Number Crunching With Past Five Elections as a Guide

Here's some more number crunching I just received from a Talkleft reader as to electability in November, based on the past five Presidential Elections...

  • There are FIVE "BELLWETHER STATES". These are states who have voted for the WINNER in ALL FIVE of the most recent Presidential elections. They are: Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee.

    Number of these that HRC has won? FOUR (80%)
    HRC's Average Margin? 13.2%

  • There are THREE "VERY SWINGY STATES". These are states who have voted Democratic in either 2 or 3 of 5 of the most recent Presidential elections. They are: Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

    Number of these that HRC has won? THREE (100%)

    HRC's Average Margin? 21.3%


  • There are SIXTEEN "STRONG REPUBLICAN STATES". These are states who have voted Republican in 5/5 of the most recent Presidential elections.

    Percentage of HRC's wins from REP-States? 15% (3/20)
    Percentage of BHO's wins FROM REP-States? 41% (12/29)
  • There are NINE (9) "STRONG DEMOCRATIC STATES" (Democratic in last 5/5).

    Percentage of HRC's wins from DEM-States? 10% (2/20)
    Percentage of BHO's wins from DEM-States? 07% (2/29)

BOTTOM LINE: HRC "Kicks Serious Booty" in Bellwether and Swing States, and BHO has relied on winning states that have not shown ANY inclination of voting Democratic for President.

< More On Unity, Krugman, Obama And FL/MI | Lanny Davis Proposes Very Fair Florida-Michigan Solution >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Alert! FL + MI = HRC nets 110 pledged delegates! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by mkb662 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:29:07 PM EST
    Jeralyn!  Great breakdown.  Also, HRC may net at least 110 delegates from the as-of-yet unallocated pledged delegates of FL + MI.  With these delegates and the popular vote, she can still win!  Keep fighting.
    Please read the article by Lanny Davis at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10614.html

    This is a fair and reasonable proposal, especially as the Obama campaign refused to have a revote in FL + MI.  

    just made a new post on this, thanks. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:45:47 PM EST
    Lets just face it (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    He ain't gonna win, and Hillary is being railroaded by the super D's.

    What's really going on... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:56:03 PM EST
    ... is an effort to railroad the Super-D's into not excercising the discretion they are designed (perhaps unwisely, but that's another argument) to have. Obama has a fairly (other than FL/MI) earned lead in pledged delegates, according to the existing (and also not so fair) system. But his supporters seem terrified of the delegates actually excercising the role for which they were created.

    They do this at their peril (none / 0) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:59:35 PM EST
    I think the DNC and the SD's will find many democratic voters will be sending messages to them via their donations and votes for as long as they can remember this biased, irresponsible primary year.

    Reallistically... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    ... anything they do at this point is politically perilous. And couragueous politicians are less common than JFK would like us to think. Mostly they duck and cover.

    We don't want to win. We prefer to sit (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    in Congress and let the Republican President take the blame for the economy, the war, etc. We want Obama's fundraising ability for our members. We want the Clintons to go away. That's about it.

    don't forget, we don't want to (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:51:31 PM EST
    help all those bitter blue collars out there. we want our lattes and inside the beltway buddies who understant us. no one else does. we are the leaders of these sigh "voters" (per pelosi)

    What it means is that the Powers that be in the (none / 0) (#17)
    by bridget on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:03:34 PM EST
    Democratic party

    will not deny the nomination to Obama NEVER EVER

    why? That is simple. Just see Kerry, Edwards..... and Ferraro - they are all saying the same thing basically.

    I recently read a great articly by someone who spelled out one by one all the reasons why Obama will lose the GE and the one reason why the Dems will not deny Obama the nom because ... well, you know why.

    I have the printout hidden somewhere among  huge stacks of papers and don't know the link .... will try and find it this afternoon if time allows :-)


    I can only hope the SDs (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by vicsan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:36:09 PM EST
    are reading these blogs and paying very close attention to the crunched numbers. BO cannot win in November.

    FDR, JFK and Harry S Truman (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:36:14 PM EST
    could come out of the grave, and tell the whole of the DNC to support Hillary Clinton and they wouldn't do it.

    They are HELL bent on driving the party over a cliff.  All the numbers and polls and EVERYTHING else tells them what they need to know.  They are tone deaf.

    This DNC will go down in history as the absolute WORST purveyors of presidential political judgment in history of our country.  The day after the election, the media will have a FIELD day ridiculing the Democrats for being the party of losers, again.

    Their own darn fault.  Them and their "RULZ".

