home

March to June: Hillary Wins 8, Obama 5

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:07:13 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Let's look at the states that voted in March, April, May and now June: Hillary has won 8, Obama 5 .

  • Hillary won: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Va., Indiana, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.
  • Obama won: N.C, Oregon, Miss., Wyoming and Vermont.

[More...]

  • March: Hillary 3, Obama 3
    Hillary won Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas.
    Obama won Mississippi, Wyoming and Vermont
  • April: Hillary 1, Obama 0
    Hillary won PA.
  • May: Hillary 3, Obama 2
    Hillary wins Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky
    Obama wins North Carolina and Oregon
  • June: Hillary 1, Obama 0
    Hillary wins Puerto Rico

Comments now closed.

< About The Puerto Rico Turnout | Hillary's Puerto Rico Victory Speech >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    March to June: Hillary Wins 8, Obama 5 | 196 comments (196 topical)
    You are missing Wyoming (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ajain on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:09:29 PM EST


    thanks (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:16:05 PM EST
    I didn't realize the caucus states weren't in CNN's list. After seeing your message I scrolled down and found they put those separately. I corrected it.

    [ Parent ]
    Selective Counting, just like her Popular Vote ... (1.00 / 3) (#153)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:50:40 PM EST
    First, Puerto Rico is not a state.  And so if you're counting all contests, you must include Guam, which you omitted and which Obama narrowly won.  You also fail to mention that Montana and South Dakota, where Obama has double digit leads.  I would also add that Obama won the Texas caucus, and therefore, both campaigns won Texas.  

    So, after Tuesday night, from March to June, BO wins 8 contets, and HC wins 8 contests, and more importantly, BO wins the most pledged and super delegates putting him over 2118, thereby winning the Democratic Nomination, under the rules of the Democratic party, agreed to by all the candidates, and the DNC.  

    I would also point out that the DNC, when the rules were set up, was controlled by the Clintons.  

    Its time to unify, its time to acknowledge that HC ran a great strong race, particularlly toward the end, but we now have a nominee, and its time to turn the fire power of the Democratic on McCain.  I hope the passionate HC supporters will soon join in this effort.

    Respectfully, A fellow life long Democrat
    End the Iraq War
    Universal Health Care
    Educational opportunity for all
    Green alternative energy
    Individual Libberties
    Restore Habeaus Corpus
    Close Guatanamo
    Restore Respect for the US internationally
    Strong Deplomacy
    Employement and Environmental Standards in Trade Deals
    End of cronyism and corruption
    Good government and depoliticization of the Justice Department

    [ Parent ]

    He doesn't even have a UHC plan (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:02:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Pardon but I have no faith (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    Obama would do any of those lovely things in your laundry list.

    Doesn't have a UHC plan
    Green energy weaker than Clinton's
    Advisor says his Iraq plan isn't real
    and on and on

    He does not have the experience or character to be president of the US.  Have a nice day.

    [ Parent ]

    His inability (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    to make controversial decisions makes it highly unlikely that any of this will come to pass.

    I would look for him to make great headway on issues that have absolutely no dissenting voices.    

    [ Parent ]

    The most controverisal issue of our day - Iraq (1.00 / 2) (#182)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:29:57 PM EST
    He spoke out against it, unequivocally.

    Hillary supported the war, and only admitted regreting that vote in January or February of 2008.  

    OBama talks about the need to raise fuel efficienby standards, directly to the Auto Industry in MI.

    I could name many many more examples.  

    [ Parent ]

    The man lives in Illinois, (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:36:52 PM EST
    For crying out loud. Illinois is a BLUE STATE. I live in Illinois, I know. Giving a speech against the Iraq war was NOT a brave thing to do here in Illinois, trust me. If this was a red state, he never would have given that speech. That's a bogus argument from the start.

    [ Parent ]
    Then why didn't... (none / 0) (#204)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    ... Senator Clinton give that speech?  After all, she was from NEW YORK.

    The logic doesn't hold up. Obama spoke up against the war when almost everyone - including Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd - voted for the President's authority for the war.

    To minimize it's importance, given the national mood at the time, is disingenous at best.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha ha ha! (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:39:19 PM EST
    Yes he spoke out against the war but he didn't vote against the war.  He's voted consistently to FUND the war -- so he's really not against the war.  

    Obama talked about fuel efficiency standards in a state where he wasn't on the ballot.  That was such a risky move!  

    I'll wait for you to name some better ones.  

    Want to talk about the 8 different stands he took on Reverend Wright?  Or his multiple stances on gun control?  Or decriminalizing pot?  Does he have ANY issue where he only has one stance?

    [ Parent ]

    8-6. not 8-5 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:18:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    no, 8 to 5 (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:29:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Guam? (none / 0) (#60)
    by swiss473 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:42:56 PM EST
    You also forgot Guam.  If you're going to count Hillary's win in Puerto Rico, you should also give Obama credit for winning Guam.

