home

Who Had the Bigger Win Tonight?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:44:00 AM EST
Tags: Kentucky '08, Oregon '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Who won bigger in today's primaries? 100% of the vote is in from Kentucky, 66% is in from Oregon:

  • Hillary won 51 delegates so far, Obama 35.
  • Hillary earned 650,000 votes, Obama has gotten 475,000.

Hillary won a lot more votes and more delegates tonight.

She's tonight's winner.

Kentucky: 100% of vote:

  • Hillary: 459,145 votes * 65% * 37 delegates
  • Obama: 209,771 votes * 30% * 14 delegates
  • Counties: Hillary wins all but 2

Oregon: 66% of votes in

  • Obama: 272,000 votes * 58% * 21 delegates
  • Hillary: 196,000 votes * 42% * 14 delegates
  • Counties: Obama wins 16; Hillary wins 13 (1 tied, 4 still out)

More....

Popular vote total nationally:Counting Michigan, Florida and the caucus states, including estimates for IA, NV, ME, WA:
  • Hillary:17,581,874 * 47.8%
  • Obama: 17,486,820 * 47.5%
  • Hillary up by 95,054, +0.26%

Comments now closed.

< Stupid Line Of the Night | Overnight Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who Had the Bigger Win Tonight? | 249 comments (249 topical)
    Agreed. She's the winner. (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:19:50 AM EST
    Has been for the last two months.  Let's nominate her already.

    RCP shows popular vote lead is Hillary's now (none / 0) (#246)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    Light kidding (based on current reality) aside,

    Real Clear Politics' ongoing tally of popular votes now shows (after Oregon and Kentucky results) Clinton leading in popular vote if Florida/Michigan primaries and Iowa/Nv/Me/Wa caucuses are added in.

    [ Parent ]

    I should hope so... (none / 0) (#250)
    by NvlAv8r on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    As she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan.  If we guess that he would have won half of the other delegates, he is well ahead of her.

    [ Parent ]
    Say, that was a low-info style reply (none / 0) (#258)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:25:54 AM EST
    Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd were also on the ballot.

      Obama campaigned in that he asked the voters and then later, his surrogates kept reminding them, that they should vote for  Uncommitted."

      People could have meant a combination of Obama, Edwards or None of the Above or anything else.  And, people have really been decided for awhile. Despite all that, Clinton won something like 54% of the vote.  

      See this newspaper story to check out Obama's strategy and how he tried to get the others to follow him to put Hillary at a disadvantage in Iowa.  He chose to take his name off.

      But then he later wanted exactly 50% of the vote -- and then even later he wanted MORE than the Uncommitted.  This guy has no shame - but that's an extension of Chicago politics.  I mean, New Politics.

    [ Parent ]

    I see that reply alot here. (none / 0) (#274)
    by kindness on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    Here's what others think:

    The Great Orange Satan thinks that argument is Insulting people's intelligence:  

    "Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:

       1. You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;

       2. You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and

       3. You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.

    In reality, Obama leads by over half a million votes, for whatever that's worth (not much). But don't worry, the Clinton argument is so asinine, it has gotten little traction among super delegates."

    Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot now was he?  I think FLA & MI can be seated at the convention, but not as they stand.  I say that because both states broke the party rules and now have to negotiate to get back in.  It's the states that need to negotiate, not any of the individual candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:20:38 AM EST
    contray to what Axelrod will say, Oregon is not really a swing state.  Both would win Oregon against McCain.  On the other hand, Hillary could actually put Kentucky in play.  Bill Clinton won it in 92 and 96.  As far as the popular vote, a good gain for Hillary, since it appears that Oregon turnout was not as large as expected.

    It looks like low turnout vote in Oregon (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:04:49 AM EST
    less than 700,000!

    [ Parent ]
    Oregon was lower than expected (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:54:05 AM EST
    (he'd been 20-25 ahead last week) so actually didn't meet expectations -- especially not with a crowd of 75,000 the other day), and Kentucky was higher than expected (she was only 20-25 ahead last week).

    35 points is HUGE.  10-15 points better than anticipated.

      Morning Joe on Tuesday morning displayed quite a turnaround, with most of the talk centering on the problem of Obama losing West Virginia by 41% and now facing a 20-25-point defeat in Kentucky (but it was worse).

      They talked a LOT about why after all the brouhaha with Edwards' "blue-collar"-value endorsement NEITHER of them went to Kentucky with their sleeves rolled up.

      FEAR.  That was the overriding reason given.  He didn't want to lose after it was shown he was TRYING for the vote.

