The Electoral Map: Can Obama Overcome the Challenges?

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the electoral map challenges for Obama in November:

The same day that Obama enthralled the young, educated voters of Oregon, he was thrashed in Kentucky, losing many counties by 85 and 90 percent margins.

"I was shaking my head when I looked at the Kentucky results," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. "Single-digit numbers are something a fringe candidate gets. You put a Joe Smith, a placebo, on the ballot and they get 7 percent. ... The voters in Kentucky in our poll said they thought Barack Obama would be the next president, yet only 7 percent in some of these counties were voting for him."

And these were Democrats. Parts of pivotal Ohio and Pennsylvania mirror or include Appalachia.

Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico don't make up the difference:

Obama then would have to recoup those 41 electoral votes someplace else. Taking Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado would yield just 19, leaving him short even of Kerry's losing total.

Add Ohio and PA to Florida and one has to wonder what the superdelegates are thinking.

Comments now closed.

< McCain Misrepresents Obama's Stance on Iraq | Caucuses vs. Primaries : A Report >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    They are thinking (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Grace on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:53:57 PM EST
    That they like their jobs and they probably can keep them if a Repubican becomes President.  That's because the s* will hit the fan in the next couple of years regarding the economy.  

    If the President is from a different pary, they don't have to actually solve any problems.  They can just blame him.  

    That's my best guess.  Seriously.  


    Your reason is probably the number 1 (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:04:58 AM EST
    cause, but I also think they really want to get their paws on his fundraising lists, etc.  They think he's gonna be one huge ATM for them.

    I think you're right -- (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Iphie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:32:17 AM EST
    it's the money. But I think it's foolish for other Dems to believe that those donors are going to become a serious source of cash for other Dem races or causes. His supporters are giving money to Barack Obama because He is The One -- once that money is needed for something other than the glorification of Obama, I think it will dry up.

    Exactly. When they want The One (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:44:37 AM EST
    that doesn't mean they'll fork over the bucks for Just Anyone.  

    and that is faulty thinking. (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:15:31 AM EST
    these young voters are one time shoppers. they won't be back. yeah those lists! heaven help us, sold down the river for a list! they democrats deserve what they get but we don't.

    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:53 AM EST
    I think it has much, much more to do with the lust for those younger voters, with a side order of not having the stomach to stomp on the aspirations of African-American voters.

    Those are, IMHO, admirable sentiments.  The question is whether it's worth rewarding a campaign like Obama's run, blowing off the women's vote and losing the White House in what should have been any easy Dem year.

    I'm glad I'm not one of the anonymous party SuperDelegates having to decide on the basis of what's best for the party long term, rather than what I think will help me in my congressional race this year.


    Not to mention older voters. (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Iphie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:38:45 AM EST
    This focus on the "youth" vote, and as Donna Brazile put it, the future of the party is coming at a cost in support from older voters. So we're talking about not only blowing off women, but Hispanics, the working class, and the elderly. Them's alot of people right there -- the old coalition that is being sold down the river.

    You're absolutely right, of course (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:51:02 AM EST
    I was just trying not to go through the whole laundry list of those who have been alienated by The Precious in deference to TL's limited server capacity...

    Lust for younger voters (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:04:31 AM EST
    has backfired in the past re: McGovern. Even the Republicans have tried that tactic but when it comes down to the wire the younger voters do not show up to vote in enough strength to counter groups like the working class, women and older voters.

    Brilliant line. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:07:12 AM EST
    I've been through (none / 0) (#181)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:43:14 AM EST
    a lotta elections like that, but I do think this one is different.  I don't think those younger voters will stick around or bother to vote much for downticket races, but I do think they would come out in droves for Obama in the general.

    You may be right (5.00 / 5) (#198)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:56:19 AM EST
    but I do not think that it will be enough to overcome the exodus of Regan Democrats, white working class, some very displeased women and older voters. And we still do not know what other skeletons lurk in Barack and Michelle's closet. And Michelle will be an issue in the GE. Hillary was and so was Theresa Kerry and it won't be over income tax returns. The day after Obama secures the nomination this is going to get very ugly, very quick. And there will be no do  over for the DNC. IMO.

    Even when he's tarnished? (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:03:13 AM EST
    When Wright first hit the air, there were some interesting posts over at DK. Remember, we're looking at political newbies. He's recruiting at high schools and such . . . they only really know what they've been told in some cases. The "No Dynasty" ones really crack me up when they say they've "lived through it". Yeah, while mom and dad raised ya!

    even the "droves" of younger voters is (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:20:48 AM EST
    limited. many have other things to be doing. i have seen the expected youth vote just not show up. so i don't expect a rousing turnout like some indicate. the ones that show up is the you know the democratic base or not! this year i am not so sure. they have been told they aren't needed or wanted. good luck with that.

    I almost feel bad for them (4.20 / 5) (#68)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:50:23 AM EST
    because I'm sure in the beginning when Obama started to pick up steam they thought they could have their cake and eat it too.  And although I won't vote for Obama, I do wish, really wish, that he had turned out to be all that it seemed he might be back then.

    But the getting carried away in all the early excitement was forgivable.  What was not forgivable is the choice to pull out the knives when he started to flatline.  They gambled on being able to drive Clinton out of the race -- it was a big gamble and they lost.  Also unforgivable is that these are all politicians, who live and die by polls and demographics, they should have seen it coming that she would do well in the post Feb contests.  Maybe they could not have forseen just how well, but hopes that BO could continue the red state caucus blowouts after they ran out of red state caucuses was stupid.


    Bingo. Self-preservation (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:24:50 AM EST
    is motivating the super-delegates, the DNC, etc.  That's all.  It's not about the voters, at all.

    Will he offer Friendship Fries? (5.00 / 0) (#223)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:34:15 AM EST
    My best guess if they aren't thinking at all! (none / 0) (#55)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:45:07 AM EST
    Oh that's the scariest thought. (none / 0) (#65)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:49:03 AM EST
    True of, oh, say, Bill Richardson (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:52:33 AM EST
    but I know enough about local party people to know that the so far undeclared/undecided (heh) folks have probably been going through considerable anguish on the whole question.  I think they're resigned to Obama now, though.

    That article deliberately pulls its punches (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by cymro on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:11:15 AM EST
    I think the author is being careful not to say anything that would actually cause the Democratic Party to change its mind about Obama before the nomination process is over. No doubt the paper's owners have their fingers crossed hoping that the Dem's will not wake up until it's too late.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Jane in CA on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:15:39 AM EST
    That's how I read it too.  This is the San Francisco Chronicle, after all.  Although the first two commenters on the site were very scornful of the critical analysis.  One asked, "Is this a national newspaper or the dailykos?" LOL.

    I don't think they can (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by dianem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:53:33 AM EST
    The democratic leadership got on the Obama train months ago. I don't know exactly why, but I suspect it was a combination of the appeal of bringing in new, young voters, cementing the Democratic Party with black voters, and identifying the party as the party of "change". Besides, they underestimated Clinton. Who would have thought that she could withstand a major pummeling and still be in the race at the end? They thought the pummeling would be from McCain, and that the end would be the GE, but the principle stands.

    Now... Obama's bots have been repeating on every blog that he has won. The media say that he is the presumptive nominee. Even some Clinton staffers have ceded. The only way this is going to turn is if some kind of cataclysm happens to Obama. A scandal to beat all scandals. At this point... not likely. Otherwise, if Clinton pulls off a win it will be labelled a steal by Obama supporter's and she can't possibly win without them.


    I believe the DNC's (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:09:12 AM EST
    CDS has taken over their mentality. they are afraid of HRC because she smarter and would be an even better President than Bill and that scares the likes of Dean. Even Bill's old crew are scared of her because they would lose not only power but credibility. Bottom line they do not want to yield power to a woman who is 110 times smarter than they are.

    Re: I believe the DNC's (4.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:50:01 AM EST
    they are afraid of HRC because she smarter and would be an even better President than Bill and that scares the likes of Dean.

    No, they're afraid of a civil war at the convention.  Why on earth would Dean be afraid of a successful Democratic president?  Her success would be Dean's success and he'd been seen as the best DNC chairman in decades.

    Bottom line they do not want to yield power to a woman who is 110 times smarter than they are.

    Then why did she pay Mark Penn millions of dollars to shape a losing strategy?  Why did she have no plan of attack for post-Super Tuesday?


    Dean has a super ego (5.00 / 5) (#209)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:13:14 AM EST
    and to some degree this is about that ego. He doesn't like the Clinton's, he failed to get the nomination in 2004 and he has put all his eggs in the basket for Obama from the start. I have watched what he has said in the media since last year and how he has steered the DNC since he took charge. This is about control for Dean and he has managed to bring many former supporters of the Clinton's on board with promises of power if they take Congress and the White House. He sees the $$$$$ that Obama has raised and the DNC is hurting right now. Hurting so bad that there is even a deal with the Obama campaign to help the DNC raise funds. It is Money and Power that drives these folks and they know they can manipulate Obama because he doesn't have the political experience that HRC has. Just look at where Obama has come from and who has supported him.
    Hillary scares them because they cannot control her and, as I said, she is 110 times smarter than they are.

    DNC fundraising (5.00 / 4) (#271)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:50:00 AM EST
    Perhaps Dean should pay attention to why Dems are refusing t fund the DNC. I have told any number of callers that I will not give to organized party efforts because I prefer to fund individual 'real' Dems who will fight for the people. I know that many others have said the same thing.
    And why would I give to a DNC that shaped the primaries to make it easy for Obama to claim momentum and not other worthy candidates?
    I was a Deamiac in 2003-2004. I believed in a 50 state strategy. I want the Dems to win Congress and the Presidency - but not at the price of our souls. I have been disappointed in Reid and Pelosi.

    If Dean wants to energise Dems who can donate - the answer is simple -support  real democrats.


    because he'll lose his job... (5.00 / 4) (#255)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:49:16 AM EST
    Why on earth would Dean be afraid of a successful Democratic president?

    because it mean's he'll lose his job.

    There has been a battle in the DNC every since Dean took over about Party resources.  Washington-centric party officials don't like Dean's 50 State strategy, because it gives the lions share of Party resources to the state Democratic organizations.  

    A lot of Obama's super-delegate support comes not from people who think Obama will make the best candidate/president, but from supporters of Dean's 50 State Strategy, which to date hasn't been (and, as a long term strategy, wasn't expected to be) a rousing success because it takes time to build state and local party organizations and make them competitive.

    The Obama cult provides an opportunity to jump=start the 50 state strategy, because the interests of President and The Party are perceived as identical.   All the little Obots scurrying around to show up at caucuses and/or do GOTV in deep red states will (theoretically) be absorbed into the party apparatus, as the interests of the Party and a President Obama merge into one.

    The problem, of course, is that the Obama personality cult doesn't care about "the Party", and are likely to do far more damage to the Party if they get control of state and local party organizations.  We've seen how these people treat anyone who doesn't go all glassy-eyed at the prospect of another Obama speech -- and the Obot will wind up alienating the Party regulars in states with weak Democratic organizations, and will create chaos in stronger state and local Party organizations.


    SDs have no choice (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by Rainsong on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:22:58 AM EST
    I suspect Obama's nomination was locked in, through back-room Party deals, long, long before the primaries ever started. Amongst other things, the Party's collusion in the FL & MI debacle was a blunt instrument to help Obama along. They were just not meant to be kept out for more than a few weeks.

    He was meant to knock her out fairly early, Iowa, the race-card played before South Carolina etc, and the very "convenient" timing, of having all those little caucus states all lined up in a row after Super-Tuesday, with MI & FL conveniently excluded.  

    Timing is everything. The media momentum from that string, was meant to have taken him to victory in Ohio and Texas, and have him crowned alongside McCain. And the escalating media storm around minor gaffes, racism/sexism/MI & FL issues and so on, could have all been put to rest and quickly forgotten and smoothed over, before it got out of control.

    Didn't quite go according to The Plan, Hillary was still too close a second, with some impressive state wins, but The Plan to nominate Obama was set in concrete long ago. From Obama, his campaign, and senior Party backers, has been increasing bored frustration at her wins keeping her too close a second-runner, and feeling forced to go through a farce of the rest of the primary season just for appearance's sake.
    Doesn't matter how many she wins, or how good her polling, or what her totals on any metric is, the matter was decided last year, or even earlier.

