vttC9QJ9c3o

if super delegates play a roll in this election i will never vote for a democrat on a national level agian.

that said im excited about today.

Superdelegates played a huge role in the 1984 election, which the Clinton and Obama show has disturbing parallels to.

In 1984, Mondale, the former VP under Carter (essentially the incumbent) locked up nearly all superdelegates early on. Even though few really wanted Mondale to run, knowing that an echo of Carter would lose against Reagan even more badly than Carter himself did, he perservered. Even though there was a relatively charismatic young guy named Gary Hart who was keeping up with him (despite not being the heir apparent) by winning primaries and popular vote in key states, Mondale won by superdelegates. He announced his delegate victory after a loss.

Now, Reagan almost certainly would've won against anyone in 1984. A lot of people then had short memories about how bad things were during the middle of Reagan's term. But Mondale's insistence on being the face of the party killed them, not just presidentially but down-ticket. IIRC, they didn't win a single race against any Republican incumbent. The primary selection process led to the worst choice and worst results possible. I'm amazed that no one fixed the superdelegate problem in the wake of 1984. I'm skeptical that the Democrats have learned anything from history.

This is going to be thooper

I'm amazed that no one fixed the superdelegate problem in the wake of 1984. I'm skeptical that the Democrats have learned anything from history.

good post, didnt know all this.

but yea, superdelegates are about as flagrantly undemocratic as it gets. how could democrats cry over the 2000 general election when they have this? talk about hypocricy.

that would be funny if the dems had the best turnout in primary election history and then essentially disenfranchised all the voters. from a voyeristic perspective, it would be fantastic (assuming anyone gave a fuck, which probably wouldnt be the case).

During the Super Bowl I was playing a 20 year old video game (Kings Quest 6) with my 4 year old daughter. Today I will be at a buddy's house eyes glued to the tube.

but yea, superdelegates are about as flagrantly undemocratic as it gets. how could democrats cry over the 2000 general election when they have this? talk about hypocricy.
Republicans have 20% of their delegates as superdelegates too, though they call them "unpledged" since they're usually not as well-known to the public as their Democratic counterparts. They're much less of a factor at the moment because of how they're distributed (which unlike Democrats, varies based on the particular state), and because there hasn't been a clear front runner.

Basically, unpledged delegates were intended to be a check against mass insanity. Historically, there were just party conventions and closed doors. Whoever showed up got a chance to make the sausage for that season of politics. Parties were decidedly undemocratic in their operation. Then the notion that only specific people involved with the party from the state should attend, and that's where you get to the old-school caucuses in the 1800s -- mostly closed doors stuff, still. It evolved to people in general from some states (not just the party mucketymucks) wanting a say in which people go to the convention to represent them, and you get to the scattered primaries through the early 20th century. You only get to everyone wanting a say and compelling delegates to follow your say -- a democratic approach -- in the 1970s.

Insanity is this years process.

If the Dems hadn't fucked up their Florida primary, all those Indi's wouldn't have registered as Reps so they could vote for McCain and Romney would have won.

This things is all fucked up this year.

Ok, I'm done with my morning rant, on to S Tuesday.

When was the last time a guy with teeth as bad as McCain's won the Presidency?

GDub with his woodies?

Those suckers are yellow and nasty! (McCain's)

He'd be the oldest president ever elected if I'm not mistaken (72 when sworn in).

hilary would be 4th, i believe.

Barack would be the 6th youngest I think.

Here are the presidents sworn in older than 60:
Ronald Reagan 69y 11m 14d
William Henry Harrison 68y 00m 23d
James Buchanan 65y 10m 09d
George H.W. Bush 64y 07m 08d
Zachary Taylor 64y 03m 08d
Dwight D. Eisenhower 62y 03m 06d
Andrew Jackson 61y 11m 17d
John Adams 61y 04m 04d
Gerald Ford 61y 00m 26d
Harry S. Truman 60y 11m 04d

McCain would be the oldest (72)
Romney would be between Dwight and Andrew Jackson (almost 62)
Huckabee would be in the middle somewhere at 53 years old
Hillary would be 5th oldest I think (just older than Dwight)

-- Gov. Mike Huckabee is winner in West Virginia Republican convention, CNN projects.

