Who Had the Bigger Win Tonight?

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)


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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    Well (5.00 / 12) (#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 / 2) (#91)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:04:49 AM EST
    less than 700,000!

    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.


    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.

    Uh, yeah. Bill won KY twice. (5.00 / 11) (#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.

    That's what's interesting about Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#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.  

    KY is not as important as (5.00 / 14) (#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.

    Jeralyn you're very patient tonight (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:41:10 AM EST
    I wonder if Obama (5.00 / 5) (#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.  


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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.

    Bill Did and (5.00 / 12) (#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.

    Also, Kentucky (5.00 / 3) (#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?  

    Of course, reviewing your comments (5.00 / 13) (#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.


    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.


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


    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.


    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.


    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.

    Here are the registration (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    Electable? (1.00 / 2) (#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.

    No, it wasn't (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    That's pretty vapid (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:43:58 AM EST
    Different election, different candidates.  Kerry resembles Obama, not Clinton.

    Electability? (5.00 / 4) (#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!"

    In the primary... (5.00 / 5) (#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!"

    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!

    When Hillary goes wind-surfing (5.00 / 10) (#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.


    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!

    The difference is (5.00 / 10) (#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.

    if Kerry couldn't beat Bush... (5.00 / 6) (#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)


    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    I'm trying to remember what the major (5.00 / 3) (#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.  


    I think the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    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.

    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.

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


    Combine these numbers plus (5.00 / 12) (#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 / 10) (#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.


    The people agree with you (5.00 / 7) (#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.

    The Kentucky result and turnout (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:45:33 AM EST
    really is pretty stunning under these circumstances.

    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?!!"  

    I'm more (5.00 / 1) (#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.  


    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.

    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!


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    That goes for me too! (5.00 / 5) (#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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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).


    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!


    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.

    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.

    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.

    WOW! Hillary does it again! (5.00 / 10) (#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.

    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 :)

    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.


    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.


    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.



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

    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.

    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


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.



    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?)  

    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?

    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?


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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 :)


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

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


    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 the better your chances -- the less drained and fatigued you'll be.

    It's really such a simple notion. Hope this clears it up.


    Seth, if Obama ends up as the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:02:33 AM EST
    It was necessary that he had some sort of vetting and challenges along the way.  He would have gone into the general election like a man without skin otherwise.

    Gloria Steinem was right! (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by hairspray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:39:51 AM EST
    A charasmatic new guy with 10 minutes of experience is more entitled than a woman with years of on the job training.  That's politics.  But this is the last time I vote for a Dem that I don't at least admire a bit.

    Absolutely, and Hillary has made him a (none / 0) (#95)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:07:45 AM EST
    better candidate but there is a point beyond which her continued presence hurts him and I think we've passed that point. She's also exposing a lot of his weaknesses and, until recently, was sort of tearing him down somewhat with negativity (granted had little choice as she was behind). I would say the same thing if the roles were reversed. I'd want Obama out of the way so Hillary could get on with her business against McCain. I'm not an Obama supporter with any animosity toward Hillary. I would gladly support her.

    The roles actually are reversed (5.00 / 8) (#97)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:08:46 AM EST
    to many observers. Time for Obama to step aside.

    That Obama has real weaknesses is not her fault (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:14:16 AM EST
    Unless the Democratic party has become a giant ostrich farm, I think there is real value in looking at who is going to give us a better chance to win back the White House.

    If Obama didn't want to be "exposed" then he should have become a reclusive novelist that lives in the woods of Oregon instead of a national public figure who will carry the burden of representing millions of people during dangerous economic times.

    Running for President should demand a little more vetting than getting a manager job at Burger King.


    Everyone has weaknesses (none / 0) (#135)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:09:50 AM EST
    She has her own as well. If she were the presumptive nominee and he was out there exposing every weakness that wouldn't be a good idea.

    This goes to the heart of the disagreement (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:04:47 AM EST
    He is not the nominee.

    And you think those weaknesses (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:20:08 AM EST
    should not have been exposed until the GE?

    He did a good job of exposing his own weaknesses, imo. One of the reasons I can't vote for him.


    The so-called white worker vote (none / 0) (#139)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:07 AM EST
    which Hillary has exploited, is something McCain would've been afraid to touch in the GE. Now he's salivating and may subtly play a race card to try to consolidate that vote. The way in which a member of Obama's own party exploited this issue gives McCain carte blanche.

    There are other issues like Ayers and Wright and Rezko, commander in chief threshold, etc. In a sense, Hillary helped legitimize these attack lines. It would be like if Obama, with no clear path to the nomination, was attacking Hillary on Hsu, Peter Paul or terrorist pardons. Or Bill Clinton's myriad questionable business dealings, which in part have funded Hillary's campaign. I can go on and on, and I haven't even touched on the oldies but goodies. But you get the point: Obama would be helping to frame the attack lines against her by exposing these weaknesses.


    One more time (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by daria g on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:32:23 AM EST
    Why do you think the way to win white working-class voters is by playing the race card?   The ball's in your court.  Please explain.

    Google Southern Strategy (1.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:34 AM EST
    Notice that Hillary didn't visit any black neighborhoods in any of the Apallachean states. Even Bill wasn't sent around to various black churches and functions as was usually the case. You could say she wrote off that vote because that dye was cast. But some people thought, rightly or wrongly, that she wanted to foster an us vs. them mentality among these voters. If so it was the cold-blooded politcal calculus of desperate candidate. I'm agnostic on this. I'm not sure the exploitation was overt enough to be obvious. But John Edwards explicity asked those making a racist or sexist vote to not vote for him. Maybe it was a gimmick. But Edwards made the statement many times.

    Bill Clinton's campaign stops (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by wasabi on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:53:37 AM EST
    Bill had several stops in towns that had a sizable black population.  Do you think they profiled people at the campaign stops and turned away blacks?  I thought people were free to attend any function.

    Didn't You Get The Memo (none / 0) (#227)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:05:46 AM EST
    Small towns and rural areas don't count in the NEW Democratic party.

    You Could Say That Obama Has Taken The Black (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:11:59 AM EST
    vote for granted. Hillary attended the black functions such as honoring MLK in April. Obama has not attended any of them. Why won't he attend the black functions?

    Hillary hardly has the money Obama has. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:08:12 AM EST
    In such caes wisest strategy is to put money and efforts in places where you can win and in swing places. It would be highly stupid to at that time concentrate in places where you have no chance in a hell of winning.

    Initiall hillary had also ignored most of the red states instead preferring to concentrate on Blue states and swing states. That strategy unfortunately cost her because of the disproportionate number of delegates awarded to the red states.

    But Obama's strtategy of not campaigning in WV and KY is something. As the supposed nominee shouldn't he at the least familiarize himself with the people in these states?