    Your point still stands though.

    [ Parent ]

    and after tuesday (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by dogooder on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    you can add Montana and South Dakota for Obama, making it 8-8...

    [ Parent ]
    South Dakota (none / 0) (#148)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:44:48 PM EST
    is being rated a toss-up...by Sen Daschle, no less, among others.

    [ Parent ]
    okay, (none / 0) (#196)
    by dogooder on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:45:12 PM EST
    then we'll await the results. I'm sure Jeralyn will update this on Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]
    Guam? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    Isn't anyone challenging that one? It was a win by only 7 votes.

    [ Parent ]
    And Indiana? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:20:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wyoming (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    would never vote Obama in the GE, IMHO.  I lived there.  The only Dem. stronghold is in and around Cheyenne.  Also, it is the leasst populated state in the union.  

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe they would go for him? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:04:37 PM EST
    Don't forget, he's related to Dick Cheney.  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    And since March, hasn't she won (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST
    like 600,000 more votes than him or something like that Jeralyn?

    Wright and Wrong (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    The post-Wright Obama is not the pre-Wright Obama.  It's like two different candidates.

    And if the anointed one could be so deflated by Wright in the Democratic primaries, the effect will be even magnified in the general.

    This is a candidate with major liabilities, so far seemingly able to Ride the Red Caucuses to a nomination because the SDs are not voting their gut.

    They know it's a train wreck.  No one is willing to lay down on the track and stop it.

    [ Parent ]

    about a month ago, Howard Dean said (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:30:15 PM EST
    the SDs would be observing who wins the last 5-6 primaries.
    And you're right on Wright!
    Pre and post Wright are 2 different animals.


    [ Parent ]
    No guts (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:16:50 PM EST
    Funny. They're willing to rail and rant about how awful McCain will be -- yet they themselves are gutless. They can't even put themselves on the line in their own self-interest.

    That's the end of the liberal movement in America. It has no spine.

    [ Parent ]

    Looks like she'll be up more than 600,000 (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    since mid-February by the end of the day today, based on realclearpolitics.com tallies of the margins in each state, territory, commonwealth, and what-all.  I quickly calculate the margin at a bit under 550,000 now, but based on trends and turnout estimates in PR, it will put her over 600,000 again.

    I don't think that there's enough human population (not counting cattle:-) in the remaining states to take the tally and margins down more than 100,000.

    So she probably will be at least half a million votes ahead in primaries since the first six weeks of the campaign -- pre-Wright, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Liabilities, when Bill Clinton ran for President (none / 0) (#159)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:57:01 PM EST
    Arguably, Bill Clinton would not have won if Ross Perot had not run for Pres in 1992.  He had the Flowers scandel going full bore.  Now some say that Barack can't win or is damaged for something he did not do.  He is not Wright, or the other guilt by association critigues of him.  

    The truth is, Obama is a strong campaigner, much like B. Clinton was.  Obama has a great positive message, has huge fundraising ability, and has a unifying message.  

    Give him a chance.  He will soon be the nominee, fairly chosen under the rules of the Democratic Party, agreed to by all the candidates.  

    [ Parent ]

    Welcome new poster (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:00:57 PM EST
    As for me, thanks but no thanks. I'm voting dem. only on down ballot races. The top I will leave blank or write in. Every one else is free to do, and will do what they want.

    [ Parent ]
    Unity Spiel Rating: -10 Try Again n/t (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST
     

    [ Parent ]
    No thank you (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:12:16 PM EST
    I don't want another Bush.  An incompetent Democrat is as bad as an incompetent Republican.


    [ Parent ]
    Can you name three policies.. (none / 0) (#174)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:20:41 PM EST
    ...of Obama that are even CLOSE to those of Bush?

    For the life of me, I can't.

    You?

    Anyone?

    Bueller?

    [ Parent ]

    No but (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:51:25 PM EST
    I can easily name three attributes that both Bush & Obama possess:

    1.  Expects on the job training (no experience)
    2.  Claims to be a Washington outsider
    3.  Claims to be able to bring unity to the country


    [ Parent ]
    Nice Try... (none / 0) (#208)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:02:20 PM EST
    ... but those aren't policies.

    Try again.

    [ Parent ]

    When Obama has policies (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    it might be doable but now all he has is a campaign.  So,  "uniter not a divider""unity pony",  "institute a humble foreign policy""talk to our enemies",  and so on.

    Have a good day off, Ferris.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice try. NO THANKS. (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:40:31 PM EST
    I refuse to vote for ANYONE that would paint Bill and Hillary as racists as OBAMA did in SC. Forget it. He will NEVER get my vote. End of subject.