Wait wait wait...What this "If McCain would win" stuff? I thought the Dems have this one all sewed up?

I know McCain is a Dem mascarading as a Republican but he doesn't count as a Dem.


EDIT... My bad... you didn't say "IF".

Carry on...

McCain couldn't win, so he gave his votes to Huckabee so Romney wouldn't win.

I love it!

That's pretty much how caucuses work.


The former Arkansas governor won with the support of 52 percent of the state's GOP convention delegates on the second round of balloting. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney came in second with 47 percent of the vote, and Sen. John McCain was backed by 1 percent of the delegates.
Romney was ahead in the first round of voting in Charleston but failed to get the majority needed to win.
It appeared as though supporters of McCain, who placed a distant third on the first ballot, moved over to Huckabee, helping him to carry the day.
Front-runners McCain and Romney, have engaged in some bitter exchanges over their conservative records in recent weeks.http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gif Watch how CNN analysts view the GOP race » (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/05/super.main/index.html#cnnSTCVideo)
"This is raw politics as it's really practiced," CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider said. "The McCain supporters who were third in the first round decided to throw their weight behind Mike Huckabee in order to stop Mitt Romney from winning this convention. And look at that -- they did."

results start coming in 48 minutes. the winner take all of republicans would be more fun, but i think the dems have the better system... other than SDs.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1202225~Early_Feb__5_Exit_Poll_Highlights.html?cid =rss-Politics

cnn just showed a highlight of huckabee's speach, it went him saying "there are fanatics out there who want to kill each and every one of us!" with the crowd cheering after 'each and every one of us'. lol. no wonder the terror msg isnt resonating.

Romney might manage to squeeze out a win in Utah.
We'll see.
It's preliminary.
Romney and his four wives are unavailable for comment.

7:00:00 - polls close in Georgia
7:00:01 - Obama declared winner

these next 9 states should be pretty good for BO, too.

BO has made HUGE strides with white voters too...exit polls are showing. HillBilly is clinging to her national lead. I don't expect it to last.

fucking white woman. if it werent for soccer (grand)moms, it appears BO would have put her out to pasture without problem.

I hope that bullshit move by McCain in West Virginia comes back to haunt him. I hope Huck comes up and beats him.

it appears its hilary's dy so far, but its hard to guage since cnn is reporting votes, and not delegates. i realize thats harder to do, but cnn seems rather disengenuous talking about winning states when it obviously doesnt matter. im a little annoyed with the coverage, really.

What they're saying on MSNBC is that Obama may be getting more than expected delegate-wise. Hope that's true.

i kind of suspect it only because cnn seems to have forgotten the D word. wolf can hardly contain himself.

wolf is a joke. "barak wins north dakota. this win is not as important as his huge loss to hilary in massachussettes. lets get back to talking about new england, and only new england, and how well hilary is doing there..."

barak getting his butt kicked in new england but it seems like the rest of the country likes him.

california is gonna be worth staying up for.

hilary "lobbyist speak for someone" clinton just called out bush for listening to special interests. lol.

hilary is acting like she won the nomination, she lost 11 of 19 states reporting so far. unless california goes hard for hilary, it looks like this race is going to be pretty close tomorrow morning, slightly in hilary's favor. but thats mostly guesswork, cnn is pretty closed lipped on delegates.

It's a Massachusetts butt-kicking. Connecticut was an Obama win (as much as you can call any result within ~5% a win given the delegate math).

Massachusetts just plain confuses me.

FWIW, there seem to be ~20% of people who consider "gender" one of their voting criteria (if not their only voting criteria) who break for Hillary in a big way. If you eliminate the sexist vote, Obama wins most everywhere (excepting for Massachusetts).

As you look in the vote counts, note that most of Obama's strengths should be in cities, which tend to be the last to report. I'm REALLY curious about how Missouri goes.

What they're saying on MSNBC is that Obama may be getting more than expected delegate-wise. Hope that's true.

So you're the one still watching MSNBC??? I was wondering who's still watching them.

Man...BO can deliver a speach.

just eye balling, i think hilary picks up about 200 delegates on obama tonight, 300 total.

with about 1800 or so delegates to remain, obama would still have a nice, uphill battle at work. would be real real tough, but i believe. cutting into cali would be fantastic.

