home

The Electoral Map vs. the Primary Map

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:05:18 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McCauliffe today said the primary race will be decided by June:

As talk swirled this morning over when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should end her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, her campaign chairman predicted the party would have a presumptive nominee in June and, if it's not Clinton, she would campaign for Sen. Barack Obama.

As for Hillary, she said today:

"The delegate math may be complicated, but the electoral math is easy," Clinton said, arguing that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is a "formidable opponent" and that she has won more "swing states" -- such as Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania -- than Obama.

Hillary's campaign schedule is as full as always: [More...]

But the Clinton campaign showed no signs of slowing down. The New York senator began the day with an appearance in Charleston, W. Va., then was to fly on to Sioux Falls, S.D., and finish the day with an event in Central Point, Ore. -- all states still to hold nominating contests.

And Bill Clinton planned five appearances in West Virginia, a state his wife is favored to win Tuesday. But analysts generally agree that barring a tidal shift in support away from Obama, Clinton has little chance of overtaking the Illinois senator's delegate lead, which would leave the decision in the hands of the party superdelegates.

The point:

Clinton hopes that strong showings in the last few states will help her make the case to those uncommitted superdelegates that she has momentum and is better able to compete against McCain in crucial swing states in the fall.

In other news, Hillary's campaign took in $1 million in donations in the 24 hours after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

For more on how the electoral vote may play out, see my post a few weeks ago based on an analysis by William Arnone, The Electoral Map and the Battleground States.

Update: 7pm MT: Comments now closed.

< Ed Kilgore For The Unity Ticket | The Michigan Proposal is Unfair to Hilllary >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Electoral Map vs. the Primary Map | 244 comments (244 topical)
    Thank you Jeralyn. (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:09:22 PM EST
    This is indeed the crux of the matter.

    What is Obama's path to the White House, if not through Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. etc. etc.?

    And no, Utah and Kansas will not vote for Obama.

    Novemeber was never the point (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by pluege on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    the point of Obama was never the WH - his strategy was always and only about beating HRC. They have gamed the system to win the primary even though it means losing the election.

    [ Parent ]
    that makes no sense (none / 0) (#232)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:43:51 PM EST
    the idea when you run for president is to win.  he had to beat HRC - he did.  now he has to beat McCain.  the silliest of all arguments is this post; that Obama won't win the states in the general election that Hillary has won. How one fairs against a fellow party candidate in a primary has NO correlation to how that person would fair in a General Election against a candidate of another party.  

    Please show me evidence of that in the past (hint: there is none)

    [ Parent ]

    for me it isn't an issue of (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    obama's chances at the white house, which i think suck at best and are catastrophic at worst.  for me it's an issue of those among obama's supporters, especially within the party leadership, who know his chances suck and don't care--whether in order to get their hands on his fundraising apparatus, or because they think they can shore up congress and don't mind losing the presidency, or because of CDS, or any number of other potential reasons.  this is what worries me to no end.

    [ Parent ]
    Utah, Idaho, Kansas and oh yeah Colorado (none / 0) (#2)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And North Carolina (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:33 PM EST
    the delusion du jour is that North Carolina is now a swing state. Obama said it and Kerry's parroting it therefore it must be true!

    [ Parent ]
    heh janarchacy -- great minds! n/t (none / 0) (#18)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:16:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    North Carolina is considered a battleground (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:40:41 PM EST
    state. Even though the last time it voted Democratic was 1976 and Jimmy Carter. However, it could just as easily go battleground to Republican this year as battleground to Democrat. See Arnone's article on the ten key states.

    North Carolina (15 electoral votes): The Republican Presidential ticket carried North Carolina by 12% in 2004. This was a slightly lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 13%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 5% in 1996 and by less than 1% in 1992. Since 1964, the Democratic Presidential ticket has carried this state only once - Carter-Mondale by 11% in 1976.


    [ Parent ]
    Okay, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    That's actually news to me. I guess as an elitist NYer, I just assumed that anything South of Maryland is just going to go Red as it's always done, mostly because of the hasn't-gone-Blue-since-Carter thing. Thanks for the info!

