March to June: Hillary Wins 8, Obama 5

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.


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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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


    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
    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.


    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.    


    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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?


    8-6. not 8-5 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:18:27 PM EST
    no, 8 to 5 (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:29:38 PM EST
    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.


    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...

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.  ;)

    And since March, hasn't she won (5.00 / 2) (#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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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

    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.

    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.





    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

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    Yessirree, and if you only count the planets that (1.09 / 11) (#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.


    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.


    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).


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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!!


    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."  


    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?


    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?


    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?      


    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?    


    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!  


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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'.


    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.  


    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.


    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).


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


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

    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.  

    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$$)


    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.  


    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?)


    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.

    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?"


    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?


    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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?


    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.  


    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.


    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?

    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/    


    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.


    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.


    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!!  


    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.

    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.)


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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)?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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"?

    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.

    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.


    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 (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:26:11 PM EST
    it's on a new thread.

    Geraldo Rivera was just on Foxnews (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:33:37 PM EST
    He says PR is significant since it reflects the Latino vote nationwide and that Hillary is 2 to 1 against Obama in every sizeable Latino area.  I think he is correct.  He was ecstatic!  Go Geraldo!!

    In S TX (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by stxabuela on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:07:21 PM EST
    Latino voters favored Hillary about 80-20.

    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.

    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?


    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!

    Jeralyn. Pls Update to 10 - 5 (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:38:55 PM EST
    o  Hillary won: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Va., Kentucky, Indiana, Florida, Michigan, and Puerto Rico.

    o  Obama won: N.C, Oregon, Miss., Wyoming and Vermont.

    March: Hillary 3, Obama 3
    o  Hillary won Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas.
    o  Obama won Mississippi, Wyoming and Vermont

    April: Hillary 1, Obama 0
    o  Hillary won PA.

    May: Hillary 5, Obama 2
    o  Hillary wins Indiana, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan and Kentucky
    o  Obama wins North Carolina and Oregon

    June: Hillary 1, Obama 0
    o  Hillary wins Puerto Rico

    When did Hillary win Florida and Michigan? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Knocienz on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:56:05 PM EST
    If you are going to argue using January elections, then you need to include Obama's February wins in your count.

    No no no no no (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:05:49 PM EST
    It's only the votes that are deemed to count in May.

    All of Obama's Jan. wins counted... in Jan.


    No (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    This is a trend post, to show results over the last few months. FL and MI voted in January.

    But when did they count? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:31:22 PM EST
    They were denied their momentum impact back in Jan.  

    I, for one, am not inclined to deny them their momentum impact at the end of the ract too.


    You're missing (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by facta non verba on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:44:38 PM EST
    Guam, by his whopping seven vote margin.

    And you should look at UK Guardian

    Fears Obama Can't Win Grow

    Guam was a 7 vote difference (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:27:33 PM EST
    and the recount numbers aren't out yet as far as I know.

    Obama's lost his MO. That's why they want to (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:49:04 PM EST
    try to get this thing wrapped up before either of them reaches the magic number.  And where has Michelle been?  Under lock and key?  Makes me wonder if all the rumors are true.

    Booing Obama (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:04:12 PM EST
    So, I'm watching Clinton's speech in PR.  When BO's name came up the booing started and Clinton immediately put her hands out to stop it.

    I'm just sayin'.

    What is this? (5.00 / 0) (#185)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    He has a 50 straight strategy that will help solidify a a governing Democratic majority in Congress

    I've heard of a "50 State strategy" but never a "50 straight strategy."  What the heck is that?  Is he planning to appoint 50 straight members to something?  By "straight," is he referring to "not gay"?  Is he gonna pass 50 straight bills?  Make 50 straight rule changes?  Make 50 straight decisions?  

    Can I buy a vowel?  I really don't get this new "50 straight strategy."

    My mistake, 50 state strategy (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:38:02 PM EST
    to break the gridlock in WA.

    Let me add that he is not bought by special interest money, like McCain  


    Why would Obama (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:00:06 PM EST
    care about gridlock in the state of Washington?  

    All that idealism (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by melro on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:45:43 PM EST
    will do him a lot of good against the snake pit that's been put in place by the Bush/Cheney regime. I honestly don't think Obama supporters paid much in depth attention to the actual politics that took place and is still taking place in the Bush administration.