    This should have been (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by denise on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:58:47 PM EST
    a big comeback year for the Democratic Party. We should have been rejuvenated and able to start rolling back the damage done over the last 25 years. Instead look at what we have. The Party is dead. We now have both major parties representing the top 15% of the population and no one speaking for the other 85%.

    We need a populist party with a strong commitment to the environment. It's not going to be the Democrats.


    Part isn't dead in the Congressional (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:55:23 PM EST
    elections.  This should be w blowout year for Democrats, no matter what happens at the top of the ticket.  The GOP has shown that they simply can't govern, especially with a president of their own party.

    I agree with you that we need a populist party with the committment to the environment and green jobs though.  At this point, it doesn't appear it will be the Democrats either.


    Granted ... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by BostonIndependent on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:17:57 PM EST
    But what if (should he be nominated and win) Obama's presidency is the worst ever given his inexperience, divisiveness, and lack of follow-thru. Perhaps HRC could be our greatest President ever. What if YOU are wrong instead?

    doubtful (none / 0) (#71)
    by kerin on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    Its doubtful Hillary will be a good president. She has botched most of the big things she tried, including her campaign.  This election was hers to lose, and she did because she made PILES of mistakes.

    She did, after all, graduate at the bottom of her Yale class (no honors degree) and failed the DC bar.


    Hillary at Yale (none / 0) (#74)
    by janedw420 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    When Hillary was at Yale, how many women were in her class? Do you think sexism played a part in her graduating level? of Course it did! That was a horrible time for women to attend college. She is part of the era that broke down walls and looked up at the high ceilings still ahead. I'm in my 40's and my father had a fit when I wanted to go to college. Said if I got too smart-no man would have me! College back then was not a warm,fuzzy place for women to be.

    the problem is, we're not. (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by cpinva on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:06:12 PM EST
    But... what if you're wrong? Certainly millions disagree with you. And I know, to most of you most of us are just drinking the kool ade. But... what if you're wrong?

    all of those items are past tense. sen. obama is (and has been) on a downhill (accelerating exponentially) slide since "super tuesday", the numbers tell the tale, and the numbers don't lie.

    the basis behind the aggravation of the obama supporters is the realization that, the longer the primary continues, the more sen. obama's glaring weaknesses as a candidate have an opportunity to rear their ugly heads in public.

    people with brains are no longer buying into the whole "hope and change" schtick that is his stock-in-trade. they're getting nit picky, and sen. obama provides little of substance to pick. geez, he has negligable basis for it, slight as his resume' is.

    i don't hate sen. obama or his supporters, i feel sorry for both. they've all been conned into believing in a chimera, by people who should have had the best interests of both the country and the democratic party at heart, and clearly didn't. he, and they, have been used, by those looking only to gain power and position for themselves, and damn the country and party.

    not only is sen. obama, should he be the dem. nominee, going to lose badly in nov., his reputation will be shattered, and he'll never have the opportunity to truly rise to his potential.

    that's the saddest part of all.


    Being Overlooked (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    What Obama supporters overlook, I believe, is the degree to which the Republicans would conduct a no holes barred campaign against Obama. & if Obama tries to counter such attacks with claims of partisianship, unfairness, however valid, the Republicans will not care, and they will continue their attacks mostly unabated.  One has only to read Novak's article just on this topic at realclearpolitics.  

    Downhill since WI NOT (none / 0) (#51)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:28:17 PM EST
    Super Tuesday.

    I understand what you're saying. However, (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:19:14 PM EST
    Your basis for the doom and gloom is your opinion of Senator Obama. You just don't think he'll win.

    I'm more afraid he will win than that he won't.

    Maybe you can't fathom it, but evidence has shown that Obama does have significant popular appeal and sharp political skills. Frankly, if he didn't, he wouldn't be in this position today.

    People said that about George W. Bush.

    What infrastructure are you referring to? I see the party looking like the aftermath of a disaster.

    The increase in registered voters actually happens every four years as youth ages. Come 2012, the 13, 14, 15, 15 & 17 year olds today will be eligible for their first vote. Granted this primary had a special flare to it, but come November, we can only wait to see the turnout.

    If Obama takes the nomination, you will see all the reasons why he should not have gotten it come out. Hillary was forbidden to vet Obama, but the Republicans don't give a royal rip who wants them to remain silent. They don't want him to be their president, either.