    [ Parent ]
    A Republican Myth (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:41:49 PM EST
    The idea that Perot cost Bush the 1992 election is mythology.  Exit polls and later studies indicated that Perot cost both candidates equally.  The only advantage for Clinton because of Perot were wins in Montana and Colorado for 11 electoral votes.

    Clinton was running 3rd in the polls until the convention. Perot temporarily dropped out of the race and Clinton jumped into the lead over Bush by a wide margin.  When Perot got back in the race Clinton's lead dropped but he never lost his lead.

    Republicans have repeated the Perot cost Bush story over and over until many people accept it as fact. It's Republican gospel but it just isn't true.

    [ Parent ]

    Yessirree, and if you only count the planets that (1.08 / 12) (#56)
    by rhbrandon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    aren't frozen gas giants, the solar system only has four. And anyone who says there are eight, let along nine, is a gassist.

    Bottom line is that tt's time to move on and support the nearly certain nominee, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Everyone played hard, but this phase is over. Time for us as Democrats to get ready for November. ALL of us.

    No McCainocrats here, either: we saw signs of that yesterday at the DNC meeting, and what we saw was ugly.  And stupid. Might even cost Sen. Clinton a shot at that unity ticket as VP.

    Also looks like many folks here are all over the Kubler-Ross scale, bouncing between anger and bargaining, with a few lapsing into depression.  Too late for any of that: time to move to stage five: acceptance.

    Better to be done with mourning now that with the mourning that will come after Election Day if the Democrats do not win the White House. Move on with the candidate that has won the nomination. Let me assure you that if Obama loses in November, Hillary will NOT be the nominee in 2012.  Too many will blame Hillary for the loss.  Clinton supporters may have long memories; so do the rest of us Democrats. Payback is what it is.

    Let's not anything happen that would come to this. We all need to work to ensure a Democrat wins the White House and that we elect enough Democratic senators to dispense with the likes of Joe Lieberman as well as build on our substantial majority in the House.

    [ Parent ]

    Mourning (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:47:56 PM EST
    after election day? That's what we're trying to avoid with an Obama nomination.

    More condescending talk from an Obama supporter: you silly idiots get in line! You guys have to realize that lots of voters have a problem with Obama that has nothing to do with Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    I really wish some would take a class (5.00 / 12) (#82)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:59:19 PM EST
    or read a book in persuasive argument.  Aside from my support for Clinton, this really fascinates me.

    When has anyone been persuaded by:
    -- "just get over it"
    -- "if you were a real fill-in-the-blank you would support Obama"
    -- "you only support Clinton because you are old/racist/feminist/working class/bitter/stupid etc"

    Did condescension persuade them to Obama?  Is that why they think it will work?  Or is it that they are so sunk in the bloviating sites that they think that they are actually making a valid argument that way?  Or are they really just trolling?  (although to what end I can't imagine).

    I'm not talking about Obama supporters and other on the site who make their own arguments as opposed to copying the talking points memo of the day.  There are plenty of them and I thank them, even though I don't agree and am often annoyed by them (it's a different kind of annoyance, though).

    [ Parent ]

    The (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    thing that's really ironic is that they've been repeating these same talking points for 3 months now. Obama's been calling himself the nominee and they've been screaming for us to "get on board". I'm totally immune to their claims. I have huge problems with Obama which is something they just can't seem to fathom.

    [ Parent ]
    it's very telling (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    that Obama and his minions have been screaming that he's the Nominee now for nearly three months, yet Hillary is getting more votes, blasting him out in States with 30 to 40 point margins and is, as of now as well as the last month or so, more electable against John McCain and has way more Electoral Strength than Obama.

    It's quite possible that, with the endless repetition of "I'm the Nominee, I'm the Nominee, I'm the Nominee", the SDs may just consider it ineffective White Noise by now and, instead, be focusing on the handy graphs, charts, facts and figures kindly provided by the Clinton Campaign which show her undeniable strength in November.

    In other words, Obama may have overplayed the "I'm the Nominee" bit by now.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes but.... (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by jerry on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:41:38 PM EST
    you're either a low information voter and racist, or a high information voter and racist.

    Snark aside, this is what many groups do today.  If you don't agree with them and their tactics than they strip you of your rationality and your agency.

    People don't vote against Obama for good reasons.  They don't have enough information, they are too fearful, or they are racists.

    Similarly, women that disagree with modern feminist bloggers are victims of the patriarchy at best, or self-loathing and in bed with the patriarchy.  They do not have the ability to determine what is best for them, or they know that by sleeping with the enemy and being traitorous to women they can corruptly get ahead.

    Indeed, African Americans like Juan Williams have been described by young, white, tenure track academics at Lawyers Guns and Money as basically being an Uncle Tom: he was called lazy there and said to be nodding to his (white) superior, Bill O'Reilly.

    It's a very bizarre view of progressive liberal behavior that says that insulting, demeaning, dehumanizing and disenfranchising people who disagree with us is an expression of liberal thought that stands up for people's rights and all people being equal.

