home

Clinton Wins Puerto Rico By Wide Margin

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:53:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Everyone calls it. CNN says by "wide margin." Here are the exit polls. 70-30 is the projection. The delegate loss for Obama will be huge if this is correct. He will lose each 4 delegate district 3-1. He may even lose the two 5 delegate districts 4-1. And he will lose San Juan 4-2. He will lose the PLEOs 5-2 and the at large delegates 8-4 and possibly 9-3. Obama could lose the delegate race by 23 today in Puerto Rico.

Fox is scrolling the following exit poll results for Puerto Rico:

Clinton won men 61-35. Clinton won women 61-30. Like in the states, in Puerto Rico more women vote than men so if these polls are correct, Clinton appears headed to a sweeping 2-1 victory over Barack Obama in Puerto Rico.

In practical terms, this would mean a much larger delegate win for Clinton than I previously predicted. Without knowing the geographic breakdowns, I can not predict with accuracy, but that result would lead to a least a 10 delegate win for Clinton and probably more.

Comments closed

< Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | Popular Vote Total After Puerto Rico >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Wins Puerto Rico By Wide Margin | 246 comments (246 topical)
    CNN talking popular vote a lot today. Good. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:01:17 PM EST


    I hope they invite Jeralyn on to discuss (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    awesome!!  Any chance of that?

    [ Parent ]
    Naaaah! (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    Roland Martin, David Gergen and Gloria Borger totally rule, man! Why bust up a plaintively whinin-- excuse me, plainly winning team?

    And that Larry King! Wow! I mean, really! What can you say about a guy who in one week can downshift from interviewing the Osmonds and Judds to American Idol and Dancing With the Stars finalists -- with people who've seen UFOs and space aliens thrown in, for good measure -- and then still find time to lead a distinguished media panel of Roland Martin, David Gergen and Gloria Borger in a comprehensive discussion on the sorry-a$$ed state of American politics today?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes but... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    they are including Michigan's uncommitted total for Obama and saying that there might not be, because of the RBC, presedent for Obama to claim all the uncommitted votes in all the other states.

    They also said he plans to restore the full delegations when he is the nominee and that will double the votes delegates he got from Michigan.

    Whatever. I am hoping for a 30% win today so that she can take the popular vote lead in BTD's way of counting and shut them up.

    [ Parent ]

    What helped Clinton today...per survey in PR (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:38:29 PM EST
    Favorable Opinion of Candidate  74% C   53%  o
    Best Groups for Clinton..80% Value Experience
                             69% 65yrs+
                             68% Conservative   32% o

    Equal proportions of men and women helped Clinton to her win.

    [ Parent ]

    Shut Me Up? (1.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:32:11 PM EST
    I don't pretend to speak for all Obama supporters, but if Clinton wins the popular vote based on Puerto Rico, I will not passively accept that as a meaningful metric. As we all know, the only metric that counts is DELEGATES. The popular vote only has value as a talking point that Clinton might use to convince superdelegates to move her way because of electability. But while a huge popular vote win in Puerto Rico is laudable, it is not an indication of electability. The commonwealth has ZERO electoral votes in November. Demonstrating strength there now doesn't mean anything for the fall. I congratulate Sen. Clinton on her victory today but I seriously doubt that it will have any impact on remaining undeclared superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me quote the wise Albert Einstein. (5.00 / 6) (#148)
    by Josmt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:37:27 PM EST
     "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

    That's what I think about your point of view... your stupidity just doesn't have an end...

    [ Parent ]

    Effectiveness of Talking Points (3.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:49:12 PM EST
    My observation concerned the effectiveness of talking points in persuading superdelegates. Calling me stupid isn't a particularly effective talking point in rebutting my observation. You need to do a little better than that. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Here's a challenge for TL'ers. Find (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:38:11 PM EST
    two points from the last paragraph which are internally consistent and factually accurate.
    I dare you.
    What bilge.

    [ Parent ]
    All I have to say (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    is that I'm very tired of the phrase 'meaningful metric'. In fact, I don't even like 'metric'.