I heard a couple of times that the BO camp wished Super Tuesday was more like Super Thursday.

I heard that the BO camp really feels like they are making progress.

I heard that the person with the most votes so far in this primary season is HillBilly. The amazing thing to me is that the person with the 2nd most votes.....drum roll please.....BO.

Republicans are toast. I finally admit it.

the dealio on cali. according to cnn, barak won among everyone BUT latinos and asians. those two demographics combine to 37% of the voting democrats. she killed him in those groups.

so lets say barak won something like 55% of the other 73%, that puts him at like 40%. but she killed him w/ those demographics, getting something like 75% that would put BO a little under 50% of the vote.... right now hilary is killing him, but i suspect it should get pretty close. assuming cnn was correct (and me too).

another thing to point out, barak looks to have won 14-8 in the states. obviously, this doesnt matter a ton... but something to counter hilary's delegates. what is relevent is that hilary is carried by cali, ny, and massachusets.

those are states any legit candidate should win. if electability becomes an issue again, barrack suddenly has a ton of amo (combined with hilary being the only thing that could energize the republican base... he might not go there though).

how the hispanic vote breaks down is going to be very important. not just for why hilary won cali, but what happens in Texas, the next big prize. obama's last stand could be in the alamo, so its time he starts speaking spanish and going by miguel.

WHOMEVER wins the presidnc will prolly have a fairly tough re-election bid in 4 years if things don't improve dramatically.

I mean even on their own side.

Romney will be a candidate in the future. If HillBilly does win the nomination, BO WILL BE BACK!

Huck thinks he will be, but won't be.

And to your point Diddy... Hispanics out here never seem to be in the AA corner...or the other way around.

I still say, btw...that if the Dems Florida primary didn't get fucked up, that those indis wouldn't have left their party to vote in the Republican primary and give the win to McCain. Romney would have won Florida and EVERYTHING would be different today.

The New Mexico vote is too close to call -- 117 vote lead for Clinton out of 130000+ votes counted thus far, but with 16000+ provisional ballots left. I hope Obama pulls that one out because it'll mean a lot symbolically for the hispanic vote, if not the delegate vote. My sense is that if you're going to the hassle of filing a provisional ballot, you're more likely to vote Obama, but that election was marred by lack of ballots and no one expecting big turnout.

The delegate-fu here will be REAL interesting. The only news report I've seen that tries to break out all of the states' elected delegates, and does the district-level voodoo is NBC. They reported that, as far as elected delegates, Obama ends up with a narrow lead (841-837), even factoring in an optimistic win for Hillary. But, they're saying that more superdelegates pledged Clinton. Most of the other news networks are doing shitty tallying.

This was Hillary's best shot at a knockout blow, and she simply didn't deliver. Obama outperformed in several swing states, while Hillary only outperformed in TN where bad weather killed black turnout in Memphis. The rest of the month is quite favorable to Obama, if I believe all the pundits. If head to heads continue to show Obama besting McCain, and Obama edges Hillary in elected delegates, the pressure on Hillary will be fun fun fun.

The races that get me are Connecticut and Massachusetts. If anything, I'd expect their victories to be reversed, just intuitively. Connecticut is tied more strongly to NY than Massachusetts, is minutes from where Hillary lives. Massachusetts has highly liberal educated demographics that are an Obama strong point, a political machine solidly pro-Obama, and just elected a black governor who's liked more than not.

Obama needs a Perot-style infomercial.

CNN has it 825 to 732 Clinton.

I don't know about anyone getting a knockout punch last night. I think the extremists in both camps were hoping for something like that but the more rational didn't see that happening.

I think the Huckabee thing is hilarious and that Romney is the only one still in (so far) that is an absolutely terrible choice.

so my eyeball delegate count was wayyyyy off. to be fair, i was trying to do kind of a worse case scenario, but im thrilled to be wrong. right now, it looks like obama is within the range of superdelegate differential. cnn has it at 825 to 732. im assuming all delegates havent been alotted yet. still, thats not a whole lot with whats left.

best of all, were almost done with the NE, where obama has been getting his but kicked.

i agree, mxy, an infomercial would be great. actually, it would have been awesome a week ago. with the writer strike, you'd have thought that he could have swung that for not all that much money.

but i still dont think anyone has an idea who a hilary voter or a barrak voter is.

we know white woman love hilary, barak has the black vote, working class think hilary will get us back to the 90's, and that affluent idealistic liberals have picked up on obama. that still leaves a huge portion of the voters with a "?". right now that biggest one is latino's, for sure.

barrack says give them drivers licenses. i havent covered immigration much though.