    [ Parent ]
    But both times that a Dem either carried NC.. (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:41:53 PM EST
    or was close, was with Southern Democrats.  No way that Obama can win NC when he was trounced in the white votes including losing indies in the Dem Primary.  The AA vote was near to max in this Primary, while the white vote was not nearly so.


    [ Parent ]
    North Carolina too (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:53 PM EST
    the state where the only reason Jesse Helms isn't still in the US Senate is because he didn't run for re-election after being diagnosed with cancer in 2002.  Oh yeah, he was replaced by Elizabeth Dole. Contrary to Dean's fantasies, NC is not a "swing state."

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    they'll get over it. For a while I was arguing with Obama supporters about GA. They swore up and down that GA would vote for Obama. LOL!

    [ Parent ]
    Ga6th (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    I'm with you--I about dropped a brick when I started reading they thought they'd take GA.  Talk about a state of delusion!  

    I think we should start a campaign to send every SD a United States census.

    [ Parent ]

    the votes that put obama across in the (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:41 PM EST
    primaries don't translate in the general. some of those states are red states and many of those often have a large proportion of aa voters. thinking southern states here. in states with a heavy voting segment of bitter blue collar voters, things don't look rosy. women voters throughout the us could make a major impact in states where the votes are very close. and of course the repubs who voted for him will go home for the general.

    [ Parent ]
    I Haven't Seen This One For A While (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:30:18 PM EST
    but it is worth a mention.

    Obama will win the GE 65% to 35% and will usher in a 60+ Senate on his coattails.

    [ Parent ]

    You know where else they'll vote for him? (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    Virginia!

    LOL

    [ Parent ]

    If NC goes dem then GOP will lose 50 states (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:00 PM EST
    It ain't happening

    [ Parent ]
    NC is not adverse to electing Dems. (none / 0) (#64)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:31:40 PM EST
    They just don't elect them at the national level for some reason.  A book just came out about this "Tar Heel Politics" phenomenon.  

    I stole this from minvis' Daily Kos diary:

    NC has:
    2.5 million registered Democrats, just under 2 million registered Republicans and about 1.1 million Independents.

    Compare PA:

    4,044,952 people are registered to vote in the Democratic primary; a total of 3,215,478 are registered for the Republican primary.

    I don't know how many independents are in PA.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not saying they wont elect Dems (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    Heck, they elected John Edwards to the Senate at the same time Helms was in (but note, he lost re-election). Plus, the governor is a Dem -- but, no way is NC a swing state in the GE and especially not with Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    NC, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by AmyinSC on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:39:10 PM EST
    My home state, has not voted for a Dem president since Jimmy Carter.  It did not go for Kerry/Edwards, btw.

    [ Parent ]
    no! (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Nasarius on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    John Edwards didn't run for re-election. He was, y'know, busy running for VP.

    Sorry, but that's a nasty talking point I remember from Obama supporters on DKos last year.

    [ Parent ]

    An NC democrat isn't your typical liberal democrat (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:36:08 PM EST
    They have no problem voting republican. They split their ticket every 4 years, democrat for the state constitutional offices and rep. President.

    I've even heard them talking about winning Alabama and S. Carolina which is nonsense

    [ Parent ]

    NY was the reverse (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST
    red at state level, blue for pres.

    state level is turning blue, wonder what that means . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Oh I've heard that (none / 0) (#216)
    by daria g on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    A friend who is a big Obama guy tried to tell me he'd flip states like Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia.. Hah.  Haven't heard a lot of that lately.

    [ Parent ]
    And east of the Mississippi River (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    -- which, as was pointed out in earlier post, Bill Clinton won (and so did Gore for that matter) . . . when the Mississippi River "coasts" proved crucial.

    As for the rest of the upper Midwest (aka the Old Northwest Territory), don't be confident of Wisconsin, with -- I told you so:-) -- Rasmussen's new polls showing McCain well ahead.

    And who knows what Michigan's mindset will be in fall, after who knows what happens by Labor Day at the Dem convention?  And Obama would  get Illinois.  But Indiana?  And Ohio?