      Never mind he had about 15 offices in the states, did go to Louisville quickly, and outspent Clinton about 3-1, from what I heard.

      They were all puzzled over this and wondering if it doesn't present a problem that he didn't bother to go there.

      His surrogates said he would lose because "he didn't even go there" as if that were a good reason!  

      Painful.  But the media wants him and so do the ESTABLISHMENT Dem leaders, because they want power in alliance with the new guy with virtually no history that we care to talk about, and they won't have it with Clinton.

      So, yes, longer-range it's a better night for Clinton.  She surpassed expectations and her 2nd win has many quite stymied.  If he gets the nomination but another shoe of the wrong style drops, then she'll be even better positioned to take over.

      The NBC media is so uninformed.  To them, superdelegates MUST vote according to pledged-delegates.  That is NOT at all in the rules.  Not only uninformed -- willfully ignorant due to their bias.

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously..... (1.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:29:28 AM EST
    Do really believe any Democrat could put Kentucky in play?  I'm trying to remain respectful, but that pretty much represents to me where all the Clinton people are now.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh, yeah. Bill won KY twice. (5.00 / 12) (#21)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:31:54 AM EST
    They brought out almost as many dem's as Kerry did in the general for a primary.  In a word, yes.

    [ Parent ]
    That's what's interesting about Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by Grace on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:19:47 AM EST
    Since she was First Lady of Arkansas, she puts a lot of states into play that other Democrats might not get -- including Arkansas.  

    [ Parent ]
    KY is not as important as (5.00 / 15) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:32:10 AM EST
    Ohio, PA and Florida. Obama won't win those. Hillary has a good shot at all three. The Democrats chances in November are diminished because Obama won't win those.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn you're very patient tonight (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I wonder if Obama (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by Grace on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:30:35 AM EST
    will even get California?  I know they show it as a lock for the Democrat, but I expect him to have problems with the Hispanics, Asians, and other demographic groups.  I'm not sure he can carry Los Angeles County.    

    If he can't win in California, he's really going to have problems.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's worrisome (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:40:22 AM EST
    that he might actually have to spend time and money in California.

    [ Parent ]
    I've been saying this for ages. (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:01:19 AM EST

    Bill turned Cali into a blue state in 92.  It was a red state before.

    Right now we have a popular red Governator who supports the red nominee and a LOT of red people outside of the major cities (save for San Diego, where it's red down there, too).  And Obama people keep wondering about the Hispanics...we're not afraid to vote red, either.

    Pissed off Hillary voters could turn red as well.

    [ Parent ]

    I also believe (none / 0) (#273)
    by Grace on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:44:22 PM EST
    the parties are seriously underestimating the number of Asian voters in the state now.  Their population has increased tremendously in the past 10 years.  Hispanics may have gone 2 to 1 for Hillary but Asians went 3 to 1 for her.  

    I won't be surprised in the next census when the Asian population is shown to have increased by several hundred percent.  

    [ Parent ]

    You can't be serious. (none / 0) (#224)
    by kindness on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:59:49 AM EST
    If you are I'll help you with your question.

    ANY Democrat running against McCain in 2008 will carry CA.

    Speaking as a CA resident, it's in the bank for either Hillary or Barack.

    [ Parent ]

    I think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:45:55 AM EST
    could win PA, with the Rendell machine working for him.  But maybe he learned his lesson and would pay "street money" this time - to boost that turnout.  It hurt him in the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#155)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:48 AM EST
    According to the latest poll, Obama is up over McCain by 8 points.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Did and (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by tnjen on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:33:44 AM EST
    ...so will Hillary. TN could also come into play with Clinton -- we're a blue state govt. that also went blue with Bill and is ready to go blue again with the right democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    Also, Kentucky (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:23 AM EST
    just elected a Democratic governor after a scandal-plagued Republican administration.  Sound familiar to anyone?  

    [ Parent ]
    Of course, reviewing your comments (5.00 / 14) (#54)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:47:12 AM EST
    here, Laureola, you determined six days ago that Kentucky was irrelevant.  And that Clinton was done for, and that it's over, and yadda yadda.

    Heckuva strategy for the general election you've got there.  No Kentucky, and no West Virginia, we can presume?  Michigan and Florida also irrelevant?

    But Iowa is relevant, I bet.  Oh, and Idaho.

    [ Parent ]

    Kentucky ...... (1.00 / 6) (#157)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:16:58 AM EST
    .....is redder than red.  It's irrelevant what Democrat wins the primary unless it changes the math.

    West Virginia has 5 electoral votes and hasn't voted Democrat since 1970 or so.

