In Ohio, Clinton holds a 21-point lead, with 55 percent of respondents favoring her to Obama's 34 percent. The former first lady considers a victory in Ohio's March 4 contest pivotal to saving her candidacy, which has been rocked by a string of Obama victories. The poll shows she has a lead of more than 2 to 1 in the state among whites, and almost as big an advantage with women and voters 45 and older.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton is ahead of Obama, 52 percent to 36 percent. For the April 22 contest, Clinton has a 20-point lead among women and a 10-point edge with men. Whites back her by about 2-to-1, while seven in 10 blacks are behind Obama. Clinton leads among older and younger voters and those without college degrees, while Obama is on top with college graduates.

Both polls were conducted by phone from Feb. 6-12 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.1 points. The Pennsylvania poll involved interviews with 577 likely Democratic voters, while the Ohio poll involved interviews with 564 likely Democratic voters.

BO has been SAYING that he is the best person to have the debate with the Republicans about the war and everything else.

It looks like he and his handlers have decided to show that he can debate McCain. I think this is one of the best political moves I've seen in a while...if what I'm thinking happened happened.

I mean, it kind of says, look you can forget about Hill and i'm ready to take on the Reps.

Its a don't tell me, show me move that I think will help him a ton.
:cogent:
At this point, Obama needs to forget that Hillary Clinton exists and start acting as though he's the candidate against McCain. You know, just watch McCain closely and take time to rebut his latest talking points in every speech. It's his strength, and it will convince people that he's the one to go with.

He still needs to find a way to stay within a single digit margain in the few states that favor Hillary. He doesn't want to give her any momentum.

I'm thinking the Quinnipiac poll Hermy cited is an outlier. I have a hard time believing that only 64% of Ohio blacks vote for Obama, which is what that poll shows. That hasn't been the case anywhere else, where he gets ~80%.

For that matter, I think the Rassmussen poll showing Obama 12 points ahead of Hillary and decidedly beating McCain head-to-head with McCain decidedly beats Hillary is also an outlier at this point:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I'm more interested in how Wisconsin and Hawaii are doing. That's shaping up to be a 5-10 point race in Obama's favor if I believe a couple polls, but we'll see. If he can get a 10 state winning streak and a week+ in each state, I think he does fine.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS/80213011

A report I just saw said BO hasn't started campaigning in Ohio yet. This guys expected his numbers to move once he starts. BO has been busy in states where votes were being cast for delegates. Hill was able to jump ahead cuz she knew she wasn't going to win in the Potomac as an example.

This guy from Politico said BO now is leading in a Nationwide poll.

:cogent:
At this point, Obama needs to forget that Hillary Clinton exists and start acting as though he's the candidate against McCain. You know, just watch McCain closely and take time to rebut his latest talking points in every speech. It's his strength, and it will convince people that he's the one to go with.

Yep, McCain was already talking back to him.

I heard somone say that the reason indi's and some dems aren't voting for Hill is because they don't want a Democratic version of a Nixon in office. Holy shit, thats a pretty low blow.

Also, that the Clintons are NOT in the bidness of getting a Dem elected, they are in the bidness of getting a Clinton elected.

Obama responded point by point to Hillary's attack ad with an ad of his own:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=1418509422

Very good. Didn't go further than the topics she opened up.

He's good at the frontrunner role and he had good peeps behind him to know when to transition into that role.

The Clintons stiffed a guy for rent on one of hillbilly's campaign offices. As soon as the story got out, the Clintons overnighted them a check.

what did the landlord do with the money? Gave it to the BO campaign.

Oh, and if it didn't make you barf about Hillary, this will -- her viral marketing:

5FvyGydc8no


I think the Brady bunch sang that in their movie.

Hillary vowes to fight for votes:

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/02/14/clinton.obama/art.clinton.ohio.ap.jpg

Owing to gerrymandering, most of the districts in the Texas primary will be split evenly and have a low amount of delegates, -except- for the ones with large black populations that have high #s of delegates and favor Obama. He could lose the Texas primary and come away with more delegates, and this is before considering his advantage in caucuses (and the fact that Hillary dissed caucuses, probably not remembering that Texas is part-caucus ;) ).

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u101/kubla000/400394507_a374d29cd5.jpg

awesome picture

THEY CALL HIM BOSS...

Some superdelegates switching to BO according to Fox.

Chris Wallace is saying that there are still SDs that behind the scenes are saying they will vote for who they want, not what their constiuents voted for. So to him it sounds like the Dems are heading to a BO win in delegates by states, but there might still be enough SD's to push Hillbilly over the top.

That would be UGLY.

sd's going against the public would be THE definition of shooting self in foot.

i cant believe they'd do it.

sd's going against the public would be THE definition of shooting self in foot.

i cant believe they'd do it.

WTF??? Politicians have been going against the public for, like, ever.

WTF??? Politicians have been going against the public for, like, ever.

Politicians turn into elitists who think they know what the Plebians want and need more than the Plebians themselves.

Politicians = Aristocratic assholes for the most part.

What if one wins delegates (hill) and one wins the pop vote (ob)? Will people be disenfranchised? Rules are rules?

What if one wins delegates (hill) and one wins the pop vote (ob)? Will people be disenfranchised? Rules are rules?
There's no way to gauge popular vote. Some caucuses don't record popular vote, just the "state delegates" awarded from the caucus spots, which gets translated to pledged delegates. Some states do a caucus because they don't want their participation to be simply about the "popular vote", but about getting people involved with the party. Less people will show up for a "wait for a couple hours" type of caucus, but those that do are more likely to be hardcore and infomed, and more likely to inform others.

Pledged delegates are what really matters today. If superdelegates or bogon FL/MI delegates override the will of the pledged delegates, it's permissible by the rules, but it doesn't matter because Republicans win.

What if one wins delegates (hill) and one wins the pop vote (ob)? Will people be disenfranchised? Rules are rules?

IMO...one word...Hell yes they will feel disenfranchised and they will be technically disenfranchised too. But it won't really break the law.

The parties can do whatever they damn well they want legally, as long as it's not discriminatory. Parties can't systematically discriminate against black constituents, for example.

Of course, there's all kinds of of ways to justify racially motivated decisions on the grounds of other factors, even when it's bullshit. Consider the way that Michigan is gerrymandered. In the lower peninsula, we have 5 Dem and 9 Rep congressional districts. If you did things by proportional vote and had competitive districts, you'd have an 8-6 split favoring Dems. But Republicans got control of state legislature and managed to gerrymander to isolate Detroit and Flint, which just "happen" to be black. Fun, ain't it?

On whom he endorses in the Democratic primary
I’m a big Clinton fan, man. Barack (Obama) seems to be knighting people though, and I think that’s why you see so much of a groundswell behind him. Because at least he’s speaking of something different than the status quo business as usual. I think people are hungry for that and I think that’s why people have so much momentum behind him. So I’m sticking behind the guy that’s not the status quo, because you and I talk about that a lot in sports. Let’s get away from the status quo and so since Barack is doing it, I’m going to go with the man that’s not staying with the status quo. I’m gonna go with Barack.

There's no way to gauge popular vote. Some caucuses don't record popular vote, just the "state delegates" awarded from the caucus spots, which gets translated to pledged delegates. Some states do a caucus because they don't want their participation to be simply about the "popular vote", but about getting people involved with the party. Less people will show up for a "wait for a couple hours" type of caucus, but those that do are more likely to be hardcore and infomed, and more likely to inform others.

Pledged delegates are what really matters today. If superdelegates or bogon FL/MI delegates override the will of the pledged delegates, it's permissible by the rules, but it doesn't matter because Republicans win.


Huh, thanks Mxy. I thought I had heard about candidate X getting more votes in a state, but the districts alignment gave more delegates to candidate Y......Maybe some states release said info? Maybe Herm should post less at pol. sites while pharming?

Nevada was a caucus. Hillary got 51% of the "state delegates", but because of how state-level delegates mapped to pledged delegates, she only got 48% of the pledged delegates. Obama only got 45% of the "state delegates", but that mapped to 52% of the pledged delegates (mostly because Obama had a campaign that extended beyond Vegas). The popular vote was estimated to be closer than the "state delegates" vote. It's possible that Obama may have even won in Nevada on popular vote, but no one knows.

Amongst primary voters and states that have primary-like caucuses (e.g. New Mexico), Obama has a narrow lead. If the latest rumblings from L.A. County (95,000 independent votes uncounted due to a pretty stupid ballot design issue that's pending in court) and NYC (1.3% of city districts counting NO Obama votes for Obama, including districts in Harlem), Obama's popular vote total may even grow a bit.

Finally saw a poll that had BO leading in Texas. Not by much but saw it late last night.

Finally saw a poll that had BO leading in Texas. Not by much but saw it late last night.


Yeah, more than any other state I've seen, texas has been ALL over the board from 15 point hill leads to 6 point BO leads.

It's amazing to me that in this society with such a huge demand for information, no better system has been developed for informing the public at large. I'm sure Rove could sell his shit for major bank.

It makes it more interesting though, Herm.

BTW...BO apparently asked John Edwards for his delies.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/17/obama-detours-from-campaign-trail-to-meet-with-john-edwards/

The scuttlebutt is that Edwards wants to endorse Hillary for some dumbass reason, and Obama is trying to block that. Edwards doesn't like Hillary as much, but likes some of her positions (her healthcare is stolen from him) and the fact that she sucks up to him more. Obama isn't as much of a "fighter", so the scuttlebutt goes. I think that's a a crock of shit. There are times to fight, but most of the time a public fight that isn't political theater happens, a bunch of stupid stuff happened before. Fights happen in Chicago politics, but more often than not, surrogates are sticking the knife in the back in the dead off night. Isiah Thomas, as a player, was true Chicago style politics... always smiling, woe be to any who crossed him.


Edwards doesn't have that many delegates, really. He won 26 pledged delegates. But, due to rules in some states to prevent having delegates pledged to candidates who stop campaigning (so the state won't be irrelevant), 10 are already "uncommitted" and he only has 16 pledged delegates. This is about symbolism.

i wonder what the effect of an obama attack add on bill clinton would be?

it seems like pundits are in agreement that while bill can win support to those he talks to, he costs hilary much more to those he doesnt. basically, its a one step forward/2 steps back deal, and the more he's in the picture the worse off she is.

the question is, if barrack addresses bill more than hilary, does it work the same way?

BO wont do it, but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if edwards did it, for example.

Obama did that already, campaigning against Bill's record, goading him into hitting back. Bill didn't take the bait, but he's managed to put his foot in his mouth in other ways of late:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-clinton-groove-page-column,0,1817080.column

My theory is that Hillary's positives were only as high as they are BECAUSE of Bill Clinton, because of name recognition. As Obama has caused Bill Clinton to recede (a coup in and of itself), people start looking at Hillary without Bill and don't much like what they see. All by herself, she really only appeals to one Democratic core constituency, older white women who want to vote for the first female president. She's not effectively outreaching to anyone else -- quite the contrary.

I know this is Obama vs Clinton right now, but how is Clinton going to attack McCain in a general election?

She can't attack him on the war. yes, she wants out, but McCain will simply paint her as a flip flopper (having voted for it originally) and himself as a man of conviction.

How can she attack him on change when she took more money from lobbiests than he did?

I think she's a stronger canidate than Kerry (she can get down and dirty like he couldn't), but she's still going to have problems with flip flopping and not being any change at all.

And the whole mess of trying to seat delegates that everyone agreed would not be seated is rediculous. She'll do anything to get into power, and people don't care.

Many of Hillary's strengths become weaknesses against McCain.

Many of Hillary's strengths become weaknesses against McCain.
That's what I think. Certainly I can understand Hillary fans against Obama, and vice versa. There is contrast there (experience vs change, etc). But those things she touts against Obama won't apply to McCain. All she has there is the party differences really. There isn't anything that separates her as a canidate IMO. All she can do is tout her party vs the current administration, and is that enough?

honestly, i would rather have 2000 mccain than 08 hilary. if mccain has only been pandering for the last few years, and as president he'll be the guy that energized independants as a maverik, i wont be too upset w/ him as pres. i'd rather get out of iraq, but its not my #1 priority.