    Together, last I looked, this is about a fifth of the country's population -- and some of the "votingest" states in the country.

    [ Parent ]

    actually, i do think obama has a (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:45:49 PM EST
    shot--a shot, by no means a probability--at CO and maybe GA.  but the rest i think are seriously wishful thinking.

    the obamablog CW is wrong; obama's ceiling is lower than hillary's ceiling, and his floor is waaaaaay lower than hillary's floor.  obama's potential electoral liabilities are huge.  he could easily turn swing states like OH, TN, FL, KY, AR, NV, NM, WV red--and even put blue states (with checkered histories) like CA, PA, MI, and NJ at risk.  conversely, hillary is stronger in all of those states.

    if we're talking about electoral victory for the presidency, i think nominating obama for his potential upsides is like mortgaging the house, the car, and everything we own for a shot at winning a thousand bucks.  needless to say, i'm not too keen on the idea.

    [ Parent ]

    He has (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:55:07 PM EST
    zero chance here in GA. Denise Majette got about 40% of the vote in 2004. She was an AA running for the senate. There was high AA turnout. Last poll I saw here in GA had Obama getting about 40% of the vote. He'll get blown out.

    [ Parent ]
    I can top that. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    I doubt that Obama can carry Massachusetts.  Shocking, but true.

    [ Parent ]
    No kidding (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:14:08 PM EST
    Aren't the current polls showing McCain creaming him?

    Everyone always thinks of MA as so liberal but they forget about all those working class conservative people in the middle! (I have friends all over the state so...yeah. Boston is not Worcester is not Pittsfield)

    [ Parent ]

    okay, so 10% chance in GA, then. (none / 0) (#170)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    i say that only because voting for an actually viable AA prez will likely make AA turnout skyrocket in a way no other seat or election could.  plus GA has gone dem before (albeit rarely, i'll admit).  in any case, i think a unique combination of factors this electoral season alter the calculus somewhat--but, more importantly (for me), not nearly, not even by a hallucinogenic long shot, as much as happily deluded obama supporters seem to hope.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:22:25 PM EST
    it's still zero. We had maximum AA turnout in 2004. I would agree with you if we hadn't already maxed out the AA vote and seen the results.

    [ Parent ]
    interesting. okay, well i don't have (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    those numbers, but i'll take your word for it.  and in that case, his chances are even worse than i thought--and i already thought they were abysmally low!

    [ Parent ]
    thanks for 1-rating me, agreetodisagree. (none / 0) (#242)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    your moniker is apparently a misnomer.

    [ Parent ]
    Please say it people (none / 0) (#246)
    by fullcircle on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:53:07 PM EST
    If you are saying that the Democratic Party should ignore the electoral vote if they think they can win with a different candidate than the one with the most PRIMARY electoral votes then say that.

    "We should ignore the majority of our party, because we want to win..." say it, because that is what you want.

    I think we all know super delegates CAN overturn the popular results, but if they do there will be a high price to pay.

    All of you who say you will never vote for Obama, and there are a lot of you here, are saying that you don't believe he can win because YOU and people like you are unwilling to support the majority of your party. If McCain wins it is because Democrats don't vote for the Democratic candidate. The same thing goes for the Obama supporters who wouldn't swallow their pride if Hillary somehow manages to win 95-100% percent of the remaining delegates. Which she won't unless Obama strangles a baby on national TV.

    And before people trot out Michigan and Florida, remember that as of now two States are being "ignored" in the totals. If the primary electoral votes (as opposed to the primary + superdelegate votes) are ignored then you are alienating about 51% of the democratic voters in over 40 States.

    We will never know how the vote would have come out if both candidates had campaigned and been on the tickets like the other states, but we can be fairly certain that Hillary would have won by fewer votes than she did if Obama had been campaigning as normal.

    The numbers are pretty clear, Obama is the choice of the majority of the Democratic party any other choice is a decision to ignore that majority.