    Personally, I'd rather not have any state wherein 20% of the voters freely say they would not vote for an African American.  Hillary's big numbers there and other places in Appalachia only show that the rednecks considered her the lesser of two evils.  

    Obama is up 8 poll points over McCain in PA - being so much for the un-electability myth in significant swing states.

    [ Parent ]

    West VA went for Bill twice!!! (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by hairspray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:16:45 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Since 1970 or so? Seriously? (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by Lysis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:19 AM EST
    First of all, they didn't have a presidential election in 1970.

    Second, West Virginia went for the Democrat in:

    1996, 1992, 1988, 1980 and 1976.

    If Hillary is the nom, you can add 2008 to that list.

    [ Parent ]

    Well All Those Little Red States That Obama Won (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:24:34 AM EST
    are also irrelevant. But surprise, surprise look at the electoral maps and look who runs stronger against McCain.

    Obama 242  McCain 285
    Clinton 284  McCain 237

    The so called nominee is losing to McCain and the candidate who everyone has said for months has no chance to win is beating McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (none / 0) (#237)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    Is there even a spot on the color wheel reserved for just plain making up your own facts?

    Survey USA had a poll last month showing a McCain-Clinton race at 48-46, and a McCain-Obama race at 63-29.  Yeah, I guess I'd be inclined to start making up facts at that point, too.

    [ Parent ]

    Laureola, you are only kidding yourself... (none / 0) (#253)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST
    nobody else is taking the bait. The states that O won, out there in the west are ALL RED, have been for YEARS ON END! Sooooo, no matter how well he did in the primaries, come election time it's erase the board and let's start for REAL NOW. They've NEVER gone blue. But those states you mention, in which Hillary has overwhelmingly won, HAVE TURNED BLUE BEFORE AND ARE LIKELY TO DO SO AGAIN IF THE RIGHT DEMOCRAT IS NOMINATED.
    Care to guess who that would be? HINT, HINT.

    [ Parent ]
    Here are the registration (5.00 / 7) (#144)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:40:40 AM EST
    statistics for Kentucky:

    Registered DEM = 1,629,845
    Registered REP = 1,040,438

    I have lived in Kentucky all my life, and worked as a poll worker here as well.  Democrats here who will vote Democratic at the local and even state level often go Republican in the presidential race because of something particular about the Dem. candidate.  In other words, they're waiting for the right Democrat.  And Obama's not it, not even close.  If anything fewer would likely vote for him than Kerry or Gore.

    [ Parent ]

    Electable? (1.00 / 3) (#29)
    by JohnRove on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:34:53 AM EST
    In 2004 it seemed like John Kerrys main appeal was his electability.  
    Hillary seems to be using the same strategy, it didn't work so well in 2004 and I doubt it would work in 2008 either.


    [ Parent ]
    No, it wasn't (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by denise on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:28 AM EST
    Kerry's appeal was that the Democrats were determined to unite early behind the first viable candidate, to avoid attacking each other.

    [ Parent ]
    That's pretty vapid (5.00 / 9) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:43:58 AM EST
    Different election, different candidates.  Kerry resembles Obama, not Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Electability? (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:45:21 AM EST
    Not even close. A liberal senator from Taxachusetts, and you think his argument was electability? It was more like, "Hey, look at me! I'm not Bush!"

    [ Parent ]
    In the primary... (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:05:30 AM EST
    In the primary, it was more like "hey look here... I'm not Dean!"

    [ Parent ]
    I thought it was . . . (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:51:48 AM EST
    I'm a war hero - they'll never swiftboat me!

    [ Parent ]
    When Hillary goes wind-surfing (5.00 / 11) (#58)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:49:39 AM EST
    in a spandex bodysuit, you come on back here with that comment, J. Rove, as then you might have a point.

    Until then, the Sisterhood of the Pantsuit is doing fine.

    [ Parent ]

    wait a minute, I'm liking this idea (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:59:44 AM EST
    Rumor has it that Hillary wears a spandex bodysuit underneath her pantsuit at all times.  She is ready for anything at 3 a.m.  And I mean anything!

    [ Parent ]
    The difference is (5.00 / 11) (#63)
    by Chisoxy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:52:24 AM EST
    Kerry's central argument was electability at the start, just like Obama's was, talking about her being divisive, having baggage, and him running stronger against McCain. Over time it has become clear that she is more electable now. Once Kerry was swiftboated if we couldve chosen someone else we wouldve. We still have that chance. We ignore that at our peril.

