Ohio aftermath

The rout in Ohio happened. Obama has a huge electability problem in the state. He took a total of 5 counties, and lost in 82 counties. Even though he's able to rack up a large number of urban black voters he did terrible among white voters, winning just 34 percent.




You don't win a general election in Ohio if you can only win in 5 counties. I realize I'm speaking out against the other members in my tribe, the wealthy post-graduate male clique of punditry, in pointing out Obama has a problem in Ohio. So be it.

In Ohio, Clinton won the votes of Democrats by a 14 percent margin, 56-42. Clinton and Obama tied among Republican & Independent voters. I find it ironic that the most strident of "progressives" find themselves backing the candidate whom does the least well among self-declared Democrats.

And lets not forget that Obama outspent Clinton by a 3 or 4:1 margin, and had the union help. There's no amount of money or youth organizing that is going to change the dynamics at work against Obama in Ohio in the November general.

We'll see in a month, but my guess is that we get about the same map coming out of Pennsylvania. There is not a winning Democratic electoral map which doesn't include either or both Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Yea, Wyoming is going to vote next. A place where Bush won 70 percent of the vote in 2004 and where Democrats will lose handily again in 2008. Neither Clinton or Obama will even return to the state past its caucus in a few days. It'll have about 20,000 people attend caucuses, and let Obama fans say that Ohio's win by Clinton doesn't matter, that Obama gained just as many delegates in Wyoming. This is process-powered politics; it may figure out well enough to take a lead in pledged delegates, but it's not a winning formula for the general election.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

272 Comments

Re: Ohio aftermath

So you are saying he just needs to drop out because of this?

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-05 02:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I think all he said it that he OBVIOUSLY has an electability issue.

by atomic garden 2008-03-05 02:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

The notion that the results of the Democratic primary will determine the election in November is silly at best. It assumes that Hillary Democrats will switch parties in November and vote Republican if Obama is the candidate. Here is the reality from yesterday:

Total votes Democrats: 2 180 292
Hillary 1,203,924
Obama 976,368

Total votes Republicans 1 004 391
McCain 632,575
Huckabee 323,074
Paul 48,742

Democratic voters were more than double the voters who came out and voted Republican.

Obama beat McCain in total votes. Obama continues to beat McCain in head to head polls of the presidential race, while Hillary does not.

Doesn't anyone understand why McCain as well as the Republican right wing were campaigning for Hillary? There is an expectation that McCain can beat Hillary but not Obama.

by shergald 2008-03-05 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

So, now that this is becoming an issue, unilike the million diaries saying that he has the best chance at electability due to the primary, you are now saying that those other Obama supporters were wrong because it doesn't matter- the comparison of the primary outcomes to the GE?

by bruh21 2008-03-05 03:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

Can you point us to one of these diaries, because I haven't seen any lately. The GE polls tell us something (just a little, I agree) though. The primaries and demographics, not so much.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:23AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

That estimate, that Obama can beat the Republican nominee is based on national polls, not on his wins in Democratic primaries.

So you are wrong. The point is that the national results involving both candidates and all voters cannot be predict from a primary.

But this is what the Hillary people are claiming, even Hillary is pushing this farce.

by shergald 2008-03-05 03:25AM | 0 recs
Hillary Won BIG Among Democratic Women!

Are they now going to switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee? That assumption makes zero sense!

And are Hispanics in Texas going to vote for the Republican nominee at a time when the Republican party, especially the Republican party in Texas has been demagoguing them for the past 4 years?

McCain can do all the "outreach" he wants and talk about moderation, he won't come close to the Hispanic support for Bush in 2000 or 2004. He can't bury that issue. They are angry. (Not that Texas is going to vote for a Democrat in 2008 anyway).

Who comes out on top in a state primary by a few thousand votes is simply NOT going to prove ANYTHING about the general election!

In fact, Obama can win that without Ohio anyway, simply by winning Iowa (Gore won 2000), Colorado and New Mexico (Gore won 2000) or Nevada, all of which can easily be gotten by any Democrat NOT named "Clinton" this time. This is to say NOTHING of the possibility of winning other states like Virginia, where he's polling within 3 points of McCain right now.

by Cugel 2008-03-05 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Won BIG Among Democratic Women!

Yes women are going to switch. Not because Obama is the candidate, but because of the press coverage the two candidates have recieved. Tired of women being attacked when they fight back and then called whiners when they point out the truth of the lack of the press in covering Obama. And tired of women like Dowd that think a women needs to wear her pearls and cuddle up to men to get anywhere in this country.Plus we unlike men have learned that our work does not end when we come home from work, we do our homework and don't let the elite press tells us lies protrayed as truth.

by Jean 2008-03-05 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Won BIG Among Democratic Women!