    This is a fine tuned evil machine that even with a Democratic congress manages to stop or put on hold many things trying to pass. Trent Lott and his band of obstructionists are doing one bang up job. If we don't get a very experienced politician in office, nothing, nada, zip will happen. All Obama's fluffy little ideologies will be eaten alive against these guys.

    Obama knows he lacks experience, he didn't want to run in the beginning. His voting record in congress the two years he was senator is very poor compared to his peers. He didn't show up to vote much at all. He was busy attaching himself to Ted Kennedy to learn the ropes. His oratory abilities come from JFK's speechwriter for Pete's sake. When Obama speaks I understand but have to wonder if most of America will.

    Maybe Obama supporters should check out some of these very important facts instead of riding high on a bubble that things could/might change.

    VOTING FOR OBAMA IS A GAMBLE! And we Americans can't afford to gamble any longer.

    OBama is a game changer (none / 0) (#206)
    by OneOfMany on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    Clinton would have been more of the same gridlock.  I honestly beleive that OBama is a game changer, changing politics, increasing Congressional majorities for Dems so that something can actually get done.  Obama is the GOP's worse nightmare.  He has the ability to neutralize GOP spin, attacks.  Watch and see.  Thus far, Obama has rhetorically beat McCain on Iraq.  Even if he competes to a draw on Iraq, that makes him on par with McCain on the National Security debate.  Add in popular domestic issues upon which Obama is effectively communicating and changing the political landscape (as has Clinton) through the primary process, Obama will beat McCain, and handily.  

    With all this talk of Republicans for Obama's (4.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    VP, I think it's high time Obama abandoned any pretense that he is running as a Democrat.

    Why don't we float the idea that Obama leave the Democratic party, run as the nominee of the Unity '08 party, and let the real Dems run Hillary with a Democratic VP on the Democratic ticket?

    Hey, if Obama wants to be a "new kind of candidate," let him have a "new" party to go with it - and let him take all the DNC members who want to go.  We can make sure the door doesn't hit them in the a$$ on the way out...  ;-p

    He can even take (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:10:52 PM EST
    Donna Brazille with him ;-).

    ge (1.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:06:13 PM EST
    OK let say that Clinton is doing -really-bad in the west and really good in the appalachian; lets say that by the chess like convolutions od superdel - ge etc  CLINTON IS the nominee; I say nominee, it wiould seem to be that it is worthless to vote atall in the west by your  stadards as caucuses etc and big swing states only count, I am from a small swing state and I resent it very much as muy percption-grtanted could b wrong is that you interfere only coubnt the states hillary won

    Obama can win Nebraska!! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:17:02 PM EST
    if he selects Hagel as VP.  Whoopee!

    SUSA - http://tinyurl.com/5fctcr

    He can't pick a Republican (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:18:20 PM EST
    as VP candidate, Dems will abandon him in droves.

    right, that would include (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    me, the one scenario in which I would run for the hills

    I will never vote for Sam Nunn, so that along with (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    a Repug would be a dealbreaker for me. Haven't considered all the dealbreakers, but those two come to mind immediately.

    jawbone -exactly! (none / 0) (#164)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
    Sam Nunn-the symbol of the new politics-yikes!

    I'd say he already has lot about a third anyways (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    It'd definitely fit in with his alienate a demographic a month strategy. Heh.

    Where would they go Jeralyn? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    To their little houses (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:26:23 PM EST
    as in stay home.

    From What I've Read (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:29:37 PM EST
    Quite a few Obama supporters are not only O.K. with Hagel as VP, they think it is a great idea.

    I think Hagel's probably an ok guy (none / 0) (#166)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    But he would have to switch parties to be on the Dem ticket, in my view.

    Hagel Is An Extremely Conservative (none / 0) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    Republican. Look at his voting record especially on social and domestic issues. Do you really want a conservative Republican a heart beat away from the oval office? Do you think it is a good idea to give a conservative Republican a leg up to the presidency in 2016 if Obama wins the WH?

    Ugh (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by LeftyFan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    Just what the Democrats need to save us - a Republican.