    [ Parent ]
    Meeting the Challenge (1.00 / 0) (#204)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:59:20 PM EST
    You asked for two points that are factually accurate and internally consistent. Here are four:

    1. The nomination will go to the candidate who wins on the basis of delegates;
    2. The popular vote has no official role in the nominating process but can be used as a talking point to influence the votes of superdelegates;
    3. Clinton's primary argument for the support of superdelegates at this point of the race is based upon electability; and
    4. Puerto Rico has no votes in the electoral college.

    I have provided twice as much as you requested. Can you refute the factual accuracy of anything that I have said?

    [ Parent ]
    Completely Valid (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:21 PM EST
    The SDs can use whatever they want - but the pledged delegate total is only impressive if you win the magic number.  Obama didn't and won't do that.

    The popular vote is a valid metric - everywhere, it used to be, until the Obama campaign came along.

    All of a sudden, talking about popular vote is divisive.  Orwellian.

    [ Parent ]

    The popular vote (5.00 / 5) (#191)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    was a big Obama talking point when there was a question of Hillary leading in the pledged delegates but not popular vote. I clearly remember Eleanor Holmes Norton saying on the Colbert Report that she and Mr Obama had agreed that Superdelegates would vote based on 'the will of the people' and the popular vote.

    Funny how the WORM has turned.

    [ Parent ]

    Let Me Be Clear (none / 0) (#229)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    I didn't say the popular vote wasn't a valid metric. And I never said it is divisive. But it's only meaningful if it influences the votes of superdelegates. If it doesn't do that, it is meaningless.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, the predictable invasion (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    happens as soon as someone mentions the popular vote metric.

    Do Democrats normally nominate the popular vote winner?

    [whistles casually]

    [ Parent ]

    Given Einstein's view of things that are infinite (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:46:07 PM EST
    You are correct that PR might not influence the superdelegates.

    Still, it's probably not a smart strategy to go around saying PR doesn't matter because it has no electoral votes in the fall.  By that measure,  we should discount or totally ignore Sen. Obama's wins in places like Idaho and Alaska which have zero chance of going blue in November. Yes they have electoral votes--and they will certainly be tallied for Sen. McCain. They might as well have zero EVs as far as Dems are concerned, and so his victories in those states don't tell us anything about Sen. Obama's electability either.

    [ Parent ]

    might as well throw in (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:45 PM EST
    Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina as well as Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia and ...

    Wait, if we start taking away States that Obama won but don't have a chance in h-e-double hockey sticks of going Dem in the Fall, he isn't left with much.

    And this is going to be our Nominee?

    Ugh.

    [ Parent ]

    Electoral College isn't the Whole Picture (1.00 / 0) (#223)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    I would also point out that states like Idaho and Alaska have competitive down ballot Congressional races in the fall. If Obama is able to stay within 10-15 points in traditionally red states if will make it easier for Democratic challengers to win in those states. That's why Sen. Obama was endorsed by a lot of Senators and Governors in red states.

    [ Parent ]
    Since Democratic candidates ALREADY (5.00 / 0) (#244)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:31:02 PM EST
    are running away from Obama, it would be good to get him off the ticket, for the sake of downticket races, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Point taken. (5.00 / 0) (#245)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    However, since the RBC agreed yesterday to accept the gelded delegations of Michigan and Florida, they have by default also accepted the officially sanctioned electoral results from those states. That already solidifies her lead in the PV, so you have nothing to worry about

    [ Parent ]
    SDs will become exponentially more wobbly IMO (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:54:30 PM EST
    Several factors are converging:

    • popular vote momentum in the last few contests has been in her favor
    • a slowdown in his substantial wins, except what was gifted to him by hacks like Brazile, has cleared away smoke and sizzle sounds from earlier in Obama run to reveal that the promised juicy steak or semi-decent burger is half frozen processed junk
    • preacher eruptions, gaffes, poor sportsmanship and other remorse-inducing features happen closer together lately
    • juvenile insults to rival candidate are occurring routinely and more directly dismantle his own message than everyday oppo
    • downticket Dems might be skittish -- I meant seriously panicking -- about associating with much of what's being slung at Clinton by Obama and his supporters (it really is offensive on a massive scale)
    • neither Obama nor his campaign have shown any inclination to smooth things over, issue apologize or reverse the atrocious behavior.

    Just have another look at Wexler and Donna Brazile's spectacular buffoonery yesterday. This was to other Dems that today they expect to go knocking on doors to scrape votes for someone who has nothing but contempt for VOTERS.

