South Dakota Exit Polls

Update: Fox exit polls are here.

65 percent of seniors, 57 percent of women, 61 percent of those making less than $50,000 a year and 56 percent of rural voters.

Obama is doing better in Montana.

In Montana, Obama is winning all of his usual voting blocs, and some of Clinton’s. He is winning with women, lower income voters, gun owners and rural voters.

But seniors in MT voted for Hillary by a very large margin.

Update: Fox Exit Polls: Hillary's lead is from women over 60. I guess that means Hillary has won South Dakota. Other results: Obama's church hurt him. It also says on Montana, that Obama's lead is from men. [More...]


Per CNN: Hillary won blue collar voters 60% to 40% in South Dakota. Obama won those with college degrees 53% to 47%.

I think that means Hillary did really well in South Dakota, but it's just my opinion since they won't give details on who won until polls close.

This is not an open thread about winning the nomination. It's about today's primaries and demographics. There are and will be other threads on the state of the nomination.

< Obama to Cross 2,118 Threshold Momentarily | NBC's Pathology: Clinton Hate Trumps Obama Love >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Time for Daschle to get on the (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    Hillary train!

    ARG might see its redemption today (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    if those figures bear out.

    One good outcome of this could be to keep Tom Daschle, whom I do not like at all, off the ticket.

    Chief of Staff (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:35:57 PM EST
    He's going to do in the White House what he did in the Senate!

    By which, of course, I mean confuse Republicans by giving them everything they want.


    Good point---with Daschle's staff in the (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    White House, the GOP doesn't even need a Republican there.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    We'll Probably Also Get the Return of Sam Nunn (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:40:43 PM EST
    Then there's all that new blood like Austen Goolsbee.

    I'm not saying Clinton didn't have her share of losers, too, but the people who are being resurrected under "change" are many of the same people I was hoping "change" meant I would never see again.


    Oh geez, Sam Nunn. (none / 0) (#76)
    by dk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:28:47 PM EST
    Sam will no doubt join Donnie McClurkin on the fall gospel tour through South Carolina, just to make sure that in the GE, Obama doesn't just gay-bait to win the religious black vote this time, but the religous white vote as well.

    With All Of Obama's Pandering To The (none / 0) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:39:07 PM EST
    religious folks, Clinton normally gets more of their votes than Obama does.

    And she did it (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by dk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:17 PM EST
    without trotting out homophobic bigots, past and present.  Imagine that.

    Austan Goolsbee, Man of Mystery (none / 0) (#101)
    by MontanaMaven on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:01:44 PM EST
    Ugh.  This guy is one of those scary guys Naomi Klein warns us about.  Shock Doctrine, here we come.

    Let's see, she has beaten the support (none / 0) (#27)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:41:03 PM EST
    of Kennedy, Daschle, Kerry, Richardson, I think she is at the top of the VP short list not just on it.

    Hillary continues to win core Democrats, (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    even when the message today is that she's lost.

    Loyalty. Give it and get it back.

    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:34:44 PM EST
    in the other thread I noted, he seemed to call it for Hillary already.  He said Daschle could not deliver.

    Oh I would say Daschle delivered alright. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MarkL on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:35:37 PM EST
    I don't understand (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    I thought every Native American family had a picture of Tom Daschle on the mantel.

    lol....maybe on a dart board.... :) (none / 0) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:37:22 PM EST
    That Sounds... (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    About Right!

    You wouldn't know it from the media (big surprise), but Clinton has been endorsed by a NUMBER of Native American tribes over the past few months!  Why?  Because SHE has been working on THEIR issues for a long time, and they know it.  They know she won't forget them once she's president (hope springs eternal!  No matter WHAT BTD says, it ain't over until AUGUST!!).


    22 I believe ;) (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:38:52 PM EST
    Native Americans did not support Daschle (none / 0) (#84)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    during his last Senate defeat.  I posted a couple of days ago about that.  Russell Means openly endorsed Thune the Republican who won.  The NA's were sick of Dashle.  Pine Ridge Res. is the poorest reservation in the country.  It also has the highest rate of diabetes.  Dashle did nothing for them and they really understand that.

    Sorry I Missed It... (none / 0) (#98)
    by AmyinSC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    My point is more that there seems to be the PRESUMPTION (ahem) that Native Americans are all going to go for Obama, when nothing is further from the truth (again, big surprise - not).  

    I am not the LEAST bit surprised to hear that Pine Ridge got blessed little from Daschle when he was in the Senate.  Heck, neither did many other Dems, come to think of it!!