Being a lifetime supporter of motherhood, and a believer that parenthood should be a shared responsibility, I find you post replete with stereotypes about what men think.

by shergald 2008-03-05 08:07AM | 0 recs
keep in mind

the democrats do usually enjoy a turnout advantage in the primaries. That happenned in 2004 too. The primary turnout is not predictive of the general election turnout.

by azizhp 2008-03-05 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

Shergald,

You'll really be galled in Nov. if Obama is the nominee b/c he cant win. Hillary actually is the one who gets meaningful "swing" votes, not Obama. That map in Ohio says it all. She gets the voters Kerry could not get--not in the primary and not in the GE. The old Reagan dems in Mi, Oh, Penn will vote for Hillary, not Obama. Obama does not have a winning coalition. I hoped that he did after Iowa but it turns out that he does not. That's what we learned yesterday. Had he won Ohio, it would be over. He cant do any better than Kerry and he probably cant do as well as Kerry. Wake up before it is too late b/c I know your heart is in the right place. I didnt want to vote for Hillary either. But I want to win in Nov. Obama cannot. Hillary can.  

Obama needs to plan to pull out after Pennsylvania.  That would show leadership and it would clinch a dem. win in November. Otherwise, he risks destroying the party.

by thetis 2008-03-05 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

What do you base this on? I don't see any reason why he couldn't win in November, as a matter of fact, I don't see a reason why Hillary couldn't win either.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

wow! just wow!

so, you're telling us that all CW should be based out of the state of OH?

the polls just do not back up your assertion. Can Hillary tarnish him enough to the point where the GOP can continue her dirty work? While adding their own layers of nastiness for a November win? Absolutely. Can Obama start getting really nasty with Hillary, hurting her chances in the GE as well? absolutely. Let the two Dems destroy each other from high heavens! and let us all be joyous in our hypocrisy so long as my candidate wins!

This thing will get ugly and it won't have anything to do with building up the party base. but hey, you Democrats, you true and blue Hillary democrats aren't concerned with doing this. Not when people like Jerome claim that the "progressive" caucus should be concerned that most proclaimed Democrats are voting for Hillary. that they should be alarmed at who's pushing Obama to victory. looks like the netroots isn't as open to building up the Democratic party as it wishes to be.

once people start using GOP cross-overs and independents as fodder for excuses, we create a landscape that at worst marginalizes them and makes them feel unwelcome into voting for a Democrat. It's a toxic situation that Jerome and all others should avoid at all costs.

In the recent past, people switching to the Democratic party was exciting and a good thing. That they are excited about our candidates is a good thing. But leave it up to the world of partisan politics to make a positive situation into a bad one.

Obama should go on to win this thing. and Ohio and texas do matter. It allows the fight to go on another  day. I just hope that a scorched earth policy isn't implemented by either candidate. That would be unforgivable to me.

by alex100 2008-03-05 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

Attempting to predict the presidential election on the basis of primary voting presumes on your part that Democrats will move over to McCain in the general election if Obama is our candidate, but not with Hillary. How presumptive.

You have forgotten the critical element in the next election and it is neither Hillary nor Obama: it is George Bush. And now that McCain has yoked himself to Bush in a manner to suggest a third Bush term (stay in course in Iraq, 100 years, Iraq costs, taxcuts for the wealthy, permanent, guarantee of further wars, bomb Iran, Christian Zionism, etc), his chances of winning are miniscule. Diehard Republicans like him; who else?

Just who came out to vote for McCain? The biggest problem may not be Ohio; but who it is that can take some of the southern and middle belts of Red states.

by shergald 2008-03-05 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

"Just who came out to vote for McCain? The biggest problem may not be Ohio; but who it is that can take some of the southern and middle belts of Red states."

come read my diary Shergald.

I keep hearing how it's a new day.

But when it comes to "strateegereey" looks like the same ole same ole to me.

Of course I'm down here in the
South. From what I'm hearing we just don't count. Least not in the national elections. Not to the Democrats.

Kinda news to the Progressive Democrats in the South.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-05 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

Pew Poll out a couple of days ago shows 25% of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee.

Now, I know things can and will change between now and November, but Obama arrogantly thinks all Hillary supporters will come over for him (and conveniently forgets that many of his votes come from people who will vote for McCain, because they were not voting FOR him in the primaries, but AGAINST Hillary).

I've said this somewhere else.  If Obama is the nominee, Michigan and Florida go for McCain, as does ID, UT, KS, GA, ND, OH, PA.  CA is up for grabs with the large Hispanic population going for McCain.  AZ and NM, WY, AL, NC, and even maybe LA goes for McCain.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

And if Hill is the nominee all those but OH, PA and MI are for McCain as well, then throw in VA, MN, IA, WI, MO, and quite possibly IL (outside of the rust belt Hillary can't win in the midwest), also toss in NV.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

I call BS. Look at Missouri--it is the same story as Ohio. Obama's attractiveness to downscale & rural voters is problematic. This is ironic as moving the support of southern Il was critical for his senate race success.

by hctb 2008-03-05 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The biggest bunch of bullshit yet heard.