    [ Parent ]
    if Kerry couldn't beat Bush... (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:58:26 AM EST
    then I don't think any of our candidates that year were going to be able to, quite frankly.

    Kerry did pretty well.  Got a lot of votes.  It came down to Ohio.  No regrets.  The media is worse now than they were back then.  We are much more alert to how damaging they can be now.

    (I enjoyed "speaking" like a robot in this post)

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:13:24 AM EST
    that there were really no outstanding candidates in 2004.  I was an Edwards supporter, but I doubt he could have gone the distance even against a President as despised as Bush was.  Sad, really.  We pitted the "best" the party had to offer against the most hated president in recent history, and still lost.

    I wonder if things would have been different if Clinton had run in 2004?  I respect her decision that she wasn't ready, but had she run, and had the party elite, the DNC, and the MSM had beaten her down in 2004, then watched the GOP take Kerry down, they might have been forced to show her a little more respect this time out.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm trying to remember what the major (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Grace on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:46:52 AM EST
    issues were in 2004.  I know National Security was one of them.  Taxes might have been another.  Anybody remember the rest?    

    I think Hillary was wise not to run in 2004 because she really wasn't ready.  This is Obama's problem now.  He shouldn't have run because he's not ready for the job (he needs more experience).  

    On the issue of Hillary running against George Bush, that would have been interesting to watch.  She might have won because she does come across as tough in National Security.  She's not the pushover Obama is.  

    [ Parent ]

    I think the GOP (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:16 AM EST
    turned it almost exclusively into a national security/terrorism election.  I do recall that Karl Rove was successful in getting issues like Gay Marriage on the ballot in crucial swing states - to get the GOP vote out.

    [ Parent ]
    It was (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:16:37 AM EST

    Kerry the Flip-Flopper/Waffler.  At least, Rove made it be that way (plus the Swiftboating incident).  Those were the "issues" (distractions, more like it).  Kerry seemed too "learned" for the casual voter.  Bushie just seemed more like Joe Everyday...even though he came off as dumb as a rock in the debates.

    [ Parent ]
    Wesley Clark had a chance, but (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by hairspray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:21:26 AM EST
    the back room boys were determned to give us Kerry,  Now they are determined to give us Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#79)
    by Andy08 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:59:00 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Did you read the comment above yours? (none / 0) (#223)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:57:41 AM EST
    Bill Clinton won Kentucky -- TWICE.

    So yes, a Democrat can put Kentucky into play, especially one named Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Combine these numbers plus (5.00 / 13) (#3)
    by athyrio on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:21:07 AM EST
    the latest SUSA poll in NC showing her beating McCain in the GE but Obama losing to him is a hugeeeeeeee win for her....that is a game changer IMO if the SD's are listening....

    I'm glad you're still hanging in there (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:28:11 AM EST
    I remember a while back you were feeling very demoralized about Hillary's chances.  Somehow I've always felt that if she was meant to lose, this would have been over a LONG time ago.

    She is hanging in there for a reason.  I think her chances to get the nomination have actually gone up in the last 2 months, not down.  You will never hear THAT perspective from the pundits in the media, but the numbers and trends reflect it.

    [ Parent ]

    The people agree with you (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:32:27 AM EST
    Or they wouldn't be turning out to vote in such numbers for Hillary.  Thank goodness that the voters are smart enough to look at the polls and know that it isn't over, regardless of the lies the media tells them.  I love American voters.  They are so wise.  Most of the time.

    [ Parent ]
    The Kentucky result and turnout (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:45:33 AM EST
    really is pretty stunning under these circumstances.


    [ Parent ]
    yes it is surprising (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:40:55 AM EST
    Maybe that's why the media keeps getting more outrageous.  They can't understand why they aren't duping the "uneducated" masses with their propaganda so they pour it on even thicker.  "Will this be enough?!!"  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm more (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Grace on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:21:26 AM EST
    hopeful now too.  I want to see her as the Dem nominee.  

    I'm mentally prepared if she doesn't get it -- but she's the one I want.  

    [ Parent ]

    I've seen little sign the SD"s (4.85 / 7) (#5)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:22:13 AM EST
    are paying attention to anything besides Obama dollars and DNC will.

    [ Parent ]
    People fall out of love (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:40:20 AM EST
    almost as quickly as they fall in.  It could be as simple as seeing that there is nothing under the suit; or unwrapping a giant gift box, with a beautifully calligraphed card;  only to find more empty smaller boxes until the last one, and it is still empty.

