home

Hillary's Take on the Electoral Map

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

From tomorrow's Christian Science Monitor: Hillary Campaign Advisors Wolfson and Garin say it's not that Obama can't win in November, it's that the data shows Hillary has a better chance:

At the top of the ballot, current state polling data show that Clinton would defeat Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, by 42 electoral votes, while the same polls show Obama losing to Senator McCain by 8 electoral votes, they said.

The Clinton strategists also came armed with charts looking at 20 House districts where freshmen Democrats won but which also voted for George Bush in 2004. Clinton defeated Obama in 16 of those 20 districts. Their argument: Clinton would help vulnerable House members more than Obama. Asked about the breakdown of endorsements from those 16 freshmen, Wolfson said that five had so far backed her and four, Obama.

As for how long she's staying in :[More]

"We do not believe a nominee will be chosen unless or until somebody gets to 2,209 [delegates], which is the number including Florida and Michigan. So if that has happened by June 3, then someone will be the nominee. If that hasn't, then the nomination fight continues," Howard Wolfson, Senator Clinton's communications director, told a Monitor-sponsored breakfast on Friday.

We are not oblivious to the environment in which we are operating. But this is very much like a tennis match," Clinton's chief strategist, Geoff Garin, told reporters at the breakfast. "Sometimes, even when people are down two sets to love and down a couple of games in the third set, they end up winning by the fifth set. So Senator Clinton goes on with the same energy and commitment."

Since the race is ongoing, and superdelegates can change their mind up until they vote at the convention in August, here are the voter registration numbers (pdf)for West Virgina.

Seems to me the critical thing now for Hillary is voter turnout. Obama is brushing off W.Va. and KY and hoping people won't turn out, thinking their vote doesn't matter. Their votes may matter. They matter in the popular vote total and because we don't have a nominee yet, no matter how many pundits, pollsters and journalists think we do.

It's over when one candidate drops out or delegates are counted at the convention in August: pledged, unpledged, add-on and superdelegates.

As for the current state of electoral votes, from my earlier post, with Obama winning N.C. but losing W.Va., I don't think he gets past 265 votes in November. He needs 270. With Hillary winning W.Va. but not N.C., her total is 317.

Remember, as to this latest month of primaries, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana and South Dakota will go Republican in November no matter who the nominee is. Only W. Va. and N. Carolina are battleground states. Oregon will go Democratic whoever wins.

The real question is who has a better chance of taking Ohio, PA and Florida? Together those three states have 68 electoral votes. N.C. has 15, W. Va has 5. Together, Colorado and N.M.have 14.

Comments now closed, 1:35 am

< Friday Night Open Thread | Obama Advisor Resigns Over Ties to Hamas Meetings >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary's Take on the Electoral Map | 236 comments (236 topical)
    RE: West Virginia (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:49:45 PM EST
    I think you'll find Cost's recent piece quite excellent:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/not_quite_yet_1.html

    well, I'll be (5.00 / 13) (#16)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:08 PM EST
    What happens to "It's Over" if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky? If these states turn out in the same margins that states since March 4th have averaged, that would imply a net of about 290,000 votes for Clinton. That puts her within striking distance of a reasonable popular vote victory. "Over" will be over as we turn our attention to Puerto Rico.

    Who's been asking this very same question and getting crickets?

    Me, that's who.

    [ Parent ]

    No crickets here. I completely agree. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Drop Out After Winning? (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:56 PM EST
    Every time Hillary wins, it's time for her to drop out.  It's Pavlovian.

    The One cannot be seen losing to Hillary.  Of course that doesn't mean he should actually go to WV and compete for votes.  I guess that would be demeaning.

    [ Parent ]

    It means that WV doesn't count (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by hookfan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST
    because Obama didn't fully campaign there. Ya know, just like Florida. Pffft

    [ Parent ]
    He can't relate to them, (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    His elitist arrogance would be in such contrast to the people, he wouldn't be able to engage them with his rhetoric.

    The last couple of times I've seen clips of his "appearances" show that he's bought into the rock star hype and can't even hide his over-confidence.

    [ Parent ]

    And Michigan (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:32:36 AM EST
    where he strategically pulled his name off the ballot to taint a sure Clinton win.

    Watch the Obama group and media foam at the mouth denigrating her win in West Virginia and once again calling for her withdrawal. Quick, before she has another huge win in Kentucky.

    So predictable that none of the text will be a surprise.

    [ Parent ]

    It shows lack of compassion (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:47 PM EST
    It shows the general public that he cares not for our fellow citizens who have had some hard times, but only for the AA and elite voters out there. It is almost like Bush ignoring the problem in NO. Not the same devastation of course, but the fact that there were a lot of less fortunate Americans who happened to be black. Reverse the people and who have the same fallen on hard times in many areas of these states. You saw on AI with Billy Ray Cirus the number of children who did not have enough reading books in the school. Many people are struggling in VW and Kentucky. He choose to ignore them. GW II.  

    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't go to WV (5.00 / 11) (#46)
    by Rhouse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    to compete for votes, because it would legitimize the votes that she will get.  This way he can claim that they don't count, (remind you of anywhere else), until his people can negotiate for over half the delegates
    bitter snark.

