supporters that she is not giving up.

    Yes she stressed Party Unity but that was directed at the Obama people who may soon wake up to an ugly truth. Look how few states he has won since March 5, 2008. Look at the total votes she racked up in states we need to carry. Look at how he needs to ensure the party disenfranchise Michigan and Florida in order to carry on this farce.

    Despite one of the biggest snow jobs in history this a viable race. Will we ever convince the MSM? No. But much like they have done since March 5, 2008 the voters will continue to ignore the MSM.

    Really the choice is Obama's right now. Continue to piss of major portions of the party or come around to a joint ticket with him as VP (however unwilling many HRC supporters are to see that occur. That's who to and why she was pushing the unity argument, IMHO.) Or his third choice of walking off and expecting to take over 2012 (but he knows she would cakewalk in the fall, unlike him, and that will relegate to him completely to the side when hype wears completely off).

    Remember, nothing Hillary says is not well thought out . . .


    Well, this talk of joint appearances (none / 0) (#195)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:55:32 PM EST
    before August makes  little sense if they are still competing for the nomination.
    I would be satisfied if she took the VP slot. I think it would be a winning ticket.

    I would not be satisfied. She (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:02:15 AM EST
    needs to be on the top of the ticket or it will be a losing ticket.

    I really, really hope you are wrong (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:03:17 AM EST
    If HRC jumps on this ticket, she is wasting her strength on weakness.

    You all have already conceded that he's been tanking since March 1.  What strength does he bring to a ticket? He's already slowly going under on his own.  What does he bring?  His vast experience?  His great associations?  His credibility?  What?  (Yes, yes, I know: the money he is raising. But if that is such a great advantage -- why didn't he win Kentucky?)

    There are several scandals brewing that the Republicans are waiting to launch.  If they are what I think they are, he won't be able to sweet-talk his way out of them, and I would hate to see her lose credibility by trying.  

    Jeremiah Wright's book comes out this fall. I suspect Wright knows exactly how closely Obama hewed to his worldview.  If you want an indication of what's to come, read the current article online in the National Review.

    Please, please, please no Unity Ticket.  Let him go down without taking others with him.  There is still 2012 to think of, and we can't waste all the eligible Dems on this loser.


    It is political reality. I do not see how (none / 0) (#208)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:08:58 AM EST
    she can win the nomination AND win in November. Obama obviously can win the nomination, but he will be severely hampered if he  doesn't have Hillary on the ticket.
    I hope I am wrong about her chances, of course.
    I don't think I am wrong that an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a winner though.

    Then he should lose it on his own! (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by RalphB on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:14:52 AM EST
    No reason to take her down with him.  

    It would be much much better (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:08:44 AM EST
    for her to build her resume in the Senate, perhaps as majority leader.  That way she will still have something when the Dems go under this November. That way there she can start working on the Democratic future in 2009.  

    Besides, he's already proven he doesn't like working much.  I would hate to see her doing his work.  I don't want to see her being anyone's workhorse. He's going to need someone to carry his books and do his homework. Please, please, please -- since he's so misogynist, can't he find a man to do his work for him?

    if she doesn't get the nomination (none / 0) (#213)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:16:20 AM EST
    being the VP candidate has tremendous upside for Hillary Clinton.  Obama has some skeletons in his closet and he remains unvetted.  If Obama were to truly "implode" either before or after the election, Hillary would be ready to step right up and save the day.  I think Hillary's chances to eventually become President are very high as Obama's VP.

    If she gets out of the picture completely, the party will move on without her and push the Clinton family to the curb for good.  She will have no clout whatsoever.  Not really as much as she would have as VP.  And as VP she can travel the world with Bill and work on much needed diplomatic efforts, fight for the causes of women, etc.  It's a good thing.

    Problem is that I don't see Obama being electable on the top of the ticket.  But it's still probably a 40/60 bet.


    Comments Now Closed (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:34:09 AM EST
    Thanks for the congrats to the TL Kid. Yes, we're smiling from ear to ear. Here's a picture.

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by nell on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:05:00 PM EST
    it will be a double digit win, I predict 14 points. My best hope for her is that she breaks even in the popular vote tonight.

    Yep. I'm expecting a 14-17% Obama win (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:10:08 PM EST
    ...and I, too, hope that Hillary breaks even or even maintains a lead in the popular vote net tonight.

    He's definitely going to win decisively. But it's not going to come near Hillary's 35 point trouncing of him in KY.