    Great strategy, tell people not to vote for you (none / 0) (#156)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:09:59 AM EST
    You forget early on (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:03 AM EST
    in the campaign Obama boasted that while he could get her voters she could not get his. What was that all about?

    His weakness would have got exposed come what may because it was out there. It was not somemagic which Hillary did to make it materialize. I am surprised that his weakness got exposed so late in the day.

    Attack on Obama for Wright, Ayers etc are legitimate attack which any political nominee would be attacked for. After the ridiculous amount of coverage Hillary got for her tuzla misstatement, it is only logical that more serious issues like Wright and Ayers get coverage. Hillary didn't force Obama either to acknowledge or denounce his relationship with Wright or Ayers.

    Comparing Wright and Ayers association to  Peter Paul or Hsu association is beyond ridiculous.

    Obama bought race into the picture by race baiting Hillary. Fairy tale comment, no tears for Katrina etc.


    Obama Supporters Bringing Up Hsu (none / 0) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:07:52 AM EST
    seem to forget that he contributed to Obama as well. Not their best argument.

    What a doozy (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:08:33 AM EST
    In a sense, Hillary helped legitimize these attack lines. It would be like if Obama, with no clear path to the nomination, was attacking Hillary on Hsu, Peter Paul or terrorist pardons. Or Bill Clinton's myriad questionable business dealings, which in part have funded Hillary's campaign. I can go on and on, and I haven't even touched on the oldies but goodies.

    I fail to see how pointing out one of Obama's electoral weaknesses is the same as peddling wingnut lies about the Clintons.  And besides, Hillary does have a clear path to the nomination.  Do you realize that Obamatons have been screaming at her to drop out since January?


    Wow! (none / 0) (#239)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:43:27 AM EST
    McCain will only attack Obama on national security because Hillary legitimized the line of attack.

    It's the exact same as if Obama had attacked Hillary on Peter Paul.

    Wow, wow, wow.


    Hah (none / 0) (#257)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    She didn't exploit anything. She just gets populism and its pretty clear Obama doesn't. Don't worry though I heard Donna on TV, HE can win it without us. LOL It's sad and not very Christian but I'm going to enjoy watching the "creative class" choke on their own arrogance.

    Seth, you need to face the facts (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:29:34 AM EST
    Obama hurts himself and he is hurt when people "expose" -- meaning talk about at all -- his MANY and heavy weaknesses because he has no strength but his nice voice, his one-stump-speech for 17 months, and his mild manner.

      His background is awful and he will lose.  NOTHING will have gotten him ready for the vetting from Republican 527s.

      You are in for an awful ride if he gets the nomination.

      You folks treat him like a child, trying to protect him but you can't, not from what's about to hit with vivid illustrations by the 527s in a way no Dem could ever do and they will be done to mainstream audiences not paying attention during the primaries (most don't) and during primetime tv.

      Hillary has been using kid gloves, believe me.  And you will look back and understand what you were reading here.


    Rationalization for bad conduct there. (none / 0) (#243)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:45:25 AM EST
    I've heard this before. It doesn't matter how wrong what I do is because the guys in the fall will do it worse. You are not judged on what they may do but on what you yourself do.

    i would prefer, (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:06:22 AM EST
    but am not insisting, that my team win the NHL playoffs. I think Pittsburgh should step aside.

    This is kind of fun! (Unless you are a Penguin)


    "Insisted"? (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:08:26 AM EST
    How can Senator Obama insist that another candidate stop running for an office he hasn't won yet? That's not his choice to make, no matter how drained and fatigued he feels. That's really a simple notion too.

    I must have missed..... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:28:54 AM EST
    .......when he insisted Clinton step aside.

    No, you must have missed (none / 0) (#270)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:57:42 AM EST
    the comment to which I was replying. Click parent, and all will become clear.

    Yeah (5.00 / 10) (#99)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:09:51 AM EST
    we've been seeing a preview of Obama's GE performance the past few days in his foreign policy debate with McCain.  The longer Obama goes on with this, the worse it gets.  The GOP is gleeful.  They've caught Obama flip-flopping on the Cuban embargo; on whether or not Iran is a grave threat.  He's giving them ammo for multiple Kerry-type flip-flopping ads.

    For A Young Guy He Seems To Get Fatigued (5.00 / 10) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:10:54 AM EST
    pretty easily.

    is it fatigue or is it resentment? (5.00 / 12) (#108)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:19:12 AM EST
    He once said something like: "I will not allow this moment to be taken away from us"

    Mantaining toxic levels of hubris is "hard work"


    Why should Hillary stay in? (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:04:47 AM EST
    Well, when 50% of Democratic voters have cast votes for you I would think that is self-explanatory.  Laureloa too, Hillary does not need to step aside to make way for Obama, it's a ridiculous assertion and is not respectful of any of the candidates or the voters.  If that was the case then we really should just tell the last half of the states that their votes will never count.  I mean, what's the point?

    You're correct..... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:29:53 AM EST
    ......if you believe party unity is not important.

    I'm all for party unity. (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:39:45 AM EST
    It's mindless devotion where I draw the line.

    Mindless devotion is in the eye of the beholder. (none / 0) (#244)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:49:07 AM EST
    Please read this site for the last week or so as if the candidate described here as Obama was your candidate, not the one on the other side, and see what you think about that and mindless devotion.

    I'd remind you that Senator Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:35:09 AM EST
    ran against Carter, a sitting president, and actually took his fight TO THE CONVENTION, although he was 750 delegates behind!

    I don't mean that as disrespect to the horror that Ted Kennedy is going through now, but it's a very important element of this ridiculous effort to get Clinton out since WAY BEFORE OHIO.  Well, Obama's spreadsheet did show Clinton about to win Ohio and Pennsylvania and possibly Texas.  

     His whole history is of trying to get his opponent OUT, either off the ballot or the opponents' (2) withdrawing due to personal reasons which Axelrod pressed the Chicago Tribune to print (all successful by the way).  This is the 'New Politics' of course.


    McCain (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:00:55 AM EST
    actually, you know, got the number of delegates needed to win the nomination.

    Unlike Obama.


    McCain and Huckabee were quite different! (none / 0) (#136)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:12:56 AM EST
    At that time, McCain already crossed the required threshold for the delegate count and they did not have controversial situations like Florida and Michigan.