    [ Parent ]
    I've always said this! (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:13:06 PM EST
    And it's funny (well not quite) but NO ONE EVER mentions this!!  

    I want to know when people expected she should drop out while still being respectful to her hard fought campaign and the voters.

    After her wins in OH, TX & RI?  Or after her big win in PA?  Or how about after she narrowly won IN, the state that Obama himself called the tie-breaker?  

    And now, she is looking ahead and most likely thinking, well next up is WV, KY, PR.  There are more voters in those states/territories than OR, SD & MT, and she can probably keep it close in those states.  What reasonable explanation does she have for dropping out?  I mean, once you actually get over all the excessive chatter of the media and Obama's campaign and supporters?

    Anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    I know! I know! (5.00 / 8) (#118)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:46:37 PM EST
    This is too easy:

    What happens to "It's Over" if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky?

    She should drop out, gracefully, for the good of the party.

    [rimshot. laughter]

    [ Parent ]

    That's not fair, Lambert (none / 0) (#166)
    by ChrisM on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:20:43 AM EST
    that was too easy! :-)

    [ Parent ]
    How can so-called experts (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    that lead the party install Obama as the nominee?They KNOW she had a good chance to win and he has little barring a Mccain meltdown. I will be surprised if he even gets 200 electoral votes. He will not win a single Southern or Mountain West state despite the delusions of many. He is looking weak in the Midwest (forget Wis,Iowa;and Minn if Pawlenty is a Veep nom). He iseven looking weak in Mass- if that does not convince the supers then they are destroying our chances in Nov. on purpose and I will feel no guilt over writing in Hillary on my ballot.

    that's not what's happening (1.00 / 3) (#10)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:30 PM EST
    he's not being instilled.  he's winning more votes.  

    your question would be better directed toward all of those "educated" voters that are so big for obama.

    [ Parent ]

    oldnorth- i did not say "instill" (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:15 PM EST
    I said INSTALL, and that is EXACTLYwhat the supers are doing with ONE candidate!!! Contrary to what the media and Obama kool-aid drinkers seem to believe- he CANNOT win withut superdelegates either.

    [ Parent ]
    my apologies (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:06:50 PM EST
    for misquoting you.

    but the gist is the same.

    having supers overturn such a wide pledged delegate would really be installing.  it is well within the rules and might lead to the best chance for a victory in november, but at this stage in the game, it could be devastating for the party and race relations in this country.

    [ Parent ]

    and race relations may continue (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:20:46 PM EST
    to get worse as long as a candidate can't even cite exit polling data without being called a racist.
    Scary.

    [ Parent ]
    Race relations (5.00 / 11) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    in this country are being ruined by Obama as we post. The press by pushing the idea that anytime anyone mentions anything about Obama that it's racist is causing huge amounts of resentment towward him from every demographic group in the country.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean race relations are being (4.00 / 1) (#145)
    by chrisblask on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:21 AM EST
    ruined by the press, no?

    Unless I miss your intention, it seems that any "first viable black candidate" would end up causing the same media conversations whomever that person was.

    This is precisely the same as Sen. Clinton on the gender issue.  Whomever was the "first viable female candidate" would end up causing the same media conversations about gender.

    I've heard entirely too much of both issues for my tastes, and I would be much happier if the demographics of race and gender didn't align so well with the race and gender of the two Dem candidates.  But it is no surprise and not intrinsically the fault of either candidate that this is the case - its primarily an artifact of the situation.

    Supporters of both candidates don't help the situation imho by constantly bring up accusations of race and gender bias (my own thoughts on this to Obama folks).  But, again, I suppose this is also to be expected in the circumstances.

    One thing I am really looking forward to is the second time we elect a black and/or female president.  We are better than the conversations we can't avoid having this time, but next time these will all be - with any luck at all - non-issues.  The votes cast for both candidates has already proven this, but I'll save that argument for primary post-mortem discussions.

    -cheers!

    -chris

    [ Parent ]

    before you get ahead of yourself (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:52:39 AM EST
    we haven't elected either an AA or a woman President yet -- despite the premise that if Obama gets the nomination he automatically gets handed the keys to the WH.

    [ Parent ]
    A wide pledged delegate lead??? (5.00 / 12) (#62)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:14 PM EST
    Since when is approx. 130 a wide lead?  Hillary does have a decent chance to have that "lead" in pledged delegates be under 100 and she has a good chance to win the popular vote. And this is without counting the two disenfranchised states of MI and FL.  You count those, and she practically tied in the pledged delegates and close to the popular vote lead now.

    What is damaging is this continued race baiting by Obama, his campaign and surrogates.  This is disgusting.  What would be a disaster is having Supers select a candidate before the voting is completed and MI and FL counted and is installing Obama as the Dem nominee (yes, it is within the rules).  If this should happen, you will have a mass defection from the Dems including me, a lifetime Dem and further evidence that the election process is rigged.

    [ Parent ]

    In proportional representation, it is a big lead (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:52 PM EST
    And, the pledged lead is closer to 160 at the moment.  And even if she does bring it under 100, what does that mean?