    13.6%, according to the phone poll. (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:05:43 PM EST
    I have 13 pts (none / 0) (#92)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:36:43 PM EST
    I am watching to see how much of the gain Clinton made in KY Clinton can keep.  If the 40% trend holds, turnout will be higher in OR, about 860k.  Clinton needs low turnout and low pt spread.  If she gets 13 pts on 860, she will still gain over 120k.

    Obama up 16 (none / 0) (#8)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:06:18 PM EST
    with 11% of the vote in.  

    Congrats! (none / 0) (#13)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:08:58 PM EST
    To jeralyn's son.  Way to go!

    When it's over (none / 0) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:17:26 PM EST
    what will you do with your time and energy?

    are you talking about the TL kid (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:19:13 PM EST
    hanging his own shingle or the elections being over?

    The primaries (none / 0) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:20:24 PM EST
    I suppose I'll go back to my rich and full life (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:22:25 PM EST
    Actually, it'll either be over for me in August or November.  I am thinking November is looking more likely after Clinton's Big Win tonight, though!

    Otherwise, I'll be in Europe come election time.


    Darn good question (none / 0) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:50:00 PM EST
    I was just wondering about that myself.  I've got a full day of physical work every day the weather is decent, between my big vegetable garden and expanding the flower beds, pruning shrubs, etc., plus the seemingly endless task of stacking firewood for the winter.

    But evening mental stimulation has largely been the Intertubes and largely politics.  My reading has gone way down, so I'll probably go back to my pile of unread books and magazines. (Got to get better light in the living room for these bitter white old lady eyes...)


    Boycotting the media... (none / 0) (#50)
    by NWHiker on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:23:08 PM EST
    Anyone know about Deschutes County (Bend).

    60-40, Obama-Clinton with 2/3 of votes in (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:32 PM EST
    so far.  You can follow it, county by county, on this very cool map and never turn on the stoopidtoob.

    No results yet (none / 0) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:26:22 PM EST
    I suspect it's Republican-ville.

    not in yet (none / 0) (#69)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    according to CNN

    About 70% reporting (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:32:36 PM EST
    And going heavily Obama, like by 4000 votes

    Can u believe it, Donna Brazille is (none / 0) (#73)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:29:47 PM EST
    actually downplayed the race stuff!  Somebody go get the smelling salts!!

    Well, it's only racist if you DON'T vote for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Angel on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:31:58 PM EST
    Her crazy behavior change (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:50:30 PM EST
    lately makes me think she's on notice to play really nice, or go find another sandbox.

    I wouldn't watch This Week when I saw her on the panel, so I don't know if she was nice for ABC, but she sure is for CNN.


    I was watching CNN with the sound off (none / 0) (#119)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:55:53 PM EST
    earlier, and I thought she did not look happy.

    it is obviously about playing nice (none / 0) (#183)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:17 PM EST
    to get the clinton voters aboard.  she doesn't need to push the obama is the winner angle now as everybody else is.

    OT: Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#89)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:33:57 PM EST
    Has anyone found any recent polling on Puetro Rico? I've looked but it either doesn't exist or it's well hidden.

    BTD's las count had Obama ahead in pop (none / 0) (#94)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:37:01 PM EST
    vote by about 260,000.  After tonight I am hoping she will only be behind by 60-80000.  Since MT and SD are small she just needs to keep it close, and then win PR big.  I really think she could win the popular vote, and not just by "her" count, which pundits like to make fun of, but by other more "objective" counts.  I would love it if Obama had to acknowledge that he lost the popular vote, even if he gets the damn nomination.

    He will lose the popular vote (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:39:07 PM EST
    but there is no lock that he will get the nomination.  We don't listen to the media.  The voters obviously don't listen to the media.  The SDs have that ability, too.

    Everything that we've been talking about here tonight is going to be a powerpoint to all the remaining SDs tomorrow.  I am seeing some cracks in the press.  I will not give up.  Rise, Hillary, Rise!


    Jeralyn's count already had Hillary a (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:39:08 PM EST
    ahead, IIRC.
    You can debate the merits of the popular vote metric, and argue about the numbers, but the "will of the pledged delegates" is a completely vacuous reason for the SD's to cast votes for Obama.
    The race is essentially tied, so let them use their best judgement---or, follow the will of the voters in their districts.