    Maybe just maybe our objection (5.00 / 9) (#59)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:49:51 AM EST
    to Obama is more an objection to the candidate and his way of doing politics.
    We know how he won his senate and we see a similar game at play in his winning the current nomination.
    His current flip flops on issues makes us hard core Democrats cringe and only highlights how inexperienced he is.
    His refusal to take a stand both in his senate tenure and now is extremely worrying.
    His praise of Regan tenure and trashing of Bill C tenure has hardly endeared us to him.
    And we or at least I do believe that he is equally responsible for the unpleasent sexisim that was prevalent in this campaign.
    Are we also to forget how all the Pro Obama liberal blogs completely purged their blogs of clinton supporters and how they allowed all kind of loony accusations against the Clintons to be posted and commented upon in the vilest of language.
    And now this talk about party unity sounds empty. Part Unity should have been thought of at the start of and during the campaign not now.

    Team Obama abused us left right and center and then now to pretend that everything is just peachy and the sun is shining brightly and that if anybody is at fault it is only the DNC and you know those pesky MSM is I believe adding salt to the wound.

    I understand how you feel, but (none / 0) (#74)
    by Bintarong on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:56:11 AM EST
    Clinton stands for things -- judges that she selects for the Supreme Court, for example, will be very different from those that McCain selects.  Clinton in the Senate and Obama in the White House will help to advance her positions.

    And as for unity . . .  the time for unity is when people are angry with each other.  And man, some of them are angry now.  Thus -- time to talk unity.  I hope that simply mentioning this doesn't make me into a troll or an Obama-bot . . .



    Hillary was against Roberts (5.00 / 8) (#98)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:09:10 AM EST
    Obama was pro Roberts, he even boasted about it in Fox news. So you see Hillary and Obama are actually quite different in their preferences.

    You have it backwards (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:04 AM EST
    Hillary in the whitehouse gets to nominate.  With Barack and other democrats in the Senate, they get to confirm her nominees. Hillary has shown that she knows exactly what to do; her policy proposals are probably already drafted for submission to Congress for action. She is prepared and READY ON DAY ONE.  

    You don't unneccessarily or dishonestly (none / 0) (#214)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    pummel your opponent (Obama re Clinton) and try to get your audiences to HATE Hillary by telling untruths to them as he did March 10-11 in Mississipi, telling them Hillary
      1.  "leaked" that Kenya photo garb of him
      2.  and "She didn't defend me!" (on 60 minutes),

    while expecting her supporters to help you out.

     The 2nd item is repeated over and over again on HuffPost by people this week, apparently posting from talking points and it is ludicrously wrong and the man is incredibly deceitful to do have done this -- encouraging hatred of her while telling a lie over and over again to that end.  

      But that's only one small item of what he has done.  For me, it's basic dishonesty by a guy who presents himself as a unifier (quite hilarious when you see how he operates), and it will come back and be highlighted in many 527 videos.  Hillary did not begin to touch him but you'll understand once it's done and it will be (if he gets the nomination).


    Re loony postings and chasing Clintonites out. (none / 0) (#247)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    Have you noticed how you treat "Obamabots" on this site. Have you read  from a neutral position the posts a lot of you have put out here and pondered whether they would give offense to the other side or would be seen as needlessly derogatory of the other side. I read this site to see if there is something I am missing about Clinton that should be taken into account, but you as a group are not helping your candidate that way.

    I have a specific suggestion (5.00 / 9) (#62)
    by MarkL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:52:16 AM EST
    to help Hillary.
    If I'm not mistaken, Howard Dean has indicated that FL and MI popular vote totals should  be included.
    If that's correct, then he should be asked about this publicly, and made to admit that Hillary has the lead in the popular vote now.

    How can he NOT? (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:34:04 AM EST
    Punishing the states with loss of their vote, and their delegates, but keeping their SD's. That seems like a punishment that is far greater than the "crime".

    Re punishing voters and keeping SDs (none / 0) (#248)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    Insofar as I am aware, a number of the proposals contemplate punishing the SDs as well or instead  because the SDs were in a position to prevent this mess and didn't do it. Something to consider there, unless your only concern is whether the SDsa are Clintonians.

    Indeed (5.00 / 7) (#119)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:34:25 AM EST
    he acknowledged to a MA women's group that the raw vote totals from MI/FL do indeed count, and in fact have always counted.  The DNC ruling was about delegates.  They had no authority to strip the popular vote totals.  It would be nice if Dean would say something publicly, so the MSM would quit ridiculing Hillary for using fuzzy math.

    Do you have a link to what he said? (none / 0) (#215)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:45:03 AM EST
    That would be key.  Thanks.

    I should add again that Howard Dean (none / 0) (#219)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:50:28 AM EST
    also said the following.

    He told the Financial Times on April 25 that:

    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

    I've sent that to several news organizations, but none are interested in using it.  I wonder why.


    It will always be fuzzy math, for Clinton's side. (none / 0) (#251)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    Popular vote as between two candidates  only works in places where everyone is on the ballot and all voters know it will count. THEN popular vote works. Where one is not on the ballot at all, or the voters have been told that it is a beauty contest, the various votes are not in fact comparable. And there are problems when the other candidate's voters had their ballots discarded when trying to write him in. PV also eliminates entire states -you can't make the 48 state argument when in your count you only have 46. Don't rely so much on popular vote.

    Clearly (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MonaL on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:53:23 AM EST
    a big win for Hillary tonight.  The expectation was that she'd lose by at least 19-20 points in OR, if it stays around 13-16, she wins.

    And don't forget KY, what a blowout.  Did Obama really outspend her 4 to 1?  I'm going to send her more cash tonight.

    Indeed she had the better night (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by tsam on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:55:02 AM EST
    As a Barak Obama supporter (since John Edwards left the race), I agree that Hillary Clinton had the better night tonight.

    Out of curiosity I looked at TL on the night of NC and IN.  The posts were written for an audience that supports Hillary, but they were reasonably balanced in the facts they present.  I am impressed overall with what your blog reports.

    (I expect Barak to win the nomination and want him to, but am keeping my emotional balance to be ready to support the Democratic nominee this fall.  I want to keep my health insurance and not see any new wars.  Also, I believe that the historic support for Democrats this spring gives both Barak and Hillary an excellent chance to win in the fall.)

    Enjoy your night, folks.

    Thank you -- (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:13:32 AM EST
    emails like yours really do give "hope." :-)

    Yes, Corrente reports that (none / 0) (#220)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM EST
    a Foxnews news headline running the other night talked about the 400 hired by Obama to blog with a focus on unifying everyone.

      Most of them try for one or two posts and if unsuccessful, will tell Clintonites that they obviously were never Democrats and are not needed.

      However, tsam should be hired to teach The 400 how to do it in a way that might have SOME positive results.


    The reports indicate that both sides have paid (none / 0) (#252)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:18:53 AM EST

    No doubt both sides pay bloggers (none / 0) (#268)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:55:22 AM EST
    but 400 paid bloggers is another matter.

      I don't care, as both campaigns use boilerplate - I'm just pointing to that large number and to the focus they're to have now, in order to try to bring unity.  Some were not cut out for that job though judging how fast the nice-talk can degenerate into insults about our 'real' party affiliation and how we're not needed anyway if we don't convert on the spot.