    I've donated to her in the past, but I won't donate now because the contest for all intents and purposes is over. And judging by the news that fundraising is suffering at the moment, I think most people think it is over too.  It is just good money going after bad at the moment as long as there is a general consensus among automatic delegates that the pledged delegate leader will get the nomination.

    The popular vote is also out of reach without getting the extra 300k votes from Michigan and Michigan will not get seated that way.  As someone that has been following Michael Barone's popular vote analysis closely for a long time and as someone who has read Jay Cost's piece, I can tell you that it just doesn't add up without Michigan getting fully seated and getting those free votes and that is not going to happen.  And it is even less likely to happen now that the campaign has rejected the compromise proposal.

    They are going to push the case at the rules and bylaws committee, but it just won't happen.  We'll likely get FL seated as is, but not Michigan, particularly since Michigan does not support seating their delegates based on that vote.

    It is great to be optimistic, but we should also be realistic as well.

    [ Parent ]

    re: should also be realistic as well (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:34 AM EST
    Obama in the GE is being realistic?

    I just don't see it . . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Accepting that Obama will win (2.33 / 3) (#207)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:29:59 AM EST
    the nomination is realistic.  Are you still donating to the campaign?  I know I am not and I gather based on the reports about fundraising that there are tens of thousands like me.

    If we are not putting our money where our mouths are, then yeah, the competition is for all intents and purposes over.  The pledged delegate contest was effectively over after Wisconsin.  The popular vote count was lost through the combination of North Carolina and Michigan's compromise proposal.  And the expectations game was lost on Tuesday as well.

    Right now, the campaign is about nothing more than the campaign itself.  I accept that and think its great.  But that does not provide a path to the nomination no matter how much we wish it to be so.

    Who would be a better general election candidate right now is effectively moot and just not relevant anymore.  It is a primary contest we are in.  While it is a valiant effort to show based on polls who the superdelegates should select.  If this was just about who polls better, then they should just forget about having primaries at all and just poll the winner and we could have all saved ourselves all this time and money.

    I for one prefer to focus on what can be done, not what I hope should be done.  And that includes first doing what we can and supporting what she can do to get on the ticket or negotiate a strong position out of this circumstance and then focussing on our party beating McCain and picking up House and Senate seats.

    I am not donating another dime to any Presidential campaign now, certainly not to Obama (I am sure he has enough anyways).  But once the dust settles, I will look around and see about how I can donate to the right lower ticket races to ensure that we can build a strong Democratic majority even if Obama cannot win in the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm staying with her (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:40:34 AM EST
    She's more than just running for the nom. And I respect that and understand if she doesn't get there, what the bigger picture is as far as her run. It will have impact for the future of women.

    And yes, I'll be working my tail off for down ticket dems. But not the ones on the Unity Tour. I'll also be looking to support women who reflect her run.

    And I will write her in in Nov if need be. Obama's already counted my vote. She hasn't, but she's earned it.

    [ Parent ]

    I just donated to Hillary again today (5.00 / 8) (#220)
    by Palomino on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:49:38 AM EST
    Are you still donating to the campaign?  I know I am not and I gather based on the reports about fundraising that there are tens of thousands like me.

    Yes, I sent more money today. And there are a lot of us, too.

    Right now, the campaign is about nothing more than the campaign itself.

    Actually, this is a description of the Obama campaign, and a textbook example of the psychological defense mechanism known as projection.

    I accept that . . .

    Big of you.

    . . . and think its great.

    Mmmkay.

    [ Parent ]

    And (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:19:17 AM EST
    your reason for not counting Michigan's popular vote is what?  Or Florida's popular vote.

    We hear pledged delegates but seldom popular vote.

    Rules or no rules the votes did take place. I know, I was there, I was one of those voters.

    The votes can't be ignored.  Those 2.3 million voters are the 800 pound gorilla in the room and it's not going to go away and rules have nothing to do with that fact. If SDs do ignore the popular vote in MI and FL they are complete fools compounding an imbecilic decision by the DNC that in fact broke DNC rules.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't you have to count the [popular] vote (none / 0) (#216)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:45:10 AM EST
    to get delegates? And in the GE, the state?

    If we don't count the [popular] vote, aren't the other 2, null and void?

    [ Parent ]

    The reason the popular vote in MI will never (none / 0) (#221)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:50:01 AM EST
    count is because the results will be voided the minute the compromise proposal to seat the delegation is accepted.  That is why the campaign refused to accept the compromise proposal despite the fact that the proposal was made will the supporter of the full party in Michigan.

    If you look at Cost's article and read between the lines a bit, basically the only hope is that the rules and bylaws committee will seat the delegation as-is, award Hillary the 300k popular votes and then leave the remaining delegates uncommitted, which we could then also pick up.

    The fact that Michigan proposed a compromise seems to indicate that there is no appetite for doing this outside of the campaign.  And I doubt the party will go against the recommendation of the state party and seat the delegation in a manner more favorable to Hillary no matter how much we would hope for that outcome.

    Florida on the other hand has an extremely strong case of the delegation to get seated as-is and the state party there is firm in their commitment to make that happen.  So the momentum is there for that solution to happen in our favor as the voters determined.