    Oh Donna
    Oh Donna
    Go home tell your Mamma
    We ain't gonna gonna
    Prop Prop Obama.

    Okay, I got nuthin' here but I can still do:

    U.G.L.Y. you ain't got no alibi
    You UGLY hunh hunh oh yeah
    You UGLY hunh hunh oh yeah
    Your Mamma says you're UGLY
    DONNA!

    if it's not too hackish!

    [ Parent ]

    Well, CNN projects a winner (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
    That means it'll be big. But by how much?

    Hillary ahead 71% to 29% (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Quick someone call Donna (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    Let's see how she can finagle poaching a few delegates from Clinton in PR too. Yeah, I'm bitter. Someone find me a gn and bible to cling to so I can feel all better./snark

    on CNN a while ago, Donna B said (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    Clinton, after Wed. should go back to N.Y., have a bbq with SD's over and try to convince them to vote for her.

    [ Parent ]
    why would she say that if Obama had (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:06:43 PM EST
    enough SDs already?  Maybe she is just trying to prove her neutrality...too late, I will never see her the way I did before, which included a healthy dose of respect.

    [ Parent ]
    She was (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    being sarcastic; that DB: always hateful...what a disgrace she is. Ugh!

    [ Parent ]
    What a charade (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by lobary on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    Why does she continue to categorize herself as an "undeclared" when she's on TV openly advocating for Barack Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Toobin and the anchors mocked her (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:29:03 PM EST
    subtly today when Brazile kept claiming that she hasn't taken a side.  Seriously, they were having their fun with her -- but she is so humorless that she didn't even slide down in her chair, as anyone with any sense would have done at being the butt of the jokes.

    [ Parent ]
    Totally unscientific (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    but I was looking at CNN's list of 30 RBC members today, and almost all of the Obama supporters are listed as 'Uncommitted'.

    Seems like they're trying to hoodwink people into thinking their votes/opinions are somehow neutral.  

    Ha!

    [ Parent ]

    DB? (3.00 / 2) (#146)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:49 PM EST
    Is that short for Dumb Bxxxx, per chance?

    [ Parent ]
    Er (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    Any chance you'd like to take that comment back?

    [ Parent ]
    Who me? (2.33 / 3) (#183)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    I know it's simply awful to call someone a Dumb Bunny, but I just couldn't resist. However, IMHO, it's so rude I felt it would be inappropriate to spell it out in full.

    [ Parent ]
    Too clever by half (none / 0) (#195)
    by spit on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    calling women b*tches because you don't like them isn't okay, and you should maybe reflect on why whether you can give yourself faux-deniability or no.

    I'm not pleased with Donna Brazile, but displeasure is no excuse for sexism.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't like that comment at all (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:48:58 PM EST
    and I think it should be deleted.

    [ Parent ]
    Delete away (none / 0) (#240)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:25:58 PM EST
    but think about what the counter comments say about yourselves. You don't think to some degree that is sexist?

    You notice how quickly I answered.

    I put what I put in part to see the reaction.  How many five letter words in English start with a "b" that could plausibly fit? Yet you assumed the worst.

    I am not a sexist and have always deplored the treatment that Hillary has received in that regard. It is in fact one of the most important reasons which has compelled me to painfully decide not to vote for Obama, while voting straight Democratic down ballot.

    Judge me not that you be not judged.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand your comment here at all (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:31:58 PM EST
    It is completely incoherent to me. All I'm saying is the fact that you don't like Donna Brazile does not mean that you get to call her a b**. I don't like her either but I don't want her or any other woman called that. It's just as bad as calling a black person a n****r.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh? And that wouldn't be "cheating"?! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:08:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wait, did she really?!? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:13:52 PM EST
    What an idiot.  

    [ Parent ]
    She's hungry (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:37 PM EST
    My cable company is having difficulty with the channels above CNN this morning, so that's all I can watch at the moment.

    She suggested a few others on the panel take her out to eat, as well.

    She sure is trying to play nice today after her big win yesterday. She said it's her job to begin bringing the party back together. Since she doesn't understand what caused the division, I am curious about what she will use to repair.


    [ Parent ]

    Brazile Should Go On An Around The World (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:49:42 PM EST
    tour to places without any media access for the next several decades.