    His campaign has often repeated: "When they see and hear him, they like him."  That may be true, but it is no longer the basis for voting for him.  The reality of the state our country is in demands voting for the candidate that can deal with the country's problems; one whom people recognize as bringing the right experience, thoughtfulness and a record of getting things done. And as far as the democrats are concerned, they need to have a winner in November.  And that can only be HILLARY!

    [ Parent ]

    When I watched Obama's (4.66 / 3) (#148)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:55:03 AM EST
    non-victory victory declaration tonight, that's the sense I got too.  Hillary really has the momentum and Obama looks like he's standing still repeating his same old one-liners over and over.  There really is so little there of substance.

    [ Parent ]
    Are the SDs listening? (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by makana44 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:02:44 AM EST
    Marilu Socher on Neil Cavuto show on Fox tonight:

    the argument that she's making, particularly that she has of a greater ability to appeal to blue collar and senior white voters, that she argues are going to be necessary to beat John McCain in November, is resonating a little bit with super delegates. They're thinking about it at least enough to stay on the fence. Sure, we're seeing a trickle of delegates backing Obama. But if they were not thinking about this argument and the case that she's making on electability, we'd see more of a wave to Obama right now.


    [ Parent ]
    I simply cannot understand Robert Byrd (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by hairspray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:24:58 AM EST
    spitting in the face of his constituents right after her huuuuge win in West VA.  Is he nuts?

    [ Parent ]
    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:07:46 AM EST

    I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to, in his old mind, make up for the fact that he was KKKleagle.  Even if he DID use the n-word rather recently (within the past few years).

    [ Parent ]
    Byrd was very crafty in trying to show that (none / 0) (#201)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:00:25 AM EST
    superdelegates really do not have to, at all, vote according
    to the pledged delegates they represent.

    [ Parent ]
    SDs are not at this time (none / 0) (#212)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:33:49 AM EST
    influencing any thing that I can see.  So they come out for Obama.  But what they will do in August is what counts.  Seems to me that voters are not paying any real attention to the endorsements.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly, Mark--the SDs are ignoring electability (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by kempis on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:45:17 AM EST
    They're professional politicians and they have to be aware of those electoral, state polls showing Hillary decisively winning over McCain and McCain and Obama locked in a tie or a slight-advantage-McCain.

    So I'm assuming, like you, they and the DNC don't care about who will really win. They care about the Obama cash cow, his star appeal to certain demographics, and his boost to the Democratic brand,  even in a loss.

    I think they're missing more than they're getting right in that line of thinking, but I believe that's what is going on. Sadly, Hillary could win every remaining contest by 20 points and the superdees will STILL flow, five or so a day, to Obama. We're looking at an orchestrated, decided-upon endgame.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn, THANK YOU for TL! (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:21:18 AM EST


    That goes for me too! (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:25:11 AM EST
    This is the only site I visit for political updates that does not ruin my day.

    [ Parent ]
    Ditto Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by MonaL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:05 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Me too! (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:16:24 AM EST
    this blog has saved my sanity on election nights.

    [ Parent ]
    I am in Lucca Italy and the Herald Tribune (none / 0) (#176)
    by hairspray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:30:31 AM EST
    is writing Hillary's obituary every day and showing Obama in front of 75k crowds in color no less.  As for he 75k, I have two thoughts, lots of people came over from Washington.  A couple hour drive from Seattle.  Also I wonder who counted the attendees.  When we did a peace march in my town, the newspaper insisted it was less than 50k whearas the marchers insisted it was about 200k.

    [ Parent ]
    Decemberists played (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:17:37 AM EST
    There was a free 45 minute concert by a popular Portland rock band, the Decemberists, before Obama's speech. That was one big reason for the 75K.

    [ Parent ]
    Turnout doesn't always mean support. (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:09:23 AM EST

    So just how many Hillary supporters were there as well to check out what the hype of hope was about?

    He's a dang celebrity, of course there's going to be turnout.

    [ Parent ]

    hairspray - re Lucca! I tried to write you (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:10:29 AM EST
    but couldn't find a way.  Quickly, just wanted to say I SO enjoyed your city and its beautiful 'wall' that I had to say hello and let you know what I saw of it.

      To others: please excuse my off-topic note but that is a beautiful place and it was fun to see it mentioned in connection with this election of ours.

      hairspray - the firemen or firefolks :-) made the estimate and they usually have a fair idea, though it was only two city blocks square, I think.  It was a beautiful day at the park and, as mentioned there was a free rock concert just before.

      (Very smart.)

      American may nominate a rock-star person to suit our era of celebrity-worship (usually celebs who have not really done much to write about but they 'inspire' many followers).