    But the point is, without both the Michigan and Florida popular votes, there does not seem to be a way to catch up in the popular vote without a lot of wishful thinking about Oregon turning in our favor.  But they have already started voting over there, the last polls give Obama a 10 point lead and the large population there could wipe out half of the popular vote margins we could rack up in both Kentucky and West Virginia.  That basically leaves everything to Puerto Rico and he is building institutional support there and by the time they vote, the meme that Obama is the nominee (which is basically already indisputed in the media) could be too difficult to overcome.

    [ Parent ]

    No she doesn't (none / 0) (#214)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:41:12 AM EST
    She has absolutely NO CHANCE of being fewer than 100 delegates behind without Florida and Michigan.

    Zero chance.  Can't happen.  There are about 200 remaining pledged delegates left.  That would require her to win 70% of the remaining delegates.  There is no way that can happen.  


    [ Parent ]

    The lead (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:13:59 PM EST
    in pledged delegates isn't very much.  As Schweitzer said today 'it's close' and please come to Montana.

    Forget the tallies that add on superdelegates, their votes can change in an instant. The talk that Obama is all but nominated flows from the media.  The same media that declared Clinton finished before New Hampshire. Even after she won a huge popular vote victory on Super Tuesday they said she should drop out. The NYT even dissed her solid win in Pennsylvania after being outspent 3 to 1. Hillary may well have the popular vote lead entering the convention.

    It would be devastating to the party if Obama were handed the nomination.  His agenda is just plain wrong for the party and as a result, wrong for the nation.

    It would be easier for Obama if Hillary were to quit in the ninth inning but I have to ask why is he entitled to that presumption.  That argument is arrogant.

    And what about race relations in this country? What is your criteria making that judgement?

    [ Parent ]

    Of course Schweitzer wants to have a contest (none / 0) (#210)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:34:50 AM EST
    in Montana.  This process has been a fantastic party building exercise which is exactly why it should continue until the end, even though Hillary's chance of winning is remote.  Stopping the process now would make no sense at all when there are still just a few weeks left and the opportunity for more states to have their say.

    Do I expect anything to change in terms of the outcome? No.  But the money both candidates will spend will be a great investment in building the party even if it allows McCain to run unopposed for another few weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    bless your heart, (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:54 AM EST
    but democracy is not about time tables.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you read what I wrote? (none / 0) (#231)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:21:30 AM EST
    My gosh, I am starting to feel like this is a ridiculous exercise.  I want her to keep running.  I think it is good for her and good for the party.  Do I think it will make one iota of difference? No, not at all.  Find one thing I wrote about "time tables"?

    I am sorry that I am "aping" Obama talking points or whatever, but quite frankly, the gig is up.  And as I wrote before, the most important game that we lost has nothing to do with delegates or votes.  It was about perceptions and expectations and that died the moment Russert opened his mouth and Time put him on the cover.

    For me the contest is over. Too many superdelegates said that they would blindly support whoever won the most pledged delegates.  That will be Obama.  The media has already declared Obama the winner, they aren't going to change their minds now.  And no matter how much we would wish it so, they are not going to award us 300k votes for Michigan and Obama 0 so we can win the popular vote and make that claim to the nomination.  And worst of all, we need superdelegates to break to us 2-to-1 to win this thing.  And for every superdelegate that commits to us, we lose another and another 5 commit to Obama.

    Forgive me for looking at things through a stark lens or through "Obama talking points", but the reality is, the "Obama talking points" have prevailed and we are not getting the narrative back.  In reality we lost the delegate count a long time ago and it is only through the masterful communications team that we have been able to persist through winning every news cycle since the end of February to maintain our lead in the perceptions and expectations game.  But that is gone now and while the campaign goes on, the contest is effectively over.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense (5.00 / 9) (#94)
    by Palomino on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    Is democracy just a bit too untidy for you? This idea that the nominee has to be settled months before the convention is a very recent innovation. For most of our history, conventions were raucous affairs, and often the nominee was not chosen until multiple ballots had been voted by convention delegates. That was the point. I'm not going to ask you where on earth you got this notion that the superdelegates are obliged to vote for the candidate with the most pledged delegates. I know exactly where you got it. Nor will I ask where MSNBO and other MCM outlets got the idea that it's their job to choose the presidential nominees of the political parties. I know the answer to that one, too. What I will do is call B.S. on these pernicious notions, which have to be called out for what they are whenever and wherever they are given expression, no matter by whom.

    [ Parent ]
    Palomino (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:56:35 PM EST
    Great post.

    The old conventions were terrific. Came up with better candidates too.

    Two months is plenty long enough for the head to head battle.  Given today's communications capabilities the whole campaign can turn in one news cycle.  Allowing more time permits more dirty tricks and more time to mine meaningless filth. It also allows political consultants to make more money.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#217)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:46:50 AM EST
    So can you tell me the last time that either party had multiple ballots at the convention to determine a nominee?

    [ Parent ]
    Multiple ballots (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Palomino on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:20:37 AM EST
    As I said, this is what used to happen, all the time.

    For Democrats, the last time was 1952 (three ballots to nominate Adlai Stevenson); for Republicans, 1948 (three ballots to nominate Thomas Dewey).

    But, multiple ballots aside I repeat: this notion that the nominee should be known months and months ahead of the convention is a pretty new one, as history--relatively recent history--will confirm for you if your own memory can't.