    In my view, speaking for myself only, the Obama-wing of the Party played this second half,  as being far too impatient. It got old, and turned too many off. Now they are in a pickle for the GE.

    But I dont think they are that concerned with the GE. The 'must-have' was the power-grab in the take-over of the Party itself, the GE is 'nice-to-have', as a bonus.  

    A political faction in a power-struggle that will go to such enormous lengths, using bribery/threats, on states like Florida, on groups like NARAL etc (the list goes on), isn't going to allow any power to anyone from the Clinton-wing, let alone Hillary herself.

    Obama has most of his wins when turnout is low, and when he is able to suppress the opposition's vote, and thats one valid GE strategy.  With all that money, perhaps he can swiftboat McCain, just enough, to encourage more Republican voters, than Dems, into staying home as well?


    paranoid nonsense.... (none / 0) (#260)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:04:28 AM EST
    I suspect Obama's nomination was locked in, through back-room Party deals, long, long before the primaries ever started. Amongst other things, the Party's collusion in the FL & MI debacle was a blunt instrument to help Obama along. They were just not meant to be kept out for more than a few weeks.

    sorry, but this is just paranoid nonsense.

    The primary schedule was a 'grand compromise' -- the DNC didn't want to lose the chance of winning Iowa and New Hampshire's EC votes, so they continued to get preferential treatment.  And because those states are overwhelmingly White, an Affirmative Action approach to the calendar was taken -- one state with lots of Hispanics/Latinos (and the Senate Majority Leader -- Nevada), and one state with a huge percentage of African Americans (South Carolina) were given preference over the rest of the states.

    Florida and Michigan were stripped completely of their delegates to keep the focus of the candidates -- and the media -- on the states that the DNC had compromised on as having the greatest influence on the election.   But that was never intended to be permanent -- the assumption was always that the nomination would be settled on Super Tuesday, and once that decision was made, all the delegates from FL and MI would be seated.
    (If the sanctions were intended to be permanent, they would have gone with the DNC's standing 50% loss rule.)

    The "punishment" of FL and MI achieved its goal -- there was almost no coverage of Florida and Michigan, and the results in those states played no role in winnowing the field of candidates -- and the delegates should have been seated right after ST as planned.  But when it turned out that Obama and Clinton were still in the running after ST, the whole plan fell apart, as Obama resisted inclusion of those delegates to make his standing in the delegate race look far more impressive than it would be if FL and MI were included.


    Jay Cost has an interesting analysis (5.00 / 30) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:13:10 AM EST
    of the white male vote here. He tells us what we know - white working class males do not vote for Obama.

    You know, I was really wrong about two things in this election - that Obama could hold his own with working class voters, and that Hillary clinton would not become the terrific GE candidate she has become.

    Let's face it - I was wrong. Clinton is more electable than Obama. I underestimated the backlash to Obama's becoming the Elite Media candidate. And his inability or unwillingness to try and reach out to certain segment of voters. I also underestimated how toxic his supporters, which include the Media would be.

    I also underestimate how good a candidate Hillary Clinton could be. Right now she is hands down a better politician than Obama.

    If Clinton was the nominee, the election would be a foregone conclusion now. But part of that is precisely because of the challenge Obama presented. Mark Penn blew it so bad in not letting Clinton, Hillary Clinton, be Clinton. He is truly the worst political operative in the business.

    Obama is likely goping to win, but he COULD lose. Clinton would be a lock now.


    And yet, he seems to be the choice of Democratic primary voters as well as the Dem Establishment. I think he will achieve a narrow popular vote win and a more comfortable delegate win.

    But if the only criteria is who is more likely to win, I think any honest observer would now have to admit Clinton is the more electable candidate. Heck, a lock in November.

    But Obama is the choice, the narrow choice, but the choice nonetheless.

    Yup (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:18:01 AM EST
    I saw the writing on the wall months ago. Personally, I don't think Obama has a great chance in November, but he might be able to win.

    Who'd a thunk Hillary would have become so electable? The "Her negatives are too high!" crowd turned out to be completely wrong.


    Oh, and Jay Cost confirms Tom Davis's read: (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:19:00 AM EST
    Both the income and college variables are related to Obama's share of the white male vote. Combined, they account for 40% of the variation in Obama's share of the white male vote. From this, we can infer that socioeconomic status makes a difference with the white male vote. The wealthier and more educated the population, the better Obama does among white males.

    rewriting Jay Cost (5.00 / 6) (#264)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:19:21 AM EST
    The less threatened by economic uncertainty the population, the better Obama does among white nd often misogynistic males. that's really what this is all about -- and by framing the discussion in terms of educational and financial status in this manner, the reason why Obama gets the "rich white male" vote gets lost. Wealth affords men the luxury of not worrying about things like gasoline prices, and the rising cost of bread -- the things that cause anxiety in working class voters on a daily basis are merely a curiousity to those in the upper income brackets, whose idea of "cutting back" means settling for the "regular", rather than the high-definition DVD players for the back seat of their SUVs this year. They are free to concern themselves with "fundamental change in the process" without ever inquiring what that actually means in terms of their own lives, because they don't feel vulnerable to the prospect of change.

    I was part of that crowd (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:19:10 AM EST
    See, you aren't always right! (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:21:25 AM EST

    Hillary made me very wrong (5.00 / 13) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:23:51 AM EST
    I think if everyone was honest, they would admit that.

    I wonder how much of the hate coming from some quarters of the blogs is they realize it too and are worried about looking stupid in November.

    Me, I am feeling kind of stupid about it now. but she simply was a different candidate after she got rid of Penn.


    I think (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:26:53 AM EST
    I wonder how much of the hate coming from some quarters of the blogs is they realize it too and are worried about looking stupid in November.
    is exactly right. I'm pretty sure I even said so a couple of weeks ago. Every time Hillary performs better in a head-to-head, the WWTSBQ knives come out in force.

    I believe it was also that later (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:27:50 AM EST
    contests were weighted to her best demographics, and the backlash against the get-out-of-the-race meme gained more momentum as time went on.

    Sure (5.00 / 10) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:33:03 AM EST
    But that is a reality now. I am saying RIGHT NOW, Clinton would be a mortal lock to win in November. McCain has no line of attacks, the economy is a Clinton owned issue. she has perceived experience. And yes, the re is no new baggage to be pulled out simply because nothing more can be said. Even this stupid RFK thing had no effect.

    Mu gawd, she is beating McCain by 9 in Kentucky!!

    She's win over 300 electoral votes for sure.


    I still believe she can pull this off (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:59:38 AM EST
    she has won the admiration of some very powerful Republicans in addition to the respect of so many voters.

    I wasn't leaning Obama, but I could have voted for him until the Rev. Wright episode. It had nothing directly to do with what the Rev was saying, and certainly nothing to do with race. It was the betrayal. If he had nothing to hide, why didn't he respond with an honest summary of what his relationship with Rev Wright really was. That pattern of refusing to answer simple and direct questions has continued while his distraction tactics have grown.

    I agree that so many are now embarrassed and don't want to admit they could have been so wrong for so long. Obama isn't just now showing his weaknesses, or the sinister appearance that he is running for this office for purely personal reasons.


    Even before that, I saw the same thing (5.00 / 6) (#226)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:06:12 AM EST
    in the debate when he weaseled about Rezko only being a client, and I had followed that story in the Chicago media and knew it was a lie.

    But then, I couldn't go with him 'way back last fall, when it was the religiosity -- that faux Southern preacher style he soon abandoned -- that did it for me.  After all these years of hearing that stuff from Republicans, I could stand it even less from a Dem.  That got me looking more closely at him, and at his church's website . . . and I just had to wonder when that would collapse upon him, too.

    I have the same sense now about so much more that I have read about him in the non-national media.  They must have done so, too, and they're protecting him for their own purposes.  We'll see what those are -- but they can't protect him forever, as Fox News must have it, as it had the Rev. Wright story ready and waiting. . . .


    BTD, I admire you (none / 0) (#212)
    by A little night musing on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:16:44 AM EST
    I don't always agree, but I always learn something from your posts.

    I REALLY question... (none / 0) (#218)
    by Y Knot on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:27:13 AM EST
    ... the "There's no new stuff" idea.  I simply cannot believe that the Repubicans would play nice with Clinton if she were the nominee.  They haven't gone after her once this year.  They've simply sat back and let her and Obama and her tear each other down.

    Considering that they have been assuming they'd be going against her in the 2008 general election since 2000, I find it impossible to believe they haven't got a ton of ammunition to fire against her, be it legitimate or otherwise.

    They'd have to be utter morons to have not planned for it.


    I'm not too surprised (none / 0) (#259)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:01:43 AM EST
    I have kin there. I always knew she would run strong in the border south once she gained her voice.

    If other bloggers were as honest as you ... (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by cymro on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:37:05 AM EST
    ... the blogosphere would be a much better place, BTD.

    She was a different candidate before (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by dianem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:21:04 AM EST
    It was just hard to see through all of the smoke the media threw up around her. They seemed to feel that this was an opportunity to go back to the good old high ratings days of Clinton bashing day in day out. Then the far left liberals jumped in, claiming that Bill and Hillary Clinton were Republicans in Dem clothing, and a lot of people who were paying more attention to recess than politics during the Clinton era drank the kool-aid. Clinton became a hybrid of what the media wanted her to be and what the far left wanted her to be. But when I and many others actually looked at what she really was, we were impressed.

    I think it is a big mistake (5.00 / 8) (#153)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:24:38 AM EST
    to characterize Obama supporters and places like Kos as "far left." There is nothing particularly "left" about Obama, and actual lefties aren't particularly fond of him. (They aren't all that fond of Hillary, either, for that matter.)

    It's just wrong to blame Obama on the left.  That's not at all where his support is coming from (despite Katrina vanden Heuvel).


    They're not so much pro-Obama (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by dianem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:49:10 AM EST
    ...as anti-Clinton. To them, Clinton represents a movement of the Democratic Party to the right. This is a bad thing, possibly worse than another Republican presidency. Obama isn't perfect, but he's very good at convincing everybody that he wants what they want. He doesn't commit to anything, and when he says something it's generally along the lines of "I will do this, but I'm not going to make it a priority".

    Maybe it wasn't getting rid of Penn that (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:22:06 AM EST
    changed her style, but the fact that she realized she had all but lost the nomination. Therefore she had nothing to lose - she went all in.  She took risks, she seemed at ease, she seemed to have fun.

    During that same time Obama's strategy looked like  "protect the lead."  He did everything to avoid risk.  It seemed as if he was bidding his time until the GE begain.  Protecting the lead is not a strategy that projects strength.


    I saw it in New Hampshire (5.00 / 6) (#177)
    by otherlisa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:38:06 AM EST
    I was so not a Clinton fan, but when I watched that debate, I was really impressed and realized that I had not really seen who this person was and what kind of candidate she could be.

    I agree she's gotten much stronger since dumping Mark Penn, and I have to say that Maggie Williams seems to be a really positive influence as well.


    morning joe has talked about that also. (none / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:54:21 AM EST
    andgarden, is the above a Monday (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:25:53 AM EST
    night blog-dump?  

    heh (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:17 AM EST
    I always thought (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Grace on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    she would become President.  I have Republican friends who were dying to vote for her way back when she announced she was running.  They *liked* her, really LIKED her.  They felt it was time for a female President and she had all the right credentials.  

    Well (5.00 / 11) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:34:40 AM EST
    that seems silly to me too. There is no way Republicans liked her BEFORE.

    but they respect toughness.

    there's the irony, the one Dem candidate who does not have a toughness problem is Hillary Clinton.

    She's shown the boyz how it is done.


    And the projection of toughness (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:47:51 AM EST
    is probably the #1 reason why she is now more electable.

    They are (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Grace on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:48:11 AM EST
    California Republicans.  They tend to vote for people they like.  That's how we end up with people like Gray Davis and Arnold.  