    [ Parent ]

    actually, not so much (5.00 / 2) (#251)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    There are many posts here addressing the numbers and how they break down - last time I checked, Clinton had a majority of Democratic Party votes - Obama's lead such as it is comes from Independents and cross-over Republicans. Also it is difficult to extrapolate numbers from caucus states.

    [ Parent ]
    define "majority" (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:59:19 PM EST
    if you define "majority" without "trotting out MI & FL" (as you put it) then you are wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    his majority slimmer than you realize (5.00 / 4) (#256)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    His popular vote/delegate lead is about 2% and that's padded by excluding MI and FL and caucus wins.

    Most of those caucus wins are not representative of the views of the broader populations of those states but instead reflect the choice of the largely activist core with the free time to attend the caucuses. That sort of cuts a lot of blue-collar workers out of the equation.

    When you look at state polls, head-to-head against McCain, Hillary is the choice of most voters in most battleground states. She fares much better against McCain than Obama does. Why that doesn't seem to matter to "Democrats" who want to win in November is a mystery to me.

    Perhaps if the Democratic primary system weren't skewed by caucuses and the machinations of the DNC, if the actual voters were allowed to vote in election-style primaries, then we'd have a popular vote and delegate count that more accurately reflected the will of the people.

    But Obama's campaign and the DNC seem not to be overly interested in observing the will of the people. Instead, their main concern seems to be handing the nomination to Obama, electability issues and all. Go figure.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:13 PM EST
    for posting this. It's good news. The calls for her to quit are simply based on fear of her winning. They always do this when she looks to win a state like WV.

    Fangurl moment (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    I love her so much.  I know it sounds corny, but she's an inspiration to me.

    D**n that stupid Gary mayor for delaying the results to try to mess with her financing.  I gave another $250 yesterday.

    Even my cynical husband said this morning, "She's like the Energizer Bunny!"

    Something I've been wondering about - why do we have this WWTSBQ meme going on again?  Nobody expected her to win NC - although I have to admit I had my hopes.  She came closer than she has in other Southern states.  She won IN, even though it was tight - but isn't this all pretty much what was predicted?  So now why is the MSM trying to cast her as a big loser who needs to drop out for the sake of the Golden One's candidacy?

    The Gary (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM EST
    mayor did Obama no favors. He made Obama's campaign look sleazy.

    Nevermind, WV is next week. She'll probably reel in a ton of donations from that win.

    I should give some money.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you mean (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by 0 politico on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:45:03 PM EST
    "sleazier?"

    [ Parent ]
    We just gave her (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Rhouse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:21:15 PM EST
    another $200 tonight.  And they don't want her to win because then they'd have to switch all the bathrooms in the White House.
    snark

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:51 PM EST
    At last the true reason comes out!!!

    [ Parent ]
    I think her campaign fell down (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:13:25 PM EST
    very, very badly in paving the "conventional wisdom" ahead of NC and Indiana.  I listened to a lot of commentary both before and after, and waited in vain for somebody to mention he was supposed to win Indiana big until pretty recently.  THe Clinton campaign should have been on a crusade in the weeks leading up to the primary to remind the MSM of that fact, but for some reason, they didn't do it.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, great point! (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:24:49 PM EST
    I feel the same way.  Her campaign was so reticent about expectations that it got my hopes up.  It should have been pointed out that Obama was the favorite to win both states.  Now we're in this mess where she lost NC (which she never had a hope of winning) and won IN by a small margin, and it's like she lost both states.

    It's all about expectations.  I think now that Bill was campaigning so hard just to get the margins down, which he did, but at the time I thought they had a hope of actually winning.

    [ Parent ]

    they did do that (5.00 / 3) (#228)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    but there is only so much you can do when the MSM ignores your talking points and keeps parroting the Obama camp's talking points.

    [ Parent ]
    Because (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by The Realist on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:17:26 PM EST
    They are ready to lower the boon on Barry and they are getting impatient.

    [ Parent ]
    Who's (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:28 PM EST
    going to lower the boom on Obama? The GOP? Heck, if he's the nominee they can start in Sept and start running the stuff 24/7.

    [ Parent ]
    I just hope the media hysteria (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    will not cause her supporters to stay home in the upcoming primaries -- because that is the ONLY reason for what is going on now with the "Obama has won" the nomination meme.