    Hubris... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by hillaryboy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:02:01 AM EST
    is the word that comes to mind when I think of an Obama presidency.  Obama's excessive pride, the premature coronation, and the DNC and the fawning delegates with dollar signs in there eyes reminds me of many a Greek tragedy...
    or am i just being a Cassandra? ;)  

    Remember, Cassandra (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:17:04 AM EST
    was right, it was just that no one ever believed her ;)

    And you're not crazy for thinking something is wrong with coasting to the nomination based on a light resume, a quasi-corporate astro-turfing program, waving money in the faces of SD's and disenfranchising entire states.


    re Hubris and Cassandra (none / 0) (#254)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST
    Thought needs be given to what the result would be if the Hubris analysis here were turned around and applied to Clinton as well. One of the criticisms of her campaign is, after all that she relied on inevitabiity and was thus not ready when an alternative  showed up. I'm not saying your enthusiasm is wrong, only that you need to apply your critical thinking to both sides.

    Obama won in Oregon (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:03:21 AM EST
    because Clinton had a big problem with white MEN there. I know that doesn't fit into your preferred racial narrative about the race, but its a fact about the Oregon vote.

    Nope! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:19:19 AM EST
    Because votes in other states show she won the majority of men's votes after Rev. Wright and Obama's 'bitter/cling' remarks.  She may have trouble with the latte-drinking-noveau riche of the San Francisco area--the same group he made his bitter/cling remarks to. Hillary won in the rural areas where the rugged men are.

    I think you're misinterpreting (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:28:28 AM EST
    Tree here. He is right - he made no claims about the white men of Oregon's ruggedness. Oregon is largely white, and Obama did very well there among the men (and not too badly among the women). I'm not sure the exit polls measured ruggedness. This reminds me in some ways of Wisconsin -- there is a bit more diversity, but whites voted for Obama there, too. I think there are probably several ways in which Wisconsin and Oregon are similar (but I'm not a demographer, so this is just a guess/opinion).

    I'm an HRC supporter, but Obama's winning Oregon is good for him. As BTD says, pretty much his ONLY electoral hope in the GE is to do well out west. If you are inclined to support Obama, this is an important victory for him, and he will point to it to try to convince superdelegates that it's only those "white hicks" in Appalachia who don't get him.

    Agree or disagree, I think that is his argument. That, and a great big bag of money.


    No dig at Clinton or rugged Oregon men intended (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:58:28 AM EST
    I was just pointing to exit polling that showed a huge gender gap in Oregon. Women were split equally but men favored Obama by 30 points.

    I've lived in Oregon a few years and hope to live there again in the not too distant future. I can't really explain the gender vote difference, but I suspect that Oregon wasn't able to get to know and see Clinton as well as other states did. In those other states  she was able to overcome and diminish the gender gap once the menfolk got to know her.

     I also think there's an independent streak in many Oregonians that runs counter to the federal government and that played to Clinton's disfavor. And there's more of a bias against Easterners there.  Just guesses on my part as to an explanation. I also know that Obama had a strong and well funded campaign organization in the state for months and months. Clinton was playing catch-up with a lot less time and money.

    Thanks for defending me, dws. BTW, not that it really matters in the scheme of things, but I'm a she not a he.


    Don't forget that (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:20:40 AM EST

    The San Francisco latte-drinkers LAUGHED at those comments by Obama as he mocked the working class Appalachians.

    People can actually hear the audio of Obama's "bitter, clinging to guns and religion" yammering on YouTube.


    but probably not in more-cowboy territory (none / 0) (#222)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:54:14 AM EST
    where 'men are men' as they like to put it.  Never to be under the thumb of any woman.  :-)

    Macho, macho man! (none / 0) (#255)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    Got news for you. Latte drinking SFers vote with the same effect as your rugged manly men in rural areas. Are you now suggesting that white men who don't all vote for Clinton are not manly men, by some chance? That sort of thing has no place in a voters' blog.

    Macho, macho man! (none / 0) (#256)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:24:55 AM EST
    Got news for you. Latte drinking SFers vote with the same effect as your rugged manly men in rural areas. Are you now suggesting that white men who don't all vote for Clinton are not manly men, by some chance? That sort of thing has no place in a voters' blog.

    White men? We can win without them. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:22:23 AM EST
    (just trying out my role as an Obama advocate)

    Demographics has been destiny (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:25:47 AM EST
    in this campaign for a long time - and there was no shift tonite.  Yes, Hillary loses men in a state like Oregon, when huge numbers of them are college educated and earn greater than 50,000/yr.  She wins men though in states like OH, PA, WV, KY, where larger numbers do not have college educations and earn less than 50,000/yr.  Those working class voters are crucial - they are votes that McCain will compete for in the Fall.  Either Hillary or Obama would win Oregon easily.

    I'm thinking that health care (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by splashy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:53 AM EST
    Is a big issue with that. Those upper income men HAVE health care, while the lower income ones don't, along with their families.

    Makes a big difference seeing people in your family die for lack of health care. You really think about it more, and go for the whole plan as opposed to the half a plan.


    This is what Bill means (5.00 / 7) (#161)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:25:00 AM EST
    when he says the people in KY and WV "need a President more" than the people telling Hillary to quit.

    And you know what?  He's right!  Selecting a president is about more than making yourself feel good or just sending some meta-message.  


    Her problem with white men (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by tree on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:46:05 AM EST
    in Oregon was unique to Oregon among the later voting states. She had a significant gender gap problem earlier in the season but seemed to overcome it in the later primaries. I'm not blaming her bad showing with Oregon men on her gender. I gave several possible reasons for her poorer showing there, and none of them were based on her gender. Likewise, I don't see Obama's problem with non-black working class voters being based on his race.

     But news coverage has been consistently misogynistic. That has caused problems for Clinton throughout the campaign, and has probably cost her votes, not because some voters won't vote for a woman, but because the negative, nasty and belittling coverage have biased some voters against her, and have convinced others that she can not win.

    I suspect that exit polls that ask if gender or race influenced the vote aren't really reliable measures of gender or racial bias, and can just as easily overstate as understate the problem. For instance, someone could easily think that it would be great to support Clinton as the first female President, but then decide that he thought Obama would make a better President. Would this mean that the voter was exhibiting a gender bias with his vote? Of course not. Likewise a Clinton voter might think it would be wonderful to vote for the first black President, but then decide that Clinton had more experience and ability. Does this mean that the Clinton voter was exercising a racial bias? No. You see where I'm going here. Without further explanation about how gender or race affected the decision, you can't really draw any conclusions about it all means in terms of bias. And of course, on the other hand, you have the fact that people will lie when asked such questions. Hence, the question is pointless, except as a way to indulge in stereotypical generalizations about other people.  