    Well, Hagel's wife has contributed (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by chancellor on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:21:47 PM EST
    $500 to the Obama campaign (zero in contributions to Hillary or McCain). Yesterday, a Dutch newspaper, reporting on the U.S. primary, said that recent public comments by Hagel could be interpreted as letting both parties know that he is available as a VP choice.

    Corporate Past (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    And he can bring his own voting machines.  LOL.

    :) You think the convention would give him that? (none / 0) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    Just so they could get Nebraska in the GE?

    Puerto Rico isn't a state ;) (none / 0) (#10)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    So really the count is 7:5. But if by "states" you mean "contests", then we should include Guam, bringing the count to 8:6.

    After South Dakota and Montana get their say, it will likely be 8:8. Or 7:7, depending on your point of view.

    did Guam complete their recount? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    I looked earlier this week for recount info--can't (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:40:14 PM EST
    find any.

    Recount seemed to be imminent, bcz of all the spoiled and missing ballots. But, now news that I could find.


    OK - thanks (none / 0) (#108)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    PR (none / 0) (#47)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    counts for the primaries.  Otherwise what was today all about?  

    Either way (none / 0) (#55)
    by s5 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:40:49 PM EST
    Obama and Clinton will be tied for March - June after everyone finished voting.

    In contests maybe, but (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:37:44 PM EST
    not nearly in votes or electoral state weights.

    SoDak not certain for Obama yet (none / 0) (#152)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:49:02 PM EST
    To bad (none / 0) (#25)
    by Kevin on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    for her that the Primary started in JANUARY and not March.  Sorry, but it seems a silly argument to make.

    Where is the trend (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:27:10 PM EST

    Hint:  Not toward Obama.


    Trends bow to magic numbers. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Addison on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:32:55 PM EST
    The argument is for the SDs (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:28:00 PM EST
    and it seems clear Clinton has more momentum and is doing better in swing states against McCain.  PR shows her strength among Latinos.  I don't think it is a silly argument at all.

    I don't think it's silly (none / 0) (#78)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:55:57 PM EST
    but it appears to be too late. I think the campaigns can argue whatever they want to the SDs, no rule against that. But it seems the SDs have made up their minds.

    They have? (none / 0) (#86)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:03:59 PM EST
    So he has all the delegates needed to win?

    It seems so (none / 0) (#92)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:08:00 PM EST
    He only needs, what, 64 more? With what he will get in PR and the other two left he only needs a handful of the remaining SDs, and they keep breaking for him in ant case.

    It seems so? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:13:03 PM EST
    Heh heh heh.

    Let me know when he has the number he needs, okay?


    You'll read it in the papers in the next few weeks (none / 0) (#121)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    most likely. Maybe days.

    But if you want I can send you an email.



    Nope, only pledged delegates count (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:10:16 PM EST
    until the convention, and that's the way it's always been, no matter how much Obama wants to overturn tradition as well as decency in the Dem party.

    You expect the SDs are going to change (none / 0) (#99)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:11:51 PM EST
    their mind?

    Yes. I've been watching Dem politics (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    for a long time.  I think some of his SD support is very shaky, and it will take only one more implosion a la Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Rezko, etc.  And I think there will be at least one more.

    Btw, in the last three days, she has gotten almost as many superdelegates as has Obama, per RCP -- I track it.  That is different from before.  We'll see.


    ah, SD Support for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:46:34 PM EST
    one more thing we don't see from our Media.

    SD Support HAS to be shaky for Obama at this point.  How could it NOT be?!  He's tanking in the Electoral Vote against McCain (where Hillary is starting off unbelievably strong), has core Dem demographics already stating clearly they will NOT be voting for him (and have reason to trend toward a more experienced McCain) and has shown himself to not be a very strong campaigner when the chips are down or when he's under (perceived) assault.

    In other words, SDs are now seeing he's not the best choice for the Nomination.  And one has to think that some have a head on their shoulders and may have no trouble telling Brazile and Dean (especially after the public travesty of yesterday's meeting) to take a hike.

    Some want to WIN in November!  And it's obvious that ain't gonna happen with Barack.


    Some of them have had (none / 0) (#103)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:14:09 PM EST
    such "good" reasons for backing him.



    Silly? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:38:47 PM EST
    The more information that is leaked about who Obama is, the more the trend is to distance support.

    What is silly about that?