    [ Parent ]

    Except for one fact (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:56:45 PM EST
    That is EXACTLY what the supers were created to do. there would be no need for them to just go with the "leader".

    They were created to save the party from itself. They were created to stop the party from nominating someone who could not win in the general election.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't Ben Franklin say (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:35 AM EST
    that people weren't smart enough to elect their own leaders?

    Man, the Democratic party needs babysitting?  Glad I'm an independent now.

    [ Parent ]

    what do you think the electoral college (none / 0) (#194)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:54:19 AM EST
    is all about? The founding fathers were, obviously, much smarter then they get credit for, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    A question Old North State (none / 0) (#50)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:48:42 PM EST
    And this has nothing to do with your opinions, but since you have only recently joined the discussion here, I really don't know you that well. I hope this does not sound condescending because I do not mean it to be, but are you in the young group voting bloc? Just curious.

    [ Parent ]
    i'm a north carolina native- (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:11 PM EST
    living in Durham

    30 years old.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for answering-This is why I asked. (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:38:26 PM EST
    I was noticing the typing and lack of capital letters. I had to laugh because my nephew and geek neighbor and his friends all do that too. They text a lot and skip the Caps. Us older gals had nuns.  Heaven forbid we didn't capitalize President or Mom. Ha.! I fall in the over 45 group. We started on typewriters. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    capitalizing is just extra work for the pinkys (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    no need for that. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Ever tell a nun that? Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:09 PM EST
    Yeah, I know what you mean. Back in the early 90's, we stopped using the periods too in addresses. It was suddenly not Post Office Box or P.O. Box. And not Rd., it was 'RD'. I remember another Accounting Manager asking a AP person about it. When she got the reply, she said that was being illiterate. The AP person then asked if they could join my staff. I said yes and got a wonderful employee and friend.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:17:42 PM EST
    If we let the voters vote completely and he still has more actual votes (no not caucus delegates), then I will agree with you.  And yes, this includes counting MI & FL because people did vote (I know it's hard to believe!) or at least having allowed a revote as proposed.

    [ Parent ]
    And remember (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:23:41 AM EST
    Obama opposed re-votes in MI and FL.

    [ Parent ]
    The electoral vote is a powerful argument (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by athyrio on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:07 PM EST
    and one that must be listened to...They are kidding themselves if after all the favorable pundits and all the democratic party powerbrokers on his side, Obama still can't put it away....Why not? Because the Democratic voters are independent and have their own minds and don't wish to have the news media make that decision...The more they complain about Hillary the stronger she will get IMO....

    Most dems think he will help down ticket races (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:57 PM EST
    Hard to tell at this point if that's true.

    1.5 million people voted NC Dem. Presidential primary. About 1.4 million voted for governor and 1.3 million for senate. There was almost a 100,000 and 200,000 vote drop off between him and the winning senate and governor candidates.

    So yeah a lot of his supporters are showing up and voting for him but they aren't following through by voting down ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    Dallas Morning News (4.85 / 7) (#150)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:06:26 AM EST
    reported this the day after the primary...how a lot of Obama supporters didn't grasp the concept of down-ballot.

    Maybe some of those upper-echeleon creative class types can hold tutorials on how to mark a ballot to those creative-class wannabe's?

    FTR, the Morning News also reported that this wasn't happening with Clinton voters.  Gee, maybe we're not low-info after all!

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#142)
    by phat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM EST
    n/t

    [ Parent ]
    i am starting to seriously question (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:53 PM EST
    how electable hillary would be if she got the nomination.  at this stage in the game, what kind of african american support do you think she might be able to get?  

    [ Parent ]
    oldnorth (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:19 PM EST
    I think you're a bit out of touch with things on the ground.  There are plenty of aa's who would vote for Clinton.  Maybe of my friends say it's like watching two of their best friends argue, and it'd be nice if they'd just make nice.

    The hardcore supporters are never going to change, but most people in the aa community, like most people in the real world, do not glom onto blogs and get riled up about things the way we do.  

    Do you think the average Joe knows what Kennedy said today, or knows who Krugman is?

    But, let me say again, making these sweeping statements about race, and saying that Clinton should drop out because it will heal the nation, is rather naive.  Our history is much more complex, our struggles much more insurmountable, than any one person can take on.

    [ Parent ]

    i don't know... (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:15:29 PM EST
    i live in a heavily populated african american city and i walked around on wednesday and saw the pride in so many faces.  especially the older african americans out there wearing their obama gear and i voted stickers.  tuesday was truly one of the great days in the lives for many african americans in this state.

    like it or not, lots and lots of african americans are upset with the appearance of racially divisive tactics supposedly used by the clintons.  if obama were to lose the nomination at this stage, it is undeniable that a huge portion of the arfican american community would take it extremely personally and i find it very hard to believe that they'd be too excited about voting for the white people that "stole" the nomination from them.  

    honestly kathy, i think i'm very much in touch with how this would play out.  the bitterness would reach new highs for this day in age and the more i think about it, the less likely i could see african americans turning out in any numbers for hillary.  what would be the point?  they would feel like they don't have a voice given that they were so convinced their candidate won, but then had it taken away?