    These particular friends also voted for Bill Clinton and were unhappy about the Impeachment.  Could they be RINOs?  :)    


    Maybe RINOs (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:55:56 AM EST
    but I know some TX republicans who voted for her in the primary and told me they would do it again in November.  These people are not RINOs but somehow they saw the toughness before I did and they liked it.

    It's weird... (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:52:05 AM EST
    but I have coffee with a friend every week. And he's about as traditional a Republican as you can get (except for trying to be more green and looking at alternatives to standard electric n' stuff).

    He still doesn't like Bill. But he's turned completely around re: Hillary.

    In his words, "she's got moxy" and he respects that.


    her grit has won her many supporters on the right (5.00 / 3) (#251)
    by kempis on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:42:46 AM EST
    And Chris Matthews forgets that public opinion swung toward Hillary back at the end of her husband's presidency NOT because people felt sorry for her but because they admired the dignity with she and Chelsea carried themselves. We saw one of her "values" then, and all but the bratty among us (who thought she should have thrown a public tantrum) respected her for her strength in public.

    Clinton hate has always been blown up... (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by dianem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:24:16 AM EST
    ...by the media. His poll numbers never fell nearly as low as Bush's, even during the Lewinsky pseudo-scandal. People know the difference between lying about getting oral sex and lying about starting a war. Even the legendary Republican hate for him has to be a bit exaggerated, given how high his numbers ran during his term.

    Probably because (5.00 / 4) (#252)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:43:18 AM EST
    the "Clinton Hate" was really a "media hate" and an "inside the beltway" hate. That's what always strikes me as funny when Obama fans point to Senator Clinton as an insider. Neither Clinton has ever been an insider because the insiders wouldn't allow it.

    Yes, well, while I agree with you Penn was (none / 0) (#249)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:29:10 AM EST
    a disaster, I don't think it helped that she spent much of the year running against the pips.  She was the only candidate the rest of her competitors criticized, which they did relentlessly.  I also disagree with you about the choice of primary voters.  I think Hill will win with a slight lead in the pop vote.  But that's really here nor there.  The voters are split, but she's won far more votes than Obama in the last three months, and the point of the protracted primary was to see who had the staying power.  The super's are nominating Obama, and you and I both know they could just as easily nominate Hillary.

    Don't you think this comment deserves (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:20:06 AM EST
    to be a stand-alone post?  I do.  

    When the nomination is decided (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:22:06 AM EST
    I'll eat my crow.

    Here's the thing - it is over.

    At this point I am just thinking about what can be done to improve Obama's chances.


    Magic 8 ball says (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:25:02 AM EST
    "ask again later."

    I'm going to disagree... (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:11:14 AM EST
    just cause.

    I don't think it's over. I think that there are a lot of folks who want it to be over...to appear as though it's over. Cause that helps with the "perceptions game."

    And yes, I know the media darling argument.

    But I don't think it's over...


    It's not over until August (5.00 / 5) (#229)
    by andrys on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:46:40 AM EST
    And there is danger in wanting to say "It's over" (for June 4) when it isn't, but when saying so gets you in line with how things are "going" -- and ObamaCamp is trying to use that to make Reality Now, which you are helping.  

    They are really upset that SD's haven't just come out now, as they were expected to after the big announcement he had reached the majority of pledged delegates.  That's why Arianna started a big campaign to get the SDs to commit NOW, before the other 3 states vote.  (There'd be even more on Clinton's side by then.)

     The myth they're hammering, so that it will work to convince people (SDs and voters), is that the SDs must go according to leader of elected delegates, but that is not at all in the rules.  

     The SDs were created in case it would hurt the party to go with the elected delegates.  This is a very complex situation, but it's not over until it really is.  And the Obama crew is NOT breathing any sigh of relief until it actually happens.  They are worried.  That's why the desperation to make Clinton's RFK statement what it was not.


    You have convinced me Obama (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:23:33 AM EST
    will be the nominee.

    Then there is no point (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:25:36 AM EST
    in writng that piece which will only inflame people.

    After Obama is the nominee they won't care and instead might think about how Obama can get better. Cuz boy, is he ever the incredible shrinking candidate right now.


    My opinion: many Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:28:18 AM EST
    supporters here who state they will never vote for Obama might rethink that position were you to post your comment and take all the brickbats coming your direction.

    I don't think it's only brackets. (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:35:53 AM EST
    It's much deeper, our concern.  I am truly angry at diluting the Democratic agenda with all his pandering when we had the country on our side.  Now, we are arguing the same old nothing we argue in elections.  

    BTD doesn't have any brickbats coming (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:38:53 AM EST
    He's been nothing but honest and straight forward and no one should ever apologize for that.  I would hope that no one would base a presidential vote on a personal opinion from a blog.  If that's an Obama strategy, he's in worse trouble than I think and that would be hard to imagine  :-)

    BTD didn't have anything to do (none / 0) (#98)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:03:42 AM EST
    with my decision not to support Clinton.  BTDs been part of an ongoing debate but people come to their own decisions.

    I expect Obama's team to be doing a lot of sucking up and talking about how 'wonderful' Clinton is.  It is what it is... transparent and hypocritical politics.


    Your decision (none / 0) (#158)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:26:27 AM EST
    not to support Clinton?  Huh?

    My opinion (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:28:41 AM EST
    There was never any "there" there. He'd better develop some substance, and fast.

    My suggestion, study Bill Clinton circa 1993, and take acting classes.


    Except that many are convinced (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:30:07 AM EST
    he is acting now.  They want to see the real Obama.

    Instantpundit but (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:34:11 AM EST
    you cannot get instant substance.  

    I want to see (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Grace on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:59:31 AM EST
    a bigger resume and some leadership experience -- and I don't think he can get those two in six months either.  

    The problem (5.00 / 5) (#236)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:43:06 AM EST
    is that he is NOT going to get better. He has had all primary season to work on his problems and has done nada.

    This piece really doesn't inflame people. Obama's behavior is what inflames people.


    Stop the hand-wringing (5.00 / 3) (#239)
    by margph on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:55:43 AM EST
    You know, BTD, I am getting pretty tired of this.  Between you and young Andgarten, it feels like a tag team of despair and feigned buyer's remorse.  You keep pushing this meme that it's over.  Well, with that kind of pathetic stance plastered all over this blog --for months now you have pushed Obama as the inevitable.  It has personally grated on my nerves quite a bit.

    If you TRULY believed Clinton is the better nominee, would be the better president, don't you feel some kind of obligation to help that come about?  Why is hand-wringing over a comrade's fall better than trying to help her up as she stumbles?  You get all kinds of kudos for this blog.  Well, make it mean something.  Stop all the words of despair and do something.  It's not over until she quits or until the delegates vote.


    incredibly shrinking is right (5.00 / 2) (#254)
    by kempis on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:47:18 AM EST
    I'm seriously concerned about him. His former "eloquence," which was his strength, seems to have utterly left him. Worse, he seems disoriented, silly, punch-drunk--not at all presidential. It's like having a Democratic Dubya who can deliver a speech better.

    I know he's tired, but he's 47 years old, for god's sake. Hillary's 60 and seems twenty-times more vigorous, mentally and physically. Hell, McCain seems more steady on his feet these days than Obama does. If he's wobbly now, what's Obama going to be like this fall?


    I've thought all along that she would be (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:28:13 AM EST
    the best candidate but she's really surprised me as well.  Once Penn disappeared the real person came out and is honestly the best candidate I've seen in my lifetime.  Darned if she's not better than Bill in some ways, in toughness and character at least.

    She would absolutely blow McCain away in the general election.  Bill Clinton was right when he said it would be hard for her to get the nomination but, if she did, she would win the general going away.  It makes me very sad to see how this is turning out but I still have a bit of hope that she will take it to the convention.  Maybe there the cooler heads can prevail.


    Kills me that (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:36:55 AM EST
    we probably won't get to see her take on McCain in debates.  I would pay to see that.

    Heh., we still can (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:38:51 AM EST
    Deus ex Machina, Rezko found guilty next week.  Huh.  

    well, I think just a guilty verdict (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:47:23 AM EST
    won't do much; but if Rezko "sings."

    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:51:25 AM EST
    well, he would have to get out of Dodge if he sings.  

    Might help w/his sentencing. (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:52:32 AM EST
    Syrian singer (none / 0) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:55:16 AM EST
    Syrian singer famous one.  He always reminded me of Rezko.  

    What Obama got wrong (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:28:16 AM EST
    People who love him, love him and will love him.  Hillary, can convert people to love her.  That makes her a better candidate.  This is why I am so depressed.  

    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by maladroit on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:47:02 AM EST
    When people see Hillary in person, it's usually an eye-opening experience for them (those that don't already like her, anyway) and they come away with a much more favorable impression of her. That's been my experience, at least.

    she shines in debates (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:52:03 AM EST
    That's what turned me (5.00 / 8) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:28:25 AM EST
    from an admirer into a supporter, those early debates.  It's not just the mastery of substance, but the clear instinct for calm command.

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:36:29 AM EST
    The co-incidence of these realizations with the "It's over" conclusion really bugs me.

    I don't know what to make of it.


    Take it as you want (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:39:22 AM EST
    The two facts became clear to me at the same time.

    I tell you what I think. when I think it.

    In January, Obama was more electable, how was i to know what would happen to these two candidates in the meantime.


    Well, it was clear to you Obama (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by andrys on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:54:26 AM EST
    was more electable.

      You are repeating what ObamaCamp hopes everyone will
    repeat.  It's over.  But I just wrote about this above.

      Think about why you're saying it.  It's a wish to get ahead of the results.  The sage thing -- going with what seems will happen, almost for sure.  There is so much danger in it when you know Obamacamp is really worried about why the SDs are hesitating and when Arianna is throwing a fit and having everyone write the SDs as a result.  The polls are certainly having an impact on a few SDs.  Who knows how many?

      And, again, with what is happening that I see on other websites following various investigations, it really is not over until August, but I know you mean the June 3-4 deadline after primaries.

      Even then, the SDs do not at all automatically make the magic total marker for Obama when Florida and Michigan are included; if they're not included, good-bye November and America's better future for 8 years.  Is it worth it to help the march of Obama that way?  It's a form of chant, which helps to set minds.

      So, please don't say this when it's not really over. "I feel it's over" would be more truthful and not something Obamacamp wants you to hypnotize the rest of us with.


    Well, then I l eagerly look forward (3.00 / 2) (#99)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:03:52 AM EST
    to your post 6 months from now saying you were wrong about Obama - that he has become a much better candidate than you had anticipated.

    Actually, in 6 months he will be (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:24:15 AM EST
    saying, "Wow, I really didn't believe Hillary would get the nomination. President H. Clinton has made history in more ways than one."

    That makes two of us (none / 0) (#108)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:05:52 AM EST
    Ok (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:14:33 AM EST
    I still don't know where the line exists between getting to say what I think and avoiding unnecessary conflict.

    I know I might have just implied you might not be honest there, and I apologize.

    But the fact that you are being as honest as you always are about the things that you think doesn't make me feel any better about the comment.

    It still bugs me just as much.  I don't like it.  Others seem to.

    I don't know what problems are solved by Irony.


    It's strange and sad (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by daria g on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:09:33 AM EST
    Not saying this to BTD who's always been fair and honest here, but elsewhere.. suddenly some in the media seem interested in all the sexism and vitriol pervading the coverage of Hillary, all the constant pushing for her to quit (it started after Iowa for crying out loud!).  Where was this concern about the sexist bashing and piling on from at least October until now, the revelation to other pundits that MSNBC (aside from Scarborough and a few conservatives) has been completely in the tank for Obama?

    Maybe people like that jerk Fineman weren't lying when they said they'd respect her again if only she would, you know, just LOSE like they want her to.  Not that she's lost yet but they mostly think it's over.  (I disagree, but.. another day.)  Maybe they feel good about deciding things for the public by beating the hell out of the best and most qualified candidate, I don't know.


    Fishy (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by margph on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:04:45 AM EST
    I'm with you, Edgar08.  It smells a little fishy that all this praise for Clinton feels like an obituary.  I will say it again, it is not over until the delegates vote or until she drops her candidacy.  Does it feel like you're being had here?