    Not silly as much as... (none / 0) (#181)
    by EddieInCA on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:29:42 PM EST

    Obama is still trending up.



    Well (none / 0) (#76)
    by Gabriel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:54:26 PM EST
    If we only count blue states Kerry won in 2004!



    The second half or the whole game? (none / 0) (#45)
    by lgm on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    Clinton got more delegates in the second half but Obama got more overall.  In sports, they add up all the points, not just those in the second half.  

    In sports, they don't revisit referee decisions when the game is almost over, even if changing a decision would change the winner, and even if the decision seems wrong.

    Obama played by the rules, as they existed at the time.  Clinton also agreed to them.  She said at the time that Michigan would not count.  How dare she try to change the rules retroactively?  

    This is not a game (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:39:34 PM EST
    The sports analogy is sooooo overused. We are trying to get the best Dem nomineee for the GE. SD's have infinite discretion to choose and change their minds at any time, and for no reason.  

    No more football or baseball.  Yikes.  This is for real.    


    But which team would you place your bets (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    on to win the World Series - the one with the better record before the All Star break or the one with the better record after?

    bad analogies (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DefenderOfPants on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    this is not a football game, this is not a baseball game. this is not even the NBA playoffs. it certainly isn't a game of hop-scotch. (ahem, Donna Brazille.)

    you cannot compare a series of elections to a sport competition, so save us your bad analogies.


    Actually.... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    ...what's so bad about a sports analogy.  This is a competition. It has cheerleaders (KO and Tweety). There is a scoreboard of sorts. It's not really all that outrageous to make a sports analogy. Certainly this has more relevance than a sporting event, but given the way the election process has evolved in America, sports analogies are not so far off base, IMHO.

    bad analogy fallacy (none / 0) (#127)
    by DefenderOfPants on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    a lot of people would like for these primaries to be analogous to a sports competition, so they can ignore all of the variables involved.

    If this is a game? (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    Then Obama won the first quarter, but the momentum is in the second quarter, which Clinton won.  So you actually think the momentum in the first quarter is what will take the team through to the end of the game? (November)

    A big lead (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by lgm on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:05:12 PM EST
    The way to win the nomination is to get the most delegates.  Obama jumped to such a big lead by halftime that he doesn't even bother to campaign against Clinton any more.  He doesn't have to and it's better for the party if he doesn't.  

    Clinton's "victory" in Puerto Rico has no chance of giving her a delegate majority.  

    And it's not like Clinton is all that great.  There's the gas tax holiday pander, the health care fiasco from 94, the Mark Rich pardon, the Iraq vote (which she still hasn't owned up to), the Iran vote (so much for political courage), and how exactly did she turn $10K into $100K trading futures?  


    Of Obama's wins, which will be carried by a Dem (none / 0) (#48)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:37:41 PM EST
    in the general election? Predictions?

    Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM EST
    I think a relatively unknown factor (none / 0) (#104)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    that at least partially reflects any positive showings Hillary has in recent polling that it is being ignored. Nobody is attacking her anymore. She's gotten a free ride for the better part of the past month, if not longer. Obama's moved onto McCain and McCain's trying to attack Obama. Neither one is really paying attention to Hillary in that way anymore.

    Uh, Obama's latest pastor buddy (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:28:05 PM EST
    must have missed that meme and blew it for Obama, again.  And then Obama even quit his church to get back into the headlines today, but he just blew that again by losing PR so badly, so she is winning the headline race again.  

    What he will have to do next, after quitting his church supposedly so important to him, who knows?  We could start a lottery on what next will make him look like a quitter, while also looking like a loser for the last three months.


    Mavs (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:33:32 PM EST
    You're at ten comments today, several were objectionable, long urls that skewed the site, insults to other commenters, off topic. You're done for today.

    And what was wrong with my quote from The Guardian (none / 0) (#154)
    by Curious on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:52:24 PM EST

    It was not offensive. It said that the journalist from the same paper referenced believed that Senator  Obama would take on HRC's health care plan-which I know is a point many posters (including myself) see as a better feature of HRC's campaign.


    you're right (none / 0) (#119)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:25:07 PM EST
    they've just been trying to marginalize her and make her seem unimportant, almost deriding her or humiliating her for not doing the "smart thing" and drop out as she has "no chance" of winning.