    Excellent comment. Another factor (none / 0) (#260)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    to be taken into account is that gender issues bite differently in different places. I come from the Northwest and am going home soon again. Out there, women especially in rural culture have a different position. Women  often had their own separate homesteads and built them up, not more than two or maybe three generations before. Somebody gotta herd the cattle or get the bear out of the kitchen or deal with the snake or the tax man or sell the wheat crop. No time for cultivating the fragile and dependent woman meme because if you're like that, you died last week. The settler days are not so far away. It makes a difference in rural areas there, and how gender issues are considered. Not like towns or the east at all.

    And the media coverage is mainly liberal-men (none / 0) (#225)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:59:50 AM EST
    With regard to gender- or racial- identifications, you will see it pretty heavily with the AA comentators certainly, but they are always more reasonable than the resentful Olbermann (normal for sports guys from what I've seen) and Matthews, who famously got thrills up his leg when hearing Obama speak.

      He has tended to go on and on about the male characteristics of Bush, McCain, and even Obama as things that are irresistable.  Something about primitive ideas of leadership, from what I gather.  Then there is the disgusting Russert, who wants to be The Decider on the nomination.


    Symbolism... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:53 AM EST
    ...has always been an appeal of both these candidates.  I maintain that this is a problem with both of them, and will be a problem regardless of who is nominated.    

     Personally, I think Iraq will be a mess for whoever inherits it.  I want it over, as does nearly everyone else in America.  If Senator Obama wins, I doubt his anti-war constituency will be appeased, however.  For me the main arguments for ending it are both moral and economic.  When (indeed if) it comes, the end will be messy.  

    Samantha Power already explained in an (none / 0) (#226)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    interview overseas (broadcast on tv) that Obama probably could not end the war very fast and that what he was promising on the campaign trail was actually a best-case scenario, which she thought would not come to pass.  She said this as I watched him promise his rallies he would get all troops out the next year.

      That was about the same time as she made the "Hillary is a monster" call, also broadcast.  And then she was gone.  Until he might be elected, which is a remote scenario itself.

      Outside of her easy demonization of Hillary, she's very intelligent on foreign policy matters.  Obama supporters tend to see in b&w though when it comes to Hillary or maybe anyone who would be Obama's opponent and get in the way of his climbing the throne.


    Specious Argument (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:30:11 AM EST
    Her popular vote argument to the supers is a difficult sell. She only leads if you count Florida and Michigan, and award Obama 0 votes from Michigan. Granting him even 40% of the vote would put him in the lead. But to even except the this vote scenario, let alone the idea that noone wanted to vote for Obama in Michigan, you have to accept the vote total logic of comparing primaries, to caucauses, to caucuses with no vote totals, to a primary ruled to not count by the DNC, to a primary that was ruled not to count and only had 1 of the major candidates on the ballot.

    Why is it unreasonable to compare primary vote counts to caucus vote counts, yet perfectly sensible to award delegates based on these same discrepant systems?  It is, in fact, reasonable to factor the popular vote into any nomination equation, and it is not quite as difficult as you would like us to believe.  I believe there are four caucus counts in which the votes haven't been tallied. Either factor the votes or a reasonable estimate of these votes into the calculation.  Either way it's not going to change much of anything.

    So now the remaining problem is Michigan. Obama himself chose to disenfranchise voters in that state by removing his name from the ballot in bold political manuever that has come back to haunt him.

    My personal compromise solution is this: Obama gamed the red state caucuses using a similarly bold campaign tactic that was amazingly successful.  His large delegate lead is a result of this tactic. So split the popular vote in Michigan to neutralize his tactical error, while awarding a proportionate number of his red state caucus delegates to Clinton.  After all, if the DNC is going to "fix" Obama's tactical error, it is only fair that they recognize and "fix" Clinton's tactical error in not organzing an effective ground strategy in states that will never go dem in the general.  Right?

    The Super Delegates have been created (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:22:29 AM EST
    for a reason just like the disproportionate awarding of delegates. It is highly illogical to accept the delegate superirity but not the SD and if the SD's are too scared to intervene then they shouldn't have been made SD at all. You can't have only convenient rulz being followed.

    Hillary has a strong argument for the SD. Her argument - Obama started off strong but is now very weak as evidenced in the last 10 contest. Hillary started off weak but has now become much much stronger as evidenced by all the polls now and the results of the last 10 contest. The SD have to make a cjoice on who is the strongest candidate now ready to face GE with a momentum.
    The popular vote and calculating the counties won overall is a very good indicator on who has the better chances in GE.

    Obama removed his name from Michigan fine then why did he release advt. there or was it telemarketing urging people to vote uncommitted over Hillary if he was so sure that Mi would not come into play later.


    SD's and money (none / 0) (#181)
    by Munibond on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:07:34 AM EST
    Maybe the reason for the SDs was to give them leverage to extract campaign contributions in exchange for their support, plus guarantied seat at the convention, in which case winning the GE would not necessarily be a top priority.  At this point, I think Clinton's, and Obama's, only hope is for Clinton to have the VP slot, as insulting as that may be for the superior and more popular candidate.

    Try Howard Dean instead of "you folks" (none / 0) (#234)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:21:07 AM EST
    Dean told the Financial Times on April 25 this:

    "I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."

    So, what do you say about that.  The last 6-8 races?

    The best opponent for McCain?

     Until he finally won one in North Carolina, Obama lost every states' votes after late February.  Very sad showing.

     And WVa and Kentucky are not helping his standing.  Even in Oregon he had been leading by about 20-25 points but wound up winning by only 14.  Vs that, a 35-pt win or a 41 pt win look fairly impressive.

     But we'll see if Howard Dean has been saying the same thing to the superdelegates.  But why wouldn't he?  He also said that there is nothing in the rules that prevents the SDs voting in any way they want and he specified (above) what he felt it "would come down to..." -- those last 6-8 contests and momentum (read all his thoughts in that article).

     The SDs may go the easier route after June 5 or whatever, but it's also known they can change their votes every which way (as can the pledged delegates, two of whom have switched to Obama) before the convention in August depending on polls, events, etc.  The point is to win in November.


    With respect, (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:01:30 AM EST
    I don't think I misunderstood your point(s) at all. You were making an argument about the impossibility of counting primary vs caucus votes, and what to do about the Michigan popular vote.  Now you say:

    The difference between awarding delegates and comparing vote totals is the rules state that you award delegates based on caucuses and say nothing about vote totals. 4 states don't even release vote totals

    Honestly not trying to parse here, but how do you think the caucus delegates are awarded?  By the count (i.e. vote) of each candidate's supporters. Simply because the rules don't specifically order you to count the votes, doesn't mean there is any reason one could not or should not do so. In fact, vote counts or extrapolations of the vote counts to delegates, have got to exist for the four caucuses that have not released them.  Should the DNC request the count, those states would certainly comply.  