    I seriously disagree (4.00 / 1) (#110)
    by eleanora on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:46:56 PM EST
    with "giving" Obama any of the popular vote from Michigan. The uncommitted delegates can certainly count in his column, since Edwards has endorsed him, but Senator Obama wasn't on the ballot in MI. The popular vote tally cannot include any votes in his favor, since they don't exist--he didn't let them vote for him. I don't understand why this is even a question--the MI SOS certified the vote as it was legally cast, and that's the way it should be tallied.

    I so agree with you - no pop. vote for BO (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by bridget on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:55:51 PM EST
    and I also don't understand why this can even be a qs

    BO wasn't on the ballot and he knew why i.e. he seems to know his way around ballots as we all know by now from history but this time it should backfire BIG TIME for him

    I don't think the uncommitted delegates should go in his colum, however

    Edwards doesn't rule over the delegates since they are free agents and allowed to change their minds


    Rule #1: Don't Punish The Voters (none / 0) (#125)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:59:36 PM EST
    Exit polls in Michigan show Obama with a solid percentage of voters who would have voted for him if they had the chance in the only nomination contest available to them. They count. So do voters in caucus states. It's not their fault that the process is so crazy.

    Just like the Clinton campaign insists on counting voters in Florida and Michigan (a position I agree with), they're being dishonest if they exclude caucus states and Obama voters in Michigan who showed up to the only election contest they had available to them, intending to vote for him. If you want to count all the votes, you have to really count all the votes. Or, if you want to side with rules and technicalities, then excluding caucus states and Obama Michigan voters is no different than excluding Florida and Michigan. But you have to pick an approach and be consistent. I think counting all the votes is the right approach, and cherry picking which votes to exclude is wrong, no matter which campaign is doing it.


    unbreakable rule in a democracy (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by sancho on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:04:23 PM EST
    dont play with the votes. he took his name off of the ballot to invalidate a likely loss. that's beyond bush, imo. it was a legal, certified election. obama received zero votes. i say count every one of them.

    missing the point (none / 0) (#141)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    Even if you think Obama should be punished, counting zero votes punishes the voters who showed up. They're the people who are important, not Clinton, not Obama, not Edwards. Not even Mike Gravel!

    Its not punishing the voters. (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Step Beyond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:16:16 PM EST
    No. Obama punished them when he removed his name from the ballot and thus denied those supporters the opportunity to vote for him. That act can not be undone in the count.

    The voters went out and voted uncommitted and what that should mean is they get uncommitted delegates. Certainly Obama would be free to appeal to those delegates to vote for him at the convention, but he doesn't automatically get them. Because otherwise you are not counting votes but assigning them.


    yes, that is the logical solution (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:19:43 PM EST
    Let the uncommitted delegates be uncommitted.
    They will probably go for Obama anyway.

    But then Obama's the one who punished them (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:18:05 PM EST
    He decided winning Iowa was more important than letting his Michigan voters vote for him.  That may suck, but the answer to that is not to punish Hillary.  If she had taken her name off of Oregon's ballot, does that mean she should get 50% of the delegates and popular vote?

    It was a bad strategic decision for Obama.  He should pay the price.  Just as Hillary has paid the price for her bad strategic decision.

    Personally, I would have loved to have had a Michigan re-vote, but many of the people blocking it were Obama supporters.  If Obama and Clinton had agreed to one, I have no doubt there would've been one.  Clinton agreed.


    Exactly why Obama should not (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:06:05 PM EST
    have taken his name off of the ballot in MI -- he is just as guilty of "punishing the voters" as the DNC is in this case. And for what? Why to pander to the voters in Iowa.

    that is a great argument. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:07:42 PM EST
    So (none / 0) (#145)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:09:57 PM EST
    we should listen to the will of the people except when Obama did something you disagree with?

    Obama is the one who took away (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:12:28 PM EST
    their chance to vote for him. He is the one who disrespected the voters---doubly, because he then had his surrogates campaign heavily to get him the uncommitted vote.

    Which doesn't matter (none / 0) (#191)
    by flyerhawk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:51:39 PM EST
    You say that the voters must be heard and it isn't their fault that the state legislatures did what they did.  But now you are saying tough luck to voters because you think that Obama was wrong with what he did?

    Not very consistent.


    State legislatures did not make Obama (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:20:59 AM EST
    take his name off the ballot in Michigan.

    Sorry, flyerhawk, but your argument is the most illogical yet.


    Even if you think he's guilty of some wrongdoing (none / 0) (#146)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:10:24 PM EST
    his voters don't deserve punishment. And voters in caucus states certainly don't either! Yet the Clinton campaign doesn't count them.