    [ Parent ]

    May as well face it (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    these Obama followers have no idea that they sound like a bunch of little kids.  They might as well threaten to hold their breath until we all come to Obama for all it's worth.  Come to think of it, I'd like that provided I could watch them turn blue.


    [ Parent ]
    Your post is really quite funny (5.00 / 8) (#113)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    now that I think about it...

    Did you ever notice that many Obama supporters have a hard time explaining why Obama is so awesome and why we should vote for him?  And when they do have reasons why we should vote for him, it usually comes down to the same few reasons?

    1.  He's just like Clinton
    2.  Supreme Court Judges
    3.  He'll stop the war soon, like tomorrow
    4.  You'd rather be a Good Democrat than any other thing
    5.  McSame is evil

    I have noticed that they have dropped the talking point "He's going to bring us all together" AKA Unity Pony argument.    

    They could use some lessons in persuasion.  What they are doing is NOT WORKING!!

    [ Parent ]

    I forgot that (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    their arguments usually start with the standard insult of "Hey you old hag/racist/white trash/low information voter" or something like that.  

    Hmmmm.  I wonder if this is something they are teaching kids in school these days?  "How to  not win friends and influence people."  

    [ Parent ]

    Many of us who support Obama now did (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by rhbrandon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    not start off as Obama supporters.  I started out for Edwards and tended toward Clinton (contributed to both campaigns) until she was too stupid to say that McCain would make a better commander-in-chief that Obama.

    Any candidate that dumb to diss a fellow Democrat in favor of the enemy doesn't deserve support, frankly.

    Many of us who support Obama realize that he is not the perfect candidate. He's an Illinois pol, for crying out loud.  But what he has done is draw new and energetic voters - and galvanized older, established Democratic voters - into the process, something that Democrats have not been good at in recent years.

    He's not much more of a progressive than Hillary is, but he appeals to more voters.  Mainline Democrats will vote for him. Many independents wil vote for him. And his campaign is better run than Hillary's, perhaps even better than what the DNC can do for him.

    He'd do well as president, just as Hillary would've done well. But Obama will be the nominee, not Hillary.  This election is not about the candidate: it's about the direction of our nation.  Those who lose sight of that at this late date over matters of personality riak losing sight of our national destiny.

    I'll vote the Democrat in November; will you?

    [ Parent ]

    yeah, Obama has galvanized (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    older, established voters to either stay home or vote McCain.  I just don't know how you could even WRITE that he's galvanized older, established Dem Voters when he's consistently LOST that Demographic time and time again.

    Just as he's lost almost every other core Democratic Demographic in race after race:  women, Latinos, older voters, lower income, blue collar voters.  Either you're still doing backstrokes in the Kool-Aid kiddie pool or you're not being honest with your Post.

    And they say Clinton Supporters are low information?

    [ Parent ]

    Bravo! (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    That was a much better argument!  

    I'm afraid though, I agree with Hillary about McCain being a better Commander in Chief.  McCain went to a military school, he retired from the military, his father was an Admiral.  The only link that Obama has to the military is a Grandfather and a Great Uncle who served during WWII.  McCain is more qualified than Hillary or Obama for that particular aspect of the job.  

    Hillary is a bit more qualified than Obama if you compare just those two because her husband was once Commander in Chief and she serves on the Armed Forces committee in the Senate.  

    I suppose, if you want to get really picky and decide that Obama is more qualified because he once lived near the water and watched more boats come into shore, well, that would be an Obama style "experience" argument.

    Seriously though, why would anyone think Obama is more qualified than McCain to lead the military?      

    [ Parent ]

    Because he is more thoughtful, intelligent, ... (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    wise, better temperment and most importantly he has better judgment and vision.  

    Diplomacy vs believing war will solve problems in the Middle East
    Opposed vs. Supported Iraq invasion, a mistake which 60 percent of the population considers a costly, damaging mistake.

    Why would anyone think that McCain is qualified with this proven record of failed judgment.  Medals and Military Service does not equate with good judgment.  

    [ Parent ]

    The same reason that Bill Clinton... (none / 0) (#173)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:18:30 PM EST
    ... was better than George Bush.

    Judgement.

    Obama was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning.

    McCain continues to argue that it's a good thing, that the surge is working, and that places like Basra are now safe.  All points which are demonstrably false.

    Anyone who says McCain is better than Clinton or Obama in terms of the current Military is sadly out of touch.

    Additionally, do not forget that the candidate who received the most donations, both in money and contributors, from the military, was Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    She didn't say "vote for him" (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by befuddled on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:11:25 PM EST
    In fact she's said the contrary. She said he'd make a better commander in chief and that's an opinion she has a right to have. She's seen more CIC and paid more attention so she could have a very accurate opinion too.