    [ Parent ]

    All the more tragic (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:24 PM EST
    that Obama is such a flawed candidate.

    And please provide quotes in full context of Hillary or Bill playing the now ubiquitous race card.

    [ Parent ]

    don't need to (1.00 / 2) (#98)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:28:01 PM EST
    the perception is out there already.  i didn't say it was fair, but it exists and that's enough.

    [ Parent ]
    Only on the convenient level (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:36:45 AM EST
    it made it easier to vote for Obama if there was a reason NOT to vote for Clinton. People of all races know the Clinton's are not racists and they know none of their comments deserved the spin.

    It's easy to recover from disappointment when you have 2 months to think about it.

    [ Parent ]

    the trouble with the AA vote argument (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:58 PM EST
    is that AAs live, for the most part, in deep red or deep blue states, not electoral swing states.

    Their Democratic votes are important in many Congressional races.  But in Presidential races?  Maybe if Florida goes Dem.  

    I don't mean to sound cynical (although I am do have a bit of a cynical nature).  I think I empathize with how the AA community feels--my BFF of 25 years is AA.  But she and her pro-Obama family live in Texas.  Their votes aren't going to elect Obama any more than they elected Kerry.

    [ Parent ]

    Philly, Cleveland, Cincy, Kansas City, St. Louis (none / 0) (#116)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:44:07 PM EST
    Detroit.  These are all in swing states that can be lost by african americans staying home.

    [ Parent ]
    You've got OH, PA, and MO there (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:34 PM EST
    Obama won't win Ohio or Pennsylvania against McCain and I doubt he'll win Missouri.  So what's your point?

    [ Parent ]
    what's your point? (1.00 / 2) (#124)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
    i'm demonstrating how losing the african american vote does not help hillary's electability argument.  just because obama has an electoral college problem doesn't mean hillary doesn't.

    [ Parent ]
    My point is in your own argument (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:58:30 PM EST
    you have 4 states where all the AA vote did not even allow Obama to win a primary.  Winning against McCain will be harder when the GOP votes for him and some percentage of the Democrats which support Hillary.

    In other words, your argument doesn't demonstrate squat that is helpful to the Obama cause.


    [ Parent ]

    Except (none / 0) (#136)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:59:08 PM EST
    that republicans have been managing for years.

    [ Parent ]
    They are there (none / 0) (#137)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    in those states, but not in large numbers.  I am not denying that.  Ohio and Pennsylvania, 10-12%.  I grant it, I concede it, I admit it.

    Do you feel all better now?

    [ Parent ]

    What About The Women? (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Blue Jean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:24 PM EST
    Who are proud to vote for Hillary, only to have their voice taken away?

    [ Parent ]
    What about the Men (none / 0) (#174)
    by Arabiflora on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:24:40 AM EST
    Proud to vote for Edwards, only to have their voices taken away??

    Politics ain't beanbags, get over it.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, men are so disenfranchised (5.00 / 7) (#184)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:39:40 AM EST
    PUH-LEASE! That breathtakingly stupid argument might work with the 20 year olds, but you got the wrong crowd for that one here, bub.

    [ Parent ]
    what a shame (5.00 / 8) (#112)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:41 PM EST
    but of course, women and other Hillary supporters won't mind that their candidate got totally screwed over.  They'll just go along to get along.  NOT THIS TIME!  

    The DC and media elites have shoved enough losers down the throats of democrats over the years.  I think this is one too many.


    [ Parent ]

    And AA's aren't the only minority to be considered (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by hookfan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:58:38 PM EST
    I wonder how Hispanics are feeling about all the racism accusations being thrown at a woman? remember they support Clinton by fair margins. I wish someone would pole them to see what effect this is having in their community.

    [ Parent ]
    Since you want to know, as an Hispanic... (5.00 / 6) (#212)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:39:44 AM EST
    I will tell you, that the treatment of Mrs. Clinton by Obama himself: dismissive language, "you have to take her down", brushing his coat off and cleaning his shoes from her after the Penn. debate, and other very disrespectful, condescending statements, have all resulted in my development of great antipathy towards him.
    We as a people have great and fond memories of both Clintons, and are very much in their camp. Mrs. Clinton especially has a long-standing friendship with Dolores Huerta, one of, if not the most respected and admired of our leaders, co-founder along with Cesar Chavez.
    As we have shown throughout this campaign, our support is real, we are the largest minority in this country, and although I do not speak for all Hispanics, I know that our reaction, if she were not the nominee, would be to either sit this one now or vote for John McCain, and places like California, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, would run the risk of losing to the Republicans.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm an ardent Clinton supporter (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:45:36 PM EST
    And I still agree with a lot of what you say.  I do not agree that they used racially divisive language, but because the media pushed that story everyone ate it up and the reality remains the same: that lots of people FEEL this way, whether it is actually TRUE or not.  

    The thing is, the hurt feelings go both ways.  Hillary Clinton wanted to make women's history.  We all expected her to do it.  She truly took her time to build a career that would be formidable and earned the knowledge that she now has an amazing grasp of.  Obama came along and seemingly took that away.  I'm not willing to say that's his fault or anyone's really, but you should understand that that is how a lot of people will feel.  I am neither black nor female, but this is even how I feel and that must say something.