The CNN counts are adding a partial count of delegates tonight along with the elected+superdelegate counts from pre-Super Tuesday:

Clinton: 632 + 193 = 825
Obama: 626 + 106 = 732

By CNN's current count, Obama got 6 less delegates than Hillary last night, but it's a partial weird count.

Thus far, the only place I found someone who was doing true state-by-state elected delegate projections, factoring in all of the district numbers for all the states, had a narrow edge for Obama. "Won more states, won more elected delegates" will be a good narrative if it holds up.

bloomberg has the count 845 - 765, for what its worth.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-delegate-count/

shows Obama up by 9. Here's a picture:

http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/excelfile.jpg

Superdelegates are voting for Clinton. Show over.

They can change their mind though:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Americans like a level playing field.
We wouldn't watch the Super Bowl if one team was given a free touchdown to start. We're apoplectic over the idea of baseball players loading up on steroids.
No wonder the Democratic Party is facing serious scrutiny over the idea that superdelegates are tilting its presidential playing field in favor of Hillary Clinton.
If you haven't heard of these folks in past elections, don't feel bad. They have been, at times, a rather obscure bunch.
Here's their story, in short:
A few decades ago, Democratic leaders felt that sometimes, Democratic voters were choosing poor presidential candidates: campaigners who couldn't win elections, or even if they could, they didn't please Democratic kingmakers.
Jimmy Carter, for example, was an obscure candidate who developed so much popular appeal that he essentially forced Democratic Party leaders to accept him as the nominee, even though not everyone was thrilled by it.
See? So the party changed the rules for picking its nominee.
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_TL.gif
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

They made the superdelegates: a super class of super Democrats, each of whom could vote at the convention for a candidate of choice -- in effect, giving each of these Democrats the power of tens of thousands of average citizens.
Who are they? Democratic members of Congress, governors, big-shot party members: Bill Clinton, for example. The theory was that the superdelegates could help steer the party toward solid, competitive candidates, and away from Monday morning regrets.
There are about 800 of them, and that's a lot when you can win the nomination with only about 2,000 delegates. Hence the controversy. Even though Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) is winning more delegates in actual primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html) is substantially ahead of him in the overall delegate count because many more superdelegates say they will vote for her.
Maybe that shouldn't matter. Both candidates knew the rules when they started. If she's better at securing these delegates, good for her, too bad for him.
But that argument may clatter like a counterfeit quarter with the general public if this race continues neck-and-neck down to the convention, if the Democratic nominee is not selected by a sea of Americans voters, but instead is anointed by party leaders.
Superdelegates can change their minds, and if Obama starts running away with the popular vote, you can bet your house some of them will stampede from Camp Clinton.
But if the race remains very tight, and the superdelegates are the deciding factor, the Democratic Party can expect some tough questions.
Remember, many staunch Democrats have always felt Al Gore had his presidency stolen by the courts and the Electoral College.
If the superdelegates decide this race, there will certainly be a lot of heated debates within the party, and perhaps a very cold November awaiting the nominee.

Superdelegates are voting for Clinton. Show over.

hardly.

if superdelegates decide the election anything but show over. americans are not very fond of disenfranchisement, and having a few hundred people tell the rest of america (who voted in record numbers in damn near each and every state) that their votes dont count is gonna be ugly.

for a party that cried so hard over "disenfranchisement" in 2000, this is gonna be 1000 times worse because it would be true DISENFRANCHISEMENT, done against the own party.

i get carried away sometimes, but i think it could very well be the end of the democratic party. and certainly great news for john mccain.