    [ Parent ]
    You made some good points, but (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:17:26 PM EST
    you haven't said one word about his policies, nor about his experience.  You say he has brought new voters out, and I agree that is important.  However, I wonder how many of these new voters will actually show up at the polls in November.  They don't seem to have a very good handle on what is needed to make a good president.    I am more than somewhat tired of "We are the change that we seek" and "change you can believe in".   What are these changes, and how will they affect my daughter's lack of health care or the plummeting dollar or the mess in the housing market or the incredible immigration mess?  I am honestly asking, because no matter where I go to read about him (apart from his website which is pretty anodyne), I can't find out much about his plans for "Change".  He seems like a pretty average pol to me, and one who into the bargain doesn't really seem to care greatly about the people he hopes to represent.  

    Tell me -- what languages does he speak?  What countries has he visited, apart from his childhood stay in Indonesia and his college visit to Kenya?   What does he think about the immigration problem -- really, really think about it and how to solve it, not just lip service?   Does he know people from Latin America?  Can he talk about Russia and its modern history in a way that would reassure me that he understands something of its problems and how it relates to us?    

    [ Parent ]

    I wonder (none / 0) (#183)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:30:17 PM EST
    You say he has brought new voters out, and I agree that is important

    if he shouldn't pick a new career based on this?  He would make a great community organizer, signing up new voters!  

    [ Parent ]

    I think he will address your concerns as you watch (none / 0) (#201)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:55:00 PM EST
    him in the general vs. McCain.  he is much brighter, intelligent than his folksy way of commicating sometimes conveys.  Give him a chance. I know he has traveled in Europe, he has served on the foreign affairs committee.  He can understand and handle the nuances of policy.  AND he has the ability of bringing people together.  

    [ Parent ]
    We will not swallow your "let's all be... (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:50:24 PM EST
    lemmings" speech.  Do you expect us to join in a chorus of Kumbaya while we drop off the cliff into the sea?  Not going to happen!

    Obama is not the choice for POTUS of 17,000,000 Democratic voters.  You can't force him down our votes.

    As Riverdaughter says:  Our vote is precious and we don't just give it away.

    [ Parent ]

    Amazing... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST
    ...You're now talking for 17 Million Democrats (and Republicans) who voted for Hillary?

    I know two on this site who will be voting for Obama if he's the nominee.

    1. BTD

    2. Jeralyn

    That speaks volumes.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it means (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    that BTD and Jeralyn will vote for Obama.

    Since when would people, who can think for themselves, do so just because of that?

    Your argument only highlights the lack of support for Obama. No amount of bullying or threats or pleading is going to change the dynamic for a lot of people.

    Just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]

    That's kind of unfair because I know (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:29:33 PM EST
    there are others on here who probably will vote for Obama too.  

    I think it all depends on how important a Democrat win is to you.  (And that's "Democrat, as in any Democrat.")

    I'd like to have a Democrat but I've lived with Republican presidents before and I'm sure I'll have to do it again before I die.  

    [ Parent ]

    Pretty unsubstantiated assumption there... (1.00 / 3) (#118)
    by rhbrandon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:24:09 PM EST
    To wit: that the 17 million who voted in the primaries for Hillary are so caught up in that personality cult that they won't vote for any nominee who isn't Hillary.

    Plus, a substantial amount of those voters were GOPers try to screw with our primary process.

    Something tells me that the vast majority of Democrats who didn't vote for Obama during the primary season will vote for Obama in the fall as the alternative is a third term of GOP malevolence and incompetence.  As for you and others here on Talk Left, if you want to cut off your noses to spite your faces, hey, it's a free country.

    [ Parent ]

    It is a free country. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:29:24 PM EST
    Thank you so much for acknowledging that.  And no one knows what will happen in the voting booth.

    At least we've got that going for us (unless it's stolen again).

    [ Parent ]

    Really...? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:30:17 PM EST
    So this statement...

    Obama is not the choice for POTUS of 17,000,000 Democratic voters.  You can't force him down our votes.

    ... means nothing?  

    I fact, the majority of the 17million who voted for Hillary WILL vote for Obama for POTUS because they know there is a huge difference between the possible policies and administrations of Obama and McCain will be vastly different - not to mention Supreme Court appointments and the Iraq war.

    [ Parent ]

    The opposite (none / 0) (#203)
    by melro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:57:40 PM EST
    I'm seeing the opposite. I saw and remember a very green Obama come out of the gates. He made a lot of gaffs back then. He was groomed for this position like someone grooms a new star. He's suspiciously the pick by the media who boosted him even farther and continues. He does not win against McCain in many of the state's polls at all. It looks more like the independent (used to be Repug voters) swung for Obama because it's the best chance to gain the whitehouse for McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Holy crap (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:53:27 PM EST
    What a truly miserable spokesman for unity you are.