    [ Parent ]

    Me five, it makes my day (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by splashy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:38:22 AM EST
    To come here and not have all kinds of abuse heaped around.

    Thank you so much!

    [ Parent ]

    Me six (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by janarchy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:29:26 AM EST
    Seriously, if it weren't for this place, I'd have probably had a nervous breakdown by now.

    [ Parent ]
    Nice post Jeralyn (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:25:44 AM EST
    The numbers clearly show that Democrats don't think this race is over yet.  They aren't listening to the media.  They want their voices heard.

    Axelrove/Astro Turf (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:27:10 AM EST
    Axelrode hands down is the Rove of the Dems have been waiting for.  He created the narrative that he won "it".  This has exposed the sham that is the Democratic process.  We will never pick a winner.  Way, way too much micromanagement with the process.  

    Voters are BS? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:28:21 AM EST
    Ok, I guess to you they are.  So, we don't count MI and Fl.

    Yes.... (1.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:30:46 AM EST
    ....if the number includes Michigan and disenfranchises caucus states.

    [ Parent ]
    These same old (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:35:35 AM EST
    FL/MI arguments get really tiresome.  Howard Dean has already acknolwedged that the raw vote totals in both states stand.  The DNC stripped the delegates; had no authority to strip these states of their popular votes.  The elections were certified, down ballot candidates selected, measures voted on, etc.  Obama made a bad decision to remove himself from the ballot - against the advice of some of his close advisors.

    [ Parent ]
    WOW! Hillary does it again! (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:28:33 AM EST
    In primary after primary, Hillary exceeds the expectations of everyone.  Chris Mathews and Olberman were such sad sacks tonight, desperately trying to focus on Obama's speech in Iowa where he said nothing that he hasn't said a thousand times.  They just couldn't bring themselves to talk about Hillary's victory and how bad things look now for Obama based on the exit polling.  Obama's in trouble if he wins the nomination.  

    So many people turned out to vote for Hillary, even after they been told for weeks that their votes wouldn't matter, that's it OVER.   Well, obviously not.  I just love it when the people outsmart the media!  Anyone who has visited realclearpolitics.com  or electoral-vote.com knows that Hillary can beat McCain and Obama can't.  Perhaps that is why so many people continue to turn out to vote for her. They know more than the silly media!  

    I have so much respect for Hillary's persistence and determination.  It's a terrific message to young woman and girls.  

    An interesting (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:31:37 AM EST
    exit poll number.  64% of Hillary supporters in KY think she will be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    She performed... (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:29:53 AM EST
    ...very well tonight.  As did Obama.  She won over many voters in KY.  She did a great job.  And if she pulls it off, I will happily vote for her in the general election.  

    That's very nice of you. (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:45:40 AM EST
    And congratulations to Senator Obama and his supporters for his big win in OR. He worked that state really well, big rallies and a great ground game. And Clinton definitely contested it, so good on him for the win :)

    [ Parent ]
    that's not the final delegate number (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:30:17 AM EST
    It's only the total delegate number for tonight. 200 superdelegates have yet to weigh in and the final number will include at least some from MI and FL.

    The total delegate number can't be determined until after May 31.

    For tonight's two contests, Hillary won. Accept it. It's true.

    Don't get in the way.... (1.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:32:33 AM EST
    .....of SD's rushing to Obama this week.

    He's soon going to have this locked up - including FL and MI.

    [ Parent ]

    and will end up (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Saxon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST
    losing the general election!

    that ought to teach you a lesson.

    [ Parent ]

    Then don't get in the way ... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:36:19 AM EST
    of a McCain Presidency. Your candidate's arrogance, which you mirror so well, will go over HUGE in the swing states.

    Not.

    [ Parent ]

    Nobody is stopping them (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:48:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If you're sure, then enjoy it, instead of (none / 0) (#232)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:12:12 AM EST
    trying so hard to convince us.  You wouldn't need to.  You would, instead (if smart) be trying to be very nice to us and not get us further upset so that we might even, a few of us, support your chosen one.

    [ Parent ]
    Problem: A lot of Clinton supportes take all (none / 0) (#264)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    attempts to be nice as insincere  or condescending or rubbing it in, or signs of fear, and say so, loudly, and snicker at them if not worse. Tends to cut down the number of people who will try to be nicer, very quickly.