    And NYCStray - keep the faith!  :-)


    When was the last time Tom Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:36:56 PM EST
    delivered?  obama putting his faith in Daschle was boneheaded.

    I am going to relish this one if it is a win! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by IzikLA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    Wasn't this a sure win for Obama??  Look at the map of the surrounding states, they are all Obama and all by wide margins.  If she wins or even if it's very close does this question his strength in this region?  Should we be worried as Democrats?  Yes, I support Clinton, but if he becomes the nominee I do want him to win still.

    but they slso were mostly caucuses (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:18:40 PM EST
    So much for plus 11 (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:28:46 PM EST
    Let's hope they have a better and more accurate spreadsheet for the GE.

    This is the same electorate that (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    rejected him.  Daschle is a zero in SD politics.
    If anything, I would expect Daschle may have played a role in handing this primary to Hillary.

    South Dakota is in Appalachia now (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:46:35 PM EST
    I guess

    Appalachia has changed a lot this year. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:56:06 PM EST
    Is Alabama still considered Appalachia, or not? I think we went for Clinton, but Obama had a popular vote victory... Oh wait, votes don't count. My mistake.

    Appalachia is so big now, we should be able (none / 0) (#91)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:46:42 PM EST
    to declare Hillary president without even voting!!

    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    South Dakota is in Appalachia now

    And the Appalachian delegation from (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:27:32 PM EST
    Massachusetts welcomes them!

    We may be low-information, but we sure do have a lot of fun.


    The Appalachian Portion Of Missouri (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:43:36 PM EST
    appreciates the solidarity of its sister Appalachian state of South Dakota.

    They really don't know yet (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:44:08 PM EST
    Many many voters to vote yet, when they get off work.  South Dakota has the highest number of women in the labor force....

    And, many more 'blue collar' than college educated and many of those are hard pressed to find a job where they need their degrees.  

    Native turnout a huge factor but like I said earlier, if Pine Ridge is the only organized efforst for gotv they've left out the rest of the 9 First Nations.  Truly, some of them, like Crow Creek, for example, really do need feet on the ground help with gotv - they don't have cars, they don't have anyone to watch the kids.  I've done GOTV there.  We literally drove up to doors/windows, asked if they needed a ride, someone to mind the kids, etc. etc.   And in the traditional way a good gotv effort there has a "feed".  Doesn't matter who you voted for, come to the feed and celebrate yourselves and the work you did that day.  Its intensive voter work.  Usually reserved for general election if the party does it at all (right, Daschle?).  We helped alot with all that last cycle - the party was nowhere to be seen.  

    women.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    in 2004, unlike in most states, there was no 'gender gap' in the vote.  60% of both men and women voted for Bush.

    So, when we look at the returns, we'll have a pretty good sesne of to what extent misogyny drives Obama support.  If the male and female vote is the same, SD is in the clear.


    sd gender gap (none / 0) (#92)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    you're right, Paul.  In '06 men were very much our allies against the total abortion ban.  In part, Native men, tradition Native men, not the wankers that came out against Cecelia Fire Thunder (who's a Clinton supporter, btw), believe that's a thing up to women.  White men think government should stay out of such things, for the most part.  Middle-aged religious women there are a hard sell for us.  What I think has been Hillary's best gift for us there is winning over those women.  Not a small thing.  

    Russell Means, as another suggested, isn't really an indication of native voters.  He's a huckster, at best, to many.  Daschle didn't respect their treaties and their water rights and took them for granted.  Not a stupid lot, by any means.  Obama probably thought he had native support because his machine in MT did more work with Native voters.  In SD they lined up a few leaders and called it good.  Doesn't work that way.  They're too smart.  

    So, yeah, let's see what women voters do in SD today.  


    Has There Ever Been A Nominating Contest (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
    where the "inevitable" candidate has been rejected so many times by voters in the late primaries?  

    One state would be one thing, but just since late April, he's been rejected in a democratic swing state (PA), Appalachia (WVA & KY), a Republican state (IN), a hispanic territory (PR), and now a Plains State.  And, let's not forget, SD was a state Obama was projected to win, not only by his own camp but by almost everyone a a couple of months ago.  It's only recently that it has appeared in play.

    The American people have been told since February - by the media, by Obama, by much of the Democratic Party - that Barack Obama would be the nominee, that drumbeat has only gotten louder the longer it's gone on.  Yet, people are still coming out and voting for Hillary Clinton.  There's no way I can see this as anything other than a repudiation of Obama.  If it were just a preference for Clinton, people would nevertheless rally around Obama because he's been all but declared the winner.  Heck, earlier today, the media declared him the winner!  Yet, still it looks like she's picked off a state he was supposed to win.