    You know (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:12 PM EST
    what? She should be Harry Truman and carry around a copy of Time Magazine with Obama's picture on it and talk about how wrong the media has been time and again.

    [ Parent ]
    It's happening (5.00 / 12) (#13)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:52 PM EST
    on the phone, people in WV have been saying there is no point in voting, she can't win anyways. They are demoralized.

    If you can, PLEASE get on the phone, PLEASE.

    Fighting back is not just about Hillary, it is about showing little girls all over the country that they don't have to sit down, shut up, and quit just because the boys tell them to. We are showing a generation of girls that it is okay to fight for what you believe in.

    [ Parent ]

    Second this!!! Make calls to WV! (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:02 PM EST
    we need to GOTV there big time!

    [ Parent ]
    Link for calling: (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:29:26 PM EST
    http://tools.hillaryclinton.com/calling/

    [ Parent ]
    I'll be calling Sat & Sun (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:38:53 PM EST
    I'm hosting "calling parties" at my house -- I've got wireless internet, everybody brings their laptops & cell phones, I provide munchies, and we call, call, call. It is fun because it provides support -- especially to those who are a little timid calling.

    [ Parent ]
    The local news will push her hard (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    And the same thing happened here in PA.  The major networks knocked her down and the local newspapers lifted her up.  And word of mouth is real big in small town america.  

    Bill and Hill will be out there and the supporters will be knocking on doors and many folks who support her will be putting out signs to get the vote out.

    Don't worry, she's got this one solid.  The Mayor of Gary won't be counting the votes either.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe Bill (none / 0) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:53:04 PM EST
    has a plan to get out to front porches the way he did in NC to make sure her supporters realize that it is more important now for them to get out to vote their choice. This is an election where every vote counts.


    [ Parent ]
    For all the work that needs to be done (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    to repair the policies that have been damaged domestically and internationally, the energy and commitment shown by Hillary Clinton makes it very easy for me to remain loyal and committed to her presidential candidacy.

    the magic number revisited -- big time (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    I didn't know what all the bluster was about May 20th and how he plans to announce his victory based on a new number.  I just read this:

    "Obama will not reach the 2,025 magic number on May 20. Rather, on that date he is all but certain to hit a different threshold--1,627 pledged delegates, which would constitute a winning majority among the 3,253 total pledged delegates if Florida and Michigan are not included. "

    So the magic number is 2209, 2025 or 1627 or whatever anybody feels like saying since the DNC is taking a long walk off a short plank into shark filled waters and has been for many months.

    A train wreck of their own design. Lovely.

    Usurper? Is that the new word?

    Also, for a real powerful inspiring video Check out No Quarter's Good Morning W. Virginia thread.

    Hillary and country roads made me tear right up.

    Very nice video (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM EST
    Hillary has compassion for the people of this country that is sorely lacking in the Obama's.

    Did you also read that incredible article on who's stealing the election?
     

    [ Parent ]

    Psychological warfare. (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:11 PM EST
    Bernstein on CNN kept saying: "It's all about Hillary's psychology now".  His premise is that Hillary goes crazy when she loses.  So, this is what the Obama campaign is doing.  Humiliation and this idea that he won.  Meantime, they are all clueless about the GE.  

    And do they think (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    that even if this works, that'll work against McCain? eyeroll

    [ Parent ]
    Sure. (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM EST
    Because the media hates McCain as much as they hate the Clintons!

    Oh, wait....

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    No, it won't work. McCain's camp just released a memo calling Obama out on the utter hypocrisy in his campaign and basically put the press on notice and made it clear this BS will not work with them.

    I am no fan of John McCain's, but goodness, at least SOMEONE is calling him out on it.

    [ Parent ]

    And calling them out while she is still (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:23:22 PM EST
    in the race. Thank You John McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Sad (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:27:26 PM EST
    to say but that makes me admire McCain for his gumption.

    [ Parent ]
    Seconded on the link (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:53:15 PM EST
    It's kind of depressing that McCain's starting to look better and better to me. Nooooooooo!