    [ Parent ]
    She's busy pandering on Geo. Steph (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    along with Roosevelt and Dean....saying they just did what the MI delegation asked them to do...bah

    [ Parent ]
    Well if they are taking suggestions...... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    I have a few that Id be more than happy to have them follow. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    My question is, if they did what MI (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    wanted, why did they do what FL wanted to seat them at 100%?

    [ Parent ]
    So Obama can have them count for 100% (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    and bring unity, of course!  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    That's because it was the most favorable (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    suggestion toward Obama that they received.


    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by tek on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:25:29 PM EST
    It's so good to blog with fellow Hillary Dems (sane people). Our college kids are Obamabots.  They are shocked that we are POed at the DNC over the delegate compromise!

    [ Parent ]
    CNN also says more men than women (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:02:58 PM EST
    and 70 to 30 with both men and women.

    this year, exit polls have typically (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    overestimated Obama's support. I wonder if that's the case here as well?

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me, but the RBC thinks that exit polls are (5.00 / 13) (#46)
    by honora on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM EST
    better than actual votes.  You should know by now that it is impossible to 'overestimate Obama's support'.  

    [ Parent ]
    I thought I saw a 75/25 split (none / 0) (#98)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    just before the cable lost a couple of channels.


    [ Parent ]
    An Interesting Item On Exit Poll (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM EST
    78% of total voters answered "Yes" to having relatives or friends who live in NYC.

    This is the reason I thought it was beyond dumb for Obama advocates to say that PR shouldn't count.

    [ Parent ]

    lol!~ I was wondering about that (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    thanks for the info.  Obama REALLY needs to understand the ramifications of his actions.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by befuddled on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    Clinton is doing what she says, reaching out to everyone who is part of the US. And, she realizes that no one is isolated in one state or territory, they have ties all over. She is playing to the big picture.

    Another significant thing about this election is that it confirms the results in Kentucky. If you look at this as an opinion poll, in the last two opinion polls she has won over all the demographics and pretty much demolished the "demography is destiny" effect. The size of the sample is enough to overcome the argument about how different PR is from Kentucky, I would think.

    [ Parent ]

    A "wide margin", according to CNN (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:04:13 PM EST
    This was the same terminology used for West Virginia and Kentucky.

    Yeah, code for (5.00 / 11) (#50)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:12:04 PM EST
    she stomped him again. Flat. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Epoll says she won ever region (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    huge.

    Wide margins= wide stance = 39 % = WWTSBQ? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:05:33 PM EST
    It's coronation time.

    Always has been, always will be.

    70-30 (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by zebedee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:05:34 PM EST
    Exit polls on CNN show she won 70-30 amongst both men and women. Sound maybe too high but a 40% margin of even 400,000 turnout is a significant bump in pop vote

    Obama as VP (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by joharmon86 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:12:59 PM EST
    Would you vote for Hillary if Barack were the VP?

    [ Parent ]
    I would. hillary as VP would also make (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    me more likely to contribute to Obama

    [ Parent ]
    I'm still hoping (none / 0) (#63)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    for a unity ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    V.P. (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    Clinton/Obama maybe.
    Obama/Clinton - not likely.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:32 PM EST
    He**, I would vote for Hillary if George W. Bush was her VP.  With seasoning and experience, Sen. Obama could be a good President. We should be thinking about establishing sixteen years of Democratic presidents, not four.

    How old will Chelsea be in 2024? :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Ditto! (none / 0) (#109)
    by tek on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:27:50 PM EST
    As much as I love the Clintons, I sincerely hope Chelsea doesn't go into national politics.  What a cruel job for a woman.  

    Although, no one would be able to ever say that Chelsea didn't understand the economy!  Finance is her career.

    [ Parent ]

    Sadly, there are lots of cruel jobs for women (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    We only make it better if we go where we are not wanted and refuse to be pushed out once we have our foot in the door. (Sorry to go O/T.)

    [ Parent ]
    She was born in 1980, (none / 0) (#133)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:34:07 PM EST
    so she will be 44. Old enough, three years younger than Obama is now. And I can't wait to see her campaign style in her runs for lower level office. Which of course she must have before asking for the big job. But I don't think she will, at least not in time to be ready to run in 2024. She is 28 now.