    Too bad she's keeps screwing their narrative up by winning Primaries and has now vaulted past Barack in the Popular Vote.

    Barack and his media hacks keep insisting -- petulantly -- that it's ovah and Hillary and the Voters respond with "oh really?  don't think so"



    So, it'll be 8-7 by Tuesday, then? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Addison on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:31:15 PM EST

    8-8 if you include Guam (none / 0) (#137)
    by Mavs4527 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:32:50 PM EST

    Well... (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Addison on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:35:48 PM EST
    ...yes. However, they won't be voting in the GE. I agree with PR's inclusion mostly on the fact that their population is so large AND they may very well be a state at some point. Guam was by 7 points, it had no great number of delegates, the population is tiny, and it won't be voting in the GE.

    So, my inclusion of PR is admittedly subjective and opinion-based, but there ya go. I agree that, strictly on the facts, it's either 7-7 or 8-8.


    this trend for Clinton (none / 0) (#156)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:53:49 PM EST
    in the recent contest was dismissed this afternoon by capuns (msnbc i think?) as Obama turning his attention to the general election....

    in recent contests...sorry (none / 0) (#157)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 05:54:57 PM EST
    Hm (none / 0) (#179)
    by Steve M on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:28:53 PM EST
    Obama campaigned in Puerto Rico last week.  Is that an example of ignoring the primary and moving on to the general election, I wonder?

    november (none / 0) (#180)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:29:02 PM EST
    Lets say Hillary despite not having as much/more pledged delegates and SD manages to be the nominee, lets say that by and by BHO who clearly is not the cup of tea od this panel/blog is not the Veep in waiting but does his fair share of lip service after denever, how you clinton voters are supposed to win over Obama voters as the exit polls whilst saying cLINTON VOTERS AT 72% dont want Obama and Obamas deny Clinton at 59%
    we are in a darn vicious circle
    Clinton cant win at all without OBama and Same for him I really would appreciate a clm answer
    as I resent very much being called  a minion

    My point of view only (none / 0) (#210)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:08:05 PM EST
    Interesting polling going on right now. That shows Clinton has a clear path to a GE win, so I'm not sure she needs Obama although he would be her first choice IMO.  The way things stand right now, I think Clinton can pull the working class, women, non-aa etc to win.

    Obama does not have a clear path to a GE nor a VP that could carry the states he needs.  Clinton pulls those states, so right now he needs her.  The way things stand right now... Obama needs Clinton supporters.

    If Obama supporters have the nom, they needed to have been nice to Clinton supporters all along.  I hate to say, but I wonder if Clinton supporters don't feel the need to be deferential because they have been ridiculed for so long,  their pathway is a long shot and ... it looks like Clinton can win.

    It is clear from your comments ('Clinton manages' and 'Obama pays lip service') that you believe Obama has the nom.  I'm not quite sure why Obama supporters ask why Clinton supporters aren't defferential to them when they say that Obama has the nom.... why do you think that is, if you wouldn't mind giving me your opinion?

    Let me know what you think....


    The more important question is: (none / 0) (#211)
    by vicsan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:11:46 PM EST
    sorry...hit the wrong key.:(

    The more important question is: How could Obama possibly win back

    The bitter voters?
    The voters who cling to their guns?
    The voters who cling to religion?
    The garlic-Nosed Italians?
    The Jews?
    The working class whites?
    The Latinos?
    The Catholics?
    The WOMEN?
    The GAYS?

    He has alienated every voting group. They are ALL refusing to vote for him. He CANNOT win in November. THAT is a fact.


    Looking at it the wrong way... (none / 0) (#190)
    by freethinker25 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 06:39:07 PM EST
    This entire election has not been about momentum, it s just been about the changing demographics of the states. Obama won a majority of the earlier primaries and caucuses because his core supporters made up a majority of those states. Clinton has won a majority of the later states because he core constituencies were in most of the later states. Its really as simple as that.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#207)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:02:01 PM EST
    and curious' guardian link was deleted because it wasn't in html format.

    Comments closed (none / 0) (#213)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:36:52 AM EST
    Memo to OneofMany: You are a new user and may not post more than 10 comments in 24 hours. Comments mean your thoughts, you may not cut and past screeds here to shill for your candidate.