    And a terrible sign for November.  

    And THREE times (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:53:28 PM EST
    He couldn't even crack 35% of the vote.

    He was deemed UNVIABLE in one Congressional District.

    KY, WV and PR

    Let's go South Dakota.  It should put the lie to the caucus results in North Dakota and Nebraska.


    Not only that... (none / 0) (#77)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:29:26 PM EST
    in West Virginia, he could only dream of 35%. He clocked in at 26% there.

    And that's rounding up! (none / 0) (#103)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    25.7% was the actual %.  I know how much Obama supporters hate it when we round up in favor of HRC...

    LOL (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    Great minds think alike.  See post above.



    The Repubs are looking happy tonight on Fox (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM EST
    tonight giving the same statistics Jeralyn posted

    I noticed (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by daria g on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:57:33 PM EST
    Chris Wallace seems to have a big grin on his face whenever he's talking about Obama.  And I don't think it's because he agrees with Keith Olbermann.

    I'm Going to Try To Watch Fox Tonight (none / 0) (#55)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:01:03 PM EST
    I say try because I don't have sole dominion over the television.

    I don't think I can take the gloating on CNN and MSNBC, but I am interested to see what Fox has to say and whether it tells me anything about GOP plans for the Dems' presumptive nominee, especially how soon they'll wait to start ripping into him.


    Twraith (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:00:46 PM EST
    take your anger elsewhere. You are not welcome here.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CytoEric on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    because this post is about South Dakota?

    Chris Matthews just said ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:05:23 PM EST
    ...he has been waiting this moment for a year and a half. Unbelievable! Their angry because HILLARY is stepping on his night.

    The Obama (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:14:14 PM EST
    campaign had better hope the media can get beyond the obsessive media hate for the Clintons once the primary is over.  If they continue to do everything they can to run her into the ground, it will only hurt Obama.  I would not be surprised to see it continue either.

    Well... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:11:06 PM EST
    ...in truth the really flabbergasting thing is that Hillary is stepping on his night only through the relentless coverage of Hillary by MSNBC and other punditcentric networks.

    Matthews (none / 0) (#97)
    by daria g on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:59:10 PM EST
    Even more bonkers than usual - said something earlier about the Clinton / Obama rivalry wondering if it was a "dance of death."  The entire panel was like WTF

    Face it. She won the last (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    four months of the primary.  She won 9 of the final 15 to Obama's 6.

    "Obama's church hurt him." (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:12:11 PM EST
    That's been a trend for awhile, at least among white voters.  You can tell if Obama won or lost a state by looking to see how many voters said his church/Wright was "important or somewhat important."  Oregon, which isn't a terribly religious state, didn't care.  He won.  Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, more religious states, did care and he lost.

    Should've Added (none / 0) (#67)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:14:16 PM EST
    NC was a mixed bag, he lost white voters (who did care), but won black voters (who didn't).  And, of course, with the AA vote size in NC, he was going to win there anyway.

    wright, et al (none / 0) (#93)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    I think that the reason that Wright hurt him less in Oregon is that people had already decided to vote for Obama, and were in denial about it.  

    Once you decide to support a candidate, the news has to be really bad to get you to change your mind.  

    (And in term of the gender gap, oregon is pretty extreme -- 56% of men, and 41% of women, voted for Bush in 2004 (and we saw similar spreads in the primary) Men and women definitely have very different ideas in Oregon of what makes the best candidate)


    Obama's church and not (none / 0) (#111)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    My Republican SD mother wasn't so put off by what was said but that Obama denied he'd ever heard such things there before.  Own up, she says.  

    Blue collar WHITE voters... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:32:07 PM EST
    ...no data on American Indians.

    It would appear that ARG (and Clinton internals) may've had the direction right, but not the magnitude. It's hard to see anything over a 15 point win for Clinton I guess. It's a nice parting gift for use in her speech tonight though.

    I saw a post (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:36:00 PM EST
    on...sheesh, I think big orange, dispute the ARG poll for: previous unreliablility, and for the fact that there aren't telephones on the reservation, so NA voters would not have been polled.

    No telephones? (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:37:08 PM EST
    What do people think they use?  Smoke signals?

    LOL... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:40:15 PM EST
    ...it's like when they blamed Clinton's "name recognition" for her win in Florida.