    [ Parent ]
    ok, i get it now! (none / 0) (#235)
    by cpinva on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:33:10 AM EST
    you're in training to be a stand-up comic, right?

    a bit of advice: don't quit your day job. lol

    [ Parent ]

    more classy gloating (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:30:56 AM EST
    the Unity Pony tends to leave lots of droppings in its path.

    excellent win tonight!!! (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:31:09 AM EST
    The only question is does it matter that the candidate with an edge in the popular vote, and with all the momentum and big wins since Wisconsin (if we can remember that far back) looks to be considerably stronger against the Republican opponent in the GE. Does it matter? Are the SD's listening? Do they actually care about winning in November? We shall see.

    I was amazed once again at how tuned (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:36:42 AM EST
    in to Hype are the TV talking heads.

    Hillary has a blow out win in KY but since she didn't ratchet up any accompanying jazz to go with it, her win was all but ignored. Obama lost handily in KY inspite of being the frontrunner, inspite of outspending Hillary, inspite of those religious mailers and inspite of an extremely favourable media coverage. Objective talking heads would take the same into account and wonder whether this is not a problem for Obama.
    But instead Obama draws up a jazzy crowd and gives a jazzy speech and the talking heads are all but lost in the afterglow of Obama's smile.

    Are we watching a nomination race for the presidency or Chicago (the movie).

    You forgot (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:54:12 AM EST
    in spite of the Edwards endorsement of Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I must have missed it. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:39:30 AM EST
    What specific media did not report that Clinton had an impressive win?

    [ Parent ]
    msnbc, msnbc, and msnbc (none / 0) (#208)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:20:36 AM EST
    It was embarrassing to see Olbermann keep making snide remarks about her Kentucky win.  The man is an embarrassment and while he has the Obama folks, he must have lost most of the Clinton viewers because he is so dishonest in his reporting and so disrespectful of ANYthing she does.

     Matthews, at least, sees there is a problem in the states that are anywhere near Appalachia and where we've always needed wins if we want the presidency.  The problem is that he and Olbermann are sure it's all racists-caused.  They miss the economic aspects of these places relative to Oregon.

     But at least they're not as rotten as the lead post by Bob Cesca at HuffPost tonight by the alleged live-blogger who over and over again lambasted WVa and Kentucky for being purely racist. It was awful to read.

     The going theory of course is that Clinton supporters are just uneducated.

    [ Parent ]

    Just contacted DNC: my GE support rides on MI-FL (5.00 / 13) (#41)
    by Ellie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:40:39 AM EST
    Dems' treatment of HRC has been atrocious. She has done nothing but boost them though they have clearly worked to hobble her at every turn.

    They have minimized her considerable gains and performance, damned her with faint praise, and not stepped in and clarified her true position in the race.

    I contacted the DNC and said that my future participation in the GE for President and down ticket depends on the treatment of MI and FL voters.

    The Dems have put FL/MI in a ridiculous invented niche and treated the voters as their fate is up to Obama to decide -- and then written them off after he was presented with multiple options that he turned down like a child king.

    I won't condone, enable or support these outrageous NOO ROOLZ that dispose of a huge segment of the party in a wild goose chase for unrecognized, untried new voters, an alleged $200m database and speculations of uncollected cash.

    Not supporting this, not funding it, not enabling it. If they thug Hillary out of her rightful place, I'm sitting on my hands till Nov. and writing her in. (I'm thinking Clinton / Gore.)

    (Jeralyn, Congrats on tonight's TL-kid ceremony, and kudos on being able to post at all! I'd barely be able to see for being verklempt!)

    I rather like Hillary's ability to win (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:00:15 AM EST
    despite being outspent.

    [ Parent ]
    The Dems in FL and MI...... (1.00 / 6) (#160)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:24:48 AM EST
    .....decided their own fate, and they have nobody to blame but themselves and party leaders.

    Never-the-less, there has never been any doubt that a compromise will be reached when the credentials committee meets.  I anticipate a 50% cut in their delegations, but it doesn't really matter.  Obama will soon have sufficient delegates to lock it up either way - with or without FL and MI, as is.

    [ Parent ]

    What matters, if not to you, is that (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:23:02 AM EST
    the Democrats will lose the presidency with Obama.

      That's very clear cut if you're watching carefully.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Laureola- you have a real problem grasping (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:09 AM EST
    facts. Your earlier post about W.V./1970 was absurd and this one is equally off base. The republican leadership in these states messed things up, not the Dems- and yet people like you insist the VOTERS must be punished (anything to help Barack, huh?)  

    [ Parent ]
    thanks for the post (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:24 AM EST
    But in reality, neither Obama nor Clinton is particularly liberal in their positions. I think you are confusing "pro-liberalism" with "anti-Bushism."

    I also think you are an Obamabot who is trying to backdoor your way into convincing HRC supporters to support Obama.

    Good luck to you.

