home

Clinton Wins Puerto Rico By Wide Margin

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • 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
    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

    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
    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
    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
    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
    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
    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 / 19) (#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
    heh heh (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    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
    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 / 6) (#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

    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

    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
    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
    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
    candidate. Also, he might be able to find a few Puerto Ricans who didn't vote to substantiate his claim of why her delegates should be assigned to him.

    Parent
    CNN agrees with andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    she needs about 200,000 or a little less to be "officially" ahead of Obama in the pop vote.

    CNN is wrong. She already has the pop vote lead. (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    Never in the history of elections have I seen a candidate count popular votes from a ballot for which he withdrew his name.

    Parent
    I agree, but now we have to meet the (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    MSM standard for SDs to take note.  They are not going to accept Clinton's count.  The SDs are chickens, they may not come out for Clinton anyway, but if the MSM is saying she won the pop vote I think it could make a difference.

    Parent
    If the exit polls are right (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:21:28 PM EST
    and turnout is just a little better than we were hearing, it could happen.

    Parent
    They are giving him 100% of uncommitted. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    I think the most he can be given is his portion of uncommitted per the exits (which usually overstate his support as it is).

    Parent
    that would (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    be giving all uncommitted in MI to BO right? unbelievable how can they put this forward with such a straight face....

    Parent
    Woo-hoo! (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    Go, Puerto Rico!

    This is definitely a lot better news than I was anticipating. :-)

    I just have to give a big WOOOHOOOOOO (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:24:28 PM EST
    and thank Puerto Rico!!!

    I hope it's this major stomping they're predicting.  Then it's on to the White House.

    Blitzer says (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    325-425k turnout. Not enough, I don't think.

    But they still don't (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:29:58 PM EST
    have concrete numbers.

    I didn't catch their 3 popular vote scenerios.

    Why are they giving Obama 100% of the uncommitted vote in MI? I thought MI was using exit polls to aportion all that? He didn't get it all.

    Parent

    Donna B was just trying to explain (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    that on CNN, puff puff, that the committe had 3 options, the one that is won the vote. BS. She said the 4th option was to do nothing with a flawed election. BS. Punt, punt, punt!!!

    Parent
    Where we're headed... (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:25:53 PM EST
    It seems to me that we're on a collision course between the peculiar energy that has fueled the Obama campaign, and the emerging realization that it is Clinton who is the one who can defeat McCain.

    I wonder what the results would be now if the primaries were all done again.

    I don't see much energy in Obama (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    these days.

    Parent
    He's tired (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    A 60 year old women, one nearly old enough to be his mother, has tired him out.

    Parent
    Hee hee hee! (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:54 PM EST
    Unless HRC gave birth at 14, she's not quite old enough to be his Mommy.

    Although the Obamans seem to think she is his Mommy nonetheless....

    Parent

    Never heard it (none / 0) (#225)
    by gandy007 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:11:25 PM EST
    Would it be permissible, except for the Obamamaniacs
    firestorm, to ask, "Who's your Mommy", at her victory celebration?

    You know, like a chest thumping man, after such a  stomping would ask, "Who's your Daddy".

    Just thinking of one of my favorite movies of the last few years, "Remember the Titans".  


    Parent

    He can't keep up with Clinton's PMZ (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM EST
    as Margaret Mead termed it: post-menopausal zest!

    Parent
    Oh, Bob Beckel, Obama supporter (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    says this wins means NOTHING! He's on Fox as I type spewing how inconsequential this win is.

    Can I say how much I do not like Obama supporters?

    Can I also say that I will never vote for Obama?

    I am hoping beyond all hope that she takes this fight to the convention! Obama cannot win in November.

    Terry McAuliffe (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    is on CNN right now talking about the Michigan vote and backing what Ickes said yesterday. He said straight out that the awarding of the uncommitteds etc. was undemocratic etc. And reminded Blitzer that he used to be the head of the DNC. No mincing words. I love Terry McA right now.