    Sorry coolaide- but your analysis is so far off (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:24:34 PM EST
    it is hard to know where to begin. Actual REAL SCIENTIFIC POLLING EVIDENCE shows Obama loses all the states he will need in Nov. He cannot lose Ohio,Penn,Fla,Va,Wis,NC,Mo, ec and still be president. Sorry- THE MATH DOES NOT WORK!!! Also, you all seem to think the repubs will roll over when you all scream "racism" Won't work in he general. So Obama has enthusiastic crowds and supporters-so did McGovern,Kerrey, and Dukakis.Maybe we are wrong and Obama can insult voters all the way to the WH and play the victim right into the WH. But I do not thnk so.

    real scientific polling (none / 0) (#72)
    by kerin on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:45:10 PM EST
    do you have any idea what science means? testing hypothesis.  You can't do a 'real scientific poll'. That's an oxymoron.

    Polls are only valid when they accurately reflect the population understudy.  If you historically look at political polls you will find they have horrible predictive power; rates that would be unacceptable in science or medicine.

    Polls said for over a year that Clinton was inevitable.  


    I see- in typical "obamamaniac" fashion (none / 0) (#75)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:19:08 AM EST
    if it does not fit your world view, ignore it; cover your ears and go "la,La,La,La"

    The love for Bill might pull Hillary through in (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:47:08 PM EST
    Tenn but I doubt it, even though a poll last winter had her with a good lead on him. Any other Republican from their primary and she would win here, I believe. Obama won't even have to show up here because he has no chance. None.

    I dunno. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:59:10 PM EST
    She'd win a bunch of counties in middle TN.  Trouble is Nashville and Memphis, both of whom went whole-hog for Obama and might not get on the bandwagon for HRC if she's the nominee.  

    Memphis in particular.  She'd have to have crazy good numbers.  It could happen, though, particularly since a lot of people I talked to during the TN primary reminisced with fondness about Clinton 1....

    You know, back when the economy wasn't in the crapper, gas not subject to 100% inflation, etc.


    I was hoping for Romney. I know she would (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:02:33 PM EST
    beat him. The Democrats in Nashville and Memphis would pull her through even though they voted for Obama in the primary. I don't think she could beat McCain here but I'd love to see her get a chance to try!

    I read somewhre she won more (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    evangelical votes in the TN primary than any of the Republicans.  I believe she could win Tennessee.  

    Bill did so it is certainly possible. I just (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:36:27 PM EST
    think the people in TN still see McCain as a Lamar Alexander type "moderate" and they will vote for him. I might be wrong though because Huckabee beat him so maybe I overestimate McCain here. I just know a lot of Independents here who are anti-abortion and that would draw them to McCain.

    I think she could win TN against (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:38:02 PM EST
    McCain because of the evangelical vote.  I think Obama would lose TN against McCain.

    masslib, I KNOW Obama will lose TN (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:17:22 PM EST
    against McCain. In the county where my mother lives, the Democratic headquarters doesn't even have any Obama signs and that county has several Dem office holders. They flat out love both Clintons there.

    According to my mom, who goes to meetings there, the women who work there are solid Democratic voters and they are so angry they won't even consider voting for Obama. My mother is one of them. She's leaving the top of the ticket blank unless she can write in Hillary. I will probably join her because at this point, the Democratic party's disregard for what my mother has done for them over the years, and the hurt in her eyes means far more to me than what Howard Dean and John Kerry and the rest of them say.


    why is no one worried about this (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:24:39 PM EST
    that folks who have been solid and reliable dem voters for decades are saying they will not vote for him?

    Now, I know they say that we're just a bunch of hysterical women, and we'll come crawling back in order to protect our right to abortion, but what about the men who are ticked off, too?

    I mean, I don't expect them to care about us crazy women, but look at the white male vote that is voting against Obama.  Why aren't they worried about their brothers?


    I don't know Kathy. I don't think they believe it. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:30:23 PM EST
    I know my mother and some of these other women. They had better believe them. It isn't the issues like squeakly points out, it is the way they have treated Hillary. Nothing they can do will ease that pain to them (and me). Nothing.

    I agree Kathy- they say it is like every other (none / 0) (#53)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:32:48 PM EST
    election and we will all come together. But it is different this time. I was for Gephardt in 2004,but was glad to get behind Kerrey. Same way in other years. My Mom (in Wis) is for Hillary, as are many of her friends-none will vote for Obama. This gay male is lost to Obama. The RFK attacks were the last, last straw.

    they know not what they hath wrought. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:43:24 PM EST
    Because the abortion argument is a red herring. (none / 0) (#66)
    by blcc on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:54:11 PM EST
    1st of all, most of us who care passionately about Hillary and are insulted that she's expected to stand aside for B.O. are old enough and experienced enough that we're not going to accidentally get pregnant and need an abortion.