    [ Parent ]
    He's not looking good to me. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:56:43 PM EST
    He scares the living crap out of me.

    But I'd like to see what he said anyway. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, don't get me wrong (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    I know McCain's position on policy and it is scary. He just is very good as coming off as the nice affable grandfatherly type who can laugh at himself and seems to listen when people talk to him. Case in point, his appearance on The Daily Show last night. And he's doing a better job of selling himself to the majority of the people than Obama is at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    He will be a (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Leisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:06:56 PM EST
    formidable opponent!

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#50)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:25:14 PM EST
    I would love to read what he said. Maybe I'll agree with him for the first time evah!

    [ Parent ]
    It's some kind of game they are playing (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:18:22 PM EST
    sophistry, with computer hacking.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by chrisvee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    Madwoman in the attic.  Fatal attraction.  When powerful women get frustrated and can't achieve their plans, they destroy everyone & everything in their path.

    What a world.  How can anyone actually employ Carl Bernstein?

    [ Parent ]

    Julia Kristeva (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    would call him Abject.

    [ Parent ]
    ^^ wow (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by daria g on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:42:34 PM EST
    Kristeva references and the Madwoman in the Attic? I love this blog!  But is it rather that if he read Kristeva he'd call Hillary abject.. such is his behavior toward her.

    [ Parent ]
    Where is Nora Ephron when we need her? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:21:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ooooh! (none / 0) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:16:44 PM EST
    Bad, BAD boy, Oculus!  (er, or girl, either way...)

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I am actually female, although (none / 0) (#217)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    Oculus is a male noun in Latin and Italian.  

    [ Parent ]
    absolutely, i couldn't agree with you more. (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:49:34 PM EST
    it's the media's (and obama's) oldest trick this season--except this time they doubled down.  we should all be wary of this crap.  thank god i no longer own a TV, otherwise i suspect they might've gotten to me too.

    [ Parent ]
    Notice to Commenters (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:09 PM EST
    We cannot accomodate all the comments our posts are generating.

    New commenters -- those here less than 30 days -- are limited to 10 comments a day in a 24 hour period.

    Chatterers, see the comment rules, are likewise limited to 10 a day no matter how long they 've been posting here.

    We close threads at 200 and I'm not inclined to let new readers displace older and loyal ones.

    10 comments a day for new posters and chatterers. If you see a violator, let me know.

    ijpb is suspended for the day (25 comments) as are a few others.

    Sorry Jeralyn... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:26:02 PM EST
    I will behave, it's just that sometimes they really push the buttons.  

    [ Parent ]
    I know (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    and I don't intend to let anyone drive longtime readers away from the site.

    BTW, you are not limited in your comments, nor is anyone who has posted here for more than 30 days -- except chatterers and they are limited to 10.

    Chatterers are defined in the comment rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Unless (none / 0) (#161)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:10:45 PM EST
    the longtime readers don't support Hillary.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    Have you bothered to read (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:32:59 PM EST
    the comments policy on this site? Bless your heart, you might not know that it is common courtesy to do so before posting.  

    [ Parent ]
    Forget the phony smiley (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    You just started commenting today, right?

    You're at 17 comments already.

    If I misread your comment history, my apologies.

    [ Parent ]

    I think the landscape will look (5.00 / 12) (#41)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    very different after WVA.  You can't ignore a win like that.  At least anyone with a brain can't.

    I've admittedly been in and out of TL a lot, so maybe I missed this, but I know BTD thinks it's over, but has our beloved Jeralyn made a statement on the matter or not?

    I, for one, am not giving up.  Clinton still has a case to present to the SDs.  If she'd lost their support, we'd all know it by now.  There is a reason they're not all declaring en masse, and I think it's his bad demographics combined with her energizing of the base.

    The SDs have been around a looong while.  They know how important the base is, even if Donna Brazille thinks they don't need them.

    It is not over (5.00 / 24) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:24:02 PM EST
    It is not over until there is a nominee. As long as Hillary says it's not over and continues to campaign, it is not over. Anything can happen.