    So do I (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by jfung79 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    That's right, as McAuliffe said it's about democracy and a broader principle, not "4 delegates".

    Parent
    And now (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    Donna is back on trying to explain it by the same RULZ and brought up the write-in votes and how it was so nice of them that they didn't give Obama 50% of the votes because they wanted to.

    Parent
    Exactly right (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Davidson on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    They need to go all out on MI.  I don't care if they have no chance at the nomination; this is about basic democratic principle (in addition to being against the precious rules!): you cannot possibly award a candidate delegates he did not earn (uncommitted), especially by stealing delegates from another, when he chose to essentially forfeit the primary.

    Also, if they don't remedy MI (and FL) at the convention, Obama will absolutely be illegitimate and the GOP will smear the entire Democratic Party as corrupt and fundamentally anti-democratic.  Not to mention, having the first black nominee be propped up by corruption and vote theft is truly damaging to future black candidates.

    Parent

    Karl Rove just said that first, he (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:32:18 PM EST
    didn't understand why the RBC through MI/FL under the bus (my words,his meaning) and gave 4 delegates to Obama and Chris Wallace said that it could mean that all is not too sure about Obama. Second, Karl said that at the end of the campaign, Obama s/b picking up much more of the popular vote, instead he'll be behind her about 4-500,000!

    This whole primary is going (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    to be held against Obama.  They already say the 'elitist insiders' picked Obama, the 'elitist DNC' picked Obama.  Now.... they are questioning the MI decision.  hmmmm I wonder what they will do with this latest act by the DNC?  You think they calll it... I don't know.. elitist?


    Parent
    Obama's problem: the GE isn't a caucus (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM EST


    Right! That would be a HUGE problem (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    for BO. Too bad it's a winner takes all election for ELECTORAL votes from each state. All the electoral maps I have seen, Obama gets CRUSHED by McCain and Hillary CRUSHES McCain.

    If the SDs nominate BO, they want to lose. That's all there is to it.

    Parent

    gaming the system and winning the nomination (none / 0) (#239)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:24:54 PM EST
    is not an indicator of Obama's positions on the issues nor his qualifications or ability to be president.


    Parent
    We'll see just how creative.... (none / 0) (#247)
    by ineedalife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    Obama and Axelrove can be. How many states can they challenge the ballot to steal McCain's votes? You just know they are planning something. I could just see Obama trying to throw the election to the House by challenging electors. The absolute last thing he wants is to let the voters decide.

    Parent
    Quick Fact (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by facta non verba on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    Since March 4th, Clinton has won 500,000 more votes than Obama. Add PR to that and you get close to 600,000 more votes.

    Very true...per FOx (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    Since March 4th:

    HILLARY

    STATES WON............. 7
    POPULAR VOTE ..........6.6 Million
    Pledged Delegates......552

    Obama

    States Won.............6
    Popular Vote...........6.1 Million
    Pledged Delegates......534

    Parent

    superdelegates WAKE UP (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by Robert Oak on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:35:59 PM EST
    The country doesn't want Obama!  What does it take!  They don't want him, or at least not enough to win a GE against McCain!  

    Donna is about to cry (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    on CNN, she says she will give her vote to Hillary if it will make people happy. Strangers are emailing her with threats, etc...I think we should email and hold her to the promise to give Hillary her vote.

    Hee hee (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:37:11 PM EST
    I'd be happy if she made good on her 'threat' to leave the party.

    Parent
    I just saw that (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    she's so broken up and she wants the Clinton supporters to "give some love" because we're so meeeeeeeeeean.

    Good act, Donna. Cry your crocodile tears for someone else.

    I say we turn up the heat on her more.

    Parent

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:46:09 PM EST
    her momma never taught her not to whine.  

    Put on your big-girl pants, Donna, and suck it up.  

    Parent

    Her momma (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:31 PM EST
    should have taught her 'do unto others'. Guess that wasn't a RULE that sunk in.