    Secondly, even if we did the Roe v. Wade argument is one of those political hot button issues (like the minimum wage argument) that works as a call to arms but doesn't make any real difference in voters' lives.  If Roe v. Wade were struck down tomorrow, probably only a handful of women in South Dakota and Louisiana would be affected.  The "Right to Privacy" is already protected in most state constitutions already and would be quickly enacted in the rest.

    Sorry if my cynical tone offends anyone, it's not my intention.  I just really believe this issue is used to manipulate the electorate (on both sides, mind you) in a truly unproductive manner.


    I worked in (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Eleanor A on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:14:51 PM EST
    both the TN and KY primaries and I've heard this over and over and over.

    People in many places have a reserve of fondness for the Clintons, regardless of which Republicans and ungrateful Democrats tell them they shouldn't.

    I'm still waiting to see how Obama wins the election without MO, OH, TN and a few others.  (Note:  He will not win Colorado, which has gone Dem once - for Clinton 1 in 1992, not the re-elect in 1996.)

    Because being on the ground in a populist state?  I'll bet any taker $100 Obama will lose Tennessee by at least 12 points.  It'll probably be more, depending on turnout in the four largish cities in the state.

    He just hasn't kissed the rings of the political insiders that win elections in states like mine.  He's simply burned too many bridges.  He's going to win the primary battles, and lose the general election war.


    TN (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TN Dem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:54:35 PM EST
    I am an East Tennessean and I can tell you from the Knoxville area (big Republican stronghold in TN) there is no enthusiasm for McCain. I can count the number of McCain stickers and signs I have seen on one hand.
    Hillary's support is fairly strong here and people seem to be 'hopeful' for a third Bill term sans the non-policy blunders shouel she get in...
    Hillary could win here, I honestly believe it. My gut says its so and my eyes and ears are backing me up! I promise you, TN has not forgotten what the 90's felt like here.

    There seems to be no end of ways to say (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:55:11 PM EST
    and show that Obama is a good deal less electable than Clinton. It's too bad that it's too late. I knew when Michigan and Florida were punished that Clinton would have trouble with winning the nomination. I knew when she lost Iowa that Obama would likely win the show. I've barely wavered (BTD made a good argument one day) in my belief that Obama would lose the general election. Almost every day, more proof presents itself.

    Did anyone catch the 60 minutes report yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:01:39 PM EST
    about the young people of today and how different they are (spoiled) and rather demanding too....In jobs as well as other things....they are the me me me generation...maybe this is what we are seeing between the two campaigns...

    There was discussion about it (none / 0) (#36)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:03:58 PM EST
    in one of yesterday's threads (can't recall which one).

    Thanks for keeping us all updated (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    It gives me hope.  The electibility argument is the strongest one for who should get the nomination.

    Obama is not ahead in reality. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by chopper on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:47:03 PM EST

    The illusion is the result of screwed up DNC rules.  First, by trying to exclude the voters in two of the United States.  They are American citizens who did no wrong, broke no rules, and committed no crimes, and deserve to have their votes counted just like the citizens of every other state.

    Second, by holding caucuses that are mostly run by Obama thugs involving extreme fraud and corruption, and sometimes threats and assaults, as in Texas where more than 2000 complaints were filed and the DNC took no action.

    Third, the delegate system is unequal, illegitimate, arbitrary, and ill-proportioned.  Voters in large populated areas are at a disadvantage.  Voters in primaries have their votes diluted by corrupt caucuses, as was the clear-cut case in Texas.  Some delegates are based on corrupt caucuses which deems them meaningless and illegitimate.

    The only true count of the people's vote is the popular vote resulting from primaries.

    For a further and colorful account of the inequity and outrage  listen to this brief audio on Windows Media Player.


    And she only lost Mo. by a hair (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Lil on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:35:40 PM EST
    Could be a different result if a vote was today, maybe.

    She would have won if there (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:38:10 PM EST
    wasn't flooding in the rurals.  She WILL win MO in a general.  But really no one cares.  For whatever reason we are supposed to be satisfied with the lesser candidate.  I think people will miss Hillary very much when it's just down to McCain and Obama.