    [ Parent ]
    44? I think she's the same age as my son (none / 0) (#197)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    and Obama needs to see the big difference between how many will vote for Clinton/Obama v. Obama/anyone

    [ Parent ]
    I will only vote for a Dem if (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:35:29 PM EST
    the nominees, both of them on the ballot, take leadership in getting the DNC to rescind its appalling action yesterday -- taking 18,750 voters in MI from one candidate's column and moving them to another candidate's column.

    Let me make this clear:  Even if Clinton is the nominee, I need to hear this and see this done.  If Obama is the VP nominee, I definitely need to hear this and see this done.  Even if the convention is deadlocked, and the Dems manage to get Gore to come out and take the top of the ticket, I need to hear this from him, too, and see this rectification done.

    I do not vote for corruption, whether by individuals or organizations.  The Dems now are officially corrupt, and only by denouncing the decision yesterday and rescinding it -- and changing rules at this convention so that the action yesterday cannot be done again -- would I vote in fall for a Dem for the White House.

    [ Parent ]

    you, you pro democracy voter (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:43:13 PM EST
    what are you thinking. snark. I agree, this anti-democratic, and there is no excuse to let it stand. I hope this is challenged just so Democrats aren't a laughing stock in November, even if Hillary isn't in the race. We'll see.

    [ Parent ]
    God, DB is praising herself on (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    CNN, wtf?

    All I see on CNN right now is praise for the RBC (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jfung79 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    and for the Obama campaign compromising.  Good grief, these people have blinders on.  Tim Russert on MSNBC was shockingly actually talking about Hillary's consituencies when I channel-surfed past, instead of this tripe.

    Tingles and Giggles (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:28:56 PM EST
    Tweety asked with a giggle to Tim:  "Will Hillary become the Boss Tweed of women?"

    I had to turn because the smirking was melting the screen.

    Terry A. has been hugely effective on CNN and MSNBC is summing up her electoral strengths.  "Do we have to spend $20M in the fall just to hold PA?"  He notes also that she's outspent 4-5 to 1 everywhere, including PR.

    [ Parent ]

    What if (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Redshoes on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    TPTB (the powers that be) of the RBC re: Michigan is a safety-valve?  They've picked BHO but if he can't bring back the base their illegitimate decision allows the re-do -- the uncommitted remain undeclared and that denies him the threshold -- It was Levin not Ickes who 1st said take it to the credentals committee.  Could they be less self-destructive than they appear?  

    [ Parent ]
    of course (5.00 / 20) (#43)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:09:08 PM EST
    we all know that puerto rico was colonized by appalachians, so this is no surprise...

    heh (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    heh heh (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, if you count the pre-colombian (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    Welsh migrations, sure.

    [ Parent ]
    Nowt wrong with the Welsh.... (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by WelshWoman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    Extremely good judgement that's why Clinton has won Puerto Rica!

    [ Parent ]
    My sister has lived in Wales since 1975. (none / 0) (#71)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:19:28 PM EST
    They really do have a story about Welsh connections to native American languages, and of course the Welsh settled a lot of the South, IIRC>

    [ Parent ]
    OMG>>not nice to make (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    red bull come out my nose like that, Turkana!

    [ Parent ]
    lol (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    my people!  I'm a Massachusetts Appalachian.

    [ Parent ]
    HA. when you put it that way, so am I! (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    Mother is from WV, with roots in KY.
    Father's family was old money in Medford, MA.
    (Money ran out by my generation).

    [ Parent ]
    I hear Appalachia is (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:21:04 PM EST
    very extensive. Heck, even Jewish girls born in Baltimore can be Applachian! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    And Jewish girls (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    from the Bronx. (It's near Appalachia, innit?)

    [ Parent ]
    And... (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:46:32 PM EST
    Berkeley, that's Appalachia, at lease my lonely house with two Clinton signs.  

    [ Parent ]
    Oooh (o/t) (none / 0) (#74)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    I live in Medford now, Mark L.  Yaay for Medfud.

    [ Parent ]
    OMG! There's a hospital there named (none / 0) (#80)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:21:59 PM EST
    after one of my collateral ancestors.