My dad, a lifelong labor activist and Democrat, called me today to tell me that if Hillary wins the nomination, he's voting for McCain.

I can't agree, personally. It's like asking me whether I'd rather be clubbed on the head or kicked in the balls. If those are my choices, I may very well vote for the Green Party or some shit.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104428/Obama-Gaining-Among-MiddleAged-Women-Hispanics.aspx

Nice stats Mxy. So Clinton holds the edge in non-college educated people. Great job!

My dad, a lifelong labor activist and Democrat, called me today to tell me that if Hillary wins the nomination, he's voting for McCain.

I can't agree, personally. It's like asking me whether I'd rather be clubbed on the head or kicked in the balls. If those are my choices, I may very well vote for the Green Party or some shit.

Please warn him about the possibility of three Democratic Supreme Court justices in some way retreading from the courts whether by death of stepping down in the next term. If a Republican president is in, that will mean an overwhelmin majority Republican Justices in the Supreme Court for many, many years. Now, this is only speculation, but it is possible.

The importance of the judiciary system on the national level is quite underrated.

and imo, concern over liberal / conservative justices is overrated.

the judiciary is the most non-partisan of the three branches. though there are certainly times when rulings are definitly politicized, for the most part thats overrated. for these justices, joining the supreme court is achieving their life goal. they havent been working their ass off their whole life just so that they can stick it to the libs, or whatever. they actually typically have a strong respect for the law and typically transcend politics.

people can think that they can apply a few litmus tests and predict how these guys will vote on every issue, its not always the case.

me, i plan on voting green party regardless, but i sure as hell wouldnt be scared into voting for someone i dont want to be president just because of who MIGHT get nominated to the supreme court.

the judiciary is the most non-partisan of the three branches. though there are certainly times when rulings are definitly politicized, for the most part thats overrated. for these justices, joining the supreme court is achieving their life goal. they havent been working their ass off their whole life just so that they can stick it to the libs, or whatever.
I strongly recommend that you read the recently published autobiography by Clarence Thomas, called "My Grandfather's Son." You may change your mind about that.

and imo, concern over liberal / conservative justices is overrated.

the judiciary is the most non-partisan of the three branches. though there are certainly times when rulings are definitly politicized, for the most part thats overrated. for these justices, joining the supreme court is achieving their life goal. they havent been working their ass off their whole life just so that they can stick it to the libs, or whatever. they actually typically have a strong respect for the law and typically transcend politics.

people can think that they can apply a few litmus tests and predict how these guys will vote on every issue, its not always the case.

me, i plan on voting green party regardless, but i sure as hell wouldnt be scared into voting for someone i dont want to be president just because of who MIGHT get nominated to the supreme court.

^^What Swam said, for 1.

For 2. I was telling Swam that his dad, a lifelong Democrat, may at least want to think about the consequences of that. It's definitely something to think about. IF all three stepped down or perished or both, you can be damn sure they will be replaced by a fencer or, more likely, a republican if a republican is in the White House.

And what exactly is the fear of Conservative Justices again???

Again, the Dems turnout is more than twice the Reps.

i think thats a bit of a non story at this point.

theres no reason to go cast a vote in a republican primary at this point.

your only going to do that for 3 reasons:

1) you LOVE voting in republican primaries

2) you want to see mccain put the nail in the coffin as quickly as possible

3) you want to protest mccain's nomination by voting the other way.

the results are a foregone conclusion. i think most people vote because they assume it matters. it doesnt really matter anymore for the reds.

And what exactly is the fear of Conservative Justices again???
They'd overturn and ignore a lot of crap that would create lots of fucked situations. Go look at the Engler bloc of conservative justices on the Michigan Supreme Court for an example of true inanity.

The Supreme Court are supreme pedants and nit-pickers, masterful at redefining issues such that they don't have to make judgement calls on a range of issues that the American people really care about. I'd settle for ACTIVE justices, ones that can call a spade a spade, that don't hide behind textualism in the wake of common sense.

I love how Bush and McCain were yipping about Obama suggesting he might bomb Pakistan to get Al Qaeda if their government weren't cooperative.

1) It turns out we did precisely that, recently, to bag a big Al Qaeda baddie:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802500.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

2) Bush himself said that this was perfectly appropriate in 2006 to CNN:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/obamas-pakistan-position-endorsed-by-bush-in-06/

McCain just demonstrated that Obama makes a better commander-in-chief than he does... clever, devillishly clever!

Narrator: In A.D. 2008, nomination was beginning.
Clinton: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the Obama.
Operator: We get signal.
Clinton: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's you !!
OBAMA: How are you ladies!!
OBAMA: All your votes are belong to us.
OBAMA: You are on the way to defeat.
Clinton: What you say !!
OBAMA: You have no chance for nomination make your time.
OBAMA: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
Operator: Clinton!! *
Clinton: Take off every 'SD' !!
Clinton: You know what you doing.
Clinton: Move 'SD'.
Clinton: For great injustice.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/michigan_2008_presidential_election

One thing I can't understand about Clinton...

If Obama is in the "speaches business" and she's in the "solutions business" as she puts it, then how come she won't reveal any of her actual solutions? Everything is a secret to her.

BTW, I saw that she started a website trying to get the Michigan and Florida delagates sat. Apparently it also asks for big changes in the delagate system as well.

Well, there are a lot of things to complain about in the Democratic Party delegate system, but the worst thing about it are the superdelegates. 2nd on my list are caucuses, which I think are outdated and unrealistic.

mxy's rasmussen poll suggests if hilary wins nom, mccain gets 84% of the rep vote in the general, vs. 75 % if its obama.

the difference is more than that 9%.

obama might only get a few more republicans voting for him, i guess 9 % or so. the difference would be in # of reps voting. you could expect drastically different turnouts from the right, depending on who the dem candidate is. and this is true even though conservatives are generally concidered more reliable voters.

I disagree.

First off, a caucus justs means that the party funds it instead of the state, which I think is right. Tie that shit to primaries and you end up with bullshit ballot issues skewing the electorate, the party in power fucking with the election of the party not in power, etc.

How they organize the event is up to them. Some caucuses are one-man one-vote, easy-in, easy-out like New Mexico, like what Michigan had. Some are funny and weird, involving standing around with your neighbors for awhile. There's good and bad to that. Do you want a bunch of weakly affiliated people mailing it in, or do you want a smaller, more-active core? Maybe you pull a Texas and do both. I dunno. I think it depends on the states.

OT to the current topic y'all are on right now, but I'm a lil surprised that BO moved to the left in the last couple of speaches. He's claiming that territory first? Then a move(however slight) to the center for the general?

Define "move to the left".

He's been tweaking his speech to where he's speaking, but hasn't really modified any of his fundamentals AFAICT.

What does AFAICT stand for?

You know what...I can't define it in specifics and I should post the articles I read if I can find them again. But the articles said he moved to the left. when I'm thinking more clearly I will expound. I shouldn't have posted that tonight.

What does AFAICT stand for?

No shit...Mxy's proll one of the smartest guys on the board and he doesn't me and my grade skool edumacation out much.

well, obama's been hammerring the new majority he's creating. that certainly is a centrist platform. change, hope, yadayadayada, thats pretty neutral too.

its not that obama has gone more left, i think its that he's suddenly being substantive, and therefore his speaches have gone left.

student aid in exchange for community service and universal healthcare certainly are liberal ideas, to say the least. much more liberal than talking about hope and change.

AFAICT - as far as I can tell
Im drunk

student aid in exchange for community service and universal healthcare certainly are liberal ideas, to say the least. much more liberal than talking about hope and change.
There are some decidedly liberal positions that Obama has, but these aren't it.

As costs skyrocket, universal healthcare is no longer liberal... it's pro-business.

Student aid for community service isn't much of a stretch from the GI Bill, which was written by a Republican.

doesnt mean its not socialist in nature. and even if universal healthcare makes sense from a business perspective, i would still concider it a liberal idea.

I've always been a strong proponent of a more localized umbrella healthcare.

Simply put, there are some things the Federal Government has no business being a "direct" part of (education, health care). In such a diverse society, a health care package cannot successfully apply to both rural small businesses and metropolitan small businesses. It can be tiered to fit most any need, but then who decides what applies to where, and how would these businesses deal with rapid fluxuations of growth (and downsizing) with an institution at a Federal level?

I'm far more in favor of local Chambers of Commerce governing an "umbrella coverage" for regions, very much like a pool, where all businesses feed into the pot and share the wealth (like MLB and television revenue, I think... or is that the NBA). This would allow certain larger businesses to prop up the smaller "mom and pop" shops in terms of coverage, but still allow the larger businesses to offer more comprehensive coverage due to their larger monetary input.

Of course, the President could always lay out this plan as his (or her) own, and offer tax incentives to businesses within a Chamber who parrticipate. This might make it more intriguing for the larger businesses to play a role.

Why shouldn't the federal government be a "direct" part of healthcare? Why doesn't healthcare fit into the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "promote the general welfare", etc.

Right now, people and businesses take it in the ass because the business of healthcare has become greater than any single constituency it serves. There are economies of scale when it comes to dealing with an entire nation that you don't get at a local or even state level (which is how healthcare became such a monster!). Healthcare has consolidated big-time to more effectively provide service, and we damn well better consolidate to have any hope of dealing effectively with them.

Note that the biggest single benefit to public health in the 20th century came from the big New Deal programs that put national muscle and glue behind the hodgepodge of sewer systems. How do you deal with epidemics where the best way for you to stay healthy is for those around you to be healthy? Who does the research again? There's a lot of aspects to healthcare besides what doctor you see.

http://cagle.com/working/080220/brookins.jpg

hilary is peeved at BO for his mailings in ohio where he claims her healthcare would force you to get healthcare even if you cant afford it and that she has flipped her views on nafta. of course, both of these claims are true, but hilary is still claiming that barack is pulling rovian tactics.

She's really good at playing the victim.

Why shouldn't the federal government be a "direct" part of healthcare? Why doesn't healthcare fit into the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, "promote the general welfare", etc.

Right now, people and businesses take it in the ass because the business of healthcare has become greater than any single constituency it serves. There are economies of scale when it comes to dealing with an entire nation that you don't get at a local or even state level (which is how healthcare became such a monster!). Healthcare has consolidated big-time to more effectively provide service, and we damn well better consolidate to have any hope of dealing effectively with them.

Note that the biggest single benefit to public health in the 20th century came from the big New Deal programs that put national muscle and glue behind the hodgepodge of sewer systems. How do you deal with epidemics where the best way for you to stay healthy is for those around you to be healthy? Who does the research again? There's a lot of aspects to healthcare besides what doctor you see.

...and while Capitol Hill bitches about the particulars of a national health care system to best fit their varied constituents, people are dying.

I'm not saying the feds simply say "fuck it... let the states handle it". What I AM saying is that the federal government should enact guidelines and tax breaks, and monitor progress. We focus so much time on what the federal government is doing wrong, we sometimes forget the responsibilities of the state governments. I do believe universal health care would be best served on a state level with federal assistance.

I believe state government should have a role, but having state government try to exercise cost controls on a multinational healthcare business is a failing model. People die as it is. We have the federally-funded state-managed Medicare mess, much as you describe. Its biggest problem is not its lack of local tailoring, but dealing with the provider behemoth. It doesn't help that state and local officials are far too easy to buy off with no one looking.

Note that the Canadian healthcare system works much like you describe how you'd want ours to work. Many failures of the Canadian system really involve provincial inequities and hiccups. The "provincial" aspect is routinely missing in our news coverage, and we typically equate their failings with the Canadian government as a whole. But since their government can deal with healthcare providers at a national level, they get cheap drugs.

meet the press really took it to hillary today.

that "memorable" closing to the debate on tuesday? yea, that was lifted -word for word- from bill and then john edwards. they showed the clips. she didnt even change the punctuation.

now, they also showed barrak's plagiarism, and same deal. there is something uncomfortable about it. BUUUUUUUT, hilary wags the finger at one moment and then the next she blatantly does the same thing.

and THATS the essence of why hilary is so slimy (in my mind). i dont like the plagiarism (from either candidate), but the false posturing by hilary is very rovian (to borrow hilary's words).