    I really truly believed that a Clinton-Obama ticket made the most sense but that lots of political democrats wanted to push the Clinton's out.  What people forget and one thing that lots of the actual voters loved about them (including the African American community) was that they were actually the washington outsiders.  And, in turn, they actually figured out how to make Democrats win again.

    The irony is that Obama has become the insider with the Washington support he now has.  They want him in and they want her out, simple as that.  And the media?  Well, old habits die hard about the Clinton's and it has just been too good of a story.

    [ Parent ]

    perception is reality (none / 0) (#123)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:50:50 PM EST
    in this game.

    i never said i agreed with it, but it is what it is.

    they said that the two candidates going at it would hurt their chances in the fall.  i didn't believe it until this race baiting crap popped up in a major way and now i think both candidates really will have big trouble with each other's bases in the fall.  

    the winner is going to have to make some serious amends.  i fully expect obama to start pushing major women's and blue collar white people's issues to the forefront just as soon as hillary is completely out of the picture.  he better.

    [ Parent ]

    If so, (5.00 / 3) (#240)
    by Evie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:33:10 AM EST
    then it's not just 'perception', but reality that Obama is an elitist, inexperienced candidate without any record or substance, who is leading solely based on empty rhetoric and identity politics of AA community.

    And if he only starts pushing issues because Hillary is out of the pictures, then he will justifiably be seen as pandering. How sincere could he really be if he's waited this long to bring it up? Why did he wait? Why isn't he pushing these issues NOW?

    [ Parent ]

    My hope and belief (none / 0) (#239)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:49:23 AM EST
    Is that Hillary Clinton's strong support for, and prior support for her, within the African American community would remain if she did somehow become the nominee.  Simply stated, Barack Obama just does not have that past base to fall back on.

    [ Parent ]
    Admittedly, Obama has broken ... (5.00 / 6) (#173)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:42 AM EST
    away from the two-candidate race with more pledged delegates and within five super delegates of Clinton. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that this has been achieved primarily with the black voting block (90-93%), without which he would be the struggling candidate in this race. His dilettante reticence to accept a viable solution to the Florida and Michigan problem, further assures him the "inevitability" of his presumptive nomination.
    Aided by the patronage of the so called Liberal press, and the very astute tactics of his campaign advisors, surrogates, and anti-Clinton deputation to prey on the "racial remorse" of the post Civil Rights non-black population, have been able to use that which they denounce everyone of using "racist" undertones, statements, implications, and posturing in order to effectively squelch (stifle) and avoid any debate of the real issues that besiege the American people. By doing so, Mr. Obama avoids legitimate queries altogether, does not have to answer or defend his positions, and can write his own script.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by Raheem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    Their are a few African Americans taht would support her... but the number that she would need in a GE to supplant McCain would not materialize...

    that and the young voters who will not vote for her... she would lose...

    [ Parent ]

    first off... (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:57 PM EST
    you seriously underestimate the amount of geniune support and respect that the leadership of the African American community has for Clinton.  Obama's exploitation of identity politics had resulted in a lot of these leaders being renderred invisible by the media --- eveb wheb black leaders have been critical of Obama, its as if they don't exist -- but any black leader who criticises Clinton gets his 15 minutes of fame..and then some.

    Unless Obama were to withhold his support from Clinton in a fit of pique (something that is certainly within the realm of possibility, given what I've seen of him) Clinton would probably get the same vote margin she'd have gotten if Obama hadn't gone the racist-baiting route.

    Secondly, Clinton never depended upon the "youth vote" to win in November -- and her primary campaign has been focussed on winning in November.   Unlike Obama, who has what is essentially a "coalition of the willing", the Clinton strategy is, and always has been, to recreate the same coalition that elected Bill Clinton twice -- and Bill Clinton did not depend upon "new voters" to win.  

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton does have her own youth vote (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:51:38 AM EST
    not as large as his, but not as small as the media and friends would like us to believe. Some of Obama's youth vote will transfer to her. And Bill has his Global work now in colleges. Check out his recent New Orleans efforts. And then there's the ever wonderful Chelsea.

    I wouldn't write off the youth if she gets the nom. I'd add it in as it may trump Mccain's  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Something needs to be realized (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by DaleA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:33:03 PM EST
    55% of all AA's are in the south, in states we can't win even with 100% AA voting. In two whole time zones, Mountain and Pacific, the AA share of the population never reaches 10% in any state. Only in Nevada and California, is it over 5%. There are some states where the AA vote is crucial to Democratic victory, but only some. Check out the Census Burea website for quickfacts by state.

    [ Parent ]
    YES INDEED (5.00 / 6) (#186)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:41:23 AM EST
    I'm in Tennessee and can't believe the local bloviating by people convinced Obama can win here - despite the fact that we can't seem to elect Dem Senators with huge AA turnout in Nashville and Memphis. (We have a Dem governor but he's very right-leaning and corporatist...we've never elected a woman, black, etc.)  

    It's just laughable for folks to even suggest Obama's in the universe with having a coalition that can win the general.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:12:51 AM EST
    won the Tennessee primary by a comfortable margin.  Won't win Tennessee in the GE but given the primary results it would seem that Obama has even less chance.