    Thanks, we all make mistakes (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:44:21 AM EST
    in judgment. No one is ever right all the time. I have watched HRC since her days as First Lady. I closely followed her NY campaign as she went from county to county convincing hardcore Republicans that she could do the job. I have meet with her on many occasions about issues ranging from health care to international patents. There were never any notes in front of her and her knowledge on the issue was incredible. If she didn't have an answer, she said so and got back to me.
     Obama was attractive but with all the media hype he was getting no one was looking very deep. Even the DNC didn't vet him very well and shame on them if the Democrats do not take the White House in November. The problem now is that it is obvious from the states that HRC has won, the electoral map and polling numbers from reliable polls, HRC is the stronger candidate against McCain. HRC and her supporters have known this from the start,Will the DNC and the SD's recognize this fact before it's too late?
     It is good to see that someone as knowledgeable as you recognizes what has been staring at us for weeks. She is very electable and would be one fantastic President, even Bill knows that.

    agree (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by urduja on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:25:46 AM EST
    I saw HRC give a commencement speech in the 1990s following Annette Bening and Mayor Willie Brown in SF (and other people I don't remember). On the spot, she seemlessly integrated what everyone said previously into her speech. I came away quite impressed with her quick mind (and how different she spoke in person compared to how she spoke on TV).

    You should have looked at the media (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by dianem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:57:24 AM EST
    The right wingers were all over Clinton and having public wet dreams about Obama, at least until they saw that Clinton was so damaged that she couldn't win the GE. I never listen to Rove, but I read Free Republic. They're not as subtle, and they are practically salivating over an Obama/McCain campaign. They hate McCain almost as much as they hate Clinton. Maybe more. But they taste blood, and they want victory, if only to show us that they can beat us again. They'll be there on election day, proudly voting against Obama, along with millions of Dems who have grown to dislike Obama immensely.

    I read Free Republic sometimes too. (none / 0) (#144)
    by Grace on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:22:02 AM EST
    I know they didn't want Hillary to win -- but as Obama started winning primaries, they started getting nervous because Obama wasn't somebody they could vote for and he was like a Rock Star.  

    I read more than one post from people wishing it would be McCain versus Clinton in the GE only because they could TRUST Hillary not to destroy the USA if she won.  They aren't so sure about Obama.  

    Anyway, they appear to be quite energized about voting against Obama in the GE.


    Excerpts from one Free Republic thread (none / 0) (#231)
    by andrys on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:12:16 AM EST
    I was reading just the other night and noted some of these from just one thread there.  Thought it very interesting, and it shows why Clinton does very well against McCain in the electoral college polling while Obama doesn't.  I wish the SDs would explore this so we can save us from the next 8 years.

    ------- EXCERPTS from just one Free Republic thread -------
    I still can't believe I'm defending Hillary Clinton, but after all the
    hell that was raised by these Florida people thinking that their votes
    didn't count in 2000, I do think something should be done.

    But mainly, I HATE the fact that the media selected the demoncrat
    candidate; that they're just in love with this guy. So I'm all for
    Hillary getting all the votes she can (until November, that is).

    I did what I could & voted against Hilary/for 0bama here in California,
    because his baggage is more simple and transparent.

    I hate the fact that the media has so much influence, too, but hey,
    propaganda can really aid the deception; the enemy is powerful.

    If Hillary is still around for November, she will be the next president.
    A stake has to be put into the heart of the vampire now. The less
    legitimate her claim, the more blood will be on the floor in Denver.

    AS bad as Hitlery is, Obama make her look good.

    "Stirring up......?" She just wants the votes counted, Barry. If one
    counts Florida and Michigan, she leads in popular votes, although the
    MSM will not say so.

    It's a tough call; both are pretty evil. I felt people were really
    pro-Clinton and I had to vote against them possibly returning to the
    White House.

    Hillary has become a collosal candidate, kicking some huge behind in
    S.C. and KY after winning nearly all the large states in the Union (NC
    and IL being the exceptions). I found myself rooting for her when I was
    against the Clintons for 8 years or more.

    But the same thing's happened to her that happened to Jerry Brown in `92.
    What makes 2008 and 1992 so different is Hillary has become immensely
    powerful since winning the big states like Texas and Ohio. Unfortunately
    for her, she lost 11 in a row before she became "the working class
    candidate". Now, it's either push for the VP spot or hope for 2012 when
    the lines in her face will be more pronounced and when she'll likely be
    up against a Democrat President Obama. It will be nearly impossible to
    beat an incumbent from her own party. 2016 will be too late for her, so
    it's now or not at all.

    Even if she stays in til the Convention, Obama/his people are already
    going head to head against McCain in a blatant attempt to make her "a
    non-issue", and it's working....because the MNM is behind Obama.

    AS bad as Hitlery is, Obama make her look good.

    LOL! Yeah, and this is what we have, as conservatives, to look forward
    too. I have two things to mention:

    If Obama is the clear winner in this thing, why doesn't he close the
    door on it, and declare himself the winner?

    Hillary, is the devil we know. We know what she is and what she
    basically can do. We don't really know what McPita will do? We KNOW he's
    a Rino destroying the repub party conservatism from within, that's why I
    feel he's WORSE than Hillary! I won't vote for Hillary, but I sure as
    Sherlock don't want McPita as POTUS. I want him to lose as much power as
    possible in the repub party.

    Out of these two liberal SOS, at least Hillary likes America...or what
    it's provided for her so far.
    ------- end of excerpts from that one thread -------


    obama wasn't vetted as he should have (5.00 / 5) (#184)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:47:52 AM EST
    been.the party elders should have known most of these things. if they were invested in seeing him move up, then they should have told him the truth. and that is he needed experience, humility and to get his house in order. that so could have been done but for the greed and arrogance of the these democrats and dnc.

    Excellent post. (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:42:37 AM EST
    I agree with everything except the part about Obama winning in November.  I just don't see how it happens.  The electoral math isn't there at this point and I would bet my next paycheck that at least a couple more scandals surface between now and November.  

    The Dems have made the fatal mistake - once again - of picking the weaker GE candidate.  It's like the party is completely incapable of looking at the big picture.  I once heard someone say Democrats vote with their hearts, Republicans vote with their heads.  So true.  


    its early (3.33 / 3) (#85)
    by manish on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:56:28 AM EST
    Right now, its still early.  The race is still way too close any which way whether its McCain vs. Obama or Clinton.  Bush had a commanding lead over Gore before the conventions.  Here is a poll from the end of June 2000 that had it Bush 52 to Gore 39.

    The one poll that you had in an earlier post that had crosstabs showed Obama beating McCain in independents..the only reason Obama did worse than Hillary was his support among Democrats.  Many of the Democrats who support Hillary and who are saying that they won't support Obama will come around.

    Between the 100 years comment, Bob Barr entering the race, and the general tanking of the Republican brand, I think either Obama or Hillary will win.


    You can't possible believe that Clinton (1.75 / 12) (#13)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:22:14 AM EST
    would be a lock? Look, no one is attacking her. She's gotten a completely free ride because she is the presumptive loser. Obama, however, has been consistently attacked from both sides over the last few months. If Clinton were the presumptive nominee, I can assure you, her unfavorables would be about 20 points higher than they were when she started, which would make her virtually unelectable. And while Obama will have to deal with racial bias, Hillary would have to contend with gender bias in the GE. And she would not, in my opinion, get enough women to offset given that even some women won't vote for another woman for president.

    Yes, I know that's the line Markos is spinning (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:23:47 AM EST
    but it's completely wrong. The Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries were excellent proxies for the general election, and Hillary excelled in all the important ways.

    She needed to get out of the dem (1.50 / 4) (#48)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:40:22 AM EST
    primaries as the winner in order to lay claim to superior electability. You can't credibly say you're more electable than the person who has defeated you. It makes no sense, and SD's don't seem to be buying it. Obama is approaching a 40 SD lead after being down by over 100. You can say it's all about match-ups, just like with sports. In other words, A can beat B, but A may lose to C who wasn't nearly as strong as B. The problem with that assessment is that Obama provides a starker contrast to McCain than Hillary would. Unfortunately, looks and height count in presidential elections. I read a while back that during his debates with Carter, Reagan would intentionally walk over to Carter to shake hands in order to demonstrate the height differential.

    More stupid (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:42:48 AM EST
    Do I need to remind you that Kerry is taller than W?

    Just look at electoral-vote.com and tell me I'm crazy.


    Being shorter only hurts you if you are in fact (1.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:54:42 AM EST
    short. W is not short, he's about 6'. McCain is 5' 7". That is short. Americans don't want their leader looking up to other leaders. McCain is also, let's face it, old. He has a combover. He has a hunchback. He is somewhat decrepit. This is not an attractive dude. The contrast with Obama will be glaring. A lot of older folks won't vote for McCain because they know what he must be going through and they won't want that in the White House.

    Oh boy (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:01:38 AM EST
    You can not be serious.

    There are polls indicating (1.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:04:18 AM EST
    that McCain's age is more of a liability than Obama's race. Yes, I am serious. Name one bald guy elected president in the television era. Ford was not elected. Now name some short presidents. You don't think that being short hurt Dukakis?

    Name some short Presidents? (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:25:53 AM EST
    How about this, you tell me the height of all the Presidents so we can think whether that means a darn thing.

    BTD, in this society it helps to be tall (1.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:33:17 AM EST
    there are all kinds of studies that corroborate this. Taller people go farther and earn more and seem to be happier. There are often deep psychological issues associated with being short. You know that. To think that height plays no role in a presidential election is to assume that height and physical appearance play in role in society at large.

    So tell me (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:36:25 AM EST
    How tall was Harry Truman? Eisenhower? Johnson? Nixon? carter? etc.

    Just tell me how tall they were.

    You are the one making big claims about this

    and I have no even brought up James Madison.


    Some were taller than others (2.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:49:14 AM EST
    the White House website actually lists each president's height. None on your list were shorter than 5' 9". Height became more important post the 1960 election. This was considered the dawn of the television era in politics. After all, candidates have been applying make-up since the Nixon/Kennedy debates.

    Yes, oddly (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:53:18 AM EST
    Hillary at her 5'4" (or whatever) looks larger than life when on stage with Obama or McCain.



    not according to Ferraro (5.00 / 0) (#232)
    by manish on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:26:03 AM EST
    You think Obama's going to win on appearance? (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:02:59 AM EST
    Seriously, you guys are going to have to find a new shtick.

    Holy Sh!t, it's effing American Idol :-) (5.00 / 8) (#118)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:09:30 AM EST
    Thanks for the laugh (5.00 / 9) (#114)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:08:16 AM EST
    that may be the shallowest analysis I've ever read.

    By the way, that hunchback you deride, well he got that from having his bones broken and not set properly while he was a POW.  Not exactly a political liability.


    What is really shallow and disengenous (2.33 / 3) (#126)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:12:09 AM EST
    is saying (when you all know better) that I think Obama will win on looks alone. If that were the case just run some male model.

    These statements are almost too silly to respond to.


    Whatever (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:16:28 AM EST
    Ooooooooooooooo (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Grace on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:30:30 AM EST
    Couldn't the Democrats just run Brad Pitt or George Clooney?  


    (I believe it has been proven that Angelina Jolie connects very well with white working class males...)  ;)  


    Oooooooooooooooooooooo (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:49:50 AM EST
    Angelina Jolie connects with males across the spectrum I'm sure.  Talk about tingly legs  :-)

    Shorter only hurts? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:23:19 AM EST
    This is funny.  Was it meant to be? I know so many Hillary supporters who will vote for McCain, if Obama is the nominee.  Some are old, some are not so old, some are young.  Did you read this somewhere that voters in the presidential elections vote on height? Obama is tall; I will grant you that. If tallness is a good measure for electibility then maybe we should be nominating professional basketball players.  

    Okay, name some short presidents (none / 0) (#160)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:27:20 AM EST
    and by the way, beyond 6' 2" or 6' 3" height begins to become a disadvantage. You're never going to have a 6' 10" president.

    I'm very sorry, but (none / 0) (#166)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:31:13 AM EST
    that's utter nonsense.