    Let me assure you that if Obama loses in November, Hillary will NOT be the nominee in 2012.  Too many will blame Hillary for the loss.

    If Obama loses in November, your concern should be whether you are even going to see 2012.  An awful lot of Democrats are going to be furious that this losing candidate got jammed down our throats.

    You'll be playing the blame game at your peril, that you can be sure of.  If you want to argue that the only reason Obama was perceived as less experienced than McCain is because Clinton challenged his experience during the primaries, good friggin' luck with that one.

    [ Parent ]

    Um... (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:53:29 PM EST
    Clinton supporters may have long memories; so do the rest of us Democrats.
    The thing is that the votes show that there are more Clinton supporters than Obama supporters. So why shouldn't she be the nominee in 2012?? With Obama not mucking up the process, she should be a shoo-in. And if he loses the election, it will be because he is flawed, fatally flawed, and too arrogant to see it. It will be his fault, but he will blame Hillary. That's his style, after all. It's never his fault. Ever.

    [ Parent ]
    Mucking up the process? (1.00 / 1) (#176)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:24:57 PM EST
    Obama won more delegates and has convinced more superdelegates to support him.  He did this fair and square.  He has received about 200 more delegates than her.  You can complain about MI, but but it is only a few delegates, and super delegates will come out for Obama on Tuesday and Wednesday.  He won.  Period.  he didn't cheat.  He ran a smarter, more exciting campaign.  End of story.  To say he mucked up anything is just silly.  The Clinton's wrote the rules for the primaries, and front loaded the primaries so that she could win early.  She didn't win early, had a flawed campaign.  

    Give him a chance.

    [ Parent ]

    Depends on the meaning... (none / 0) (#177)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:24:58 PM EST
    ... of "more" is.

    [ Parent ]
    If this is your best unity spiel, (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:59:37 PM EST
    you better reevaluate your technique and then do a complete rewrite and try again. This first draft does not even score a 1 on the productive unity spiel scale.  

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 6) (#117)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    invest in a "How To Win Friends & Influence People" book if the dang old thing is still in print. Cause "get over it" and "bite me" just don't seem to be doing the unity thing.

    Maybe there will be more of us signing up for Riverdaughter's new party. The PUMA Party. (Party Unity My A$$)

    [ Parent ]

    As of yesterday (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by stxabuela on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    I entered the acceptance stage:  I'm no longer a Democrat.  

    Neither Obama nor McCain will get my vote.  

    [ Parent ]

    Great... (1.00 / 1) (#116)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:22:57 PM EST
    You can join the Democrats who said there was no difference between Gore and Bush and voted for Nader.

    How'd that work out for the country (and Democrats?)

    [ Parent ]

    How will it work out for you (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    when Obama is handed his head in November.  That will not be the problem of people who supported Clinton but preferred McCain over Obama.  Some of us believe that McCain would be a better president.

    [ Parent ]
    If you're a Hillary Supporter... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:55:42 PM EST
    ...and think McCain would be a better president, I think Hillary herself would tell you you're wrong.

    1. Iraq
    2. Health Care
    3. Choice
    4. Education
    5. Living Wage
    6. Oil
    7. Diplomacy
    8. Judges

    On which of these policies do you think McCain has a more progressive policy than Obama?

    Or which policies can you point to on which McCain is more progressive on policy than Obama?

    McCain voted with Bush 100% of the time this year, and more than 99% of the time with him for Bush's entire term.  The same cannot be said about Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

    You say you believe he'd be a better president than Obama.

    I say "Why?"

    [ Parent ]

    McCain (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:41:17 PM EST
    is better on oil. He didn't vote for the Cheney energy bill like Obama did.

    Healthcare? Obama's plan is worse because it's designed to fail. McCain does nothing. Would you rather have nothing or failure?

    Choice? Obama has made conflicting statements on this. Besides, the court is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade with the current occupants and a good court challenge.

    Education? Neither have any good ideas here.

    Living wage? Neither

    Diplomacy? I would have to give that to McCain.

    Judges? Who knows?

    [ Parent ]

    Iraq is always first on the list (none / 0) (#212)
    by melro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:12:40 PM EST
    and I distinctly remember Obama saying at first, back when he made a lot of gaffs because someone hadn't groomed him for Obama almighty, that he advocated transferring troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. That's not bringing them home.

    Quite frankly we're not ever getting out of Iraq. Halliburton has contracts for permanent military bases.

    Obama advocated a single payer health care system at first, then later said he never said that. That is until GMA played the video of him saying that. John Edwards wife did not accompany him to endorse Obama because she felt Hillary had a much better health care policy.

    Living wage? Is that why he failed to connect with blue collar workers.

    You're not realistic. Your estimation of the man is not based in facts. You're caught up in the ever floating Obama bubble.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, I live in TX (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by stxabuela on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:36:19 PM EST
    McCain wins here, no matter how I vote.  Seriously, after all this time, I'm not sure what Obama stands for, other than himself.  