    Because, you know, Floridians don't watch TV, read newspapers, listen to the radio, or go on the internet.


    Don't forget Kentucky. (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:41:16 PM EST
    Yawp. (none / 0) (#106)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    Kentuckians, being low-info types, had never heard of Obama as of their May 20, 2008 primary, except for the unfortunates who had heard of him only in e-mails sent around by Faux News, which everyone knows we Appalachians receive via the ether, as we have no access to MSNOBAMA or the rest of teh interwebs, as we are restricted by law to NASCAR.com and Faux News.  /Obama campaign talking points.

    Uh. . . (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:39:34 PM EST
    Actually, I was somewhat (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:40:13 PM EST
    surprised to learn here that native Americans living on reservations could vote in the primaries.  Time to repeat 6th grade, I guess.

    Hm (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:45:40 PM EST
    When do you suppose we will have our first Native American President?

    Male or female? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:46:38 PM EST
    That's some heap big idiocy (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:44:53 PM EST
    My arm's tired. One more day like today and I'm going to hire an intern to stand here all day long smacking my forehead.

    thank you for that laugh. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by DJ on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:47:54 PM EST
    Why blue collar white voters? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:34:41 PM EST
    Where did you get that from?

    That was the data presented by CNN. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    ...I'm almost certain it was presented as white, non-college educated voters (non-college educated is, of course, slightly different than blue collar, but whatever). If I misremember that, sorry.

    (I'm looking for the data to show up online... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:51:20 PM EST
    ...or be repeated on CNN to verify. I could be wrong).

    More than likely they said it (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:53:24 PM EST
    keeps the Clinton voters are racist out there . . .

    No... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:54:36 PM EST
    ...it was framed very clearly by Wolf Blitzer as an anti-Obama stat, not an anti-racist or anti-Clinton one.

    Which Is Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:59:01 PM EST
    Because if you go back a month or two, you will see the media framing it as a pro-Obama state.  Even Obama's spreadsheet projected a comfortable win.

    But to acknowledge that would mean acknowledging Obama is not the same candidate he was in February.  He's damaged goods.  The only question is whether he can undo the damage.  The signs are not encouraging, IMO.  But we'll see.


    He's obviously been damaged against HRC... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:02:33 PM EST
    ...but I'll eat my hat (disclaimer, I NEVER wear hats, so this is an empty promise) if anyway is obsessing about Obama losing South Dakota and -- just for arguments sake, Montana -- two weeks from now.

    The going out with a whimper argument is ephemeral. Some of the deeper faults indicated by it are more serious, but dealt with easily with an Edwards, Clinton, Clark etc. VP entry, if the polls are even remotely accurate. But the "narrative" of Obama being harmed because he lost the last few primaries (if that happens) is short-sighted and (perversely) wishful thinking, and we'll see that soon enough.


    The deeper faults (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:04:49 PM EST
    are what I'm talking about.

    It's not that he lost South Dakota, it's that he lost a state he was expected to win after he had essentially been declared the nominee.  That's stunning to me and should be worrisome to Obama supporters.  

    I'm not saying this is going to change anything with regard to the nominating contest.  The party has clearly made its pick.  But there is no way this is good news for Obama or the Democratic Party.  


    Not winning 100% is always bad news... (3.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    ...there's a lot of time left. And Obama will get a bounce from returning Clinton voters in the general. I'll eat my other non-existent hat (I've got literally millions of 'em) if he doesn't.

    But, Jeralyn wants this about Montana and SD, and so I'll point out that yes, if you look at the map these two states, or (more likely) one, will be an island of Clinton in a vast sea of Obama. It's the first real "sure-thing" Obama state that Clinton will have snatched away. The timing is, as I've stated, meaningless (or even make it matter less since this is the last time Clinton supporters will have a chance to vote for her, and thus might be more motivated, etc. That's arguable), but the underlying issue is serious and will be addressed through policy, wording, and the VP pick.

    Given the amount of time spread in front of us and the Obama campaign's proven competence (versus McCain's campaigns incompetence), I'm not particularly worried.


    'fair reflection' (none / 0) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    my personal opinion is that the average of South Dakota and Montana used to be used to reallocate Obama delegates from caucus states under the same (bogus) version of the "fair reflection" provision that allowed Obama to steal 4 CLinton delegates --- we'll know what VOTERS really intend to do, when stuff like jobs, helping their kids with homework, sick parents, little league games, and service overseas in the military keep them from participating in caucuses.