    I can't even believe this is considered (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:36:47 AM EST
    a rational argument! oy.

    I can't even believe this is considered (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:36:58 AM EST
    a rational argument! oy.

    The unwillingness to cede any advantage to (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:54:08 AM EST
    Obama is laughable. Okay, one more time: NAME SOME SHORT PRESIDENTS. And while you're at it, name some bald presidents.

    Okay, let's play! (5.00 / 6) (#206)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:08:56 AM EST
    Name some presidents born in Hawaii.

    Name some presidents raised in Indonesia.

    Name some presidents who . . .

    Wait, I finally figured out what you're trying to say:  Size matters.  It's a guy thing.

    But this game is fun, so let's not stop now.

    Name some presidents who won Guam by 7 votes.

    Name some presidents who lost late primaries by more than 40 points.

    Name some presidents who couldn't win more than 7 percent in entire counties late in the primary season, even when they had the nomination "won."


    How about name some presidents who . . . (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:14:10 AM EST
    beat a Clinton  ;)

    Darn, I always forget (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:27:17 AM EST
    to turn the page for the extra-credit question!

    you need to button it! (none / 0) (#201)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:03:04 AM EST
    Of course you can (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:44:25 AM EST
    Ed Muskie was much more electable than McGovern.

    gore was much more electable than Dukakis.

    Clark or Edwards were much more electable than Kerry.

    Only a fool would write that as if Dems have a great track record of picking winners. Sheesh.What a dumb thing to say.

    what she can not say is she was the choice of the Dem PArrty.


    Had the caucus states been primaries (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:46:23 AM EST
    she would have won, in my opinion.

    Oh well; what will be, will be.


    That's why it's so important (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by rjarnold on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:05:43 AM EST
    that Dems change their nomination process after the election. We have to get rid of these caucuses. I think they usually help candidates who are less electable.

    Caususes (5.00 / 9) (#163)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:29:45 AM EST
    I agree.  Caucuses need to be thrown out.  They in no way represent the will of their constituency. I noted the other night that I think they are discriminatory.  No senior citizen is going to go caucusing at night. I doubt that handicap people will do it either.  Even people with jobs they cannot leave can be left out of the process.  When DNC suggested Florida have a caucus for the revote, I was irate.  No state has such a high percentage of seniors.  Seniors would never attend.  What was the DNC thinking, other than silver plattering FL delegates to Obama.

    The DNC needs to come up with a primary plan that mimics and predicts the electoral college.  That is the only thing that makes sense.


    cost? (none / 0) (#233)
    by manish on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:30:55 AM EST
    What was the DNC thinking

    they were probably thinking of the cost of a caucus vs. primary..which then brings up how do you convince a caucus state to fork over the extra dough for a primary against all the other priorities that state and local budgets need to consider.


    Re: cost? (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:47:02 AM EST
    how do you convince a caucus state to fork over the extra dough for a primary

    You tell them that the delegates from caucus states will be reduced by, maybe, 50 percent.

    Better yet, you refuse to accredit the delegates from caucus states, and notify the state party organizations of those states that they will be solely liable for the costs of any lawsuits claiming that the caucuses discriminated against: out-of-state military, invalids, elderly, poor, etc.


    Normally, not so (none / 0) (#171)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:34:06 AM EST
    But caucuses were designed for party people to decide the nominee.  They weren't designed for floods of supporters of one candidate to show up for the first time, one-time-only.  Have to congratulate Obama for exploiting the opportunity, but it's not what caucuses were intended to do.

    I don't agree with much of this (2.20 / 5) (#95)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:01:42 AM EST
    You are basing your electability argument on something we'll never know--how these losing candidates would have fared in the GE cauldron. This is something we can't know. Ultimately, the primaries are good proving ground. It's where we separate the weak from the strong.  

    Indeed, primaries are (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:04:24 AM EST
    Caucuses are not.

    Primaries are good proving grounds for . . ? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:08:18 AM EST
    Interesting that you think so.

    But If you do not seem the limits to that, then well, what can I say?


    electable (none / 0) (#234)
    by manish on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:35:22 AM EST
    The most electable Dem in 2004 was Lieberman because he was the most conservative, but that wasn't a good reason to vote for him.  Same goes for the Republicans this time around..McCain is easily the most electable of their lot because he is the most liberal (11th hour conversions of Romney and Giuliani notwithstanding).

    As to Kerry, I think a big part of his loss was how he handled the swiftboating.  they would have found something similar on Clark and Edwards.


    So a woman (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:26:39 AM EST
     vs a man for would provide less of a contrast than two men? Makes perfect sense.

    She's gotten a completely free ride? (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:26:44 AM EST
    HAHAHAHAH!!  What planet are you posting from?  Seriously.  What reality do you live in?

    C'mon, that one of Seth's was too easy. (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:22:06 AM EST
    This is the one I like:

    She needed to get out of the dem primaries as the winner in order to lay claim to superior electability. You can't credibly say you're more electable than the person who has defeated you.

    He still thinks that Clinton is not the winner in the primaries, when counting . . . um . . . votes.  He still thinks that delegates are the same as voters and the primary is the general election.  There's just so much in that comment to enjoy.


    I liked this part (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:27:57 AM EST
    You can't credibly say you're more electable than the person who has defeated you.

    do we want to look at races since March anyone?


    I do think she would be a lock (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:29:38 AM EST
    Right now she is a lock loser of the nomination. Obama will be the nominee.

    But I find it hilarious that you think Obama is getting a rough ride.

    NEVER, imean NEVER has a Dem candidate gotten such great Media since JFK.

    Hell.  on THAT POINT, I am totally vindicated. But I failed to see the backlash that being the Media Elite candidate could draw plus Obama's ineptness at connecting to working class voters has caught me by surprise.

    You seem to not get it. this is a painful admission for me - I was for Obama SOLELY based on ELECTABILITY. And it turns out that I backed the least electable candidate.

    In any other year, Obama would be a lock loser.

    But this is a Dem year. He'll probably win. this is like Carter in 76.  


    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:36:04 AM EST
    I think you seriously underestimate McCain's appeal to voters, including Dem voters.  He is largely exempt from the voters' disenchantment with the Republican Party, party thanks to media swooning over the last 10 years, but also because of his honestly rather attractive public personality.

    He does (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by LoisInCo on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:37:19 AM EST
    make a good laugh. " I haven't been questioned this hard since Hanoi" had me rolling. Still does.

    Re: He does (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:10:51 AM EST
    That's a tell from McCain.  When he feels on unsteady ground, he brings up those POW experiences he's supposedly so reluctant to mention.  He did it again recently when Obama called him out on voting against the GI Bill.

    Look for a lot of that as we head into the fall.  It's his crutch.


    And a crutch provides you strength (none / 0) (#277)
    by hookfan on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:15:20 AM EST
    What's Obama's crutch? Oh that's right he's got no military experience. Guess he can continue to fall on his face like he did against McCain in the senate before the pseudo assassination scare. Hope he gets a crutch soon. It's embarrassing when an old guy hands you your rear end an a platter.

    Much Of The Country Still Buys Into His (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:11:16 AM EST
    "Maverick" image. It has become an established "fact" in the minds of many voters. Especially Independent and Democratic Voters.

    Because the Dem Establishment (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:00:40 AM EST
    has DECIDED! Do you NOT see that?

    Cause as they would say in the old (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:09:22 AM EST
    westerns they are lilly livered cowards.  You can all thank Kerry, Teddy, Daschle, etc.  for setting it up for a loss.  

    I do see it (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by MisterPleasant on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:10:47 AM EST
    And it makes me angry in the same way the 2000 election did.  Will my anger subside enough to lower my standards to vote for Obama?  Check back with me in November.

    Meanwhile as long as Hillary is in the race, I say let it play out and settle it at the convention.  If she decides to withdraw before then, so be it.

    Can Obama learn from this, and build a bridge to the  blue collar, female, and senior voters he has dissed?  Maybe but so far there has been no sign that he has the guts to do so.


    Because (none / 0) (#258)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:01:32 AM EST
    they thought this was a "safe" election to destroy the Clintons. This was going to be the year that any Democrat would be able to defeat any Republican.

    Now when it is not so "sure" a victory for the party they would rather destroy the Clintons than win an election IMHO.  


    Re: I do think she would be a lock (none / 0) (#214)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:22:06 AM EST
    But I find it hilarious that you think Obama is getting a rough ride.

    Jeremiah Wright?  The bitter nontroversy?  Flagpins?  The Pledge of Allegiance?  Hello?

    The weeks and weeks the media spent obsessing over trivia like that should really bury the notion that some have that Obama has gotten a free ride.  What goodwill he's gotten has been less about Obama himself and more about the idea that someone might beat Clinton and thus give them a race to cover.  (Not to mention lots of the media leaders today made their bones obsessing over Monica Lewinsky ten years ago.)

    What I don't understand is the idea that the media prefers one Democrat to another.  This campaign has been a gold mine for them, they want to see it continue forever.  When one candidate is up, they slag them and tear them down.  That gives them plenty of fodder for both "an icon has fallen" stories and "back from political death" stories.  Can't it be just as simple as that?

    But this is a Dem year. He'll probably win. this is like Carter in 76.

    If that's the case, I hope he's better at working with Congress than Carter was.

    Honestly, I think that whomever gets nominated this year can and will beat McCain.  So long as the nomination is seen as a clean fight.  Fights on the convention floor help neither candidate.


    Re: Oh, please. (none / 0) (#245)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:32:25 AM EST

    If you really, sincerely believe that Barack Obama got the kid gloves treatment on the Wright issue, then I don't know what to say.  That's just completely delusional.


    wright vs hagee (none / 0) (#235)
    by manish on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:37:02 AM EST
    How do you reconcile the difference between how the media treated the Wright incident vs. McCain's going after Hagee's endorsement?

    free ride!??!!? (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:48:57 AM EST
    she's been attacked for 15 years straight by both the republicans and now the democrats.  puhlease.

    She has shown herself to be the stronger candidate (none / 0) (#266)
    by barryluda on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:37:31 AM EST
    Very honest of you, BTD, and as I said earlier even though I've been an Obama supporter (and still am) if I were a Super Delegate now I might have to vote for Clinton given all that's happened.  But I do think one of the reasons Obama looks so bad right now is exactly because he's not able to really run, yet, in the GE.

    A lot of really stupid decisions he's been making (and especially his surrogates) -- which will hurt him in the GE -- only make sense if it's because he (and they) are still single mindedly focused on winning the nomination.

    In any event, I still think that everything changes once the nomination is wrapped up.


    Nope (none / 0) (#276)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:13:48 AM EST
    wrapping up the nomination DOES NOT alter his chances. It is foolish for anyone to think this. Do you think McCain is not going to constantly remind everyone of his idiotic mistakes in the general election? The GOP already is defining him as the flip flopping clueless and unqualified candidate. Do you actually think that the GOP is going to be nice to him?

    We'll see (none / 0) (#279)
    by barryluda on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:32:46 AM EST
    But he did win (or is about to win -- Clinton can still pull it out, but it's unlikely) even though it looks like all agree that Clinton is the stronger candidate.  He ran a better campaign, under the crazy rules we have.  As someone here pointed out, that certainly doesn't mean he'd make the better POTUS -- just look at Bush!  But it does mean that he has a team that can understand the rules of an election and make the most out of it.

    You may be right (I hope not), but we'll see.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#280)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:42:13 AM EST
    the way I see it is that he knows how to run a primary campaign but is clueless when it comes to the general election. He has the southside of Chicago mentality where winning the Dem nomination actually means the same thing as winning the election hence his arrogant attitude that Hillary's voters will automatically vote for him.

    Many voters have already said that they won't vote for Obama. I think the main reason for this is Obama is unqualified. And there's nothing he can do about that. Basically running a state senator for POTUS is the craziest thing I've ever seen a party do.


    Amazing (none / 0) (#283)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:50:59 AM EST
    how so many smart people missed Hillary Clinton's electoral capability.