    If you show up to an election and you've registered to vote, your vote should be counted. Period. No matter what the party does, no matter what the candidates do, no matter what the state does.


    I Think We Should Count Caucus Votes (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:18:53 PM EST
    unless there was a primary.  I'm for counting the largest number of votes possible.

    then obama should not (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by sancho on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:50 PM EST
    have sold his voters out. but he did and he will and you cant spin it away. if you have your way (i gather you are an obama supporter), obama will get to sell out the dem party after nov. jus tlike he sold out mi and fla. he will, imo, extend the territories of the war, not protect roe v. wade, undermine social security, sell out to the nuclear power comapnies (what hanford?) who already own him, and work to make sure many of those smart, self-interested people in w va. and kentucky (and others like them--even in oregon) turning out to vote against him dont have access to good health care. and david broder and chris matthews and the crew will talk about his courage--at last a uniter and not a divider.

    You're taking the view (none / 0) (#172)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:32:18 PM EST
    that Obama's voters should have to bear the consequences of Obama's decision. This is what I disagree with. It amounts to punishing the voters.

    Besides that, it wasn't solely his decision. Edwards did the same. Did Edwards sell out the voters?


    edwards was gaming (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sancho on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:40:46 PM EST
    the system with obama. no surprise he endorsed him eventually. you seem to think the election is about obama's voters. i'm taking the view that everyone has to live with the winner or the loser. that politicians are elected to serve the people, even if they are not obama supporters.

    here is something to think about: if obama is elected president, and you vote for him, and he does something that hurts you or anger you or offends you, then you will have to live with consequences.

    this is what elections are about. better learn this now than later. just some friendly advice.


    Did Edwards sell out the voters? (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:58:15 PM EST

    Simple answers...

    Early on, Hillary was considering not campaigning in Iowa because she knew she would lose it.  What if she'd taken her name off the ballot in Iowa?  Would she then be entitled to half the delegates?  I don't think so.


    How is *changing* the votes (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by eleanora on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    the same as counting the votes? Absolutely I agree that all the caucus states should be counted, and that they need to release those vote tallies from the remaining four. I'm not sure why you're accusing me of that, as I never said anything about excluding them.

    You're saying that lots of Michiganders "would have voted for him if they had the chance". I agree wholeheartedly, but they didn't have the chance because his name wasn't on the ballot. If he'd been tossed off the ballot by someone else, I might see your point better. But he did that himself, chose to do pull his name for his own reasons. So in the official vote tally, he gets zero for MI. I think it's right and consistent to accept vote totals as they were actually cast, not as we wish they were.

    Look on the bright side, he is enjoying all the positive consequences of his action, such as the delegates he won in IA and the ongoing media narrative that Clinton winning in FL and MI wasn't important. But I don't see why he shouldn't have to shoulder the negative consequences as well, such as not getting any votes from MI.


    Popular vote and the superdelegates (none / 0) (#163)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:30 PM EST
    Just like we can estimate the number of voters in caucuses, we can estimate the number of voters in Michigan. Yes it's a shame that we'll never know with perfect precision what voters in Michigan would have done, but keep in mind, the popular vote is, technically speaking, meaningless. The only metric that truly matters is delegates.

    That said, the exercise of counting the popular vote is to get a sense of the will of the people, so superdelegates can make their final decision about which candidate has legitimacy. You can argue all day long that Obama deserves zero votes from Michigan, but it really doesn't matter. The superdelegates aren't going to buy this. They know that Obama had supporters who wanted to vote for him but couldn't, and they know that his Michigan support is part of his overall national support.

    So by arguing that he deserves zero votes out of Michigan, you're not advancing a case for Hillary. You're just making an argument to other Hillary supporters. The popular vote doesn't actually count in as much as it provides superdelegates with a measure of the will of the people, and there is no chance at all that they're going to buy that Obama has zero supporters in Michigan.

    Argue all you want about technicalities, the only view of the popular vote that matters is the one that superdelegates accept. Assuming they even care.


    I am ok with estimating his popular (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:32:07 PM EST
    vote support in MI. Coupled with awarding him no delegates, but leaving 45% uncommitted would be logical.

    I'm comfortable with (none / 0) (#175)
    by s5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:36:05 PM EST
    any delegate allocation that Obama, Clinton, the national party, and the state party all agree on. I'm completely agnostic on this point, as long as all sides agree in good faith. My argument here is solely that if we're going to talk about the popular vote as a measure of the will of the people, we should cast the widest net possible.