    [ Parent ]
    those weren't dems for nader (none / 0) (#151)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:47:41 PM EST
    more greens, doncha think? at least around here.

    [ Parent ]
    In FLA... (none / 0) (#160)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:59:31 PM EST
    and Ohio, it was mostly Dems, according to Exit Polls.

    I wonder how many Nader voters would like to have that vote back?

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:10:19 PM EST
    Bottom line is that tt's time to move on

    I hope you were talking to yourself here...  

    I'll move on when I feel like it and not one second before then.  

    [ Parent ]

    I swear that posters like this (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    are really republicans.

    Who else would be stupid enough to make such statements?

    If tis idiot is a democrat, I don't want to be one.

    [ Parent ]

    that poster wnats to get rid of Leiberman (none / 0) (#162)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:01:00 PM EST
    didn't Obama endorse him in the Senate race (not primary), or something?

    [ Parent ]
    You do not wantt Unity, (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by feet on earth on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    Obama does not want, the NUP (New Undemocratic Party) does not want Unity.

    The only thing you want is my vote for the illegitimate, undemocratically propelled Il Duce style Barak Obama.  He ain't going to get it/    

    [ Parent ]

    Cheetoh HQ had monthly fits ... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    ... berating "special interests" groups -- though, oddly enough, only abortion rights groups were ever named -- for NOT supporting Lieberman, then blamed them FOR supporting Lieberman.

    this. We all need to work to ensure a Democrat wins the White House

    I'm not going to knock myself out scraping together votes for a person and party that don't care about franchise. That could easily have been my vote that they decided wasn't really for my candidate but for theirs.

    I'm also leery of fund-raising for Obama, who needs 2, 3 or 4 times what Sen Clinton spends to make her case to the voters.

    What's Obama's game plan for the general election? Call voters racists, stupid working stiffs and doddering old fools to get them on board? You need to be talking to Ms. Brazile and her little claque: the arrogance in Obama and his supporters is out of control.

    Sen Clinton deserves to win, but atrong Congress is what will matter the most here. That can be achieved without breaking a nail for Obama.

    Any weakness in the GE, or loss, is all on you.

    [ Parent ]

    Mourning? Whose mourning? (none / 0) (#198)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    and for what reason? Just because your guy is ARROGANT enough to proclaim himself the nominee, doesn't make it so. The SDs decide who the candidate will be AT THE CONVENTION. Sorry, but facts are facts.

    Once again, Obama will NEVER get my vote.

    [ Parent ]

    But it isn't how many states you win (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by owenaprhys on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    it is how many tv pundits you win.

    No! (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:38:02 PM EST
    it's how many red states you win.

    [ Parent ]
    it appears (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:54:50 PM EST
    Obama's "expanding the map" meme was really about GOTV in rich-delegate Red states that will still be Red in Nov - but significant to Obama winning the most delegates and the nomination.
    There are actually real live Obamamites who think Obama can win Wyoming and Utah in the GE.

    btw - what is the system for apportioning delegates? Why are there more in Red states?


    [ Parent ]

    NO! How many red state CAUCUSES (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by jeffinalabama on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:11:23 PM EST
    you can win, combined with deep south primaries!

    [ Parent ]
    OK, what can we do besides watch democracy lose (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by mogal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:16:38 PM EST
     and the republicans win.  Ideas? Suggestions please?

    Start convincing Superdelegates (none / 0) (#155)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    to switch to Hillary.  

    Too many people cite Obama's inexperience as the reason they are not voting for him.  In one exit poll, it was 39%.  39% is A LOT!!  

    [ Parent ]

    Yep. Allow me to suggest again (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    from a prior thread that the way I'd put it out there in the media, who love sibilance and alliteration:-), is that Obama is -- was -- the "Six-Week Wonder."  We're only halfway now from the first primary, five months along in a ten-month campaign season).  

    He won the first six weeks, through mid-February (with a lot of red-state caucuses, of course). Clinton has won ever since, for three months now -- the more crucial months to date, I would say, and with the crucial, sizeable swing states.  

    So let's let the second half of the campaign season come out as it will for the next five, long months to the convention.  That is, if the Dems really want to see who can win in the end.  

    Fading BO (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    Obama Before and After - this argues for Denver - if he's fallen so fast recently, it's way too soon to have the party sign on so fast.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely right. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    We're being saddled with a nominee for this November's election who clearly peaked in mid-February.

    [ Parent ]
    All right STOP ... collaborate and listen ... (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:41:38 PM EST
    Yikes, that looks so bad. You saying he's the Vanilla Ice of candidates?

    I pegged the roller coaster as wheezing down before the pre-PA 6-wk doldrums. He didn't even budge the voters forward there and his $burn rate was 3:1. That's not just bad, that's Bush/07 bad for toxicity.