I believe state government should have a role, but having state government try to exercise cost controls on a multinational healthcare business is a failing model. People die as it is. We have the federally-funded state-managed Medicare mess, much as you describe. Its biggest problem is not its lack of local tailoring, but dealing with the provider behemoth. It doesn't help that state and local officials are far too easy to buy off with no one looking.

Note that the Canadian healthcare system works much like you describe how you'd want ours to work. Many failures of the Canadian system really involve provincial inequities and hiccups. The "provincial" aspect is routinely missing in our news coverage, and we typically equate their failings with the Canadian government as a whole. But since their government can deal with healthcare providers at a national level, they get cheap drugs.

If that is the case, then we can utilize the Canadian model and improve upon it. Of course, Canada is not the U.S., but the general elements of both models would be similar enough where we might be able to instigate such a tweaking and give the thing a chance.

As for buying power, a compromise option might be "regions", rather than "federal". The Pacific states (Cali, Oregon, Washington, throw in Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona) can buy as one. This way, the regional needs are addressed well enough (Nevada and Arizona are more similar than Nevada and Arkansas -- similar climates, ailments, economy). I'm still a fan of the Chamber concept.

I didn't give a fuck about the plagiarism in the context of campaign speeches.

Both are quite capable of writing speeches. But they are busy campaigning, and have campaign people that wordsmith so they don't sound like a broken record on the stump and get ignored by the media (unlike John Edwards). Obama wrote his books, his most important speech (in 2004), etc. Read "Dreams From my Father", which he wrote before he ever got into politics.

I think it's comical that Hillary doesn't know how to attack him without it blowing up in her face. Her rant yesterday is what a campaign surrogate is supposed to do. The governor of Ohio in the background looked like a total tool on the stage with her. Her antics are a tryout for a Bring It On sequel, and Obama came across as far more presidential again.

so what does hilary do on tuesday in the debate? if she's so mad that the flyers are misleading, she should beable to set the record streight, right?

my guess is she says something like "we just want to put this behind us".

Here's the actual stuff Team Hillary is complaining about:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/ObamaHealthCareMailer.pdf

It's a fundamentally true ad. It ignores some aspects of Obama's plan, but it's fair to cite it as a real difference. The notion that Hillary knows what's affordable for everyone and should mandate it is bullshit. If you have $50k in credit card debt, you probably can't afford personal insurance, unless it's TOTALLY subsidized. Total subsidy isn't what her insurance money grab does.

Here's the other one about NAFTA:

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/1obma.pdf

The biggest criticism is the flyer that Hillary said NAFTA was a boon, based off a Newsday article. Since the flyer was produced, Newsday apologized, saying that was just their impression of her position. But there's many other examples showing Hillary's generally-favorable stance on NAFTA over the years. Obama's been saying "free trade but fair trade" consistently.

Obama admitted getting those lines from his friend, and his friend told him to use them. I don't care about that. I also don't care about Hillary borrowing those lines she used. But, I'd like to see her responce. If she admits it, fine. If she's a weasle and trys to play it off then I have a problem with it, and so should the public.

Not just his friend, but a national campaign co-chair, who uses the same campaign manager Obama does. BTW, lots of classic presidential lines aren't written by the president -- "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall", "ask not what your country can do for you", "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself", etc.

anything remotely intelligent bush has ever said...

its not really a big deal to me either. it does bother me that the clintons would make such a big deal about it and then blatantly do it the next second.

makes me feal like i cant take anything they say too seriously. of course, ive thought that about hilary all the while so not really new here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337141/

hilary needs to go away. this is so bad i almost believe its not her circulating this.

my favorite is the aid not even denying that they circulated the photo, instead saying "shame on you, barrak" for suggesting that the photo is devicive. the article mentions that those rumours of barrak being muslim did trace back to hilary's camp.

shes as bad as bush.

I had a (not very smart) friend tell me this weekend that he can't vote for Obama in good conscience because he can't bring himself to vote for a Muslim Presidential candidate.

if im barrak tomorrow, i think i would take the high rode and simply say im very disapointed in the hilary campaign.

i would really hope that either hilary or the moderators would then bring up obama's flyers, because unlike hilary's, they were substantive and on topic.

hilary probably thinks she was justified in sending out this picture.

i personally hope she is ostracized from the party.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php

Or read his first book, Dreams From my Father, written in 1995 before he was in politics. The title from his second book, The Audacity Of Hope, comes from a sermon at his church, IIRC.

Ugh.

Obama has had too perfect of a campaign... something must go wrong pretty soon.

Obama has had too perfect of a campaign... something must go wrong pretty soon.

Don't worry. The Clintons have not yet begun to fight!

I'm counting on Obama winning the same or more pledged delegates than Hillary on March 4th, as he has done so on every day.

I'm counting on Hillary fighting to the bitter, bitter end OR until enough people start talking to Bill about his the damage to the Clinton legacy.

Greg Oden endorsed Obama. It's good to see Obama get support from old people.

Greg Oden endorsed Obama. It's good to see Obama get support from old people.

I lolled.

I had a (not very smart) friend tell me this weekend that he can't vote for Obama in good conscience because he can't bring himself to vote for a Muslim Presidential candidate.

I hear stuff like that all the time.

"He's Muslim"
"He's black and Arab (even though the other half is white), the two worst races"

African Americans aren't getting behind him either. I heard one guy say the country isn't ready for a black prez. WTF?

Lets do dis!

Don't fool yourself. In a race between Obama and the old rich white guy, Obama can count on almost unanimous black support.

Greg Oden endorsed Obama. It's good to see Obama get support from old people.
I laughed in class and everyone looked at me.

African Americans aren't getting behind him either. I heard one guy say the country isn't ready for a black prez. WTF?
Blacks are less likely than anyone else to think that America will really accept a black president. That doesn't mean that they'll vote for someone else in large numbers, but it does mean that they're cynical (and arguably rightly so).

Self fulfilling prophecy right there mxy. wouldn't you agree.

So the question I'm getting ready to ask next week is where did Hillary's run go wrong? Or was it just that BO the better candidate? Was she doomed from the start cuz of her high negs?

Part of my answer that I'll be posting next week is that if you noticed when Billyboy arrived on the scene things kind of started going sideways. I mean, some peeps liked to see Bill but I think a lot feel like they are voting for one person, not a couple.

But thats for next week.

I hope I didn't jinx this thing and she comes back and wins Texas and Ohio.

A sense of entitlement is her biggest flaw IMO. She saw herself as the frontrunner and probably thought Edwards and Obama would steal each other's votes. She, like Guliani, figured she could wait around for the big states. In doing that, she let Obama's ground attack gain steam and she never could stop it. Also, you never really knew whether she was for change or for experience, since she kept playing both cards at once. I guess the biggest downfall is that you don't really know what her message is. She'll sing the praises of the 8 years of Clinton reign, and then say it's time for a change in the White House. What she really wants is a change from Bush. What the people wanted was a change from Washington politics. I think she miscalculated her ability to sell change.

Hillary's biggest problem is that the people working in her campaign are exactly the same people who have been losing elections for Democrats for the past 30 years. I value pragmatism and practicality in politics, but the Democrats have gotten so pragmatic that they don't even have a party platform anymore, and I think they're comfortable with being a permanent minority. There is no idealism to be found in anything. The GOP is quite different. They have promised to change America and have done it (for the worse, imo). The Democrats have lost touch with their progressive roots.

Take any idea you can come up with. You've got an army of passionate people on the GOP side of things arguing that abortion is evil, Christianity is the only foundation of a healthy country, the free market is God Himself telling us what's good and bad, labor unions are worthless, criminal suspects should have fewer rights, etc. But who is passionately arguing the other sides of those issues? Who's out there promising that women will break the law if the law is unjust? Who's out there quoting Thomas Paine up in the faces of the religious right? Who's calling for general strikes to protest unsafe and oppressive workplace conditions? No one is doing that, because the Democratic consultants have been telling us for years that if you stand up for what you believe in, Democrats will lose elections. Meanwhile, the right wing has been making their own reality in this country out of sheer force of will.

You hear a lot from right-wingers about "strident leftists" in the USA, but that's a joke. There are no outspoken left-wing people anywhere except where it doesn't matter. You'll find a lot of outspoken left-wing comedians or cartoonists or message board posters, but the public image consultants in the Democratic Party are so terrified of taking sides on any issue that as soon as anyone in any important walk of life is decidedly left-wing, the Democratic politicians run away from them like they've got Super-AIDS. If it doesn't match the reports filed by the ad agencies or the focus groups or the research poll data, they run away from it.

And these are the people who Hillary Clinton has firmly put in her corner: everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party.

overconfidence was a double flaw for hil.

1) her "candidate inevitable" was pretty noxious. atleast imo. turned me off immediatly.

2) she thought super tuesday was the end of the primary, and didnt have a plan B if shit hit the fan. when she couldnt knock barack out, she was done-ish.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/geekesque/l_f9bf00f3b191fefa6a453a3763ca2cb0.jpg

If ya smeeeeeelll what Barak, is cookin'.

If you look at the remaining potentials (meaning NOT Huckabee) for the Presidential race, only Obama is fresh and different. Hillary's been in the presidential spotlight for nearly 16 years (8 with Bill, 7 will she or wont she, and 1 as a candidate), and McCain nearly as long. And Nader... well, is Nader.

The worst possible candidate the Dems could have asked for as the Republican nom is McCain (it's been mentioned before, either in this thread or the Republican nom thread). Everyone remembers the way Bush bitched him in 2000, and still there's very little love between the men. This plays very well with disenfranchised republicans who've been put off by Bush. They should flock back and vote for McCain in the general election. Worse yet, if Hillary gets the nom on the blue side, look for many democrats to possibly vote for McCain, as well, who has always played the bipartisan card very well (at least in the public's eyes) and isn't nearly as polarizing as Clinton (though I'm certain some hard line righties look down upon him).

My only negative on Obama is that he's a Muslim black....just kidding. I'm not a big fan of his war stance. Personally, I was in favor of the war, not so much as a war against Sadaam (or to clean up daddy's unfinished business), as so much as developing a stronghold in that region. It was important that we shed our sole reliance on Turkey and the Saudis for bases, and rid ourselves of France's "precious air space". We now have a 5 minute "hop and pop" capability that scares the living shit out of any country found to harbor terrorists. It's also far easier now to infiltrate border countries with CT units.

Barack is catagorically against the war. McCain is for the war, but against how it was carried out. I think, in a general election, McCain's stance would be far easier to digest for the common folk (i.e., "we needed to fight this war, to show we can push back and take the fight to them.... but there was never a clear exit strategy, and that's wrong").

We were establishing an Afghanistan stronghold in the region owing to 9/11.

We were establishing an Afghanistan stronghold in the region owing to 9/11.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/696/middleeastuh6.jpg


BrownPaintBrushTool ®GlennDanzig

We were already strategically situated in Kuwait. And, Iraq isn't more strategic to Sudanese operations than Egypt, who we're in bed with militarily in a big way.

Jessica Alba endorses Obama:

ghSJsEVf0pU

It's the multiracial mafia pushing us around. Bunch of light brown jerks.

We were already strategically situated in Kuwait. And, Iraq isn't more strategic to Sudanese operations than Egypt, who we're in bed with militarily in a big way.

You have NO idea what you're talking about. I expected more out of you.

I'll ask MoTown next time... at least he's more up-to-date with the reigon than you are.

That should get this topic back on point. :)

During the first Gulf War, the Saudis were apeshit over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait precisely because it was so strategic during the first Gulf War. TV pundits drew arrows much like yours, but radiating out of Kuwait. Since then, Kuwaitis have paid for bases for us to occupy, and they're still the gateway to/from Iraq for lots of our troops.