    [ Parent ]
    and don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:32 AM EST
    the GOP doesn't give two figs about the AA vote -- in fact, they go out of their way to not even appear to want it (remember the GOP debate at that AA college sponsored by BET -- what, 2 candidates showed up?). Call the GOP racists and they will just shrug their shoulders and answer "So?" ala Cheney.

    [ Parent ]
    Oldnorthstate (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:56 AM EST
    Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful posts here.

    I think Hillary will ultimately be able to get a fair amount of AA support back.  The vast majority of the AA community knows very well she and Bill are not racists or even race-baiters.  These folks are very, very savvy politically, IMHO.  There will be massive disappointment if Obama is not the nominee, no question, and for good reason.  But Hillary and Bill will, I think, make the AA community a very high priority, and they will be helped by most black leaders in this country, if she's the nominee.  Most of her AA supporters have been intimidated into keeping a low profile, but most have remained loyal to her.  THey will come out of the closet, and most currently Obama-supporting black leadership will help, as well.

    OK, probably with the exception of Jesse Jackson, Jr., who really was the one who started this whole racist thing to begin with.

    Becaue the Clintons have and have always had a genuine commitment to the AA, I think she would have a much easier time with them than Obama would have with us old white ladies. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    They should really check out the work (5.00 / 4) (#195)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:55:40 AM EST
    the Clintons have done. She's gotten over a million dollars for a major Harlem church's community programs, for example. I think their history can be revisited in the GE just fine as far as their commitment to AA communities is concerned.

    [ Parent ]
    They should (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:30 PM EST
    listen to it but will they? I think they really want McCain to win in Nov. if they continue to push Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:21:10 PM EST
    think they WANT to lose in November, but the battle to control the direction of the Democratic Party takes precedence over all else.

    It's like fussing over the turn signal while the car goes over the cliff.

    [ Parent ]

    No, Toonces! No! No! (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:50:29 PM EST
    [crash!]

    --Obscure Boomer Reference

    [ Parent ]

    lol!~ (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:40:13 AM EST
    did I just age myself?! :-P

    [ Parent ]
    I'll repeat a question I posed yesterday: (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by seeker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:10 PM EST
    Is there a surprise Hillary is expecting soon?  Neither she nor Bill are stupid or masochistic.  Given the debt, the media, and everything else afflicting the campaign now, its hard to imagine them continuing unless their prospects are better than we think.

    Am I being delusional, or might they know something we don't?

    Pure determination (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:58:50 PM EST
    It really isn't 100% over. Therefore: they fight. I think it's rather impressive. In any case the Cost article I listed above is a good analysis of her current best case scenario re: popular vote totals.

    [ Parent ]
    #11: that's my suspicion. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by wurman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:50:05 PM EST
    I think Sen. Obama is headed for a meltdown.

    The other camp knows this & keeps waiting for one of the right wingnutz or a talkshow host or a fundagelical to drop the dime so that the Clinton's do not look as if they personally smeared the worthy opponent.

    I also don't think that Sen. Obama has been actively vetted by the system--his US senate campaign was against a fill-in, late date carpetbagger who didn't have the resources to find dirt & dish it.  I doubt that his IL state senate races drew enough attention for the Chicago journalists to even do a police record check.

    Also, as many commenters notice, repeatedly, the lame stream media give Sen. Obama a pass.

    It's mindful of the Bu$h xliii drunk driving ticket only becoming public 3 or 4 days before the election--competent investigative journalism should have found it months earlier (& 3rd rate muckraking dirtbags certainly would have found it), but no one looked.

    If the GOoPerz actually perceive Sen. Obama as "The One," they'll put their best bloodhounds on it & we'll read the details soon enough.

    [ Parent ]

    They (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:29 PM EST
    already have a 1000 page dossier on him, Michelle, his state senate record and his associations.

    Some wingnut said tonight that the GOP will be doing the four corners attack on Obama:

    1. Ayers
    2. Wright
    3. Rezko
    4. Michelle

    They said that he'll be easy to beat because he's running on personality not issues. They are saying that he can be easily defined negatively due to his dubious associations that will puncture his balloon.

    [ Parent ]
    Michelle is his biggest weakness, imo (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    The more people see her, the less they like team Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    She's (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:24 PM EST
    pretty bad but in all honesty she's not nearly as damaging as the others. Associations with people like Ayers could seriously cause voters to believe that Obama is a danger to national security.

    [ Parent ]
    Google Michelle (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:18:04 PM EST
    She's on video on the net.  The sessions where she has called America mean, etc.  I always thought she was a 527 all on her own.  She looks angry.  I remember watching her on c-span, she was mad and shaking her finger.  With all the statements she has on tape... I don't know.....The Repubs actually said they aren't going to miss Bill Clinton, now they've got Michelle.

    [ Parent ]
    True enough (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:04 AM EST
    Hannity had a panel tonight discussing their joy at having Obama as the presumptive. Without taking a breath, Hannity ran down a very long list of topics they can easily, and substantially attack Obama on. The whole panel agreed that the democrats are giving them the weakest opponent with Obama.

    Michelle has so much bad video out