    [ Parent ]
    Which one? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:38:24 PM EST
    I fortunately have not had to go to any hospitals since I've lived here (about 6 years).

    [ Parent ]
    CNN would not call it that quickly (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:10:58 PM EST
    for Clinton and use the term 'wide margin' unless we were looking at a WV or KY type blowout. CNN doesn't like her anymore than any other network, they are in the tank for Obama too.

    I turned it off. Can't stand to watch Donna B. What's she saying now?

    She doesn't want to be involved in (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM EST
    intra-party squabbles. Snort.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow...really... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:20:54 PM EST
    That leaves me speechless...

    [ Parent ]
    Heh, stir the pot then run like he!! (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:30:02 PM EST
    leaving the blame and the mess for others to clean up. No wonder she relates so well to Obama.

    I've worked with many like her. They almost always reach the other side unscathed while the person left to clean it up is blamed and out of a job.

    [ Parent ]

    Eh.. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:01 PM EST
    Donna Brazile speaks = I hear "I love Obama"

    [ Parent ]
    She won every category, every (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    economic group, etc.  Me thinks Obama still has a Latino problem, and Bill Richardson is not the answer.

    He needs to get Ricky Martin. (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Too late. (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:47:52 PM EST
    He already gave a fundraising concert for Hillary and endorsed her.

    You think our mainstream media might see a pattern wherein every time they declare the race over and Obama the winner, Hillary wins primaries by double-digits.

    [ Parent ]

    At this point, I almost think she could (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:51 PM EST
    win as a 3rd party candidate. In a 3 way race between Obama, McCain and Hillary, I think Obama would be far back in last place.

    [ Parent ]
    I think she could as well (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    and I wish she would.

    What loyalty could she possibly feel to the party now? She owes them nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    Her loyalty should be to the country first. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    She's the right person for the job.

    [ Parent ]
    How come (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:21:48 PM EST
    Latino men will vote for a woman President, but white men not so much?

    [ Parent ]
    HRC (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:37 PM EST
    is doing better among white men than Obama, isn't she?

    [ Parent ]
    I thought not (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    But maybe I'm wrong now, after the Appalachia Chronicles.

    [ Parent ]
    Latino men (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    are closet Appalachians.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST
    we hillbillies have some Scots-Irish background, and it is generally noted in UK history that some Spanish sailors from the Armada stayed and contributed to the gene pool.  I think we may be brown cousins.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, yes, my great-grandma who spoke Gaelic (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    'til the day she died, past 95 (and never missed a day of daily mass 'til the day before), used to regale us with the English translation of the tale that explained the "red Irish" (red-haired) and the "black Irish" (dark-haired).  She would get a bit of the brogue in the explanation, a roll of the "r" that would come out something like this:

    "Afterrrr the Arrrrmada crrrrashed off the coasts of the luvliest isle therrrre is . . . they rrrraped and ploonderrred -- rrrrraped the luvliest wimmen therrre is.  And therrre 'tis -- the black Irrrish, begorra."

    (Note:  historically, this is essentially balderdash.)

    [ Parent ]

    You're right. (none / 0) (#202)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:58:14 PM EST
    I never believed in the Spanish Armada, not for one second. It was a totally overhyped national security scam to provide Queen Elizabeth the cover she needed to consolidate power in England, execute her rivals and then invade Scotland for its oil, all for the benefit of her political benefactors at British Petroleum. Lyndon LaRouche was right about the Royal Family. Can't trust nary a one.

    [ Parent ]
    That (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by tek on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    is interesting, isn't it?  And Latinos are supposed to have such a machismo culture, too.  

    I figure it's because people in Latin America know a petty tyrant when they see one, they're not having Barack Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    European cultures elect women (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:48:49 PM EST
    to prominent political positions for some time now.  There are interesting discussions of why, especially, those with the Latin (rather than, say, Germanic) languages may do better at this -- the languages that actually make gender distinctions (i.e., Latino, Latina).  By comparison, English (a more Germanic language) lacks such distinctions -- which has allowed claims such as "mankind" meaning all of us, although it doesn't work out that way.