Egypt has been #2 in our foreign aid behind Israel for decades. We give them $ and they don't stir up shit in the region. If Egypt thinks the Sudanese refugees will flood them, or Sudan-homed Al Qaeda stirs up shit, they'd use U.S. weapons and support to retaliate. Our biggest problems with them lately are their being opposed to our presence in Iraq.

During the first Gulf War, the Saudis were apeshit over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait precisely because it was so strategic during the first Gulf War. TV pundits drew arrows much like yours, but radiating out of Kuwait. Since then, Kuwaitis have paid for bases for us to occupy, and they're still the gateway to/from Iraq for lots of our troops.

Egypt has been #2 in our foreign aid behind Israel for decades. We give them $ and they don't stir up shit in the region. If Egypt thinks the Sudanese refugees will flood them, or Sudan-homed Al Qaeda stirs up shit, they'd use U.S. weapons and support to retaliate. Our biggest problems with them lately are their being opposed to our presence in Iraq.

A nice comeback, but not yet up to the lofty standard set by MoTown.

Sudan... why? He didn't do anything to me.

Obama laughingly remarks:

"I’ve been in Mexico when I was in college and was going to school in Southern California. I can’t entirely talk about it.”

The CNN/Time political blog turns it into:

"Obama Mum on Young and Irresponsible Mexican Days"

Sludge sells.

Here's Obama giving a pep talk to Tayshaun Prince before a game against LeBron James:

aSBLUJP_9_0

I was reading about the ads in Texas lately by the Dems. Pretty interesting. Hillary came out with one asking who you want to answer the phone at 3 am when there is a problem. Obama countered with one saying you probably want the one who makes the right choices (and not sending us into a flawed war) answering that phone.

Her side says Obama has to win tomorrow since he's spent more money. His side is saying she has to win because she's trailing.

Seems like he's got an answer to everything.


Her side says Obama has to win tomorrow since he's spent more money. His side is saying she has to win because she's trailing.

Ethered!

Well, he is correct. She was considered a heavy favorite to win these states entering the start of this long road. If he outspends her and can basically tie her on delegates or come close, that's a win for him. If she doesn't narrow the total pledged delegate count she'll get a lot more pressure to withdraw. If she doesn't "win" the day, it will continue her streak of not winning any single day of primaries.

I'm predicting that at the end of the day, when you add it up, he'll take more pledged delegates than she does.

I found this interesting (an average of several major polls):


An average of five recent surveys out of Texas show Obama edging Clinton by 2 percentage points there, 47 to 45 percent. The so called “poll of polls” also shows 8 percent of likely Texas Democrats remain unsure of who to vote for.
Clinton is 5 points ahead of Obama in Ohio, according to CNN's average of six recent polls there, 48-43 percent. Nine percent of likely Ohio Democrats remain unsure.
Voters in Texas and Ohio will be joined by those in Vermont and Rhode Island Tuesday in what Clinton supporters admit is a critical test of strength for the New York Democrat following Obama's 11 straight wins.
The Texas average consists of surveys from Reuters/C-SPAN/Houston Chronicle/Zogby (Feb 29-March 2), Belo/Public Strategies (Feb 27-March 1), American Research Group (Feb 29-March 1), MSNBC/McClatchy/Ft. Worth Star-Telegram/Mason-Dixon (Feb 27-29), and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics (Feb 26-28).
The Ohio average consists of surveys from Reuters/CSPAN/Houston Chronicle/Zogby (Feb 29-March 2), Quinnipiac (Feb 27-March 2), University of Cincinnati "Ohio Poll" (Feb 28-March 2), American Research Group (Feb 29-March 1), Cleveland Plain Dealer/Mason-Dixon (Feb 27-29), and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics (Feb 26-28).

0ZDl6LxhOZ8

We'll see how it goes. Given what I've seen of the polls, I'm not TOO worried for Obama. I don't think they factored Obama's turnout very well, on the whole. The models they're using are based greatly on past turnout, and I don't think they carry quite as much weight. If you look at the crosstabs and see <25% independents for an open primary, or young/black turnout that's the same as 2004-2006, be skeptical. Obama won a similar demographic to Ohio in Missouri, where virtually everyone predicted an 8-10+ point Hillary win. He's blown away the polls in all of the post-Super Tuesday states except maybe Hawaii. By contrast, apart from New Hampshire and Tennessee (owing to tornadoes in Obama country), Hillary hasn't overperformed her polls.

Check out the Clinton spin machine:

TOLEDO, Ohio—Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Monday she'll press on with the campaign after Tuesday's crucial primaries, arguing that momentum is on her side despite 11 straight losses to rival Sen. Barack Obama. "I'm just getting warmed up," Clinton told reporters, looking ahead to a busy day of campaign events in Ohio and Texas where polls show a close race ahead of Tuesday's primaries.
Clinton's husband, former President Clinton, has asserted that his wife must win both Texas and Ohio to keep her campaign alive. On Friday, Hillary Clinton's advisers recast the stakes, saying if Obama lost any of the four presidential primaries Tuesday—Rhode Island and Vermont also vote—it would show Democrats are having second thoughts about him.
Hillary Clinton predicted success on Tuesday and looked ahead to the next big contest—Pennsylvania on April 22.
"I think I know what's happening and I believe I'm going to do very well tomorrow," she said. "I think that's going to be a very significant message to the country, and then we move on to Pennsylvania and the states coming up."


So, if he loses one primary, that is considered a lack of confidence in Obama? If that's the case, they consider Obama the clear front runner at this point. If that is the case, why is Hillary saying she has the momentum? That whole campaign makes no sense to me. Who is running that thing anyway?

Who is running that thing anyway?

http://www.drummerworld.com/pics/drum2/aaroncomess11.jpg

"If you'd like to tell us maybe, just go ahead now."

laff

Hillary's going negative on a couple of recent developments:

1) Blaming Obama for not holding hearings on NATO and Afghanistan as part of his chairing a subcommitee on European Affairs.

NATO and Afghanistan fall under the Armed Services Committee, not Obama's, and they held hearings on Afghanistan in December. From what I can tell, Obama's subcommittee is sort of a "none of the above" subcommittee, for European issues not handled by bigger committees. It's typically chaired by a first term senator, and averaged less than one hearing a year before Obama was on the scene on topics that aren't hot-button issues. Obama's personally proposed tons of legislation on Afghanistan, BTW, though he hasn't actually been to Afghanistan. BTW2, Hillary's idea of holding hearings for the committee stuff she runs involves her being the only Senator in her hearing at times -- scary.

2) Claiming that Obama lied in his stance about NAFTA by reassuring the Canadians it was all rhetoric, then lied about the lie

When the news first came out from a Canadian TV outfit called CTV, it was so unbelievably distorted that all sides denied it because it was false on the face of it. (No, Team Obama never called Michael Wilson in Canada.) When CTV got more leaks of the situation, it turns out that some low-level Canadian consulate dude misrepresented a conversation he initiated with the Obama team, and the Canadian government again confirms that Obama is saying the truth as of today:

http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/menu-en.asp?lang_update=1

If I were Obama, I'd be pointing out that Hillary misreprenting the words of the Canadian government could lead to an international incident, and that someone who lives in a state bordering Canada should know better.

It's fun to listen to Canadians whine:
eLJJ88HTiX8

clinton put out a mailer in ohio about obama being bought and paid for by the energies, getting 700k from them. only problem is she's taken 800k from the same group.

woopsie doopsie or 'hope they dont catch this one'?

It's probably not the same group.

She's counting individual donations from employees of energy companies as if it they were lobbying dollars when it comes to Obama. That's where she gets the $700k figure. The $823k Hillary took from lobbyists in 2007 is different -- not "people" giving her money, but "companies" giving her money. Not sure if that's the same $800k you're speaking of, but just FYI...

Typically, this line of attack doesn't happen in a primary. But the money being raised in these primaries is just awesome. Basically, she's blaming Obama for having a lot of contributors.

Bad weather in Ohio today. Does that help Hillary if there is less of a turnout?

Bad weather in Ohio today. Does that help Hillary if there is less of a turnout?


Depends on who's supporters are more fanatic.

Depends on who's supporters are more fanatic.
if this then obama wins

What's wierd is they've been talking throughout the race that higher voter turnout benifits Obama. But, if you think about it you'd think bad weather would hurt Clinton the most. She usually does well with elderly and poorer voters. Both of those would seem to be hit the hardest by bad weather.

i think the common line of thinking is that obama relies more heavilly on people who are less reliable voters (ie young, first time voters). hilary's key constitutents (not sure thats the word) still are older woman who have voted many times and will probably go and vote regardless of the weather.

probably good for hil.

^ nailed it. Young voters talk the talk but haven't showed up yet.

i think the common line of thinking is that obama relies more heavilly on people who are less reliable voters (ie young, first time voters). hilary's key constitutents (not sure thats the word) still are older woman who have voted many times and will probably go and vote regardless of the weather.

probably good for hil.

Kind of agree with b here.

Actually, Hillary's crowd is more likely to do early voting. Obama's crowd can get stuck by bad weather -- that's why Tennessee was as big a rout as it was. Obama's power base was in Memphis, and Memphis had tornadoes.

BTW, Hillary cites this guy as evidence that her healthcare plan is better. This is the guy that gives her that "15 million people won't be covered" stuff. I think it's fascinating that he's backed away from that position:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cleveland_clinkers.html

Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor Jonathan Gruber told FactCheck.org, “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest which candidate’s plan would be better at cutting costs. ... They both have a great set of ideas and I heartily endorse what they proposed. But there’s very little evidence to suggest that either would make a major dent in health care costs and certainly no evidence as to one person’s plan is better than another’s."

(CNN) -- Steady streams of people cast ballots in Tuesday's contests, and officials in the delegate-rich states of Ohio and Texas said they expect record turnouts.
Primaries also are being held in Vermont and Rhode Island, where officials reported high numbers of voters.
Despite freezing rain in northern Ohio and bad weather elsewhere in the state, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner estimated that as many as 52 percent of registered voters might go to the polls, 15 percentage points higher than the average of past presidential primaries.

7:00:00pm - polls in Vermont close
7:00:01pm - Obama declared winner

Hillary is the comeback kid. She is looking good so far in OH and TX and she won RI.

It's not looking good for her delegate-wise, which is what really matters. A near-tie in Texas means at least +10 delegates for Obama, and that's not even counting those caucuses where it looks like he'll clean up more. There is a smaller but similar effect in Ohio. I'm fully expecting that when they add up the results, Obama gets more delegates today than Hillary.

Hillary's delegate problem is that most of her vote in Texas and Ohio come in 4 delegate districts. Even if she gets 60% of the vote in a 4 delegate district, the split will be 2-2 and not 3-1. By contrast, Obama's strongest in districts that award many more delegates, where his winning that district by 60% means he definitely picks up a delegate or two at Hillary's expense.

The long-term math isn't favorable for her at all.

can we all agree that ohio is the shithole of america? when was the last thing they did one thing right? the state is crying about nafta? well, if one state was fucking responsible for bush winning in 04, it was ohio.

all hilary has proven is that dirty politics is winning politics. she truly is a scumbag.

i cant wait to find out how the delegates shake out.

Why are you blaming NAFTA on Bush, that was Clinton...wasn't it?

Why are you blaming NAFTA on Bush, that was Clinton...wasn't it?
I don't think he was blaming NAFTA on Bush. That was definitely Bill's mistake.

I don't think he was blaming NAFTA on Bush. That was definitely Bill's mistake.

Gotcha...Thanks Swam.

Hillary's all like "I will fucking burn the Democratic Party to the ground as long as I can run for President against John McCain."

The Clintons are in the bizness of getting a Clinton elected, not a Dem.

Hillbilly declared the winner by FoxNews

Why are you blaming NAFTA on Bush, that was Clinton...wasn't it?

nafta was clinton's signature. but, i was implying that george w was bad for ohio, twice actually. and yet they were key in reelecting him.

A few weeks ago, I posted this:


BTW, the best proof that Dems shoot themselves in the foot is in the many polls that invariably say that Obama would win against McCain while Hillary wouldn't, but they prefer Hillary over Obama.