    The O'pologists really have their heads in the sand here, focusing conempt on some triviality or invented behavior being "wrong" with the votes themselves rather than tweaking their campaign to do better. I'm wondering if they'll paint Puerto Ricans as old, racist or dumb and Obama didn't really want them anyway rather than figure out why.

    (Sheesh, the Creative Crass don't seem to be firin on all thrusters.)

    [ Parent ]

    Except, in that same period, BO has won the supers (1.00 / 0) (#199)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    Isn't that what the Clintons said would decide the election.  Remember that goal post?  But when Obama was winning that, it became big states, then it became the popular vote.  Well, BO won by the rules. It was a fair process. Its a tough loss for HC.  Her campaign served her poorly in the early stages of the campaign.  But 51% of the delegates equals that next nominee.  Obama supporters want Clinton supporters to concede, and to join the bandwagon.  A win is a win.  Be a good sport.  
    When you loose a baseball game, you don't say well, we really won because we made some mistakes early, or that we have better batters, and better pitiching.  A win is a win.  Give Obama credit, and I think you'll start to see his strength as the standard bearer for the party.  

    [ Parent ]
    The primary was essentially a tie (none / 0) (#24)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM EST
    That said, I would love to see the results of a complete do-over, a single national primary day at the end of this mess. Of course it won't happen. But it would be interesting to see how much buyers remorse is out there on both sides. I know that in California, Obama would be winning here by double digits (51/38), according to a recent Field Poll.

    [ Parent ]
    And super-delegates are the tiebreakers (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    if they live up to their job descriptions.  I doubt that they will, of course, based on who they are as primarily elected officials and party officials, and the past track records of both categories of such gutless wonders.

    [ Parent ]
    Not exactly... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Llelldorin on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:37:45 PM EST
    In principle, their job is to negotiate some sort of compromise if they see a major split forming in the party, to avoid more splits like Kennedy/Carter in 1980.

    Bang-up job they've done of it, too. So far the only point of complete agreement I can see between Obama supporters like me and Clinton supporters is that the superdelegates have been a disaster. If anything, they've stoked the differences between Dems instead of smoothing them over.


    [ Parent ]

    is this the Poll (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:31:58 PM EST
    which undersampled Latinos (8% in their Poll;  21% voting in the GE) and oversampled AAs (10% in their Poll;  8% voting in the GE)?

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    Read the poll for yourself. 23% Latinos, 7% AA, dated May 30th. The Field Poll is considered the gold standard for California.

    [ Parent ]
    my mistake (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    the LATimes had a poll not too far back which had the sampling I mentioned.  My apologies.

    [ Parent ]
    The field (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:49:22 PM EST
    poll was horribly wrong for the Dem primary. The field poll WAS the gold standard at one time but they have been proven to be horribly innacurate lately.

    [ Parent ]
    No matter because she already won... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    ...that argument. Even Karl Rove said as much this morning. It's just too bad that the superdelegates have stuck their fingers in their ears.

    South Dakota (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by DaveOinSF on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:21:23 PM EST
    I think Hillary has a pretty good shot at South Dakota.  She did reasonably well in the Nebraska primary last week and the North Dakota caucus result was narrower than most and would have translated into a dead heat had it been a primary.  Plus, South Dakota has a large Native American population that participates in the Democratic primaries and Hillary does well there.

    In any case, I would not at all be surprised if Hillary wins SD on Tuesday.

    Montana is a different story - lots of creative class liberals have moved there in recent years.

    Is Montana open or closed? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:53:22 PM EST
    A lot of elite Repugs with tons of money have homes up there...is it open season to become a "Dem for a Day"?

    [ Parent ]
    MT is open (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:25:28 PM EST
    Independents can vote in the Dem. primary. It also has more registered voters than S.D.

    [ Parent ]
    PR election is tied to NY, CA, FL.... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    You know - crucial states Obama didn't win but will expect the Clintons to make it happen for him in the GE.

    Do those who support the disparity... (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by citizen53 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:23:17 PM EST
    in delegates apportioned by caucus versus primary support the electoral college as well?

    For superdelegates to have shown their cards before all the voting was done is a mistake, to me, and negates their purpose.

    Well (5.00 / 12) (#26)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    the argument that she does better in crucial swing states doesn't need any more oomph.  The votes are in, the polls are out there, it's very clear she's stronger in the key states than he is.

    If the Democratic Party chooses to ignore that, there's not much I can say except "Yep, that's the Democratic Party I know."

    Steve - the following 2 posts do not respond (none / 0) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    to you.

    The original post was deleted.


    [ Parent ]

    Can I just say I really don't like Gloria Borger. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:33:22 PM EST
    Jeralyn, are you going to live blog HC's speech or just post comments?

    I just did