    It has amazed me that all the smart folks seemed to miss two strong victories in New York.  The first a comfortable win, the second a blowout.  The blowout occured against a weak candidate, but the fact that the New York GOP couldn't get a strong challenger speaks volumes. How did all these 'smart' folks miss the fact that she overcame a hostile media in New York, and did very well in Republican counties? Just why is she so popular throughout NY state?

    I swear there's a bit of CDS even in people who claim otherwise.  CDS clouds the vision, warps perceptions.

    Then there's this gem in reference to Obama.

    "And yet, he seems to be the choice of Democratic primary voters as well as the Dem Establishment."

    Really!  Nine of Obama's 17 primary wins came in states with a percentage AA population far above the national average.  The AA vote prevents him from being completely eviserated in the 18 primaries that Hillary Clinton won. One of his remaining primary wins is from Americans Abroad (now there's a wino dominated group). That's right, she's won 18 ACTUAL contests, 1 more than Obama when large turnouts with a wide cross section of voters participating.

    Forty-seven percent of his wins have come in goon squad dominated caucuses.

    Many of his supporters in primaries don't even bother with the rest of the ticket.  You think those people are actual Democrats?

    If actual Democrats were separated out of the pack the popular vote wouldn't be nearly as close as it is now.

    "the choice of Democratic voters ...

    I don't think so.


    Will BO do well in PR or will he do another WV? (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Prabhata on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:13:24 AM EST
    If BO crashes in PR, I think he cannot excuse himself, but will the delegates excuse him?  I'm happy that HRC stayed in the race to demonstrate how weak BO is.  I knew the BO camp was afraid and pushed Hillary to quit her campaign, but I didn't expect Obama to splat and lose states by 30 percent.

    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:53:01 AM EST
    but the Obama supporters (that includes the corporate media and the DNC hierarchy) will say that she has split the party. When in truth, it is Obama who should drop out.

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:45:14 AM EST
    The delegates and the media have proven that they will forgive him anything.  Edwards, who I once admired, endorsed him the day after the WV loss. That's just plain crazy.  If ever there was a time for supers to pause and reflect, it was after that primary.  

    The writing's on the wall.  Unless some hideous scandal breaks, he will be the nominee.  Actually, that might not even make a difference at this point.  They would probably find a way to blame Hillary for it.


    Edwards (none / 0) (#285)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:58:58 AM EST
    who I originally supported, whored himself for Obama's donor list.

    He sent out an email that day to his primary donors asking for cash. I unsubscribed.


    Hominid Views has Clinton 100% to beat (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:22:27 AM EST
    McCain, while Obama's at 37.3% today.  

    It's crazy.

    That seems a little low for Obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:42:11 AM EST
    I agree with the 100% for Clinton but I put Obama at 60% or so.

    If Clinton does not concede, and ... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by cymro on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:53:19 AM EST
    ... Obama keeps slipping like this in the GE polls, by August he may be ready accept the VP slot with Clinton.

    August is still an eternity away; I don't see how the DNC leadership can avoid reading polls for three months.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:58:13 AM EST
    I do not think so. I think it is a done deal.

    but Clinton is actually doing some things that will help Obama IF he just learns from what she is doing.


    As you said here, hubris (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:25:46 AM EST
    will not make that possible for him.  I've dealt with his sort.  Frankly, I think that the last thing he could bring himself to do is learn from a woman.

    Maybe he can watch tapes of Bill, if Obama can get over his distaste.  Or, heck, have Obama watch tapes of Reagan to figure out how to be transformative -- transforming himself first.


    He's goin to leave it to the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:31:28 AM EST
    to solve his problems, I suspect.

    God it's gonna be an ugly summer if she drops out.


    the clintons can't fix obama's problems. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:50:29 AM EST
    oh they'll probably campaign for him, but they can't and shouldn't win it for him. only he can do that and i don't see any there there. he blamed the loss in wv on fox news. please!

    Well, that's what we get (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:30:01 AM EST
    for funding rural electrification, huh?  Darn that FDR.  Another former president who brought progress and really messed it up for Obama.

    FDR under the bus!


    OY. I missed the Fox news blame! (none / 0) (#224)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:39:47 AM EST
    I don't want them to campaign for him. They will be blamed one way or the other if he loses, no matter what.

    What a freakin' mess.


    But (none / 0) (#286)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:05:05 AM EST
    his heart isn't in it.  That is, appealing to working people.

    Obama's San Francisco remarks weren't a gaffe. That was Obama.  Gerald Ford knew that Eastern Europe was Soviet dominated.  THAT was a gaffe.

    He can't sell what's not in his heart.  Working people are far smarter than you think.


    Exit polls (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:47:44 AM EST
    What was always amazing to me the Exit poll questions would indicate that Hillary had "high negatives' , among her voters and still would get votes.  Her contention, heh, they know all my negatives and still vote for me.  It always went over everyone's head, that they said yes to the negative, but voted for her.  Yet, they talked about negatives over and over like drones.  None of them ever asked, Heh, what gives?  

    Signals the main difference between (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:57:10 AM EST
    the bulk of Clinton supporters and the bulk of Obama supporters, I think.

    Clinton's supporters know she has flaws yet think she's the better candidate.  Obama's think he has no flaws, period.  It is much harder to strategize to overcome your flaws when you realize what they are than to strategize to overcome flaws you won't admist exist.


    That is profound, actually (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:32:42 AM EST
    and explains it well, Valhalla, if anyone would listen.  Voters can forgive flaws -- as we saw with Bill Clinton's high approval ratings, the more that the GOP went after him.  But voters can't forgive hypocrisy, and that's what the GOP exhibited then.

    It is Obama's hypocrisy, his lies -- okay, politicians lie, but even about their own childhood as well as everything since? -- that are doing him in.  He can fix it.  But it will be hard for him, and he would have to admit how much is fabricated.  I don't see that he has it in him, but maybe so.


    they sense and know his distain and (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:52:29 AM EST
    probable dislike for them. yeah i said it, dislike. that is the only conclusion i can reach with obama's bitter comments coupled with michelle's numerous comments. that they won't forgive.

    Her attitude about her negatives (none / 0) (#133)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:16:25 AM EST
    cracks me up. She has a lot of lessons I need to take away with.

    I have a friend like that (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:37:16 AM EST
    and she has taught me so much -- not that I ever can completely emulate her, as I am too dependent upon what others think of me.  She simply is not.  She is so secure in herself, and accomplishes so much because of it.  Her main mantra is "say anything about me, but you better say it to my face" -- and it simply stops so many fools in their tracks, when trying to put her down.

    I see that even more so in Clinton.  It's an ability to see oneself in the mirror exactly as one is, I think, and not the funhouse mirrors to which so many of us, y'know, "cling."  What an amazingly good trait for a parent!  And a president.  


    I've gotten over a lot of the (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:54:49 AM EST
    what people think of me syndrome. I just really don't have the time or energy for it, lol!~ I find out that I'm good to go that way as long as I stick to my guns on my values, ethics and personal standards  ;) But watching Hillary, I see more that I could work on as I move through the next phase of life. And also, to make sure I don't fall backwards.

    One of my favorite things to do is have a good laugh with my girlfriends. That would be laughing at ourselves and our past foolishness! One of my friends used to internalize so much about what people thought about her, especially on the job.I bugged her a lot about that one as it worried me. She's too funny now and much more relaxed :)

    I think it's great that so many parents took their kids to see Hillary. I really hope a generation of kids can experience her as President.


    And that's why your friend (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:12:37 AM EST
    has a good friend, too.  We only bug the ones we love. :-)

    Yeah, she rocks! (5.00 / 0) (#220)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:27:37 AM EST
    It's funny because we're both from CA. I met her when she had the office across the hall from me here in NY and we've ended up in the same building on more than one occasion. She knows my ex-BIL's family and is from the same town. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up caravaning back to CA together with a couple other people.

    Getting older certainly has it's advantages!


    Hillary's honesty (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:12:24 AM EST
    Now do people get it why she stays in till the end?  Why she has to fight it all the way?  

    Absolutely I get it (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:24:47 AM EST
    but the Obama boyz won't get it, or won't admit it if they do.  Too busy mocking and turning off more democratic voters so Obama can get beaten worse in November.

    no (1.00 / 11) (#128)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:13:56 AM EST
    what are you talking about?

    Her honesty? (hehe)


    Sweetie you would not get it (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:19:25 AM EST
    so, move along.  Nothing to see here.  
    Yes, honesty, she fights because she knows she can win.  

    Leave (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:19:26 AM EST
    You are suspended.

    comment no further.

    What a jerk.


    After Action (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:35:47 AM EST
    When this race is over in November, I really want to see a close look taken at exactly what transpired this primary season to bring us to this point.  If Obama wins, we'll know who to congratulate but if he loses there should be hell to pay for the DNC etc.

    There are books being written now (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:48:28 AM EST
    and I hope that at least one of them is as brilliant as was The Making of the President, 1960.  But there are, I know, scholars already writing studies; I heard one who came to a campus nearby.  Even a couple of months ago, it was a fairly brilliant and insightful dissection of the process as well as people involved.

    From what I heard, be prepared for painful reading about just how petty are some so-called Dem "leaders."


    It's amazing (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by phat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:27:00 AM EST
    I never would have expected this to happen.

    Clinton was the odds on favorite for many months and for good reason.

    But Obama came on strong, for good reason. But what could he do to overcome Clinton's support in the Democratic base? His only chance was to overwhelm the small states with open primaries, and open caucuses and gain enough votes in small states to blot out the base. He did that very well.

    That alone wouldn't have done it, I suspect. He had to do other things. The various attacks on Clinton as a person put him over the top. She's been painted in the worst light by his campaign with the help of the DC media. That was his only hope. Without painting Hillary Clinton as a monster he would not have stood a chance. BTD held out for a long time, expecting Obama to be some sort of FDR figure. That might have worked, but that's not what Obama decided to do. He took the easy way out.

    He did it, it's mostly done and it's an awful thing to behold.

    I'll vote for him in November, if it comes down to it. I won't expect the so-called "New Democrats" to vote for other Democrats in down-ticket races. But I suppose that's what we should expect if we keep waiting for a hero on a horse to save us.

    Hope and change my ass.


    Why would you vote for him? (none / 0) (#261)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:08:58 AM EST
    In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Democrat in name only.  I switched my registration to Indy after the 2006 elections proved that Dems are weak and spineless (taking impeachment off the table and doing NOTHING about the war).  What difference does a party's platform make if they don't have the balls to fight for it?  I switched back only to support a local Democratic gubernatorial candidate (closed primary state).  I will be switching back to Indy the day after the primary and I won't look back.

    I have choked back bile and voted for the Dem candidate way too many times.  I refuse to do it again.  I no longer care about SCOTUS. If the party cared about SCOTUS, health care, gay rights or any of the issues on their platform, they'd be smarter about who they nominate.  

    Voting for Obama if you don't think he is the strongest candidate sends the wrong message to the party.  I will vote for McCain and vote for Dems down ticket.  First, McCain is a moderate.  As much as the Dems like to paint him as a 3rd Bush term, he's not a crazy oil guy like Bush.  Second, a Dem super-majority in congress will limit any damage he could do.  It will be like Bush One all over again.  


    What the superdelegates are thinking: (5.00 / 0) (#227)
    by Maggie on Tue May 27, 2008 at 03:28:13 AM EST
    Consider what the SD's would be thinking in this alternate universe:

    Hillary Clinton is the first credible woman candidate for the presidency.  She has fierce fundraising skills and inspires huge numbers of people.  But she's up against the establishment candidate who has name recognition, money, and a big lead in superdelegates before a single vote has been cast.

    She manages a surprise win in Iowa, and a big win in SC.  She finally gets some big endorsements and battles the favorite to a draw on Super Tuesday.  And then she rips off a string of eleven (11!!) wins in a row, many by whopping margins.  In some of them, she pushes into his demographic base, in particular winning men and some of the better educated voters who were thought to be his natural demographic.

    At the end of her big February run, Chuck Todd looks at the delegate math and argues that her opponent has virtually no chance of catching up with her.  Clinton's fundraising goes through the roof.  SD's start to drift towards her.  There's a real excitement as people start to realize that a woman has a real shot at winning. Indeed, she is suddenly the front-runner.