Last night was a great example of this. Looking at the exit polls, which were reasonable indicators of turnout, the candidate that most Texans (51-42) and Ohioans (50-46) think would beat McCain in November is Obama. So, they vote for Hillary. DUH! Since these primaries had other partisan races on them besides the president, it's clear that the Republican spoilers favoring Hillary was minimal. Democrats just don't like rallying around one candidate. Will Rogers said it best -- "I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat."

By contrast, Republicans are more prone to rally around and vote for who they think will win. McCain is loathed by a sizable segment of Republicans, but "most electable" tracks "primaries won" through Super Tuesday when things were wrapped up. (Afterwards, everyone who voted for Huckabee, Romney, Paul, etc. knew they weren't really deciding anything.).

So this goes all the way to June. Republicans will laugh their asses off watching Democrats tear themselves apart, taking potshots on whoever the leader is, insuring damaged goods.

As near as I can tell, this is like a Pistons-Pacers game from 2004 -- low scoring, grinding. Obama's led narrowly at the half (Super Tuesday), but had a great 3rd quarter (11 primaries in a row), and is up 12 points at the start of the 4th quarter, but isn't playing on his homecourt. The Hillarys dug deep, made some spectacular dunks that got the crowd going while Obama mostly went to the line (probable Texas delegate win). Obama's up only by 10-11 points, but there's only 6 minutes left and Hillary flashy moves haven't been able to really get her back in the game. Obama's got a player off his who can play really well in limited minutes against certain matchups (Mississippi, largest black Democratic population) and should has enough of a lead to overcome a last-minute rally (Pennsyltucky). Of course, the game is still close enough where the refs (superdelegates) could pull bogosity to put the thing into OT (Florida and Michigan primaries) and things get murky.

So this goes all the way to June. Republicans will laugh their asses off watching Democrats tear themselves apart, taking potshots on whoever the leader is, insuring damaged goods.
Worst part of all of this.

:emo kid:

I'm predicting that at the end of the day, when you add it up, he'll take more pledged delegates than she does.
CNN is reporting that she took 22 more delegates than Obama last night, minus Texas which is not fully divided up yet. I'm not sure how that state will work but he did win the caucus so it should be pretty close there I imagine. He went into last night with a 100 delegate lead. So, it's not like she's turned the tide. If they simply split the rest of the way (him taking the northwest, MS, NC and her taking IN, KY, PN) then he's still going to be ahead. The knockout punch for Obama would be stealing a state like Indiana (I'm not sure he can grab Penn). Clinton would need to steal NC to gain some ground on Obama.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/05/democratic-nomination-battle-now-focuses-on-wyoming/

Texas Caucus Count Takes Wind Out of Clinton’s Wins

Late-breaking numbers out of Texas’ odd two-phase voting system put an asterisk on Hillary Clinton’s Tuesday night victory speech, showing gains made by Barack Obama in the delegate grab race had all but numerically canceled out her big win in Ohio.
Although Clinton scored major moral — and morale — victories by taking more raw votes in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, an Associated Press count of the delegates shows Clinton only reduced Obama’s delegates lead by 12 following Tuesday’s voting. She lost in Vermont to Obama.
In the overall race for the nomination, Obama had 1,562 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. Clinton had 1,461. It takes 2,025 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination.
For the night, Clinton won at least 185 delegates and Obama won at least 173.
Clinton’s victory in Ohio won her only 9 more delegates than Obama, with two delegates still to be awarded. In Texas, Clinton won four more delegates than Obama in the primary. But Obama trimmed Clinton’s lead to a single Texas delegate in the party caucuses. There were still 10 delegates to be awarded in the caucuses.
The candidates vied for 370 delegates in four states: Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. But the Democrats’ system of awarding delegates proportionally made it hard for either candidate to post big gains. Also, Texas had a two-step system, with about two-thirds of its delegates awarded in a primary, and the rest in party caucuses.
Click here for the Texas Democratic exit poll (http://elections.foxnews.com/texas-democratic-exit-poll).
Click here for the Ohio Democratic exit poll (http://elections.foxnews.com/ohio-democratic-exit-poll).
Clinton is pointing to Ohio as her biggest win from Tuesday, where she beat Obama 54-44 percent. She won the Texas vote by a slimmer 51-47 margin. Clinton won Rhode Island 58-40 percent, but Obama took Vermont by an even wider margin, 60 percent to Clinton’s 38 percent.The result is that all eyes next focus on Saturday’s contest in Wyoming and other states holding contests well into June.
Wyoming has long been off the Democrats’ radar. In 2004, the state favored George Bush over John Kerry by more than 2-to-1. Only 70,000 Wyoming Democrats cast ballots in that general election, and this year it yields a scant 12 pledged delegates. Contrast that with Tuesday’s Western state vote in Texas, where about 2.8 million Democrats cast ballots in a battle for 193 pledged delegates.
But this year, every delegate is being fought over, grabbed at and wooed, even in down-ballot states such as Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina and Montana. The biggest delegate prize of the remaining 12 nomination contests is seven weeks away, on April 22, when 158 pledged delegates are up for grabs in Pennsylvania.
Obama still maintains a numeric lead in the delegate count, making it nearly a statistical impossibility for Clinton to make an outright win before the August Democratic convention.
Both Clinton and Obama were bracing themselves for a renewed fight on Wednesday.
“What’s happening in this election is that people are starting to ask themselves, you know, the questions that’ll be asked during the general election,” Clinton said, speaking with FOX News.
She added: “I think every election’s a confluence of events. You know, that’s why they’re not static. That’s why this process should go on over a period of time because, you know, new information comes out. People begin to look at the candidates differently. They ask themselves, you know, the questions about who can really be the best nominee, who can win the nomination.”
Obama, also speaking with FOX, predicted success.
“The bottom line … is we come out of the evening with essentially the same leads in delegates as we had going in and so, we still feel very confident that — we’re going to be going to Wyoming and Mississippi this week; we think we’ll do well there. And on to Pennsylvania, North Carolina and other states after that. … We feel we’re in a very strong position to end up getting the nomination.”
But with few predictions of this race still standing, the Super Tuesday II developments could mean any number of things.
One scenario could provide a strengthened bid for Republican John McCain, who could benefit from a protracted battle between Clinton and Obama. But the reverse could be true, too, as he drops from the news headlines and the Democrats work out their weaknesses before facing the Republican machine heading into November.
Another scenario could mean a bitter end-run at the August Democratic convention. Clinton’s camp is resolute in continuing the fight, and while she still trails in the race for convention delegates, she could make a last-minute grab for the nomination on the convention floor — if it gets that far.
She and some of her top surrogates — including former President Bill Clinton and daughter, Chelsea — have been placing personal calls to maintain support among the so-called superdelegates, who aren’t bound to their state nomination contests.
But at the same time, Obama has laid the groundwork to fend off such an onslaught and is said to have a few of the superdelegates quietly on his side, at the ready to parry Clinton’s attempts to play the numbers.
For now, the contest moves on.
Obama and Clinton first face off Saturday in Wyoming caucuses. Next Tuesday, Mississippi Democrats head to the polls. After a voting lull, it picks up again in The Keystone State and continues on in May with contests in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon. The June contests are in Montana and South Dakota. Democrats also have yet to vote in Guam and Puerto Rico.
Once the Texas count is complete following Tuesday’s balloting, there will be 611 pledged delegates still up for grabs. Because of the proportional way Democrats divide their delegates in the primaries, it will be difficult for either candidate to achieve the 2,025 delegate threshold to clinch the nomination before the convention.

Yeah, it would be real, real nice of her to bow out now. So she won't.

She talks like a stupid athelete. I can't stand it when they keep saying "you know" all the time. If we know, then WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU TELLING US?


“What’s happening in this election is that people are starting to ask themselves, you know, the questions that’ll be asked during the general election,” Clinton said, speaking with FOX News.
She added: “I think every election’s a confluence of events. You know, that’s why they’re not static. That’s why this process should go on over a period of time because, you know, new information comes out. People begin to look at the candidates differently. They ask themselves, you know, the questions about who can really be the best nominee, who can win the nomination.”

I'm a firm believer that Texas and Ohio are bent on destroying this country. Shit, look at what Ohio State has done to the BCS the last two years. Look what Texas did to the US for the last eight years.

Nuke 'em.

It looks like Texas will end up being in Obama's favor anyway. She only got 4 extra delagates from the primaries. Obama is projected to win the caucus by a good margain and will probably pick up more than a 4 delegate advantage there anyway. I can't wait for him to denounce her "win"

She will end up getting the nod if she wins PA. You can't deny someone that won all the big states and had more popular vote. For all the Obama fever, he can't win a big state and he is starting to buckle under the attacks.

BTW, Texas tried to join the US a couple times and was rejected by congress until Polk became president and pushed the annexation through. It is the only state that came into the union via treaty. In fact, some still dispute that Texas is even legally a state since the majority of Texans voted against being a US colony. The US ruled that the vote was not legal and considered it treason because a joint resolution in congress had been passed. Apparently there is still a "Republic of Texas" group headed in Overton, TX.

well, she is not catching delegates. shes down 600k votes in the popular, so im dubious to her catching him there.

ill grant you she did a good job of creating a narrative as to why she should be the nominee.

i think barrak's is better. he can say she has used tactics with short term gains (for her) but long term losses (for democrats). he can say SD's going against the elections results will be suicidal. he can say he ran a strategically supperior campaign (it is supposed to be decided by delegates, isnt it?).

lots of rumors about SD's right now, barack will make back this long ground within 1 week. if 50 SDs switch, declare to Obama, yesterday could be forgotten real quick.

i believe there are 616 pledged delegates left. hes up 135 pledged delegates right now (not counting caucus results). after missippi, it'll probably be about 150-160, and with then 550 pledged to go. people are making alot of hoopla over pennsylvania, but there are other states that might go hard to obama that would more than compensate (NC).

lets say there are 800 superdelegates. I suspected she is going to need to overcome ATLEAST 150 pleadged should it go all the way. that means 475-325, pretty much as a best case scenario. or in other words, SD's would have to fall 60 / 40 to hilary, after the Pledged went overal in favor to obama (say 51/49, or whatever, itll be within a few points). i think that would be too hard to overcome. the math is bad for clinton.

also, i think obama needs to start playing the "a vote for hilary is a vote for mccain" card. potentially an easy swat for hilary, and probably a hard sell to after yesterday, but perhaps a missippi route would allow better opportunity.

also, sounds like obama is about to go on the offensive.

if the mxy theory is true, and that obama attacking hilary hurts him in the eyes of woman, he's got to be very selective.

She will end up getting the nod if she wins PA. You can't deny someone that won all the big states and had more popular vote. For all the Obama fever, he can't win a big state and he is starting to buckle under the attacks.
Obama has won more popular vote, even after Texas and Ohio, and that's not even counting funny caucus votes. Obama was ahead by a million or so prior to last night. Keep in mind that most of these big states aren't the ones that the Democrats are in danger of losing, unless you think California and NY go Republican with no incumbent President. To win, the Democrats need states that are trending blue that past nominees haven't sealed the deal on -- Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, Montana, etc. Few of those are Clinton friendly.

I was a little overconfident in my estimation -- Clinton actually gained 4 or maybe 6 delegates, for all four contests. So, Obama actually lost a day by a hair. Whoopee. This gets erased with likely wins in Wyoming and especially Mississippi, and he builds onto his lead. There's only ~560 pledged delegates left, and Obama has a lead of ~150 pledged delegates. Hillary needs to win 430 of 560 delegates just to tie, or ~75-80%. She hasn't ever won 75% of the delegates in any state.

Something I heard on the radio -- 25% of Hillary voters said they may vote for McCain in the general election, while only 10% of Obama voters would. It appears that I may have underestimated the "prop up Hillary to be crushed by McCain" Republican vote.