    See, for example, the phrase "all men are created equal," and the suffragists' early arguments for courts that claimed that meant all of us in some cases to also apply their same argument to the vote.  Of course, the courts then suddenly found otherwise (and then, the court route proved fruitless after passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments that put gender -- "black male" -- into the Constitution for the first time, necessitating the 19th Amendment to negate that part of the 15th Amendment, at least, although the ERA still is needed to negate that part of the 14th Amendment).

    [ Parent ]

    Here is my take on it.. (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    from working for years with Latinos of all nationalities on the track. They had no problem taking orders from me when I was foreman. I asked about that and was told that since I wasn't their wife or daughter it wasn't a problem for them. Apparently, machismo is familial or something. I don't pretend to understand it, I was just glad it wasn't a problem for me at work. I did notice, however, that most of the women in politics in Latin countries were either widows, or married to men in professions that don't require a helpmate, like novelists, scientists, etc. You know the type of husband..."Yes, dear, I am working..do what you like. Don't bother me, please." Latin men don't mind strong women, they can handle them. They just don't want one for a wife. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    Widowhood is an interesting point -- (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    as that goes to (single and) married women's property rights laws, and Latin countries long have been far more favorable on those compared to the English law, the tradition in this country, of dower and coverture.  For example, in this country, women in the Midwest and West had far more property rights when they were part of Nouvelle France east of the Mississippi and part of what became the Louisiana Purchase west of the Mississippi but lost their standing, and their property rights, when they became American (1783 and 1803, respectively).  Some of the individual stories of such status, for those born under one flag but then forced under our flag, are truly sad.  

    Btw, the first state to put in place a truly equitable, 50-50, married women's property rights law in this country was in 1986.  That is not a typo.

    [ Parent ]

    No, it's certainly not a typo. (none / 0) (#234)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:19:19 PM EST
    When I worked in the Hawaii Legislature, I actually wrote the bill repealing the state law that required married women to obtain their husbands' written permission before entering into any sort of binding contract, and requiring those written, notarized statements to be included as an addendum to said contracts.

    Further, married men were not required to provide any such reciprocal documentation when they entered into such contracts on their own, and their wives could still be held legally liable for any such debts incurred by their husbands, even if it was done without their knowledge.

    My mother was widowed by the Vietnam War when I was three years old, and she required my grandfather's signature as co-signer on her mortgage when she bought our house, because her own credit history was pretty much buried in my father's grave along with him.

    I'm a proud male feminist, for what I consider very good reasons.

    [ Parent ]

    Just my luck... I have a strong Latina wife... (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:03:20 PM EST
    Why didn't anyone warn me?
    (Just kidding, REALLY! JUST KIDDING!)

    I spend a lot of time in South America, and the division between house and outside-of-house is still very large. In other words, while machismo lives, it is interpersonal, not necessarily work-related.

    This is too glib a reply, but I don't want to hijack with a sociological paper...

    [ Parent ]

    It probably helped that I was taught (none / 0) (#233)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    all my life to treat "staff" as people too, say please and thank you when asking them to do something, and not ask anyone to do something I wasn't willing to do myself. So at no time was I ever snapping out orders, except in an extreme emergency with an injured horse. And they were polite to me in return. So maybe machismo is a response to rudeness rather than a male entitlement thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I honestly think that for all fhe talk (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Inky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    about a "machismo" problem among Latino men, they are more likely than men from Anglo cultures to hold strong women in esteem.

    [ Parent ]
    Inky, I think you are correct here... (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    Womanhood and motherhood in the countries/cultures I'm familiar with are given much higher esteem and status than in the USA, without a doubt.

    [ Parent ]
    If I heard it correctly, though... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    ...Tweety was suggesting that somehow Hillary's big win might suggest that RICHARDSON would be a good VP candidate for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    We can only hope n/t (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh man (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    These idiots really do think Bill Richardson holds the key to every Latino's heart, don't they?

    [ Parent ]
    No, media idiots, Hillary's big win suggests (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:24:52 PM EST
    that she should be the nominee.

    Duh.

    [ Parent ]

    Need Emergency RBC Meeting (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by msobel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    It is critical that the RBC be reconvened to transfer some of the Clinton delegates to Obama, after all he did not campaign there so he deserves more of her delegates.  (/snark)

    That is only valid (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    if Obama's name is not on the ballot.

    LOL!

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sure he can still take it off! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:25:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Post Ballot Removal For The Post Partisan (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    can