BTW, here's the Michigan superdelegates that pledged for Hillary (keeping in mind that none of 'em count, just like our primary didn't count):

Jennifer Granholm
John Cherry
Debbie Stabenow
Sander Levin
Joel Ferguson
Debbie Dingell

For Obama:

John Conyers

And the ones that are theoretically uncommitted:

Dale Kildee
Sander Levin
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
John Dingell
Bart Stupak
Carl Levin
Mark Brewer
Arthenia Abbott
Elizabeth Bunn
Robert Ficano
Joyce Lalonde
Jeffrey Radjewski
Michael Tardiff
Richard Wiener
Lu Battaglieri
Richard Shoemaker
Kwame Kilpatrick
Eric Coleman
Virgie Rollins
Lauren Wolfe

this is an atypical primary. typically, the story is ambivalence, poor turnout, and uneducated voters. this is pretty much a 180 from that. people are gonna care if we're told our vote doesnt matter.

if superdelegates decide the election anything but show over. americans are not very fond of disenfranchisement, and having a few hundred people tell the rest of america (who voted in record numbers in damn near each and every state) that their votes dont count is gonna be ugly.
In 1960, JFK debated LBJ in front of a few delegates and won, and that's how we get JFK as a presidential nominee. All the preliminaries -- primaries in a third of the states where JFK got a third of the vote -- were straw polls. LBJ didn't even participate in the primaries, but was the second place candidate when all the sausage was squeezed, which is how he ends up as VP.

There's no inherent right for a political party to use any democratic process to select a candidate. Look at what happened to Michigan's delegates and voice in the process as a perfect example. Sometimes, engaging in a direct democratic process to select party leaders ends in utter disaster. Look no further than the meltdown of the Reform Party.

that may be true.

hell, rutherford b. hayes puts every election to shame... or vice versa.

but i think expectations have changed. people expect transparancy and fair results. i dont think people just say "oh, my vote doesnt matter? thats cool" anymore.

with record turnouts in voters and money, that tells me people care. if superdelegates pick the outcome, i really believe this will be bad for all parties involved. i would expect the loser to say respect the decision, but i dont htink that happens. the democrats seem so energized right now, and i think superdelegates could pull the plug.

I was listening to a scenario where BO might end up with more votes than hillbilly but not as many delegates too.

In some states delegates are handed out by districts, so BO could win big in some districts, barely lose to Hillbilly in others and Hillbilly end up with more delis.

I agree with states rights and all, but it does seem like every state would be the same.

Popular vote is the only thing that should matter if we are really following the "all men are created equal" thing that we live by.

Obama Campaign Says He Leads in Delegates After Super Tuesday

By Jeff Bliss

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama's campaign manager said the Illinois senator emerged from the Super Tuesday as the leader in the delegate count over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential race.

Clinton's advisers said the two candidates would end up separated by no more than five or six delegates, who will decide the party's nominee for the general election.

Delegates, which are awarded based on a combination of popular votes statewide and results in congressional districts, were still being tallied in states such as New Mexico and Missouri because of close margins between the two candidates.

``We've won more states, we've won more votes and we've won more delegates than Senator Clinton,'' Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said during a conference call this morning. `

According to Plouffe, Obama accumulated 847 delegates to Clinton's 834 by winning more states than Clinton did. That would bring the overall delegate count to 910 for Obama and 882 for Clinton, he said.

A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination. Both campaigns have said they expect to be battling for delegates into March.

Advisers to New York Senator Clinton, 60, declined to release their estimates. Guy Cecil, Clinton's political field director, said on a conference call that the campaign's current count shows Clinton ahead by one delegate, with more delegates to be counted. He said he expects the final margin will be narrow.

The results are ``essentially bringing yesterday to a draw on delegates,'' he said.

A total of 1,681 delegates were at stake in the voting across 22 states. An Associated Press count showed Clinton, 60, won at least 582 delegates yesterday compared with 562 for Obama.

In addition to pledged delegates awarded in primaries and caucuses, Clinton and Obama, 46, are vying for almost 800 so- called super delegates, Democratic officeholders and party officials who are free to back any candidate.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net or Tony Capaccio at at acapaccio@bloomnberg.net

I think part of BO's problem with the Democratic establishment is that a lot of his wins came in states that the Dems have very little chance of carrying in the general.

Hillbilly is winning in the states that the Dems need to win in the general...CA, NY, etc.

When I went to bed Missouri was in his column. That is a big win...cuz Missou is kind of a bellwether.