    I agree with you about the superdelegates sticking their necks out actually, but I believe strong enough arguments for Clinton's case have already been made by other posters in this thread, so I won't repeat them.

    Michigan.  Bottom line.  There was no reason for Obama to take his name off the ballot.  Whether the votes were going to count or not, I believe his action was disrespectful to the voters of the state.  And while my proposed solution was definitely snark, I'm sure you will concede that Michigan was a tactical error on Obama's part, just as ignoring the red caucus states were on Clinton's. I don't see any justice in the party involving itself in cleaning up Obama's tactical errors unless it is willing to extend the same courtesy to Clinton.


    Why would removing your name... (none / 0) (#200)
    by NvlAv8r on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:58:21 AM EST
    from a primary that will not count based on rules agreed upon by all campaigns be a tactical error?
    Sen. Clinton agreed that primary in Michigan wouldn't count: "It's clear. This election they're having is not going to count for anything.  But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

    Now she didn't want it to be that way, but she certainly understood that it was that way.  I had not heard this humorous tidbit that it was "disrespectful" to the voters of MI for Sen. Obama to take his name off the ballot.  I guess it was disrespectful of Sen. Clinton to not protest Harold Ickes & the DNCs decision to not allow the primaries in both states to count.  Perhaps she should have said something, instead of waiting until she won them to bring it up.

    Sorry folks, this fake caring about disenfranchising the voters is what is known as "politics".

    BTW, congrats to her for Kentucky...she certainly crushed him.  I'm not sure it will change the SDs minds as they continue to move toward Sen. Obama, but if it does I will be happy to vote for her.


    Because the rules were always modifiable (none / 0) (#240)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    If the state party showed evidence of trying to correct the date problem, they did not have to penalized.  The Dems did try to pass an amendment to that bill which had carried the long-sought paper-trail, a feature Dems could not vote against.  The Amendment would have moved the primary date to Feb. 5 but the Republican legislature voted it down.

      Also, the normal penalty, as it was, was only 50% (as the Repubs chose without the ridiculous drama of the DNC and the Brazile cabal).  She led the movement to allow ZERO delegates.  Did you know about this?

      The by-laws allow the penalties to be modified by the rules committee.  Obama knew this.  But he chose to take his name off as a strategy because he was down about 20 points in the polls and used his vaunted leadership abilities to try to get the other candidates to do the same to leave Clinton in the lurch and at a disadvantage in Iowa.  I link to the Iowa Independent story on Obama's strategy back then.  Only Edwards followed him (as he did a week ago).

      Few know about Obama's move and why he did it.  The pundits always say that his name wasn't even on the ballot (as if it just happened or was never on) or that Clinton ran alone.  Kucinich, Gravel, and Dodd were also on the ballot.

      Here's fuller background on the idiotic Florida/Michigan situation, which will answer a few questions many have had.


    Interesting article... (none / 0) (#262)
    by NvlAv8r on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:37:38 AM EST
    But it is 100% based on anonymous sources, so I'll take it with a grain of salt.  What matters is she agreed with the DNC not to count both states, and didn't become a crusader for votes until she needed them.

    Still, with all of the totals how does Sen Clinton do with the delegate count (the only metric that really matters as it is the only one agreed upon when this race started)...does she move ahead?  


    It was not 'agreed upon' unless the person (none / 0) (#265)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:43:28 AM EST
    reached 2025 (or 2209.5)

      The rules say nothing about pledged delegate count, and the superdelegates can look at many other factors, such as electability, as you have now read, including Howard Dean's thinking that it will come down to how things are going in the last 6-8 races and the electability factor against McCain at that time.

      (See my previous notes if you missed this.)


    Correction to (none / 0) (#267)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:49:04 AM EST
    2nd paragraph.

      Should say, "The rules say nothing about superdelegates needing to vote for whoever has the pledged delegate lead."

      It's up to them and was created to be a corrective for various problems including a popular candidate who could go down in flames bringing others along with him -- also, it was meant to make up for the inequities seen in the caucus system, much discussed here.


    To Answer Your Question (none / 0) (#259)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    (Why would removing your name) from a primary that will not count based on rules agreed upon by all campaigns be a tactical error?

    Um, because he doesn't get any share of the popular vote as he would have had he simply left his name on the ballot, rather than trying to game the system and set up confusion where none really needed to exist?  Because political realities dictated that, at some point, those Michigan votes had to come into play one way or another?

    Anyway, I'm done with this topic.  Someone noted downthread that these appear to be contrived arguments and, at this point, I agree.


    Delegates---and bye-bye (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:03:03 AM EST
    are not the bottom line.  Votes at the convention are.  Even pledged delegates get to switch--at the convention and before, as we have seen.  Kool-aid may keep them all.  Or those selected after early races may think their state's results might have been different if voters had known the candidates better.

    Why not just take the compromise the Mich (none / 0) (#266)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    delegation offered. It works for them. It works for Clinton as it gives her more delegates than him, and gets all the delegates in, not just 50%

    The popular vote will be clearer for her by June 3 (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by jfung79 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:55:59 AM EST
    Puerto Rico will give her what she needs to win the popular vote counting Florida but NOT Michigan, and including estimates for the few caucus states that didn't report popular vote totals.

    Yeah, RealClearPolitics has tracked this (none / 0) (#209)
    by NvlAv8r on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:22:37 AM EST
    And done a pretty good job on the estimates for the caucus states.  The idea that the supers are going to base a decision on the popular vote adding in two states that all parties agreed would not count is unrealistic.  Especially when one of the two states only had Sen. Clinton on the ballot; if you take half of the uncommitted votes in Michigan and give them to him (he has historically been doing better than that) he would be ahead of her in popular votes.  

    That people try to make it seem like it was disrespectful for him to do remove his name, when everyone knew it wouldn't count, shows desperation.  That she would think it fair to have her specious argument of popular vote (a metric that is not the metric used by the DNC), rest solely on a state that she agreed would not count and that she was the only one on the ballot is insane.

    If you can't enter a contest with agreed upon rules and win based on those rules, then maybe you shouldn't be running.  


    Howard Dean has already said (none / 0) (#216)
    by masslib on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:46:19 AM EST
    the pop vote totals in FL and MI have nothing to do with sanctioning delegates and of course, DO COUNT.

    This is the Second Time (none / 0) (#263)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM EST
    You have taken one of my statements completely out of context:

    That people try to make it seem like it was disrespectful for him to do remove his name, when everyone knew it wouldn't count, shows desperation.