    [ Parent ]
    Bless you! (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    I agree 100%.

    Let the people decide, let FL and MI be settled fairly, and then we'll see where we are.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    it's such a relief to read your words on this.  Sometimes, I feel very Don Quixote on this matter.  TL has been such an anchor of sanity for me this entire race and, sometimes, I turn on the TV and think, "holy crap, have I lost my mind?"  It's exactly how I felt in '00 when Bush et al kept insisting they won Florida.  Reality isn't jibing with the objects I see on TV.

    I hope this isn't chatter.  I know I post here a lot!

    [ Parent ]

    Kathy, Stella and Others (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    Chatterers by definition are those who hold opposing views from Talkleft.  They post with the intent of hijacking or dominating the discussion or annoying TalkLeft readers. That's why they are limited. So if you generally agree with my positions, you are not a chatterer and don't have to worry about being limited. (Exception: All new posters are being limited right now to 10 comments a day. They need to get accustomed to the site and the rules and the 200 limit is hitting us faster and faster, sometimes within an hour or two.)

    [ Parent ]
    Phew...! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    I always worry cause I was a really "chatterer" in grammar school and would get in trouble all the time for that.  Phew...now I can feel better.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, me too! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:57:54 PM EST
    I was worried about that myself!

    [ Parent ]
    One thing you might want to do (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    is plan for the end of that business.

    The traffic on the comments section isd composed of refugees who are not quite familiar with shorter commentary sections.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#198)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    "Chatterers by definition are those who hold opposing views from Talkleft."

    Wow.

    [ Parent ]

    Typical Obama supporter reading (4.42 / 7) (#213)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:36:00 PM EST
    leave out the main parts:

        both  holds opposing views from those expressed by TalkLeft  and :

             Posts numerous times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread; or

              Posts numerous times a day and insults or calls other commenters names or repeatedly makes the same point with the effect of annoying other commenters.

    Hint for more effective reading comprehension: the words "both" and "and" are important!


    [ Parent ]

    I use TL like a canary in the mine (5.00 / 15) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:36:41 PM EST
    Since Tuesday I have not turned on the tv, radio or gone to anything other than the TL and the other friendly blogs.  I have to say over and over, this is an island of sanity.  

    [ Parent ]
    I appreciate that (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:25 PM EST
    and the sentiments of all of you who feel that way. You will always be welcome here.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, TL really is an oasis (5.00 / 8) (#122)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    It's one of the only political sites I visit any more, and probably THE only one where I can read the comments and actually enjoy them - and learn something.

    [ Parent ]
    Another Amen! (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:16:04 PM EST
    TL is the last blog standing not dominated
    by rudeness and obscenity.
    I've left so many blogs behind me forever.

    [ Parent ]
    As I've told other people, Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST
    this is place is my reality check. Otherwise, I start thinking I'm living on Bizarro World. I've been lurking for about 3 months -- it was only recently that I got the nerve up to actually post/comment. (It helped that you were posting Lennon and Harrison music clips... ;))

    [ Parent ]
    <3 for Jeralyn, BTD, and TL! (5.00 / 4) (#245)
    by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:52:31 PM EST
    Thanks for all your commentary.  And besides, you also brought me to Anglachel's Journal, too, which I LOVE reading.

    </filler, hopefully not chatter!>

    [ Parent ]

    Amen! (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    I'm off msm & will only visit sites like TL --- life is beautiful.  As a result, I've had time to cancel my subscription to Vanity Fair after that stupid Thomas Wolf piece and I ripped up my "D" voter's registration card and sent it to the DNC. I'm now a proud "I."

    [ Parent ]
    I started doing the same thing, (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by seeker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:54:47 PM EST
    with the exception of C-SPAN, yesterday.  I don't need to watch then to know that they are smugly proclaiming that the nominee has already been selected.

    [ Parent ]
    Kathy (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:01 PM EST
    I agree with everything you said, and I'll tilt windmills with you any time!

    [ Parent ]
    It is a relief (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    I completely agree.  I have felt as if I'm in some alternate reality or like I'm going completely crazy every time I turn on the TV or read a blatantly biased article in, well, anything.