Obama has won more popular vote, even after Texas and Ohio, and that's not even counting funny caucus votes. Obama was ahead by a million or so prior to last night. Keep in mind that most of these big states aren't the ones that the Democrats are in danger of losing, unless you think California and NY go Republican with no incumbent President. To win, the Democrats need states that are trending blue that past nominees haven't sealed the deal on -- Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, Missouri, Montana, etc. Few of those are Clinton friendly.

I was a little overconfident in my estimation -- Clinton actually gained 4 or maybe 6 delegates, for all four contests. So, Obama actually lost a day by a hair. Whoopee. This gets erased with likely wins in Wyoming and especially Mississippi, and he builds onto his lead. There's only ~560 pledged delegates left, and Obama has a lead of ~150 pledged delegates. Hillary needs to win 430 of 560 delegates just to tie, or ~75-80%. She hasn't ever won 75% of the delegates in any state.

Something I heard on the radio -- 25% of Hillary voters said they may vote for McCain in the general election, while only 10% of Obama voters would. It appears that I may have underestimated the "prop up Hillary to be crushed by McCain" Republican vote.

Not true by my calculations. But I'm adding Michigan and Florida.

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan.

which means he didn't get any votes.

Something I heard on the radio -- 25% of Hillary voters said they may vote for McCain in the general election, while only 10% of Obama voters would. It appears that I may have underestimated the "prop up Hillary to be crushed by McCain" Republican vote.

not to play the sex card, but i suspect that it might have more to do with a certain portion of hilary's constiuency that acts more with their emotions than with their heads. not naming names, though.

i think both those numbers will go way down after a little time passes and the republicans enter the picture.

Michigan and Florida should not be included because they were planned by the candidates not to count.

^Tell that to the Clintons and their supporters who think they should count.

The Dem party could implode.

I think it's funny that the governors of Michigan and Florida want the current results to stand because they have such different angles. Granholm's pretty desperate for a Hillary win because it's her only path to escape Michigan's woes at this point. Crist wants a Hillary win because he knows Hillary is chopped liver in a general election against McCain. Crist is doing exactly what McCain wants him to do.

Mxy, You are very cogent when it comes to politics but that's a lil too conspiracy theory to me...McCain is telling Crist to do that. Its the Dems that will decide this thing. imo, you should leave the Reps out of their fight.

I'm thinking Crist is McCain's VP... not really a conspiracy there. He's certainly one of McCain's top 5 candidates. Really, there's no reason that Crist should give two shits about the Democratic primary, so the fact that he's doing so now suggests he's doing some Republican fucking around with the Dems. :)

Ok, I was just thinking that you kind of reminded me of my brother. When the traffic light in front of him turns red, it had something to do with the Reps. :)

in a playoff series, i think we would have to kick their ass a little to win.

chance flip realizes / agrees? not too likely.

uhh... what? where am i?

lol

I have some occupational insight into a few conspiracy theories and their basis in actual fact, but I own no tinfoil hats. Heck, I've voted for some Republicans, and recently too.

My take on Crist isn't conspiracy theory at all. It just seems like common sense to me. Ignore the timing angle. Just give me some logical reasons a Republican governor weighs in on solving a Democratic delegate selection problem in a presidential race. It's political opportunism, pure and simple. I'm wondering if Granholm hasn't been played by bringing Crist to the table signing some "joint statement".

Bill Press from AA said this morning that negotiations are indeed underway within the DNC about primary do-overs in Michigan and Florida.

These would most likely be held in June, per Press.

Do-overs I can deal with, but in no way should they seat the delegates who were won in the previous ones.

if its a caucus then hilary isnt doing herself any favors.

It'd be some kind of caucus, not a primary. The big distinctions between "primary" and "caucus" are:

1) Who pays: In a primary, the state pays with taxpayer dollars. In a caucus, the party pays. When the state pays, they can add other ballot issues to it, which can sometimes skew things quite a bit (gay marriage, property tax issues, etc.). When the party pays, they can't do that, which can be an inconvenience to the casual voter. Also, that's less money they can spend pimping candidates.

2) Format: In a primary, the format is historically "one person, one vote". In a caucus, it can be anything the party wants it to be. Sometimes, a caucus is "one person one vote" just like a primary. Sometimes, it's VERY different, for a bunch of reasons (cheaper, gets party activists out to build the party, etc.). The national party and discrimination laws spell out what formats aren't allowed, but beyond that, it's up to the states to sort out.

They said Florida definately doesn't have the money to do a primary. How would Michigan have that? If the re-do it, both would be caucuses IMO.

They mentioned last night on CNN that Obama needs to attack her "experience" claim, and he just might do that. They wondered why Obama has given her a free pass on that claim when she was simply a first lady, and not the one writing legislation.

In fact, I was watching Obama's campaign manager on MSNBC and he talked about how Obama has actually written more legislation than Hillary in the Senate. He's also been on more committees as well. He made some other similar points. If all that is true, and I suspect it is, why isn't Obama pointing this out? I think Obama can go on the offense, as long as he sticks to the facts. Then it's not viewed as smearing, but rather just keeping the public informed of the truth...which fits in perfectly with his "transparent" theme.

There's only ~560 pledged delegates left, and Obama has a lead of ~150 pledged delegates. Hillary needs to win 430 of 560 delegates just to tie, or ~75-80%. She hasn't ever won 75% of the delegates in any state.
I goofed here, but only slightly. There's 561 pledged delegates remaining currently. Obama has a lead of 150+ pledged delegates today. So, Hillary needs to win 281+75=356 out of 561 delegates just to tie, or ~63% of the pledged delegates. Here's the total states in which she won >60% of the pledged delegates:

Arkansas
Oklahoma
New York

Note that 60% of the pledged delegates in a given race is hard stuff, owing to the proportionality of Democratic primaries. She would have to get roughly ~65% of the popular vote just to get 60% of the pledged delegates. That 63% pledged delegates in Arkansas, for example, resulted from getting 70% of the popular vote.

The math works against her in a big way. Her best chance is to add to the remaining pledged delegates, putting Florida and Michigan in play. But, she got about as good a result as she could get in Florida the first time, and that wouldn't have been enough. And with Obama off the ballot in Michigan, she got a result that won't be replicated.

Even if she won both Florida and Michigan in a do-over she'd probably still only gain 4-6 delegates on him as I would expect a close finish there. She's not going to win %60 of the delegates in the northwest or MS either. I think he'll win all those, but even if he doesn't he'd get about %47 of the vote anyway. I think it's basically impossible for her to catch up in pledged delegates. She has to convince the supers to go against the pledged in order to make her case. I just can't see them doing that.

The problem is she won't step aside now. She thinks she can get the supers to ignore his lead and focus on her minor win Tuesday, along with the hope of a strong showing in Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Indiana. Even though she'd still be behind, she would say she's won as much as Obama after his 11 state streak.

and that shes won some crucial states... ohio, and probably pennsylvania.

obama concentrating on texas may have been a "winning battle but losing war" situation. the right strategy for picking up delegates, but ohio is viewed as such an important swing state that delagates may not have been as important.

also, substantives attacks are definitly needed at this point, but hes got to be VERY careful not to cross the line. you KNOW shes just waiting to say "politics as usual" towards him.

Bill Press from AA said this morning that negotiations are indeed underway within the DNC about primary do-overs in Michigan and Florida.

These would most likely be held in June, per Press.

One of the problems is that lots of moderate Dems crossed over and voted for McCain in the Republican primary. If there was a Dem primary in Florida they wouldn't have crossed over.

So those peeps voted. They can't vote twice.

Or does the Reps have to do theirs over too? No chance.

The thing is that Florida was state that tipped the race McCains way. It was cuz of those peeps that crossed over. Mitt would have won it otherwise.

So the Dems screwed up Florida's Rep primary too.

Fucking Dems.

i agree tahoe, i think this is a mess that has no good resolution. sleeping dogs lie, and such.

Well, Michigan moved the primary up in an attempt to be more relevant.

I guess you could say mission accomplished.

obama concentrating on texas may have been a "winning battle but losing war" situation. the right strategy for picking up delegates, but ohio is viewed as such an important swing state that delagates may not have been as important.
Missouri is viewed similarly, and Obama won Missouri.

Should Obama win 37% of the current remaining delegates, it'd take an act of the superdelegates to overturn. Once Obama gets to 1650-1700 delegates (as the goalposts stand) it's over. Superdelegates will have a choice of winning the battle for Hillary and losing the war to McCain as blacks and young people sit on their hands.

Hillary's magic # is 4000, because that's how many will likely have died in Iraq by the time Pennsylvania and beyond comes into play. Obama needs to hit on that narrative, and tie it to the economy, tie to the gas prices, and he wins.

One of the problems is that lots of moderate Dems crossed over and voted for McCain in the Republican primary. If there was a Dem primary in Florida they wouldn't have crossed over.

So those peeps voted. They can't vote twice.

Or does the Reps have to do theirs over too? No chance.
Why not? There's only one candidate left. By the time it happened, it wouldn't matter at all. :)


The thing is that Florida was state that tipped the race McCains way. It was cuz of those peeps that crossed over. Mitt would have won it otherwise.

So the Dems screwed up Florida's Rep primary too.

Fucking Dems.
It was Florida's choice to have an open primary. Open is cheaper, though, because closed means more flavors of ballots (the Democratic, Republican, and the non-partisan at a minimum) and more $ spent for enforcement and resolving confusion, especially with old folks.

Obama raised $55 million in February to Hillary's $34 million.

In the 24 hours after Hillary's win, Obama drew in $4 million to Hillary's $3 million.

Amongst primary voters and states that have primary-like caucuses (e.g. New Mexico), Obama has a narrow lead. If the latest rumblings from L.A. County (95,000 independent votes uncounted due to a pretty stupid ballot design issue that's pending in court) and NYC (1.3% of city districts counting NO Obama votes for Obama, including districts in Harlem), Obama's popular vote total may even grow a bit.
As a followup, Obama's California loss was by 8.9%, and he gained a few more delegates at Clinton's expense with the revised L.A. County tally. His popular vote total went for the better in NYC, but not enough to change delegates.

2) Claiming that Obama lied in his stance about NAFTA by reassuring the Canadians it was all rhetoric, then lied about the lie

When the news first came out from a Canadian TV outfit called CTV, it was so unbelievably distorted that all sides denied it because it was false on the face of it. (No, Team Obama never called Michael Wilson in Canada.) When CTV got more leaks of the situation, it turns out that some low-level Canadian consulate dude misrepresented a conversation he initiated with the Obama team, and the Canadian government again confirms that Obama is saying the truth as of today:

http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/washington/menu-en.asp?lang_update=1

If I were Obama, I'd be pointing out that Hillary misreprenting the words of the Canadian government could lead to an international incident, and that someone who lives in a state bordering Canada should know better.

As a followup, the CBC reported that the Canadian Embassy "may have misrepresented the Obama advisor". BTW, this can be easily proven... the time of the meeting and some specific things the Obama advisor is reported as saying in the memo are inconsistent. NAFTA wasn't a big campaign issue at the point of the meeting.

BTW, no one from Team Hillary nor the Canadian government has debunked this specific bit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/EmailBNStory/National/home


Mr. Brodie, during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie watches from the back of the room during a photo op before the government caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday.

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

A report I saw said Hil needs to win 58% of the remaining delegates to win it and BO needs 42%. Thats huge for BO if correct.

I don't think either can tenichally win it. Those numbers may reflect who would be ahead in the end though.

I don't think either can tenichally win it. Those numbers may reflect who would be ahead in the end though.

Why is that? Not enough deli's left?

I stand corrected. I wasn't factoring the remaining 350 or so superdelegates. I think your numbers are right. There are about 600 pledged ones left and Obama needs about 500 to win, so is was thinking there was no way he could. I thought the 600 was a total number left, not just pledged.

The Dems need to do everything they can to avoid a huge HUGE mess. A lil mess will be ok, but they can't have this thing drag out in the courts till Denver and beyond.