    Okie dokie... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:16:00 PM EST
    Wow.  Just wow.  I'm not trying to be insulting, but wow.  Losing 80% of the final primaries by staggeringly large numbers is no biggie huh?  I don't have the numbers handy, but he has won what, 3 or 4 contests since March, one of them being a 7 vote win in Guam.  He did perform well in Oregon and North Carolina, but those states were in the bag for him.  He has multiple 30 point losses, while his biggest victory was only 15 in NC.  Seriously, maybe some of us are blinded, but if you aren't truly concerned about this then you are not very reflective about what is going on.  I mean no disrespect, and you may be right, but there is no precedent for it in modern US history so I will take indicators over hope anyday of the week.

    You're right, barring something huge, he will be the nominee, and I accept that reality.  But reality is a two way street, if you know what I mean.



    Losing those primaries is important.. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Addison on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    ...but the fact that they are the "final" ones will prove inconsequential. The larger issues may remain but they will be completely independent of the primary schedule. All of which I basically said the first time, so it's a bit irritating to have to say it again because you wanted to make a comment.

    And btw, no one finds melodramatic "wows" insulting. So don't worry about it.


    My point... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:31:05 PM EST
    was a lack of momentum, with the entire MSM behind him, he still is doing poorly.  I think that is an indicator of something bigger, but I may be wrong, just as you may be.  I hope for the sake of the Party that you're right.



    Is the recount over in Guam? (none / 0) (#95)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    I expect since he decided to crown himself king, he will be seriously battered, bruised and bloodied by the Gop when the August convention rolls around.  Then the cowardly SD's will have another decision to make.  Hillary may back into the nomination; but what the hell, America needs her!!

    No recount (none / 0) (#107)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:35:52 PM EST
    Hillary decided not to challenge the Guam result and they certified the 7-vote margin.

    Thanks Dave.... (none / 0) (#113)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:14:48 PM EST
    Fox News Reporting (none / 0) (#17)
    by KristenWinters on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:39:30 PM EST
    exit polls show that Obama received 48% of men and 43% of women in South Dakota.

    I'm not a math major, but this suggests Hillary won South Dakota 55-45.

    They usually don't give so much detail (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:40:04 PM EST
    that early. Interesting. . .

    Gotta keep the voters away? (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:50:55 PM EST
    This whole day seems incredibly wrong on the news front. . . .

    Any estimates of turnout? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:40:21 PM EST
    I've stayed unplugged from the toob because the hooey was ankle high when I punched in at the salt mine.  

    Exit polls (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:41:54 PM EST
    have just been so miserable this year.  I'm just going to wait until they count the votes.

    You should tell the DNC (none / 0) (#63)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:09:36 PM EST
    about how miserable exit polls have been.  They are so sure of uncommitted and early voters were for Obama, according to the exit polls, that they gave him the votes and took away Hillary's delegates.

    Yes, and... (none / 0) (#74)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:28:16 PM EST
    Especially exit polls that are released before polls close.

    Fox already has Obama count (none / 0) (#31)
    by bjorn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:42:21 PM EST
    over the magic number, CNN says he only needs 11 more delegates.

    WWJD? Use Esther to bash someone he hated? (none / 0) (#33)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM EST

    Wow... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 05:45:06 PM EST
    not looking good for Obama at all.  I've never, ever seen a presumptive nominee get beat so badly and end so poorly.  

    BTD or Jeralyn, what is the spread of victory for HRC with those kind of numbers?  (Realizing of course that you can't bank completely on exit polling as they have been way off since 2004.)  Wasn't he supposed to win by high single digits at least?  I know the ARG poll, but many seemed to discount that one as ARG has not been uber reliable.  

    I'm happy for HRC, but I am depressed about what this means for the Fall.  If he can't beat her when she is basically toast in a state in which he was heavily favored, well, whatever, I don't want to get booted, so I'll shut it for now on that score.  :)


    Not Surprised About Montana (none / 0) (#69)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    They have a heavy dose of Obama's key demos and he is the presumptive nominee so one would think all Dems would rally around him.  At least that's what I've been told would happen.

    One commentor said (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    the men in MT were not going to vote for a woman.  I think the exit poll said 61% of the men went for Obama.  duh.

    Is Montanta like Oregon? (none / 0) (#79)
    by catfish on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    I saw Oregon as a the city of Berkeley in state form, with less racial diversity, more manufacturing and blue-collar work. (OK - Berekeley, only less sophisticated is what I wish I could say. But that would be elitist.)