    I clearly articulated that it was my opinion and my opinion only that removing his name from the ballot was disrespectful to Senator Obama's supporters. I distinctly framed it as a personal opinion, yet you seem intent on making this a central piece of your narrative.

    Desperate much?


    Hillary the only coast-to-coast winner this year (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by jfung79 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:01:59 AM EST
    About the topic of this thread, I think Hillary is clearly the winner because of her huge popular vote gain.  

    By the way, with Kentucky, Hillary now has an unbroken line of states from coast to coast of states she has won in the primary.  Obama does not have an unbroken coast-to-coast line, even though of course he has won states across the country as well.  It really doesn't mean anything much, but I think it's neat symbolically and makes for a good image on the map.  Don't know if anybody has mentioned it yet.  

    So a Clinton/Obama ticket would be impressive (none / 0) (#228)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:07:14 AM EST
    It has and the result was ridicule. (none / 0) (#261)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:35:47 AM EST
    CNN Exit Polling (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by henry on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:30:23 AM EST
    While CNN
    with their Clinton attacks unfairly meme, what is getting missed is most of those counties where Hillary got 90% - and Obama no delegates - went for Gore and Kerry.

    If Obama cannot even compete in the Democratic counties how is it possible for him to carry the state.

    What counties? (none / 0) (#205)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:08:35 AM EST
    I heard this earlier - do you know what counties he lost so badly?

    Begging the question: If BO's movement's so huge (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Ellie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:34:56 AM EST
    If Obama has attracted so many new voters -- and  $$$ THEIR FRESH CASH MONEY $$$$ -- that Dem leaders and other DNC backroom buds are willing to dump sizeable voter groups, why isn't Obama substantially ahead in the popular vote too? Where do these brand new Dumpling Dems figure in that and where do they show up in the pre- and exit polls?

    As I've said before, I'm not a numbers cruncher, but I have paid attention with new interest this season (mostly because Jeralyn and BTD's analyses, focusing on different aspects, have given me a new appreciation of this aspect of campaigning.)

    I haven't seen any breakdowns focusing on these new voters / new Dems.

    The suggestions about new registrants, where specific numbers have been provided (eg, PA) haven't struck me as any more swollen than the GOTV efforts in '04 and for all the hype about them, the material evidence has been vague.

    I also haven't seen staggering numbers of first and second time voters flocking to register as DEMS in such great numbers to justify the arrogance of the Obama campaign and supporters towards substantial voter groups.

    Do they really have enough of a Dumpling Dem army to claim this takeover of the party, discard and p!ss off voter groups they just don't like and bend allegedly neutral leaders to the will of this "new" machine?

    Where are these millions of newbies reflected in the popular vote and in polls, and why haven't they put Obama substantially ahead in popular vote EVERYWHERE across the land? (HRC shouldn't even be close then.)

    Wouldn't this swell also be evident weeks and months before states voted simply by tabulating newly registered Dems across the land?

    Why weren't these figures publicized with (or in lieu of) the clarion calls for Clinton to fold in the face of "insurmountable" reality?

    Why would gimmicks like Dems for a Day be necessary at all to put Obama ahead in all those "contests in a row" he won (unlike the stupid racist ones Clinton unimportantly won in blowouts)?

    What am I missing?

    Most importantly, the Dems could have ended this before engaging in a grueling and mystifying 6-week 'Surrender Hillary' push in PA but didn't.

    Why didn't they and why didn't Obama's Dumpling Army show up there to put a merciful end to this crazy lady's inexplicable ability to have more voters in her column?

    Seems obvious (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:11:21 AM EST
    that--as projected--we are flooded with Obama folks after Hillary's big win.  I am pretty sure our answers can't compete with the kool-aid.  So what's the point of responding to arguments we know are invalid or skewed?  Practice?  

    Obama would need to work for Calif (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by JClampett on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:44:53 AM EST
    I agree.  I live in San Diego and trust on foreign policy issues is huge here.  Lots of population growth in the Inland Empire, too, where people are far removed from San Francisco culturally.  These areas may be blue for Hillary but will not go for someone seen as having a "Hat-in-Hand" approach to foreign policy, like Obama.  FWIW, the McCain's have a house in Coronado, among the retired Navy elite.

    In the GE, everyone has to work for everything. (none / 0) (#272)
    by Christy1947 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    The assumptions that we've all been working on don't work for McCain. Whole new set, and much more to work with.

    Context is everything... (1.50 / 2) (#26)
    by Addison on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:33:00 AM EST
    ...Obama is the nominee. Hillary will not dissuade enough delegates of any stripe to win the nomination. And at this point that IS what she'll have to do. Obama/Clinton is the ticket that'll win. Fight to win.

    Nobody is the nominee until the convention (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:54:01 AM EST
    But you know this already.  That you are willing to damage yourself by citing "pretend facts" confuses me.  What is the purpose of your post?

    It is more strange insecurity coming from an Obama supporter.  Empty hot air that does nothing to "unite" the party.


    Democrats fighting to win (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by eleanora on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:03:53 AM EST
    is my favorite thing ever! I disagree that Obama has won the nomination yet, but I'm sure hoping we'll find a way to pull together for the fall. And congratulations on Senator Obama's big win in OR, great night for him too :)

    Addison, if that were sure you wouldn't (none / 0) (#230)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:09:43 AM EST
    be so busy trying to convince us here.  You'd be celebrating.



    I don't understand (none / 0) (#238)
    by Steve M on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    why you guys feel this need to continually mix the present and future tenses.  Obama IS the nominee because he WILL get the superdelegates at some point in the future.  Look at Laureola's post above.  Exact same thing.

    Do you understand at all why it gets tiresome?  We've been hearing the exact same "it's over" chorus since February, heck, since before New Hampshire.


    Robert Byrd ... (1.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Saxon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:32:33 AM EST
    had endorsed Obama despite Hillary's huge win in West Virginia - and I was wondering why.

    Today his speech in the senate provided the answer - he is senile; he should retire immediately - past expiration date.

    Ouch (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by standingup on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:01:25 AM EST
    Senator Byrd deserves more respect than "past expiration date."  I wish he would have endorsed Hillary.  He is the oldest member of the Senate and may not be at the top of his game but I dread the day we will no longer be able to hear him speak on the Senate floor.  

    Term limits ! I'm tired of those lifers (none / 0) (#66)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:53:01 AM EST
    walking around in their pj's in the Senate building ala Pete Dominici.

    they become too comfy making up laws to benefit them selves and the people to complain about higher taxes.

    but then Obama's been really generous with his  Oprah money making contributions to get their support.


    That is most unkind and disrespectful (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:14:45 AM EST
    of someone who has given many years of service.  He was voted in by his constituents.  Obviously they know him well and he has earned their support.  I wish he would have endorsed Hillary.  He could still change his mind.