    Seriously, it was pathetic to see her getting all verklempt over all those nasty emails. ::sniffle::

    Parent

    I wish I'd seen it (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    Judging from the e-mails she has sent to Hillary supporters, Donna seems awfully thin-skinned to be in politics.  

    Parent
    Like most (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:04:55 PM EST
    of those Obama supporters, excuse me UNDECLARED NEUTRAL supporters, they can dish it out but they can't take it.

    Of course, now CNN is starting the non-stop rhetoric about how Puerto Rico doesn't count so who cares.

    Parent

    All their relatives who live in the states and do (5.00 / 2) (#238)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:22:58 PM EST
    vote might care. Stupid thing to say.

    Parent
    Most definitely (none / 0) (#242)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    They said 70% of the people in Puerto Rico have family in New York (I believe that was from FOX). Honestly, I don't think dissing the Latino voters, regardless of where they live, is a very smart idea. Especially when they're swing voters and have come out mostly for Hillary in the primaries.

    Parent
    I don't think she was about to cry (none / 0) (#154)
    by jfung79 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    I liked her tone.  I liked her saying to focus on the Republicans.  But she still cannot give a basis that makes sense according to the "rules" and according to Democratic principles for the Michigan decision yesterday.

    Parent
    why is she saying this (none / 0) (#155)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:35 PM EST
    ?

    Parent
    Here's Donna's email... (none / 0) (#175)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    info@brazileassociates.com

    Parent
    I sent her (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by Firefly4625 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:56 PM EST
    my thoughts this morning - complete tirade - glad to get it off my chest.

    Told her she's made a mockery of the democratic process and the Democratic party.

    How much of it was her doing that "rules" were changed to accommodate Obama? More delegates to AA districts and other districts that polling confirmed would go for Obama - heavy delegate allocation in small red caucus with low turnout (the one person-one vote idea - so antiquated!) - the 100% penalty on MI/FL - on and on and on...

    Also, remember when Donna promised to leave the Democratic party if the process was shut down EARLY and super-ds decided it? Guess what? Obama can't win with pledged delegates and the super-ds may shut it down EARLY. Bye Bye, Donna baby - don't let the door hit ya on the way out!

    Kell surpreeze - haven't received a reply to my e-mail from Donna...

    Parent

    Anyone here (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    Looking forward to Al Jazeera's in depth reporting on the toothless Clinton supporters of Puerto Rico?


    ROTFLOL! (none / 0) (#152)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:00 PM EST
    unity: we're all Appalachians (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign has done more to unify Americans than anything I've ever seen. That's because we've all learned we're all Appalachians.

    No wait, I have to give the Obama campaign credit for that because they've said all of us (the majority of primary voters) are Appalachians and don't count in his eyes. We're unified in that we don't count and our votes aren't wanted in November, but hey, at least we're unified. So credit where credit is due. Thank you Obama.

    I think it's time for one hell of a picnic and/or hillbilly jam session. Who's with me. Denver in August? Bring your ukuleles and accordions. We'll be dancing in the streets.

    Banjos! (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:43:00 PM EST
    We can't have a good ol' bluegrass jamboree without banjos.

    Parent
    how could I forget those, you are right (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    and spittoons (5.00 / 0) (#217)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    gotta have me my spittoon for my chaw.  And a porch.  A big ol' shady porch.  And a jug with a big X scrawled across the front.

    Parent
    just one X? that's rotgut! (5.00 / 0) (#224)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:08:13 PM EST
    I drink the double X normally, but get out the XXX when 'company (non-Appalachians)' comes over!

    Parent
    Banjos, dulcimers, fiddles, harmonicas and (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:21 PM EST
    maybe a few washboards are need for a hillbilly picnic.