    Wonder if Montana is that same lefty bent.


    Lots (none / 0) (#108)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:37:30 PM EST
    Lots of liberal create class transplants in Montana.  Not as many, but demographically different from the Dakotas.

    Butchered (none / 0) (#110)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:39:28 PM EST
    I completely butchered my post above.

    What I meant to say:

    Lots of creative class transplants in Montana.  Not as many as in Vermont, but Montana is significantly demographically different than the Dakotas.


    Nice summary (none / 0) (#109)
    by Pacific John on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:39:27 PM EST
    for a state that tends to defy description:) It was sort of a trip, wasn't it?

    Interesting that... (none / 0) (#78)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:30:44 PM EST
    SD and MT are so different. To this coastal elitist I've thought of them in the same way. What explains the difference?

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    Out here in coastal elite land, I had a client call me up with a question about Montana, figuring I might know the answer because I'm from "that part of the country."

    I'm actually from Michigan.  Sigh.  But around here, it's all the same to them!


    MT (none / 0) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:32:26 PM EST
    has been heavily infiltrated with the latte librul crowd.

    Yes, lots of tree hugger emigrants and old timey (none / 0) (#105)
    by MontanaMaven on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:07:50 PM EST

    Not sure... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:39:13 PM EST
    IMHO is that SD is much more like a Midwest state, while Montanna is a Western state.  Plus, there are a lot of Creative Class folks who own property up there.  Gun rights are so important in MT that I'm surprised he is doing so well (it may not be a popular opinion among liberal/left people like us, but gun control is a very important issue up here in the West, and can be the decisive issue.  He needs to firm up his anti-gun control cred if he plans to win the Mountain West.)

    Probably the biggest factor could be the support of Sweitzer and Tester, assuming they support him, I don't know if they have endorsed him or HRC or no one.  Hopefully some of you are better informed than moi (hey, I'm a Lib, I had to throw in some Francais, eh?-LOL) and will let us know.



    Remember that Montana is an open primary (none / 0) (#90)
    by athyrio on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 06:44:14 PM EST
    and when you vote they hand you both republican and democratic ballots and you chose which one to use inside the secrecy of the voting booth...so it is incredibly easy for republicans to vote for Obama to have a weaker candidate to run against...

    It's like a bad Rubik's cube (none / 0) (#100)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    On demographics, the NYT has an interactive demographic breakdown of prior contests.  Watching the blocks scurry one way or another depending on the demographic may give the Obama campaign a clue as to how much running he's going to have do between now and November.  Good luck!

    www.nytimes.com (presently on the front page of the website)

    Yeah, well, rock on SD voters! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:02:05 PM EST
    For those who piss and moan about SD and 'red states', this is a huge thing.  We have only 16% women in the state leg, most of those antichoice, and a boatload of state matters like oil refineries and Missouri River protection against CAFOs and new uranium mining permits and on and on to work against.  WE NEED WOMEN WITH US IN RED STATES.  
    So a darned big thank you to Hillary Clinton from this ragged tired politico from South Dakota.  She did what a great candidate is supposed to do and then some for us.  

    Still waiting for my local candidates results in SD.  We lose the best in the primaries too often so I'm eager to see how our progressive women candidates do today.  Its good stuff. :)  Stay tuned.  

    I spent part of the day calling in SD for Hillary (none / 0) (#104)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:05:02 PM EST
    More than one person I called said, "On to Denver and then back to fill the space on Mount Rushmore". It was a very positive day for me in GOTV land. I must visit South Dakota. It's the only state I made calls in that I have never been to.

    Ten minutes, SD election results start coming in (none / 0) (#112)
    by Nettle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 07:52:18 PM EST
    Follow them here at the Secretary of State's website.  

    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain at the X-cel Energy Center in St. Paul!  

    Montana's males are not girly-men (none / 0) (#114)
    by BlueMerlin on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:50:58 PM EST
    "the men in MT were not going to vote for a woman.  I think the exit poll said 61% of the men went for Obama."

    Once upon a time in the West, there were a lot of black cowboys.  Very few female cowboys.  Plus, black men are generally 'all over' the macho thing.    Sorry folks, and I hope this doesn't make me a troll or something.  We know it's true.  

    South Dakota Exit Polls (none / 0) (#115)
    by angelinjones on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 06:56:10 AM EST
    The news orgs' polling reps have routinely worked within 100 feet of South Dakota voting stations in previous elections until a state official decided recently to crack down and enforce the law, according to the lawsuit.


    South Dakota Treatment Centers