This is a pretty cool page on CNN:

Delegate counter game (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html)

I tried it out quick. I gave Barack decent wins in the NW and south, and gave Hillary close wins in Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, as well as a solid win in Pennsylvania. I also gave them a pretty even split in the supers:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6826/delegateszz0.png

BTW, Obama actually won Texas (in terms of total delegates) after the Caucus was added in. I hope he calls her out on that.

right now, it appears hilary will do everything she can to win pennsylvania and then beg for mercy from the superdelegates. and hopes that she can somehow get a favorable outcome in michigan and florida.

if im barak, i end that nonsense by leaking the idea that i would run as an indipendent if i won the majority of delegates but was overturned. thats the nuclear option, and it would scare the shit of party leaders.

FYI, nearly 10% of the superdelegates are voted on by the pledged delegates themselves. Some states' pledged delegates will "elect" (a.k.a select) add-on superdelegates, who can theoretically switch votes like a superdelegate. But, since they're picked by the winner's pledged delegates, they won't. What this means in practice is that there are less real superdelegates than meets the eye.

Wyoming's primary is happening now, and Obama looks like he'll take it quite comfortably. It has 12 pledged delegates plus a delegate selection process that prohibits ties. And it has one of these add-on superdelegates elected by the winner of the pledged delegates. It looks like Obama's wins gets him an 8-5 delegate edge, while only 7-5 will show up in the pledged delegate count.

Fun, eh?

right now, it appears hilary will do everything she can to win pennsylvania and then beg for mercy from the superdelegates. and hopes that she can somehow get a favorable outcome in michigan and florida.
Remember, there's more delegates that happen in North Carolina and Indiana a couple weeks later than in Pennsylvania. North Carolina is similar to Virginia in being one of those red states turning bluer all the time owing to northern folks moving south. NC has a Democratic Governor, solid Dem majorities in state legislature, and a 7-6 Dem majority for U.S. House reps.


if im barak, i end that nonsense by leaking the idea that i would run as an indipendent if i won the majority of delegates but was overturned. thats the nuclear option, and it would scare the shit of party leaders.
He needs no "nuclear" option. If he wins the majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates overturn, the party has exercised the "nuclear" option on its own people. Young and black will sit on their hands, and McCain will win. Everyone knows that, except for Hillary.

This is a pretty cool page on CNN:

Delegate counter game (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html)

I tried it out quick. I gave Barack decent wins in the NW and south, and gave Hillary close wins in Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, as well as a solid win in Pennsylvania. I also gave them a pretty even split in the supers:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6826/delegateszz0.png

That is a good page.

There aren't any 'winner take all' states with the Dems at all...right?

Right. No "winner take all" whatsoever. It has to be reasonably proportional, though how that works in practice is up to the state parties. This is what kicks Hillary in the ass. She has to rely on Republicans who will never vote for her in November to win.

As far as the delegate guessing game, Team Obama "leaked" a spreadsheet way back with their predictions for how their post-Super Tuesday races would go. They missed Ohio by two delegates, but otherwise, have met or exceeded their projections in every race. I'd use this as the baseline for the CNN calculator.

http://ia341038.us.archive.org/1/items/Obamaexcel/obamacampaignexcel.xls

Obama helped a Democratic quantum physicist named Bill Foster get elected to the U.S. House rep in an Illinois election today. Obama did an ad with him and lent him some campaign apparatus and muscle. I'm sure that Foster will be a superdelegate for Obama, and the DNC will take notice of what Obama brought to the table. This was Dennis Hastert's solidly congressional district, and Foster won against a well-known and well-funded Republican businessman.

i dont know mxy, knowing how much influence the clinton's have w/ the media and the party, i think she will beable to produce a pretty compelling argument as to why the party should overturn the pledged delegates and vote for her.

its one obviously i dont agree with, but i think it would be pretty strong.

i didnt know about the 10% superdelegates getting elected thing. thats a huge blow to clinton. take out 80 pledged delegates, 40 and change going to obama, and we are looking at silly season in terms of what hilary would need to overturn him.

off hand, lets conservatively say obama is winning by 150 pledged. that means, with 700 unpledged remaining, she would have to go 425-275, or 65%.

considering that obama already has 200 SD's his way, and supposedly has another 50 lined up, right now hilary's back is right against the wall. no margin for error. now, she has those taxes to worrry about first of all, and she also has obama ready to go on the offensive against her.

btw, i believe pittsburgh's mayor either endorsed or is close to endorsing obama. if obama just runs pittsburgh and philidelphia, i gotta think he cant bleed too bad in the state.

The only compelling argument that Hillary could make is "popular vote in the primaries", where Obama is still 600k ahead. Unfortunately, lots of key states did caucuses that didn't measure popular vote, so there's a big bloc of the DNC that simply won't accept that argument. No politician wants to sign up to turn the likes of Minnesota and Washington red, let alone Colorado where they'll be holding the DNC.

Through Hillary's wins and some bad luck (e.g. Canada, the Resko case), Hillary's owned the media in March but still hasn't made a serious dent with that advantage. Her "landmark wins" in Ohio and RI amounted her a grand total of 6 delegates. Hillary, Chelsea, and Bill made many stops in Wyoming trying to play their win, and lost by 23 points and a couple delegates. By all accounts, Hillary loses Mississippi by similarly-big margins and Obama will be even further ahead than he was on March 3rd.

I suspect Team Obama is letting the media get their Hillary overcompensation bias out of their system. With wins and momentum, either the press cover him as pretty inevitable, or he can play the underdog and rally the troops that way. There's a long time from Mississippi to Pennsylvania. I bet some of the "50 superdelegates" in his back pocket roll out during that time, guaranteeing good news cycles.

Assuming Obama gets to 160+ pledged delegate lead after Mississippi, she will have to get (516/2)+(160/2)=338 of 516 pledged delegates just to tie. That is ~66% of the remaining pledged delegates, which likely maps to ~70+% of the popular vote. She's only ever done that in one state -- Arkansas. The superdelegates either confirm the will of the people and pledged delegates, or they create total chaos and hand McCain the victory. It's their choice.

The snags about Florida and Michigan are messy, with no clear resolution.

AFAICT, the Florida Democratic Party are a bunch of incompetents. The reason they don't have money is because they historically mismanaged the money they've gotten, which has a lot to do with why the state is as red as it is. If some angel handed them $20 million today and a mandate to "make it happen in three months", they'd fuck it up. They've let a Republican governor be their lead spokesperson for a do-over. This won't be moving fast. I bet if Obama's far enough ahead that he could afford to lose 18 delegates, they'll seat it as-is (minus their superdelegates) by August.

Michigan is more interesting. Granholm just proposed a "firehouse primary" that's really a caucus, which Obama reportedly objected to. If so, I suspect his issue is that no one really knows how to prevent folks who already voted Republican in the January primary from double-dipping, and that's something even the Michigan Democratic Party has stated that they want to insure. Owing to this ACLU lawsuit:

http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=569

all that information is tied up for at least a month, probably more, perhaps indefinitely. The only way Michigan could run something that blocks the folks who already voted in the Republican primary would be to spend tax dollars running another primary (so the government had the voter info, not the party). This instantly hands more ammunition to Republicans in November. This lawsuit needs to play out.

cs5fxMT-PdA

not to mention, its likely that obama voters probably vote in the GOP primary more often than the cinton ones did, since the clinton was on the ticket while obama was only on the ticket as uncommitted.

i think the only way you can have a redo in michigan is letting anyone vote that wants. that opens the door to republicans... if you caucus most likely that removes that problem because who wants to go through the process of of caucusing just to vote for someone they dont want. plus the money becomes alot more feasable.

I'd love it if they held an "internet voting only" primary re-do.

Lots of reasons that it won't happen, but it would certainly be more inexpensive/progressive than these "mail in" options that they are discussing.

And what the fuck was the deal with the purple satin t-shirt that the managing editor of the Trib was wearing on MSNBC this morning?

I'd love it if they held an "internet voting only" primary re-do.

Lots of reasons that it won't happen, but it would certainly be more inexpensive/progressive than these "mail in" options that they are discussing.
Remember, Michigan had Internet primaries for Democrats in 2004. Like most Internet political voting schemes, it had a significant postal mail component, postal mail being how you send out most of the credentials so folks can vote online. At that point, it's not that much more work to go to full vote-by-mail. One of the biggest opposers of Internet voting in 2004 was Joel Ferguson, now Hillary's campaign chair in Michigan. He was afraid of Howard Dean at the time.

I'd be lying if I said that I remembered that. Hell, I can't remember what I had for lunch today.

:little tony:

Glenn, I remember because I voted over the Internet instead of absentee like I usually do.


not to mention, its likely that obama voters probably vote in the GOP primary more often than the cinton ones did, since the clinton was on the ticket while obama was only on the ticket as uncommitted.
Great point, but I suspect that pales in comparison to the # of hardcore Republicans who'd dearly love to meddle just because they could, to make up for years of Democratic meddling in their primaries. I bet Obama wants the Michigan Republican primary voters to only count once, even if it takes out a few of his own.


i think the only way you can have a redo in michigan is letting anyone vote that wants. that opens the door to republicans...
Michigan -had- a redo just 8 years ago. Neither Gore nor HOFer Bill Bradley were on the initial Michigan primary in 2000, for the same Obama and Edwards weren't on the 2008 ballot. Michigan got "cute" and scheduled its primary before Super Tuesday to cut in on the Iowa/NH dance. While it's most famous for McCain winning over Bush, few remember that good ol' "Uncommitted" beat whackjob Lyndon LaRouche on the Democratic side.

Realizing there was a problem, the primary was de-emphasized immediately when Gore/Bradley dropped off. A subsequent closed caucus took place, prohibiting those who had voted in the Republican primary. It didn't get much press because Bradley already dropped out, so the choice was Al Gore or not.

This is basically what the Michigan Democratic Party says it wants to do again (after a 4 month delay instead of instantly -- term limits hadn't taken hold yet, we were smarter). But this time, they may not be able to do the "no Republican primary voter" closed caucus dance owing to the lawsuit, and I'm sure that's a huge factor. I can't blame the guy for wanting consistent goalposts. Heck, if Hillary had integrity, she'd want that too.


if you caucus most likely that removes that problem because who wants to go through the process of of caucusing just to vote for someone they dont want. plus the money becomes alot more feasable.
Obama would love that. Hillary wouldn't because she sucks at them (in sharp contrast to her husband, who won all his caucuses after Iowa).

yea, i think a compromise is in order. one state caucus, the other state they will split the cost of the primary.

i guess the media is grilling clinton on offering obama the vp spot, or whatever.

shes been questioning his credentials to be president from day one, but she wants to put him 1 heart beat away from the presidency... i gotta call this a blunder on her part.

He said yesterday that he will not be a VP candidate, under any circumstances.

Interesting. That's pretty much tossing out the last remaining hope of uniting the party behind Hillary Clinton. I mean, I agree with him - joining her campaign would just be joining a campaign destined to fail - but it's still a pretty harsh statement.

i was watching meet the press and they polled some pundits about whether a joint ticket would help the prez win.

barack having hilary be vp, the pundits said would be a bad idea by like a 7-4 vote.

vise versa, it was 11-1 being a good idea, or beneficial to hilary.

hilary is going to try to steal this nomination, and having barack approve it by being her vp would be a huge boost in the GE. i think this is part mind games on the clinton's part, and part practical.

either way, obama saying he would consider being the vp would be a bad move at this point, i would think.

I just straight up don't like Hillary. There's no way I'd vote for her if she got the nomination, with our without Obama as her VP.

I like the move too.

It's like he's saying, "If you like me, vote for me. I'm not coming along for free."

I just straight up don't like Hillary. There's no way I'd vote for her if she got the nomination, with our without Obama as her VP.

Enjoy the next 100 years in Iraq.

There's not a huge difference in Obama's ideas/policies and Hillary's.

I'm pulling for Obama, but I'd proudly vote for Hil if she gets the nomination, even if I don't care for her personality.

She's much, much better than the alternative, IMO.

I'm not convinced that Hillary wouldn't have us in Iraq for 100 years.

I am convinced that Hillary would select better Supreme Court justices.