    Parent
    And be sure to wear clogs (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    and just for clog dancing, Appalachian-style.  Comfortable shoes are important for marching in the streets, too. :-)

    Parent
    <cx> "not just for clog dancing" (5.00 / 0) (#210)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    That would be great...1.5 million of us, for (none / 0) (#232)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:17:59 PM EST
    starters, wearing signs "We will not vote for obama...he says he will win without us!

    Parent
    DB on CNN says she will give her SD vote (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    to Hillary if we show her some love. We being her supporters and Terry and Harold. Mentions those who say they will vote McCain. Terry was on before and asked if he agreed with Ickes about RBC and MI. Yes, he does agree at length!

    Puerto Ricans... (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:43:20 PM EST
    31% said race was an important factor in their decision. They went for Clinton by 26 points.

    The 69% who said race was not a factor? They went for Clinton by 42 points.

    I'd like to see the MSM explain that one.

    Oh this is rich, Russert on MSNBC... (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    ..said that the only reason that Obama camp doesn't have the supers flood to make this thing over is respect for Hillary Cinton. God these people are dreamers.

    Well... (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:49:25 PM EST
    I guess it's been clear to me for a while now that the Democratic elite are hellbent on making Obama the nominee. I think they've been hoping that Obama would finish strong and not force them to decide the nomination. However, the voters have had other ideas.

    Parent
    CNN dissing PR now cause they can't vote (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:47:15 PM EST
    in Nov. I guess they didn't get the part that 70+ percent have relatives here. They also serve in the military in higher numbers.

    Roland says Montana and South Dakota are much more important because they count in Nov. Wonder how many EV's Obama will get in Nov from those two states? Probably the same as from PR.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    Puerto Rico has more delegates than Montana and South Dakota combined, if I'm remembering correctly.

    Parent
    Pat Buchanon (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    called this a couple of months ago as a huge win for Hillary and something that would be a game changer.  

    Before I die (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    I want to hear just one person on TV bring up NH's shameless rules violations while they're busy bashing those awful rulebreakers from MI.

    Oh wait, as I'm typing this comment, Jeff Toobin is talking about it.  How funny.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    I guess that means you have to. . .

    Parent
    May You (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by hlr on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:06:41 PM EST
    Live long and prosper, despite Toobin's intervention.

    Parent
    Exit poll estimate revised down (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    by a couple of points. Not significant, but it doesn't look like a 70% win anymore, just 68% (heh).

    Stephanie Tubbs Jones (5.00 / 8) (#205)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:59:23 PM EST
    just ko'd Tweety on MSNBC on the Michigan question too. He tried to pull the 'it was unfair not to count voters in Detroit who voted for Obama' b.s. and she just tore him up and reminded him of the FACTS. She's also backing Ickes and used similar words to Terry McA. in terms of it counting for the voters and how you can't just hand over other people's delegates to someone else because you feel like it.

    It was beautiful -- and she did it with a smile on her face. (Yes, see, I'm a racist. I worship this woman!)

    Thank you (5.00 / 5) (#221)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    for taking a bullet for the rest of us and watching MSNBO.  

    Stephanie Tubbs-Jones is awesome.

    Parent

    My dad is channel surfing (5.00 / 5) (#228)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:13:26 PM EST
    He hit MSNBC by accident but we saw STJ and had to watch her. It was very very gratifying to see her make mincemeat of Tweety (pigeon pie?). He turned green and didn't know what to say to her. And she did it with an indulgent smile on her face and gave him no quarter.

    Tweety's 'facts' couldn't stand up to STJ's FACTS. I like that Clinton's surrogates/support team are not backing down on this one.

    Parent

    Absolutely thrilled for Hillary :-) (5.00 / 5) (#216)
    by bridget on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    esp. after listening to the annoying CNN panel where Brazile is holding court - turned it off after five minutes)

    We've been talking about visiting Puerto Rico :-)

    Obama outspent Hillary in all these states incl. Puerto Rico - and she did it again. Big Time.