    I am relatively new here too and this truly is an oasis of sanity considering what is out there.  Thank you Jeralyn and BTD.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm always (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    interested in last stands.

    Although Edwards had his massacre a while back.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, we'll take Denver, the we take Berlin (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:18:25 PM EST
    Buses from all over to the Convention floor yo take the party back
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DinvTZ85OtI

    [ Parent ]
    I've felt since TX and OH (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Makarov on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:21:40 PM EST
    that Clinton's only path to the nomination was through Denver, with the help of at least a 50% seating of MI and FL along the way.  If you didn't believe that then, you had to believe it after PA. Anything can happen, but barring a dead hooker showing up in Obama's trunk, I don't see how anyone but him is the nominee in June.  

    Now, if MI and FL are seated as elected with full votes, you run into a different situation.  Namely, that you'd need significant defection to Obama from Hillary's superdelegates.  That said, Dean and Brazile seem pretty determined to make sure MI and FL count for nothing.  I wonder how long after May 31 the RBC can delay making a decision.

    I wish I had your optimism.  Without staying in until the convention, I just don't see how Clinton can win this.  I hope she does, because the party of FDR and the country both deserve better than Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    It is not over because neither one can get ... (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    the magic number without SDs.  It is 2209, the Democratic Party cannot select the nominee while disenfranchising two big important swing states and millions of voters.  It is not over when you are talking about a small pledged delegate lead that would shrink dramatically if these two states are counted.  It is not over because Obama, his campaign, the media and his supporters say so.  I am so angry at the hubris and arrogance of this.

    Jeralyn is right, there is no nominee and Clinton has just as much of a chance of winning this if the Dems count Fl and MI as they bloody well should and the SDs do their job, which is to choose the candidate that can beat McCain and be the better President.  It is hands down obvious that Hillary can beat McCain and Obama can't and absolutely, she would make a much better President.

    Go Hillary!

    [ Parent ]

    Obamedia is calling for her to quit (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:46:18 PM EST
    and Obama has set his coronation date of May 20! - all in an effort to lower turnout in WV and KY where Hillary leads by 30 points.

    [ Parent ]
    There ought to be laws (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by nellre on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    Laws that forbid anything that calls itself news from trying to influence the election.
    They are suppose to be telling the story, but now they are the story... with 24/7 talking heads and BS analysis.

    In other words lots and lots of disclaimers when what is being presented is opinion

    I stopped watching Weds. am. (5.00 / 9) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    My tv is back on non-news stations. Online you can pick and choose what to read.

    Carl Bernstein is an eternal blemish on CNN.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed on all counts. And (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:14 PM EST
    after the debacle of Gary, when I feared I was going to stroke out with no one still up to talk to about it except for TalkLeft . . . I now am finding refuge in the past again, aka the History Channel.   And nature again, aka gardening shows on HGTV.  At this rate, I may become so transfixed by the other stuff that I will find myself taking up "scrapbooking."  (I just don't get that hobby, I really don't.:-)

    Carl Bernstein is so awful, I really want Nora Ephron to write a sequel for Meryl Streep.

    [ Parent ]

    These are Hillary's States (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:28:11 PM EST
    West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. She will win big. Real Big.
    Hillary Should Stay In (5.00 / 17) (#68)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:35:27 PM EST
    If only to ensure that working class American get a voice.  Because if it's up to the A-List Bloggers, working class people can forget about having any power in the Democratic Party.  Here's Chris Bowers:

    Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives: There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. Given the demographics of the blogosphere, in all likelihood, this is a socioeconomic and cultural demographic into which you fit. Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class instead of rich donors and the white working class.

    It's like a bad parody.  

    Gee, it's shocking how Obama has a reputation for being an elitist and trouble with the working class. I can't imagine why they don't think his movement has their best interests at heart.  More proof that the Obama movement isn't about winning in November, it's about ensuring certain groups gain control of the Democratic Party.

    I weep for the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Robert Kennedy.

    Wait, this is a Progressive? (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:38:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, yes it is a progressive. (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by