Sharpton threatens lawsuit if Michigan and Florida delis are seated without a redo.

I'm kind of pulling for a Dem prez too. Just cuz I want to see whether they come through after all the bloviating about Iraq, the NSA intel thing, water boarding, etc.

Once they are in the big chair, and have the country to protect, it'll be interesting to see...for me anyway.

If a Dem gets elected, it will be interesting to see how the conservative media responds if/when we get another terrorist attack on US soil.

I honestly think that some of the radio talking heads will be licking their chops waiting for that day.

Prolly true.

The NSA listening thing is credited with mox nixing some attacks. The Senate intel com passed it, then the Senate passed it, but Pelosi and Reid hold it up.

Once a prez is seated, he/she will want all tools available to help them protect the country.

From what I've read and heard on the tube, if the Dem Prez wants to keep us safe, they'll 'urge' Pelosi and Reid to go get a room and let Congress vote on the bill. They won't even let it come to the floor. Thats fucked up.

My hunch is that Hillary as the candidate turns Michigan red.

Michigan, as it stands, is basically 43% Dem, 37% Rep, and 20% Indy. Those numbers have trended a little more Democratic over the past few years, but only a little, and assume reasonable turnout. Remember, Michigan voted for Kerry by under 3% in 2004. McCain has considerably more "Indy" pull than divisive Hillary. If we assume a 65%-35% margin, that makes it a tie race.

Add to that the certainty that this turns into a referendum on Granholm in a year in which she raised taxes and looks to bail on Michigan for a cabinet slot with her girl, Hillary. Remember those effective ads morphing Dick DeVos into George Bush? Imagine Hillary's face morphing into Granholm's. She was key to making the broken Democratic primary possible, too.

Add to that the mess that is Detroit. I'm not convinced she gets "reasonable turnout" from the city of Detroit with Kwame in freefall. No one else has big competitive elections there owing to gerrymandering. For all the poo-poo of Detroit shrinking, it's still 9+% of total state population and a considerably larger % of Democratic voters, Detroit being hugely Democratic.

Obama had some sharp words for Hillary. He asked why the person in 2nd place is talking about the 1st place canidate being her backup. He said he's not running for VP.

Another interesting development is on that commercial she ran in Texas/Ohio asking who you want to answer the phone at 3 am. As it turns out, the baby pictured is a girl that is now grown up, and is a Obama supporter that ran a Obama office somewhere. Obviously she did not consent to that use.

Obama had some sharp words for Hillary. He asked why the person in 2nd place is talking about the 1st place canidate being her backup. He said he's not running for VP.

Another interesting development is on that commercial she ran in Texas/Ohio asking who you want to answer the phone at 3 am. As it turns out, the baby pictured is a girl that is now grown up, and is a Obama supporter that ran a Obama office somewhere. Obviously she did not consent to that use.

re: bolded part

I heard that Hill is making a play to the super-deli's saying, keep supporting me, I'll bring BO along with me.

I'm thinking Spitzer will not be a SD for long.

I agree. That is her plan. But it's about time he called her out on it. I'm hoping some voters on the fence figure out that if they want change, it's not going to come from Hillary's VP (as it might with Obama as VP).

I also think she looks really bad the way he put it. I'm not a NASCAR fan, but I bet it's similar to a lesser driver telling a Jeff Gordon type that he'd be happy to let Gordon draft him to a 2nd place finish.

Yep.

And I'm not trying to be partisan here, but the other thing I heard from a DEM, is that the Clintons do leave a bunch of junk behind them(trouble). So its prolly not in BO's best interest to be thinking the White House is his in 8 years. He cited Gore fwiw.

He's got a pretty clean slate. Don't let someone else goof things up for you.

I also think that he's (BO) got no desire to have Bill looking over his shoulder if he were the VP.

Anybody that Hil picks for a running mate is going to have to be willing to live with that, IMO.

He also had a nice sharp comment about experience. He asked why Hillary keeps saying he doesn't have the experience to be president from day 1, but she wants him to be VP (one step from president). He said that was a contradiction. When asked about it, a Hillary spokesman said that maybe he'll have the experience needed by August (the convention). Keith Oberman was joking about a VP training course that Obama will be taking this summer (like driver's training). He's passed the "written test" but not the "field test" Oberman was joking.

On CNN they asked a former Clinton lawyer about it and he said she's never formally brought it up, that she just gets asked that in debates and she has to answer it. He said "what is she going to say, that Obama is terrible?" Then the other CNN pundits quickly pointed out that she has brought it up in speaches (no questions asked), and so has Bill lately.

judging by KO's breakdown, obam wins this thang 55-45. i dont know how that breaks down the SD's, but im guessing 19-14, maybe 18-15.

lol@geraldineferraro. 20 years later she re-emerges for 2 seconds just to make a complete ass of her self ("theyre attacking me cuz im white").

whooooaa see ya!

This proportional representation the Dems do is kind of too much.

11 delis go by state count
??? go by certain districts
blah blah blah

So BO will win handily and end up with 18-14 or possibly even 16-16??? Something like that.

The Dems crack me up. We can't let anyone get ahead. We might hurt someones feelings.

If McCain was running in this system, he would not be the nominee right now.

judging by KO's breakdown, obam wins this thang 55-45. i dont know how that breaks down the SD's, but im guessing 19-14, maybe 18-15.
Exit polls look more like 60-40ish, if you're talking Mississippi. The news was being weird about calling it for Obama for some reason... not sure what the deal was, but they all have it for Obama now. It looks like there was some effort by Republicans to sandbag the primary, or he'd have a greater margin.

The other big news is that Obama may have picked up a couple delegates in Ohio at Hillary's expense. If that's the case and the Texas caucus delegate results are as projected, he lost 2 delegates on the night he "lost 3 states".

There's no way Hillary can win more states than Obama now.

This proportional representation the Dems do is kind of too much.

11 delis go by state count
??? go by certain districts
blah blah blah

So BO will win handily and end up with 18-14 or possibly even 16-16??? Something like that.

The Dems crack me up. We can't let anyone get ahead. We might hurt someones feelings.
Republicans have similar antics, depending on state. At one point awhile back, under "winner take all", Obama and Hillary would still be pretty even (though each victory would've been more of a body blow to the other). Weighing states that choose to have primaries later with more of a % of delegates is the Dems' biggest problem, IMO.

The problem with winner-take-all schemes is converging too rapidly on a candidate with <50% of the vote with multiple candidates. McCain's got a situation where he's already won so doesn't have to do fuck-all, but many Republicans are still lukewarm to him at best.

Sorry Diddy, didn't see your numbers breakdown.

I'd fuck it all up with this scenario...

The big states get some sort of proportional representation. So CA, NY, FL and Texas or something get some division of delis. Other than that, win it, or go home.

Whats next? The NFL says it was 45-44 so the Colts get this many points toward the playoffs? Fuck all that communist shit...or is that socialist? or something.

ferraro's comments are shameful, or so you'd think. and in terms of rejecting and denouncing, hilary has fallen far short of rejecting and denouncing them.

was this ferraro being a dumbass or calculated politics? happened right before the most racially tinged primary (mississippi), and the next primary (Penn) is loaded with hicks.

what is hilary thinking? the black vote is unanimously voting barack at this point. this, at this point its looking like a ploy, by clinton could keep african americans at home come november should she win the primary (somehow).

now, im no expert, but i gotta think the democratic party without the black vote gets its ass handed to it come the GE. michigan, for one, instantly turns red.

basically, i think hilary wants race to be discussed. alot. i think she wants barack talking about it.

I'd fuck it all up with this scenario...

The big states get some sort of proportional representation. So CA, NY, FL and Texas or something get some division of delis. Other than that, win it, or go home.

Whats next? The NFL says it was 45-44 so the Colts get this many points toward the playoffs? Fuck all that communist shit...or is that socialist? or something.
Note that our electoral college is equally fucked up, in ways which some would argue has socialist strains, with "small states" as the proletariat. By population, California should have ~12% of the electoral votes, ~12% of a say in who gets to be on top.. But they only get ~10% of them EVs. Your vote in California is worth a good deal less than the same vote in Wyoming. Small states, having gotten enough power to "make a difference", want the candidates to suck up to them, so we end up with "winner-take-all".

ferraro's comments are shameful, or so you'd think. and in terms of rejecting and denouncing, hilary has fallen far short of rejecting and denouncing them.

was this ferraro being a dumbass or calculated politics?
It's Ferraro being a dumbass. She said similar things about Jesse Jackson in the eighties, and this had been festering for months. She's a bitter old bitch. I'm sure Hillary wants race to be mentioned, pointing out that in a general election, Obama may not do so well because he's black. But...


what is hilary thinking? the black vote is unanimously voting barack at this point. this, at this point its looking like a ploy, by clinton could keep african americans at home come november should she win the primary (somehow).

now, im no expert, but i gotta think the democratic party without the black vote gets its ass handed to it come the GE. michigan, for one, instantly turns red.
...Team Hillary's race-baiting comments went overboard. I betcha the idea was to raise doubts about Obama's electability. Unfortunately for them, the racist comments are tied far too closely to Hillary, having started during the primaries with Bill talking "fairy tales" and marginalizing South Carolina, and continuing on with Ferraro. Hillary has truly pissed away the black vote, and Obama will remind the party power players of this if needed.

Check out:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/30048.html

Clinton's foreign experience is more limited than she says

Some of these quotes are great:


On the stump, Clinton takes credit for helping to bring peace between warring Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. George Mitchell, the former Maine senator who helped negotiate the peace agreements, has said that Clinton's visits to the region and meetings with female activists there were "very helpful" in the peace efforts.

But one of the key Irish negotiators last week called Clinton's description of her role in the process a "wee bit silly."

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," David Trimble told Belfast's Daily Telegraph.

Trimble, the former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic Labour Party, shared the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in the peace process. "I don't want to rain on the thing for her, but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," Trimble said.


On the stump, Clinton also touts her visits to war zones. She describes a harrowing flight into Bosnia, where her plane had to make a corkscrew landing to avoid enemy fire.

The comedian Sinbad, who accompanied Clinton on the Bosnia trip along with singer Sheryl Crow, disputed Clinton's description of the danger.

"I think the only 'red phone' moment was: Do we eat here or at the next place?" Sinbad told The Washington Post on Monday. "I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank." Sinbad supports Obama.

Is there any doubt that Sinbad's support will put Obama over the top?

Sinbad is known for powerful political endorsements. Arnold Schwarzenegger became der Governator of California after hangin' with Sinbad in Jingle All The Way (am I the only person who liked that movie?).

The other big news is that Obama may have picked up a couple delegates in Ohio at Hillary's expense. If that's the case and the Texas caucus delegate results are as projected, he lost 2 delegates on the night he "lost 3 states".


He also picked up 4 delegates in California because the intial returns on her wins in 4 couties was right at a dividing line on delegates.

On the topic of experience, I also saw a lot of comments about how on many of her trips for women's rights she simply went and made a speach. She was never involved in any of the meetings that took place. While I think it's commendable that she did make the speaches, she trumpets about her experience fighting for rights all the time. She also ripped Obama in a debate about not being in any meetings for the position he just took, yet she was probably in VERY little meetings outside her health care responsibilities as first lady (which failed BTW).

He also picked up 4 delegates in California because the intial returns on her wins in 4 couties was right at a dividing line on delegates.
Yup -- 167-203 instead of 163-207, so a +8 swing for Obama. Some of the delegate counting sites have factored this in for awhile, while some still don't. It wasn't four counties, just one county -- L.A. County. But with 10 million people, it has multiple pools of delegates.

There were nearly 100k ballots that went uncounted because of stupid ballot design particular to L.A. County. There, you had to fill out a bubble for your candidate (whose party certification is listed), then fill another bubble saying you were voting "Democratic" in some separate place. It's was a redundant bubble and easy to miss. Lots of votes for Obama and even more for Hillary went uncounted. Those votes gave Obama the +8.

I'm surprised that he didn't do even better in L.A., seeing as how he lived in L.A. (well, Eagle Rock) for a couple years.