    But her opponent isn't done.  He comes back with the kitchen sink strategy.  He relentlessly portrays her in a negative light from every angle possible, concluding the weekend before OH and TX with an ad calling her abiity to lead into question.  Was he playing off the subliminal fears people had about trusting a woman as president?  Hard to say.  But he wins OH by a good margin and TX by a whisper. Her superior organization pulls off a win in the TX caucus, but he's crowned the big winner of the night.  Chuck Todd comes on and points out that the delegate math hasn't budged an inch.  Nonetheless, there's now a narrative that the race is neck and neck.

    The last third of the season involves her trading off states with him -- all of it is pretty predictable based on demographic patterns established early on.  There's increasing polarization in the party.  More and more of his voters say they'll vote for McCain.  He gets asked why he's still running -- but he vows to fight for every vote.  Even though the delegate math means that what he needs is for the SD's to override her lead in elected delegates.

    Finally the season is over.  Hillary has a 100+ lead in elected delegates.  But she's not polling quite as well as him in the national polls (though she's still polling ahead of McCain, and still is more likely to beat him than not).  It's not a bad place though, considering she's had considerable negative scrutiny as the frontunner for the last 8 weeks while McCain has been working to consolidate his base without any negative attention at all. On popular vote, her oppnent's ahead if you don't count the votes in some of the states she won and if you do count the votes in a contest in which she was not on the ballot.  But by most other measures, she's also ahead in popular vote.

    So you tell me.  Should the SD's side with him and override her majority of elected delegates?  Would her supporters be likely to support him in the fall if he won because the behind the scenes players decided that he was more 'electable' than her?  That maybe America isn't really ready to elect a woman as presdent?  Would her opponent still really be more 'electable' if at the end of the day the party was just too afraid that a woman would go down to defeat against the war hero McCain?  

    Short version: Hillary's polling doesn't include the fallout that happens if the SD's suddenly reverse course and crown her with the nomination. There's no way that you deny the nomination to the first credible African-American candidate who has a majority of pledged delegates without causing a major meltdown.  I know lots of you won't vote for Obama.  But if Hillary won this way, you would see massive defections -- and not just from African-Americans.  Hillary might be able to win without them, but it's not clear.  And the party would have permanently alienated the young generation that is the promise of a Democratic majority for decades to come.  So not only would this election be dicey -- the Democrats would lose the huge demographic advantage they have going forward.

    It would be highly irrational to bypass Obama under these circumstances.  And I would be surprised if the SD's turn out to be irrational.  

    The part you leave out (5.00 / 5) (#243)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:26:26 AM EST
    is the part where all the voters who feel Obama was anointed by the DNC and the media and won't vote for him, the MI and FL dems and people who stand with them in solidarity to "COUNT THE VOTES!" (that ship has sailed for Obama, imo) who won't vote for him. the women who have witnessed the acceptance of sexism in their own party and will not vote for him. And you underestimate the fondness dems have For BC, who Obama has denigrated and tried to diminish, while elevating Reagan, the man who set the stage for all today's crises. More lost voters.

    How about all the voters who have been called racist just for voting Hillary? That cut many to the quick and cannot be undone. More still will not vote for him because they believe he is a neo-liberal (basically Reaganomics with civil unions and choice). Big working class problem.

    I haven't even mentioned Wright and Ayers and the day is still young....!


    interesting post and some good points (5.00 / 2) (#265)
    by kempis on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:30:17 AM EST
    but you omitted the falling off of "her" support post-March 1 and post mid-March revelations that she had attended a church for 20 years where the preacher was on tape screeching "god d*mn America." Not only did "she" have the kitchen sink thrown at her, but "she" started shooting herself in the foot with Wright and BitterCling.

    From March 1 to now, "the mean guy" has won about 400,000 more popular vote than our presumptive "she" has, in part because of voters' growing distrust of her.

    And finally, what you're arguing is that things are bad now for party unity as Hillary's supporters are furious and wondering how the hell than can join forces with people who've trashed their candidate and themselves--but it would be far worse if the superdelegates decided that, according to polls and the electoral map, Obama--with all his adoring support in the media and among his followers--would lose to McCain and therefore they should do the rational thing if they'd like to win and hand the crown to Hillary. All hell would break loose. At least Hillary's supporters have had time to adjust to the idea that she's a longshot. Obama's supporters think he's had it wrapped up since February and are irritated that she keeps running--and winning.

    I think you're right, though: the DNC would rather lose with Obama than alienate his base. Hillary's base is expendable or assumed to be so reliable that they'll eventually come around. Speaking as one who changed her voter registration to Independent because I'm deeply insulted by being branded a racist by people in my former party--people who also openly mock women and the working class, I'm not so sure they can count on expanding the party with Obama. Some are coming in, true, but many are leaving.


    the mind of a SD (5.00 / 3) (#238)
    by pluege on Tue May 27, 2008 at 04:43:32 AM EST
    one has to wonder what the superdelegates are thinking.

    SDs are thinking:

    1. Obama has a lot of money to sprinkle on his friends

    2. de-throning the Clinton's from dem party leadership is more important than winning the GE.

    But that can only happen with a win. (none / 0) (#246)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:45:00 AM EST
    Kerry isnt viewed as highly as the Clintons, last I checked.

    The DNC is making a critical mistake (none / 0) (#262)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:11:06 AM EST
    in believing that Obama supporters will send them money.  They are hyper-focused on their candidate.  If they gave a frig about the party as a whole, they wouldn't be demeaning the Clintons and their supporters.  Period.  

    Iowa has never elected a woman to any state (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by carmel on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:04:40 AM EST
    office, so Hillary was starting out behind the eight ball going into Iowa. When she left her name on the ballot in Michigan, she made her chances in Iowa even more difficult. It seems the DNC really did try to "fix" this primary even before the start. Chris Matthews was reciting Hillary's obituary before the polls closed in NH. And the fact that Patti Soylis Doyle is from Chicago and an old Axelrod friend, makes me wonder very cynically if there is a reason Doyle did not make a plan for the 11 caucus state run. If the DNC would like to start raising money, they should get behind Hillary, and the money will start coming in. They will never see another penny from me if Obama gets the nomination. This is a travesty of a democratic process, almost comparable to the Soviet Union in fairness to Hillary.

    Will the superdelegates do their job? (5.00 / 1) (#287)
    by pluege on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:06:16 AM EST
    The point of the superdelegates, i.e., their job and what they are supposed to do is to prevent another McGovern - Mondale - Dukakis electorial disaster. Here we are again on the cusp of just such a possibility. Will the superdelegates do their job? My money is on no.

    Morally and ethically wrong (5.00 / 1) (#288)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    Like not counting votes of millions of voters in two states? That kind of morally and ethically wrong?

    For me, there's no going back just because of this one issue. The rest is just icing on the cake. I will vote McCain in the fall.

    No offense, but... (5.00 / 1) (#290)
    by Dadler on Tue May 27, 2008 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    ...anyone who considers Kentucky's election results to be credible is really grasping at straws.  

    To quote Bev Harris, as informed an expert in this area as there is: "I consider ALL counties in Kentucky to be at high risk for fraud, due to the centralized programming of the machines. Spectacular fraud histories exist in Clay County (election official currently in jail, $370,000 vote fraud slush fund found), and ridiculous risk for fraud includes Bullitt County and Knox, Knott, Whitley, and a slew of others."

    Kentucky/Oregon election info.

    Let's get our heads out of the sand here.  Implications for the General Election are huge.

    your math is screwy (3.66 / 3) (#39)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:36:26 AM EST
    He doesnt have to "make up" 41 to get back to Kerry's number. Kerry did not win Ohio.

    The premise in the article is that Obama might lose PA and Ohio. IF so, then he needs to make up for PA somewhere else, not Ohio, then get 18 more.

    Could be done with CO, NM, NV, IA, and VA.

    But Obama is not going to lose PA, so its a moot point.

    And, once again, it seems interesting that people are so bothered that Obama is in single digits in the hills of KY amongst people who voted for Bush, but they dont seem to be bothered by the fact that Hillary is in single digits with the most loyal part of the Democratic BASE.

    The most loyal part of the Dem base (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:40:27 AM EST
    should be your clue.

    Do we really have to go through this again? (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:41:49 AM EST
    it seems interesting that people are so bothered that Obama is in single digits in the hills of KY amongst people who voted for Bush, but they dont seem to be bothered by the fact that Hillary is in single digits with the most loyal part of the Democratic BASE.
    Which group is harder for a Democrat to win in November? Honestly, when was the last time a Democrat lost black people? The 1950s?

    Single digits with AA voters (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by RalphB on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:45:09 AM EST
    when Obama is in the race is expected at this point.  Don't pretend that she wouldn't get more in a general election, that would be unbecoming.

    In State Match Ups Against McCain, Hillary Is (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:18:46 AM EST
    averaging about 70% AA vote with 6% to 14% undecided.

    of course she would get more (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:47:48 AM EST
    just like Obama will get more of the white vote.

    Its you Clinton people who have been making the absurd arguments that Obama losing to a Dem in a primary means that he cant win that state in the GE. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of that position.


    Ahhh (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:55:45 AM EST
    Just as is simply not as assumable. Why? Because white voters have not voted for Democrats much period.

    Obama has a Kerry map PLUS more strength in the West. Plus a BIG Dem year at his back.

    I think Kerry could win this year too.

    But hell, this is all just talk anyway. Obama is going to be the nominee.

    So we need to just think about what he can do to improve his chances.


    Well, you go ahead and think (5.00 / 2) (#256)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:49:31 AM EST
    about that.  I'm furious.  The Democrat Establishment is bringing down the first shoe in for President in my life time at least, and so much worse, she's probably the only viable female candidate for a generation, and worse than that, she'd be the best President at a time when we sure as hell need a good one.  This will not be forgotten soon.

    yes, you are right that he will win the nom (1.00 / 9) (#100)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:03:53 AM EST
    but you are wrong that Hillary would have been a stronger candidate. For all her supposed new-found strength as a candidate, she is still 10 or so points behind obama amongst democrats and does slightly worse than Obama in average matchups.

    Obama over McCain by 3.0, Clinton up by 1.4.
    (RCP averages)

    Both win in the EC in some sims, or both are roughly even with McC in others.

    You have been hanging wiht the Clinton kool-aid crew a bit too much methinks....


    electoral-vote.com isn't kool aid (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:07:11 AM EST
    and the Q poll isn't fake. In the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton is winning hands down, and Obama is barely ahead--and well below 270.

    as I said, or meant to (1.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:10:05 AM EST
    there is variation in the polls and sims.
    The average of them has Obama well up vs. Clinton, and slightly better vs. McCain than she does.

    The ones that you dont like are real too.


    Show me an electoral college map (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:11:26 AM EST
    based on real polls where Obama is ahead of Clinton vs. McCain.

    Sigh (5.00 / 6) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:16:04 AM EST
    Delegates, electoral votes, recent reends, what have you.

    You want to avoid what is staring you in the face.

    Look, let me give you a couiple of more shibboleths for you - Obama is going to get a bump when he is the nominee and Clinton is out AND Obama is going to get a bump from his VP selection.

    I predict NOW two things, Obama will DROP when he is officially the nominee and Clinton is out and Obama will DROP when and if he chooses a VP NOT Hillary Clinton.

    The problem is staring a bunch of you in the face and you will not face it.


    shibboleths (none / 0) (#263)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:17:34 AM EST
    good word.  i had to look it up.  :)

    Obama might not even win CA! (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by nellre on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:46:13 AM EST
    With 30% hispanics in CA, and with Obama not doing so well in that demographic....

    Nevermind us hillbillies.


    With better than 50% females nation wide... and the Obama machine dissing us.

    With the highly reliable "elder" vote being dissed by the Obama machine...

    You gotta get lots and lots of those starry eyed kids, and them there egg heads to replace us.

    BTW as a mensa qualified, college educated older female who always votes, and has always voted dem...I notice that HRC has the popular vote.


    Thank you... (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:49:42 AM EST
    California is filled with hillbilles and oakies who are proud to be from there.  Today I just heard a friend tell me his 90+ grandpa who never voted for a Republican, will do so cause of the stuff the Democrats are saying about Hillbillies.  Same for his uncles, aunts, and cousins.  