    You are partly correct (none / 0) (#49)
    by Bintarong on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:45:11 AM EST
    It is true that I will vote for Obama, and I want as many other people as possible to join me.  That's politics . . .  If Clinton wins the nomination I'll vote for her.  You are right that neither of them are THAT liberal, which is why I initially supported Edwards, who really isn't that liberal either.  Is it my fault our country has a narrower range of politics than anywhere else?  What's a liberal to do?

    [ Parent ]
    I don't spend too much time... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:51:43 AM EST
    telling other people what to do. That's why I'm a liberal, too. However, one thing I wish for is that other "liberals" would re-energize their critical thinking skills and re-examine the remaining candidates with respect to their chances in the GE.

    A guy can dream, can't he?

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#93)
    by Bintarong on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:05:59 AM EST
    And I am certainly not telling anyone what to do.  I hate that . . .  But I do think that the issue is more complicated than gets explored here, which is why I wrote my original post -- now deleted, sadly.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the issues get explored (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:11:45 AM EST
    here quite well, but i suspect that you do not like the conclusions that some people here reach. Both Jeralyn and BTD are clear supporters of either Dem in the general. Many of the commenters are very conflicted, and they are angered at the sense of entitlement that seems to emanate from the Obama campaign and its supporters: we won, nyah nyah, now get in line or else. Very few people here actually like McCain, but don't feel good at present about supporting Obama. These issues get discussed here frequently. And, on occasion, succinctly.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe I haven't spent enough time here (none / 0) (#112)
    by Bintarong on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:21:20 AM EST
    But my impression of the posts here is that there is a great deal of anger, a lot of arguing, but not too many changed opinions.  Nor do I feel that the people who support Obama here are representing their position effectively.  

    But I truly feel that in 5 years, or even next election, that we will look back and see that this primary election, instead of being a divisive mess, turns out to have been the best thing possible for the Democratic party.  Regardless of how the next 2 weeks play out.  

    I don't see that opinion voiced too much, here, and I wanted to raise it.

    [ Parent ]

    Arguing (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:47:42 AM EST
    only starts up when Obama supporters who want to bully show up and start agitating.

    The regular posters here are very civil, humorous, and respectful of one another. Discussions are lively, informative and mostly pro-Clinton.

    The influx of new Obama supporters has been recent. They are acting on a "unity" plan, but they aren't engaging. The instruction from Obama to "be nice" to us only came out yesterday :)


    [ Parent ]

    I'm sorry, I didn't read carefully enough (none / 0) (#115)
    by Bintarong on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:26:07 AM EST
    I apologize for misreading what you wrote -- I find it hard to think in short posts.

    I totally agree that posters here are quite conflicted.  And I have noticed that BTD is quite explicit in supporting the Democratic nominee.  

    And I think that in the end of a bitter and passionate primary election it is very difficult to remember that it is only the preliminary.

    [ Parent ]

    your other comment (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:55:28 AM EST
    was deleted. It was ridiculously long. And it doesn't seem to be something you wrote to be a comment but a screed.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm disappointed that you deleted my post (none / 0) (#80)
    by Bintarong on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:59:44 AM EST
    I worked hard on it, because I wanted to discuss some of the things that are often raised here at TalkLeft.  It was long because I wanted it to be complete, and because I tried to be fair.  It was not a screed, but it represented my opinion.  Nothing in it was offensive, to my mind.  Why did you delete it?

    [ Parent ]
    Heh, I liked it... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:03:12 AM EST
    ...but I agree (if it was the post I think it was) with Jeralyn, probably too long. I've tried to learn to be more concise.

    [ Parent ]
    geesh, I hope you saved a copy... (none / 0) (#89)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:03:29 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    it sounded like something you were (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:02:45 AM EST
    paid to write. And it was addressed to TL readers and Taylor Marsh readers. I took it as a sales job.

    Perhaps I was too harsh. If so, I apologize.

    [ Parent ]

    Got to love your enthusiasm. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:42:54 AM EST
     

    If Obama is inevitable (5.00 / 10) (#55)
    by MonaL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:48:25 AM EST
    why do you insist Hillary step aside?

    It should bother you not at all that she stay in.

    Not clear on your logic.

    This is really kind of a silly question that some (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:58:27 AM EST
    ask. McCain was even more inevitable than Obama and he wanted Huckabee to step aside. Why? Because he wanted to get on with the GE. So let me see if I can explain this to you: Obama has not insisted (but he would prefer) that Hillary concede so that he can concentrate on the GE. Like everything else in life, the more time you have to prepare and execute