    The exit posts in Puerto Rico are amazing. For some reason I thought male voters would mostly go for Obama (guess it was Benicio who made me think that ;-). I hope she makes it to 70:30.

    Go Hillary!

    So when is OB's Mission Re-Accomplished presscon? (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:11:27 PM EST
    Wasn't Obama slated to do one today?

    Because, as Atrios put it, Obama, like, won?  

    Tuesday (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by janarchy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    or Wednesday. MSNObamaC is already planning the b*kkake party with Tweety, Olbermann, Timmeh et. al. on Tuesday night since Obama will hit some other new magic number by their reckoning then.

    Donna Brazile on CNN said "Wednesday will be a new day" whatever that means.

    Parent

    Who knew? (2.00 / 4) (#30)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    I thought Puerto Ricans were upset about Vieques being used as a weopons test site/cancer breeding ground for 50 years, 8 of which a Clinton was in charge.  Bush, of all people, ended it in 2003..probably moved the tests to Fallujah.

    Is memory loss also a side effect of all the weapons testing that polluted their land?

    Bill Clinton ended it , not Bush is what I (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    read and CNN confirmed a little while ago which they said accounts for his 83% approval rating in PR.

    Parent
    I think you're mistaken... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:23:44 PM EST
    It closed in 2003.  Link

    Parent
    iirc - Bill Clinton began the closure (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    Civil disobedience.... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    began the closure.  

    If I'm not mistaken brave souls put themselves in the firing line of Clinton-brand bombs to start the process.

    Parent

    You mean USA-brand. Otherwise, you're (5.00 / 5) (#190)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    just trying to be inflammatory.

    Parent
    Maybe a little:) (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:02:03 PM EST
    Of course Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Kennedy all did the same.  How about USA-Brand, Clinton Edition?

    That's kinda the point...we elect Democrats and Republicans, they inherit a machine that literally gives people cancer and violent death, and they do nothing to slow the machine.  And we repeat this pathalogical voting behavior over and over.

    I'm a broken record I know....but we need a monkey wrench to smash the thing, not another smooth machine operator.

    Parent

    Obama = smooth machine operator (none / 0) (#237)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:22:28 PM EST
    On the campaign trail in 2004, Obama railed against war funding. But a few months later, there he was on the Senate floor, voting to fund the war.
    Obama is also a Centrist but we know more about Hillary's positions and I trust her more on dealing with Iraq and bringing our soldiers home.


    Parent
    So what happens after PR? (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Saul on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:59:20 PM EST
    I am for Hilary and my question is:

    What is Hilary's strategy to win the nomination after PR?  

    Or is she just running for VP?

    turnout (none / 0) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:55:25 PM EST
    had a million turned out...

    Then turnout probably would have been younger (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    and she probably would have won by less. But I'm waiting to see the epoll for myself.

    Parent
    i wonder (none / 0) (#6)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    if that demographic held. and even a 20 point win would have been dramatic, with a million voters.

    Parent
    Low turnout for an office (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    of any significance at all never makes sense to me. So whatever the turnout is it is.

    Parent
    30% of 500,000 is nearly enough to (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    give her the popular vote edge, using BTD's method of counting, I think.

    Parent
    She's looking at a margin (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    north of 100,000. Maybe even as much as 150,000.

    Parent
    If it is 120,000 will she be in the lead (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:02:52 PM EST
    by your way of counting, which is more accepted by Obama people?

    Parent
    More like 200,000 to be clear. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    If turnout is what you expected (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:55:49 PM EST
    that points to a ~200,000 net victory for Clinton. I'll believe it when I see it.

    Wait, math check again. . . (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    ~100,000. Sorry, not really enough.

    Parent
    Hey, South Dakota is a BIG state, just like (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    Montana. In Republican and Obamacratic electoral math, BIG states are very important.

    Parent
    andgarden, I think we should only count a (none / 0) (#19)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:02:52 PM EST
    portion of the uncommitted in MI to Obama. Are you giving him all of it in your calculation?