    I'm surprised I've lasted this long (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:10:49 AM EST
    myself. It's really out of character for me to play on a team that has no interest in improving their game, or going for the best win.

    He is outpolling Hillary in CA right now (4.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:21:22 AM EST
    even among Latinos. It was really a name recognition problem for Obama among Lations. They know him now and like him. Latinos have always voted for blacks and vice versa. I can go through a long list of elections to prove it.

    Got some stats (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Grace on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:56:30 AM EST
    to prove this?  I'd like to see them.  

    I take this back (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Grace on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:02:59 AM EST
    I just noticed that you said "outpolling."  

    Yeah.  He'll do well in the polling but check out the "Bradley Effect" to see how well he'll pull in the voting.  


    From the LA times poll (4.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:07:54 AM EST
    The poll appeared to illustrate that Democrats, at least in California, are gravitating toward the candidate who is broadly expected to eventually seize the party's mantle. Obama now runs better against the Arizona senator than does Clinton among many of the groups that powered her victory in the state, among them Latinos, Catholics and those without college degrees.

    I wouldn't worry about a Bradley affect in California now. That was a very long time ago.


    this tripe again? (none / 0) (#274)
    by ccpup on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:10:41 AM EST
    they undersampled Latinos (21% voted in the 2004 GE; their sample was only 8%) and oversampled the AA vote (7% voted in the 2004 GE; their sample was 10%).  A bs poll intended to inflate Obama and hurt Hillary.

    It's a case of constructing a Poll Obama can send to the SDs to show he's actually strong when he isn't.


    did you spike the koolaid? (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by hellothere on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:06:54 AM EST
    with the hubris you're writing, that is an easy assumption.

    In one poll. (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by masslib on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:50:43 AM EST
    Ras has her 54-38 in CA, he's at 48-41.

    women voters (3.00 / 6) (#97)
    by manish on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:03:08 AM EST
    With better than 50% females nation wide... and the Obama machine dissing us.

    so your going to go with John "I called my wife a c*** and I want to overturn Roe v. Wade" McCain instead?


    Stop blackmailing us (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:06:05 AM EST
    so sick of that trying to shame us women into falling in line, whereas the "young ones" were gonna get disolusioned and the AAs were gonna be pissed, but we, women, cause of our reproductive rights, will have to be good soldiers.  

    Or could you at least change your tune and (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:17:10 AM EST
    try to blackmail us with something different?  It's very tiresome.

    NO! (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by nellre on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:08:14 AM EST
    I'm in CA.
    If I think I can afford the luxury of a protest vote, that's what I'll do, but I'd never vote for anti-choice, pro war McCain.

    Heck ya...since we are now (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:22:44 AM EST
    post partisan, post feminist, post racial, we are post menopausal and we are mad.  (snark)

    Between a rock and a hard place (none / 0) (#165)
    by nellre on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:31:05 AM EST
    I'm so mad I could spit.
    But I can't let McCain win... even if it would teach these arrogant azzholes a lesson.
    We will live to fight another day. Hillary is only 60. In 8 years she'll run again.

    Or 4 years (none / 0) (#205)
    by Valhalla on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:08:10 AM EST
    if Obama loses.  That's the only thing I can think of that might cause a purge of the Throw Them Under the Bus gang.

    Roe v Wade (5.00 / 9) (#131)
    by daria g on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:15:30 AM EST
    That is about rights for women, not to be used as a club to threaten women into agreeing with you.  Try giving a sh!t about women's rights if you want our votes.

    Exactly since its so sure... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:20:39 AM EST
    I and many of my lady friends, will not vote for pres.  

    I won't be blackmailed. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:22:20 AM EST
    I'm not going to "go with" any guy (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by Cream City on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:23:08 AM EST
    who disrespects me.  I stopped doing that in high school.  I've had a lot of practice since.

    Of course, I've had to live with lots of presidents who disrespected women.  But then, there is a higher likelihood of that from men.  But then, I didn't have anything but men to choose from before.  Nor did I ever see a campaign in which a Democratic candidate disrespected women even more than the Republican candidate did -- because I never had a woman candidate win a primary and be taken seriously before.

    You apparently do not fully understand the "transformative" -- Obama's term, as you may recall, for Reagan -- impact of this campaign upon some of us.  Your candidate could look to learning some of those "transformative communication skills," and you better hope that he's a fast learner.  

    And about his much-vaunted GOTV campaign aimed at the young, the future of the Dems, yadda yadda?  His problem seems to be with the Dem base, more than 60% women.  So where is his GOTV drive for us?   This oughta be good.  Btw, better not have him do the hip-hop routine and brush us off his shoulder like dirt.  No tea parties, either.  


    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#222)
    by themomcat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 02:30:40 AM EST
    keeps using the phrase "having tea". It is insulting. Anyone who has any experience with the Middle and Far East knows that tea is offered at any formal meeting. I expect that any candidate for President would know the basics about diplomacy. Sheesh.

    What state are you in? (none / 0) (#136)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:18:16 AM EST
    and the latest CA poll (2.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:54:06 AM EST
    Obama 52, McCain 38

    I know that must break your heart...


    Cali BETTER be a lock (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:56:44 AM EST
    If Cali is in play, Dems are in deep doo doo.

    From what I understand (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by nycstray on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:43:06 AM EST
    McCain is going to make a play for Ca, NY and a couple other states. We do (I'm from both states) have demos I can see voting for him. And if the dem womens turnout is low . . . Clinton won reelection by 67%. He's going to need to get to know those voters. He needs to learn how to campaign outside of urban and college areas. In CA, the central valley is mighty big. And then there's SD which is military. A majority of the east bay is moderate republican, etc.

    It's not bad news to me (none / 0) (#92)
    by nellre on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:00:16 AM EST
    Like... I want the dems to win... ok?

    wow, great to hear it (1.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:04:51 AM EST
    gettin' kinda rare round here....

    You need to go eff youself (4.20 / 5) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:18:20 AM EST
    with this BS.

    Control yourself or get the hell out of here.


    Link? (none / 0) (#169)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:33:13 AM EST
    Which poll?

    all that edjication (1.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Tano on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:49:22 AM EST
    aint helped ya wiht the math, I guess.

    Hillary wins the popular vote only if you pretend that Obama has zero support in the state of MI.


    Or if she wins a landslide (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:51:55 AM EST
    in Puerto Rico.

    Listen up (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by nellre on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:04:04 AM EST
    The "math" does not win elections.
    Voters decide.
    And recently they have been voting for Hillary.
    So I ask you: Do you want a dem in the whitehouse or not? If you do, support Hillary!

    Please (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 27, 2008 at 01:14:23 AM EST
    these arguments are so spent.

    Look at the states where both a caucus and a primary took place. The primary votes closed those huge margins Obama got from the caucuses. So, those states where only caucuses happened are subject to question on just how great he really would have won should the state have done a popular vote via a primary election.


    What are the SD's thinking? (1.57 / 7) (#272)
    by Rictor Rockets on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:03:21 AM EST
    Honestly, what were they SD's thinking a year ago when they HEAVILY gamed the system for Clinton. She had a large SD lead going into the game. Her people kept drumming the mantra of "It's all over after February 5th".

    Super Tuesday was supposed to be a coronation, not the opening shot for a major political struggle. It took Hillary far too long to reorient her campaign to actually fight against Obama. After that incredible long string of victories, it was too late. Now, with the lead in almost every metric that actually means a damn, it would look incredibly bad for the SD's to just "give it back" to Hillary, when clearly, she hasn't done quiet enough to truly earn it. Can't keep crying "Hey! We didn't know the rules of the game!" or "Hey! These rules aren't fair!" just because you're down and losing.

    Maybe the SD's are also looking at the latest poll from SUSA (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74) showing Obama up in Obama vs. McLame by 8. Or the poll in MO (http://www.pollster.com/08-MO-Pres-GE-Mv O.php) where he's chopped down McSame's 14 point lead to 3. Or the poll in Indiana (http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Pres-GE-Mv O.php) where he came up from a 10 point deficit and is starting to overtake McBush.

    Maybe the SD's are starting to realize just how powerhungry Hillary Clinton actually is. Certainly Cardoza was shocked by her behavior. Maybe the DNC has realized that it's a higher risk to back Obama, but with higher potential rewards.

    Yes, Hillary made some fatal blunders. It's a shame that she started off with such an arrogant sense of entitlement, that Obama was able to come up and bloody her bad enough to create this situation now. But thats politics, you know?

    What Hillary needs to do at this point is take it all the way through to June 3rd, and then gracefully suspend her campaign (Because hey, you NEEEEVER know what might happen to Obama between now and November, right Hillary?) and then get behind Obama as she promised to do.

    If she forces this to a contested Convention in August, then the Dems are GUARANTEED to lose in November, no matter who comes out on top. The Clintons and the DLC need to do something unusual for them: They need to put the good of the party ahead of their own interests for once.

    The fact that you repeat it doesn't make it so (1.00 / 3) (#278)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:17:34 AM EST
    Obama is not an elists.  He is winning (oeriod).  You might disagree with the system that is allowing him to win, but he used it to win.  Hillary with all her experience is losing, and it is not because MSN hates her. The notion of media bias was what won this thing just doesn't make sense.  She just got out organized.  Taking the electon away because someone is deemed to be a better general electon candidate (by the candidate and her supporters) makes no sense and is morally ethically wrong.

    Obama IS (5.00 / 1) (#281)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    an elitist. He's condescending and arrogant. He apparently believes his own press clippings.

    Hillary is deemed to be a better general election candidate by the facts not the opinions. Obama is a horrible general election candidate. He's John Kerry without the experience or military background. He's unlikely to even get the EV's that kerry got in 2004.


    Correction (none / 0) (#247)
    by polisiasa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 06:13:35 AM EST
    He's actually ahead in Ohio by 9 and in Pennsyvania by 6.

    depends on the poll (5.00 / 2) (#268)
    by kempis on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:41:47 AM EST
    Quinnipiac and Rasmussen both have Obama in trouble in OH and PA. Hillary consistently outpolls him against McCain in both states by a wide margin--as she does in Missouri and West Virginia. He is simply not as strong a GE candidate as Hillary is. According to SUSA, Hillary even outperforms him against McCain in North Carolina now.

    And I live in the Ohio Valley and can tell you that Obama will be in serious danger of losing both OH and PA in November. He truly is going to be a longshot, and I'm afraid the DNC has grossly overestimated the cultural change in the electorate to a more urban, more "creative classy" one. We've become France! :)

    But I may be wrong. If the superdees fear to rip the rug out from under Obama-supporters and give the nomination to Hillary, we'll see if the old Dukakis-Mondale-McGovern coalition is now a winner in today's America. (And to think, it was just two years ago that the Democrats had to appeal to Blue Dogs to win back Congress. This profound change in the electorate in two years makes my head spin.)


    Not to mention the polls that (none / 0) (#275)
    by zfran on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:10:45 AM EST
    have Hillary ahead in those same states, at least according to the news media!!

    even the "droves" of younger voters is (none / 0) (#267)
    by delacarpa on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:37:33 AM EST
    Where were these 25 year old young voters in 2004 when they could have showed up at the poles to vote Bush out. I remember waiting to see long lines of the young making a stand. Didn't happen. If they had the troops could be home by now. So now they are enlighten by Obama. Give me a break, 2004 was the most important election of their lifetime. They could have ended the war. It is out there that the young votes and the AA will propel Obama to be President. I doubt the old, middle class will show up this time. Count on it.

    Obama has 37.3% probability of winning (none / 0) (#282)
    by Exeter on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:46:57 AM EST
    While Clinton literally has a 100% probability of winning, based on current polling. LINK

    Oh come on... (none / 0) (#284)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue May 27, 2008 at 08:53:17 AM EST
    You know exactly what the SDs are thinking.  They are willing to lose the election in the fall in order to avoid making the black dems mad at them forever.  Plain and simple.

    When he loses in the fall, they will be able to say they gave him his shot.  And, the have it all set up so that they will be able to blame Clinton when he does lose.