    The Last Two MO Polls Showed Clinton (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:36:13 PM EST
    beating McCain and Obama losing to McCain. Regardless of the polls. I think either candidate would have a hard time winning MO now.  To win MO a Dem candidate needs to have strong support from the AA community and from the moderate and conservative Dems outside the normal Democratic strongholds.

    Had Clinton not been branded a racist, she might have squeaked out a win here.Obama  has little or no chance of winning over the moderate and conservative Dem after Rev. Wright and his SF debacle.


    The caucus issue (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jchbrock on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    In addition to your discussion of crucial states, I have not read a discussion about caucuses in the press. The issue is: do caucuses reflect the will of the people? And what has happened in this election?

    The popular vote is important, especially in this race. Why? Because the flawed outcome of the caucuses have unfairly skewed the delegate count towards Obama. The press is silent on the issue of caucuses, but caucuses have determined the lead in the pledged delegate count for Obama and what has happened since then.

    Caucuses disenfranchise Hillary's main voter base: older voters, working people who cannot take off from work to participate in lengthy caucus processes, and the many women who are pressured by the fact that their vote is public in a caucus. Primaries use secret ballots and absentee ballots for a reason. Obama's main voter base consists of the young, for example, college students, and the wealthy that can afford to take time off to participate in the lengthy caucus process.

    To compare primary results to caucus results, look at the Map Room on the site election.msn.com, specifically the states of Washington and Texas. The outcome of the caucuses is skewed towards Obama. Now consider that Obama won the caucus states Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. Hillary won Nevada because the caucuses were held in the workplace in the cities, and people were given time off to vote. Obama won th e primary state Utah but the result was singular because Romney was on the ballot and won the vast majority of votes. Many delegates were awarded on the basis of low voting numbers in these states, making the skew towards Obama even more pronounced.

    The Obama supporters that I have presented this argument to reply that Obama won the caucuses because of superior organization and that in itself is a reason that he should have the delegates, but I contend that it is not a matter of organization. I fell last year and broke a T5 vertebrae quite badly. I would not have been able to vote in the caucus in Texas because of the long lines and the cold night. Fortunately, I live in the great state of California and we have a primary, that Hillary won by 10%. And, yes, I am an older woman, part of Hillary's voter base.

    I think everyone in this country should start investigating caucuses, exactly how they are run in each caucus state. For example, is the st ate of Washington trying to figure out what went wrong with their caucuses? At the Map Room on the site election.msn.com, compare their caucus result to their primary result. The caucus came first: Obama 68% and Hillary 31%. The primary was next: Obama 51% and Hillary 46%. Why would anyone bother to vote in the primary if they knew that their vote would not count towards winning delegates for their candidate? Voter confusion? I have informed the DNC and Governor Gregoire of Washington of this anamoly. No response.

    Everyone agrees that this nomination race has been a demographic race, notably David Brooks of the Lehrer NewsHour. In the past, the race between two (or more) white men did not split the demographics in a noticeable way. This year is different! The FairVote organization opposes caucuses for good reasons. It is perfectly legitimate to consider the will of the people in a democracy, and caucus results do not represent the will of the people.

    ok let me get this straight (3.00 / 4) (#7)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    I want this cookie...as a matter of fact I demand this cookie...but the other side won't give me this cookie willingly....so if I don't get this cookie without their help it is their fault?? and I will make them pay for the loss....Sounds just like spoiled children demanding their way, even though saner and more mature minds refuse to play with them....Geezzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    your point succinctly describes the views of Obama and his supporters.

    a mature mind wouldn't kick Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    and then expect her supporters to join the Obamacrat Party.

    That's because (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by janarchy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:07:32 PM EST
    the cookie inspires them. It's the best cookie that ever was and ever could be. They haven't tasted it, they are only going on their own projections of what the cookie will be like. But anyone who doesn't believe them is evil and against cookies!



    LOL (none / 0) (#57)
    by TN Dem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:02:47 PM EST
    That was priceless and so true. Two things come to mind, while reading your post; one of the final Buffy The Vampire Slayer episodes and those diet cookies that they push as the new diet fad.

    In Buffy, she described herself as a half baked cookie...not quite ready to be all she can be, which I feel fits nicely for Obama as well.

    As for the diet cookies, I think most of the partakers of that fad feel like most of the Obama cookie fans may, should he get the nod; their hopes dashed and the taste of regret on their lips.


    I just wonder (none / 0) (#68)
    by janarchy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:54:57 AM EST
    what it will be like when they find out the cookie is actually empty inside and tastes like styrofoam. It clearly was marketed as the rad new cookie which was so much better than that old stalwart, but caveat emptor.