    They do love him in WV (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:46:58 AM EST
    and c'mon, he is lovable when he rises to his feet on the floor of the Senate and hauls that pocket Constitution out of his coat and shakes it at the Republicans!

    And from what I hear from my WV relatives, Byrd is about all that also has stood as a bulwark against even worse poverty in one of our poorest states.  With his seniority, he gets a lot of pork there, a lot of public works projects that keep people working.  I'm not a fan of pork, but it can be  another term for taking from the better-off to feed the poor, and I'm far less of a fan of families in starvation and kids not in school.

    His way with winning funding for WV has, my relatives tell me, started to improve educational levels there -- and that is key to any progress in any part of the country.  It is a worthy aim.

    If Byrd leaves the Senate, and especially amid this recession, WV could be in even worse shape.  He fights for his constituents and for the Constitution, he apologizes for his past and shows that age is no barrier to learning and personal growth and progress -- and I can't say that about many members of Congress.


    that pork is important (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by tnjen on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:02:01 AM EST
    ...perhaps moreso than ppl. realize. There are one or two old GOPers we had years ago here in TN that you'll never here me speak ill of because they sent money home to places that needed it.

    He was feeling very sad and I don't (none / 0) (#233)
    by andrys on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    blame him.

      The man has stood up when others in the Senate were too cowardly to.  Very eloquent words against the war.

      You're acting like an Obama supporter tends to with all this age-ism.


    Count me in! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:37:35 AM EST

    Neither can I! (none / 0) (#36)
    by thentro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:38:12 AM EST

    The Neo Southern Strategy? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:46:20 AM EST

    Haven't you heard? (none / 0) (#71)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:54:36 AM EST
    HRC is the 21st Century George Wallace.

    Does the Neo Southern Strategy (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:10:53 AM EST
    include the whole country of Appalachia? Or just certain parts of it?

    Trying to figure out what country and strategy I'm included in  ;)


    i am sorry (none / 0) (#65)
    by Saxon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:52:47 AM EST
    for the double post. my apologies.

    you are now banned (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:58:07 AM EST
    for your race baiting and insults and name calling.

    Laureola (none / 0) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
    Enough from you today. You're over limit. Come back tomorrow if you must.

    OK (none / 0) (#165)
    by Laureola on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:34:55 AM EST
    Sorry, I just scrolled down to here, commenting on my way.

    Good night.


    You're making a (none / 0) (#75)
    by Benjamin3 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:57:46 AM EST
    great case for unity. Are YOU gonna lead us all to the One?

    Delegate Count (none / 0) (#129)
    by AlinOz on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:56:36 AM EST
    I'm a bit confused by all this fuss over the delegate count and the Florida and Michigan votes.

    I know the primaries were moved forward in those states and the Democratic Party said they wouldn't count their delegates because of it. Obviously, Mrs Clinton didn't agree to this and has been arguing that they should have been counted all along.

    It's pretty clear that they just need to add the votes in and award the delegates. Will that be enough to win her the nomination?

    How can you possibly count Michigan? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Siguy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:28:47 AM EST
    How can Michigan be counted as part of the popular vote?

    That's the entire popular vote lead for Hillary, a Michigan race where Obama is counted as having zero votes. It's ridiculous.

    Florida is more debatable, but I still think that counting a state where both sides agreed not to campaign and not to count the results is pretty ridiculous. It's easy to be high and mighty and say count all the votes, but Hillary absolutely did not care about counting Florida until after she lost Iowa and realized it was important to her chances, and even then she didn't really start driving the issue until she was down by more. Members of her campaign staff had publicly agreed with punishing Florida back when it was to their advantage to say so in front of Iowa and New Hampshire voters.

    I say seat them with half-delegates in the convention so they're represented, and you can argue about the popular vote totals, but the super delegates who will actually cast them seem unlikely in my mind to suddenly swing dramatically in Hillary's favor because she wins a barely wins a popular vote total that includes Michigan.

    I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:03:01 AM EST
    ..they all seemed awfully hypocritical about counting MI and FL.  I don't like any of them on this point.  They've all been self-serving.  Rules may be important in a primary, but they are bad public relation sells in a general election.



    You guys want to whine about (none / 0) (#196)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:32:40 AM EST

    counting Michigan and Florida, yet of course you also want to count the caucus states, where the majority of registered voters didn't get to vote and the "delegate totals" don't match the popular vote.



    Did the roolz (none / 0) (#204)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:06:45 AM EST
    say the pop vote did not count?  I think Dean said that it does.  So only the delegates are affected by the roolz.

    Zogby (none / 0) (#197)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:39:06 AM EST

    no thanks.

    Yankees win 10-1; (none / 0) (#217)
    by riddlerandy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:46:48 AM EST
    Cubs clinch the penant

    Where's Oregon's 12% remaining votes? (none / 0) (#218)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:48:31 AM EST
    CNN announced last night that Oregon's vote count would be fast and easy, because of the mail-in vote system.
    Why is this not so?
    Should we be worried like we were with Indiana's tally?
    58-42 margin could be significantly changed by that much of a percentage.
    OR,were 'they giving' the night so O could claim his "victory"?

    Democratic Convention Watch... (none / 0) (#236)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:33:21 AM EST
    ...ran down 5 Fl/MI scenarios:
    1. RBC decides to sustain total penalty.  Result: Obama already clinched a pledged delegate majority last night.
    2.Seat Michigan as 69-59 C-O.  Result: Obama clinched PDM last night.
    1. Seat FL with 1/2 votes(supers get full vote).  No MI delegates.  Result: Obama clinched PDM.
    2. FL 1/2 vote, MI 69-59 split.  Result: Obama clinched PDM.
    3. Seat FL and MI based on elections that have taken place.  Result: Obama has not clinched PDM yet.

    1783 is the "magic number" for a PDM if FL and MI are fully seated.  Clinton would have 1679.5 pledged delegates under that scenario, and if she picked up 50 out the 86 remaining from the 3 contests, she'd have 1729.5, and Obama would have 1761.5.  
    The only remaining pledged delegates would be the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates, and about 20 Edwards delegates.  Obama would need 22 out of those 75, and Clinton would need 54, in order to clinch a pledged delegate majority.  

    I don't think there will be an outcome where, at the end of the voting process and RBC ruling, Obama does not have the pledged delegate majority (which, if you will, is their moral counterargument to the Clinton popular vote argument).

    Clinton needs around a 200,000 vote margin from Puerto Rico in order to have a fairly unambiguous claim on a "popular vote win".  I think she probably would need something like a half million vote margin in order to claim the majority(50.1 percent) of the popular vote.

    So, essentially, we may have dueling moral arguments presented to the superdelegates, on top of any electability/self-interest arguments.