Missouri, Colorado, and Virginia are the keys to the kingdom for Obama -- maybe Ohio. They're Bush states trending Democratic... not enough for Hillary to win in a general election, but probably enough for Obama to win. And, if Obama gets electoral love from any of those southern states with large black populations -- yessir! Hillary has no upside by comparison.

What's interesting is who McCain will put on the ticket. The most natural choice would be Huckabee, especially if Hillary wins to counteract her in the south, or maybe Charlie Crist if he's not gay and they wany a Florida firewall. Neither are conservatives, though, and there could be a full-scale meltdown. It's hard to find a young conservative who's NOT strongly tied to Bush.

not enough for Hillary to win in a general election, but probably enough for Obama to win

I really don't get this reasoning at all. Obama is definitely more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Is it just that when people see the Democratic Party, they just assume that if you're less likeable, you're more liberal?

I agree Swam. I mean Liberal is not a bad word and neither is conservative for that matter. Its all the other shit that gets added in that fucks everything up.

I really don't get this reasoning at all. Obama is definitely more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Is it just that when people see the Democratic Party, they just assume that if you're less likeable, you're more liberal?
It's not about being liberal, it's about being a straight shooter and principled. That's where the swing state appeal comes in.

its debateable on who's more liberal. for example, hil's healthcare seems to be to the left of BO's. i think you could go through a number of issues and it would be a mixed bag, actually.

perhaps we're assuming BO is to the left of hilary because bill had the reputation, and therefore hilary has it, of playing by the numbers (ie letting polls dictate policy). that does suggest moderation.

i think the reason why BO plays better in red states is the straight shooter aspect, the charisma, and that his last name isnt clinton.

you cant underestimate the right's hatred of the clintons.

Some confused Florida voters wanted to vote on Super Tuesday

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flfmistake0206sbfeb06,0,2680423.story


Elections offices across the state reported hundreds of calls from voters wanting to know where they could vote Tuesday. The answer was that Florida already had its presidential primary — last week.

"We've had over 100 calls, at least, over the last two days," said Kathy Adams, a spokeswoman for the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Office.

"Florida already voted, so don't go to your polls today," was the advice from Mary Cooney, director of public service at the Broward Supervisor of Elections Office.

In Orange County, officials had to deal with a combination of confused voters from Florida and California.

"One of my staffers has figured it out," said Orange County (Fla.) Elections Supervisor Bill Cowles. "They are California voters going online and looking for the Orange County [California] election office and calling us instead."

That didn't explain the man who showed up at an Orlando polling site Tuesday wanting to vote, Cowles conceded.

Cowles and his fellow election supervisors in neighboring Seminole and Osceola counties reported at least two dozen similar calls. Even Leon County, which saw some of the heaviest turnout in Florida's Jan. 29 election, received its share.

"It's funny that they want to argue with us about it," said Janet Olin, assistant elections supervisor. "We absolutely have had more than a handful, and they are a handful."

I think part of BO's problem with the Democratic establishment is that a lot of his wins came in states that the Dems have very little chance of carrying in the general.

Some are saying similar things about McCain. He's winning the states that he'd be unlikely to win in the GE.

i think thats much more a problem for mccain than obama. barrack isnt going to have trouble winning democratic strongholds if he gets the nomination. however, there is concern that the right is not going to support mccain.

To clarify, the assumption that I heard about with regards to the states that McCain has won so far is that the Dems are most likely going to win those in the GE, largely because they are traditionally Dem states, not because Repubs won't support McYellowTeeth.

The Rep are toast, imo.

Everyone said we didn't have a good candidate and I thought...bullshit. Well 'they' were right. None of the candidates gets Reps out to vote.

One Dem candidate gets more votes than the entire Rep field combined.

Forgot...

You are right Diddy and thought about that after I posted...the Dems in NY and CA will get behind BO quickly.

The fact that he was winning some of those Red states, that Dems traditionally don't carry, should be a positive for the party. If he could put some of those states in the Blue column, this one could be a landslide.

back on the other topic...The one chance Reps have of winning back the office is if Hillbilly is nominated. She could do more for Rep voter turnout than any Rep candidate could...imo.

right. the far right doesnt believe in mccain, but their hatred of hilary might get them to the booths anyway. i dont believe for a second that a true concervative would rather see hilary in office than mccain.

BTW... I voted.