    I'd forgotten about that line from Buffy. It's very appropriate.


    thats one of.. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Chisoxy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:13:22 PM EST
    ..the best summations of the Obama campaign that I've ever read.

    And in November? Well, that's the way (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:56:43 PM EST
    the cookie crumbles -- as will the Obama campaign, if the Dems are so dumb as to go with the weaker, uh, cookie.

    Somehow, this is bringing on -- gasp, shudder, help! -- the lyrics to "MacArthur Park," filling my head.  

    MacArthur Park is melting in the dark --
    All the sweet green icing flowing down. . . .

    <mmmm, I love them cookies with sugary icing>


    Sobering numbers! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:35:20 PM EST
    I am dumbfounded by the DNC & SD: it is clear HRC is the WINNER in November.

    A little celebration: HRC dancing in PR (very nice!)

    Good stats (none / 0) (#45)
    by trublueCO on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:47:14 PM EST
    but I have yet to see any definitive link between winning a state in a primary contest vs. winning it in the general election.

    That study needs to be done (none / 0) (#47)
    by DEM on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:04:03 PM EST
    but I just wanted to show another "quick and dirty" summation of key indicators.

    However, I'm of the opinion that the primary race must have some relevance or predictive value, otherwise why would the DNC and RNC have them?  Aren't the "party leaders" (superdels) looking at primary results?

    That aside, looking at National Election polling results @ Pollster.com, HRC has a net lead over McCain of 11 points in the five bellwether states, while BHO has a net deficit of 49 points.


    P.S. (none / 0) (#48)
    by DEM on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:08:50 PM EST
    I should also point out that it would be difficult -- if not impossible -- to establish a "definitive" link because: 1) in recent years primaries have tended not to go long enough to be competitive, and 2) there's only 1 candidate per party in the General.

    "2 or 3 of 5"??? (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimotto on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:57:59 PM EST
    This qualifies as some kind of statistical statement?  This explains alot.

    5 is an odd number (none / 0) (#65)
    by DEM on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:46:55 PM EST
    If you've got a better way of splitting the number 5 in half, I'm all ears.

    'STRONG DEMOCRATIC' states missing? (none / 0) (#59)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:07 PM EST
    These states are not named, but only 4 of 10 are accounted for.

    oops! (none / 0) (#64)
    by DEM on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:44:28 PM EST
    Should be:

    HRC 3/20 (15%)
    BHO 6/29 (21%)


    I looked over the list of SDs (none / 0) (#63)
    by Grace on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM EST
    in California yesterday.  One thing that struck me is that a lot of the reps going for Obama are in protected seats.  Waxman, Berman, Shiff, and others all represent districts that went for Clinton, yet they are pledged for Obama.  It would be great if I could send a letter to my rep stating I won't vote for him again unless he changes and supports Clinton, but what good would that do?  He runs unopposed.  

    On the flip side, I noticed that Maxine Waters is pledged to Hillary.  Naturally, her district went for Obama.  

    So, I guess turnabout is fair play.  ;)    

    Screamin Dean is just fulfilling his original plan (none / 0) (#69)
    by carmel on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:06:10 AM EST
    of winning the primary by "gaming" the system. Deval Patrick's campaign was a practice run for the Obama campaign. What infuriates me is the level of viciousness and dirty tricks pulled by Obama and Axelrod. Why does the DNC continue to think that the disenfranchised, alienated, excluded and not so stupid voters (that we don't know what is going on) will fall into line and rally around Obama like good little girls and boys? And for Obama to say that Bill Clinton will rally all the good democrats together for Messiah Obama is just too much hubris for one man. What are they drinking in Chicago? I am very cynical and I believe that Patti Soylis Doyle was an Axelrod mole that led to Hillary's unbelievable failure at the 11 state caucus run. Yes, Hillary owns that failure as well, but who knew how much Obama was gaming the system back in February and how involved Screamin Dean was in all of this? Some major SD who wants a major legacy, needs to stand up for the good of the demoratic party, and say enough of this "Politburo" election! We need to back Hillary because she can win! Whoever that SD is, will be a national hero. But they would have to have really big cohanes to do it.

    Troll? (none / 0) (#76)
    by VJCMAJD on Wed May 28, 2008 at 11:55:39 PM EST
    I am suspicious that the above comment was in fact not written by a Republican, but rather an Obamabot.  A Republican would not say, "Are you really going to leave the White House to another Republican?"  Or, "TALK ABOUT SABOTAGING YOUR PARTY!!!"