    Parent
    Any Recent Polls On S.D.? n/t (none / 0) (#203)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    Fall, Obama, Fall! (none / 0) (#4)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:56:21 PM EST


    Yes....please.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    I hope we got over 400,000 people (none / 0) (#14)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    out to vote!

    PR parties by percent (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    PNP 58%, PPD 35%.

    Meaning???

    PNP huge for Clinton (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    PPD narrowly for Obama.

    Parent
    BTD, are you going to watch the Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    Network so we don't have to?

    Representation (none / 0) (#35)
    by OrangeFur on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:07:15 PM EST
    Does anyone if PR is likely to vote Democratic or Republican if they were allowed to vote for federal offices?

    If Republican, we can broker a deal to get both PR and DC representation in Congress and in the latter case, also the Electoral College.

    If Democratic, well, I'll have to think of something else.

    Republicans I talk to (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:09:16 PM EST
    think it's up for grabs.

    Who knows.

    Parent

    Not the Only Issue (none / 0) (#159)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    There isn't clear support for statehood in Puerto Rico. Some want full independence, others like it the way it is. As a DC resident, I'm somewhat envious of their position. They don't get to vote for president and we do. Neither place has voting representation in Congress. But unlike DC, Puerto Rico is exempt from federal taxation. They have NO taxation and NO representation. While in DC we have FULL taxation and only PARTIAL representation.

    Parent
    PRs pay federal taxes (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:04:44 PM EST
    in many forms -- Social Security, for example -- just not federal income taxes.

    Parent
    Correct (5.00 / 0) (#248)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:43:29 PM EST
    Thank you. I was wrong in implying it was more than federal income tax.

    Parent
    Is there a good turnout est. yet? (none / 0) (#72)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST


    No, I have heard everything from (none / 0) (#77)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:21:15 PM EST
    300,000 to 400,000.  I have not heard anyone in the know say close to 500,000 yet.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#81)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:21 PM EST
    CONTRIBUTE even $5 if you can !!!

    That is to HRC Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    CNN is now estimating turnout (none / 0) (#94)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    at 325,000 to 425,000

    Low turnout though...? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    CNN  turnout says in its article that the estimate turnout to be between 325,000 and 425,000.

    Does anyone have info. from any other sources?  

    CNN are the exclusive exit pollers in PR (none / 0) (#139)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:35:41 PM EST
    Reuters had a story about how usually all the big networks pony up for exit polls, but for PR CNN was the only one willing to pay.

    So we may have to wait until all the votes are counted to know how many voted.

    Parent

    Didn't know (none / 0) (#235)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    that. Okay. Thank you!

    Parent
    Didn't know (none / 0) (#236)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    that. Okay. Thank you!

    Parent
    Question for BTD (none / 0) (#128)
    by facta non verba on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    Isn't Puerto Rico a young demographically? Isn't the % of the population under 30 over a quarter of the island and yet 41% of the electorate today was over 60? Did the young not vote?

    Clinton won the young vote in PR also (none / 0) (#156)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:02 PM EST
    although no numbers yet on what percent of electorate was in the young category.

    I think she took the under 30 vote by 65%.

    Parent

    Obama's speech (none / 0) (#243)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST
    is sickening. He pratically patted Clinton on the head, said she would be winning PR, then talked about how she will be an asset in November.

    It doesn't look like the turnout was high enough (none / 0) (#249)
    by jfung79 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 03:45:59 PM EST
    22% reporting and Hillary only has about a 19,000 vote lead.  She'll only pick up less than 100,000 votes if the present trend continues.  I'm sad, she needed to pick up about 70K-100K more votes than that on Obama to lead the "popular vote with caucus estimates and uncommitted MI to Obama" count.  

    If she loses the popular vote, I will be prepared to concede that Obama should be the nominee, even though I still don't trust him on the issues, still think he will probably lose in November, and still will probably vote for Nader or McKinney in November.