    At least we can all agree that this process is beyond silly and well past stupid, and desperately needs to be simplified before the next nomination.


    then get rid of caucuses (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:40:29 PM EST
    apparently our nominee is more than likely going to be chosen by red state caucuses

    No, estimates aren't acceptable. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by eleanora on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:50:02 PM EST
    for caucuses or for any other form of voting. Otherwise, we could just skip the GE and estimate the winner based on polls. Votes matter, and that's what counting every vote means.

    Those four caucus states have to have official numbers in order to allocate delegates. They need to release them now, so they can be counted in the popular vote. Otherwise, they'll get left out, not because Hillary wouldn't count them, but because they chose not to be counted. And the DNC should not accept that in any way, shape, or form.

    "the popular vote is, technically speaking, meaningless....The popular vote doesn't actually count"

    I have to disagree with you there. Yes, it does, and it needs to be reported completely and accurately by the DNC as well as the media, no matter who it helps or hurts. The popular vote tally needs to include accurate numbers for every state, including the caucuses, including MI. Not estimates, not "giving votes" to anyone, just as they were voted.

    You keep adding new arguments. The superdelegates can do anything they want, of course. They'll probably add in about 70% of the uncommitted vote in MI for Obama in their own calculations, and that's fine with me. None of my business, really. I'm not advancing a case for Hillary, I'm advancing a case that my candidate and my party, the Democratic Party, should push for telling the truth and hitting the media hard until they do the same. Accepting false popular vote counts serves no one in the long run.

    "the exercise of counting the popular vote..." is what we call a democracy.


    Same % split (none / 0) (#176)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:37:18 PM EST
    I think Jeralyn shared a very fair popular vote distribution over the past couple of days. Something like the same split method used to give him the correct number of delegates.

    Probably worth a look back at recent blogs.


    Kudos to HRC (none / 0) (#100)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:39:47 PM EST
    From tonight's speech:

    The road here has been long, and that is partly because we've traveled it with one of the most formidable candidates to ever run for this office. In her thirty-five years of public service, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has never given up on her fight for the American people, and tonight I congratulate her on her victory in Kentucky. We have had our disagreements during this campaign, but we all admire her courage, her commitment and her perseverance. No matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age.

    "has shattered"? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by lambertstrether on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:58:08 PM EST
    Surely he means "is shattering." Right?

    After months of calling her (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:20:48 PM EST
    a lying racist who polarizes America, I'm supposed to be happy with this.  

    Or perhaps he's realizing his only hope for victory is if he can get her to agree to be his VP so that she and Bill can carry him on their shoulders across the finish line in November.  


    Let's take that unity pony out for a drag! (none / 0) (#184)
    by lambertstrether on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:44:22 PM EST
    Cause that's the only way we can get it in motion....

    I hope his daughters (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by standingup on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:54:31 PM EST
    are never treated with the same disrespect that Hillary has been treated during this campaign.  I would have had a lot more respect for Obama had this statement been made at an appropriate time instead of when he has decided he needs to reach out to Hillary's female base.  

    Did the Obamans boo again (none / 0) (#218)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:24:24 AM EST
    when he said her name?  If so, did he say nothing to stop them -- yet again?

    I presume that he did brush the girl germs off his shoulder and shoe again.


    Closing (none / 0) (#111)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:47:59 PM EST
    58 to 42 with 49% of the vote counted

    McCain targets WS,MN,CO and NM (none / 0) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:39:09 PM EST
    Obama raised 41 mill in March, Clinton 20.  McCain raised 18 mill in April.

    [Under a new fundraising structure created by the campaign and the Republican National Committee, a donor can give up to $70,000 to the "McCain Victory 2008," significantly more than the $2,300 individual donor limit set by campaign finance laws. If a donor gives the maximum amount the money is split into multiple funds that all benefit McCain's campaign: the first $2,300 of that money goes to the McCain campaign itself, the next $28,000  goes to the RNC, and the rest is divided among four swing states the campaign plans to target in the general election. Those targeted states are: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico.]

    It'd be cool (4.00 / 1) (#192)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:52:44 PM EST
    if the DNC switched it up and put Clinton at the top of the ticket. It'd totally screw with that strategy. She could afford to lose all thos places on her electoral map. Alas, they aren't that smart.

    Congrats To The TL Kid (none / 0) (#214)
    by squeaky on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:16:29 AM EST
    You must be soooooooo proud. Smiling ear to ear no doubt.