She wins CA, NM, MN, WI, MO, IL, and I think VA (Mark Warner is going to win the Senate seat by about 80% - dems are coming out in Nov). She also wins VT and FL.

I'm from Michigan.  It's either Hillary if she's the nominee or McCain if Obama is the nominee.  She doesn't lose to McCain.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

"Obama has a huge electability problem in the state."

Absurd at best. Huge? I believe that he has no electability problem, because Democrats will by and large vote for the Democratic candidate, Republicans for the Republican candidate. The final outcome will be based on independent voters who by and large have come out for Obama.

Independent voters in particular are tired of business as usual in Washington, government by corporation, K Street Lobbyists, and PACs. A vote for Hillary is likely to continue the old way of doing things in Washington, the way called Clintonism. Obama is free of ties to special interests.

And that is where the independents a coming from and is the primary reason they are independent.

by shergald 2008-03-05 03:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Except independents are starting to turn for HRC.

And, she kills him with moderates - which make up more than 40% of the GE population.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 08:52AM | 0 recs
We are not the only

Democrats this morning looking at that map.  That map is the map of our chances in the fall.  Those who fail to learn the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-05 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: We are not the only

that is a map of democrats voting for democtats. No independents or cross-overs voting in OH.

but it would be like saying, "since all districts in Vermont voted for Obama,  Hillary can't win it.".

by alex100 2008-03-05 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Can we dispense with this faulty line of logic? Would you also then argue that Hillary has a huge electability problem in Wisconisn? Or does this logic not cut both ways?

Yes, Hillary is probably a stronger candidate for Ohio than Obama but it doesn't necessarily follow that this means Obama can't carry Ohio. By the smae token, Obama may be better situated to win Wisconsin but this doesn't mean Hillary automatically loses.

Sometimes people read way too much into the primary results. I remember in 2004 John Kerry's big win in Iowa was touted as making him the most electable Dem, but then ol John couldn't even deliver Iowa on election day.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-03-05 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

i think the logic is constrained to swing states where Republicans remain competitive.

Why does a discussion of strategy devolve into partisan bickering. Neither candidate is currently in a position to win. No degree of argument by assertion will change that and Obama's appeal with some voters that democrats count on is problematic. As is Hillary's. I dont know if I buy the defection numbers as much as I buy depressed turnout. Do they have anyone else to vote for, probably not, but are they as likely to vote if their nominee loses--this is the relevant question.

by hctb 2008-03-05 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

nope I don't think anyone should be forced to drop out of a race if they feel that the should still be running. There are states that want a chance to be heard. Can't do it if anyone drops out.Although it was the Obama folks that made Ohio a make of break for Sen.Clinton. Hey she won.
According to Obama supporters that means she should stay.

That said. Since this is about why Ohio voted the way they did.

People vote for alot of reasons.

They vote ideologically.

They vote cause their daddy voted that way an it's a family tradition.

Then they vote cause they are sitting in their kitchens, all the monthly bills staring them in the face, and realizing that the unemployment check just isn't going to cut it. And since all those fall back jobs, the waitress, the clerk for the Food King, well those places are cutting back hiring because when the plant closed, well the management are looking at decreased profits and wondering if they should lay off folks inorder to pay their own bills.

The deep south saw the loss of textile jobs and the havock it caused for all the other business in the community who built on the fact that folks had jobs at the textile mills

OHIO saw the loss of manufacturing jobs.

MICHIGAN saw the loss of automobile manufacting jobs.

Or now looks like Boeing folks are fixin to feel another layoff. And that's with the Iraq war going strong.

Or... well you get the idea.

It hurts everybody folks.

And that affects how people will vote.

Strategy or no strategy.

Folks in Ohio vote.

They vote for the folks who they think will help them out. There sufferin and asking their president for help. And some how I don't think that help comes in the form of outsourcing jobs.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-05 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

It certainly isn't. Thus far, Obama has yet to win a swing state that has gone both blue and red. OH, MI, FL, AK and so many others. He's got a real electability problem when he cannot deliver on the large swing states. Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska...etc will all remain Republican in November. By a long shot. OH, MI, FL, PA are the traditional swing states that can deliver it for the Dems. And so far, Obama has not been able to win one of these states.

by atomic garden 2008-03-05 02:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

What about Iowa, Missouri and Colorado?

by marcotom 2008-03-05 02:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

What about them?  The post was about Ohio.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-05 02:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Hillary has a real problem in Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

by brimur 2008-03-05 02:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Hillary tied Obama in Missouri.  In fact, she won 95 counties, while he won a mere 5.

by truthteller2007 2008-03-05 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

As in Ohio, he won the counties where the Democrats live, namely the cities. So if you extend this quite stupid "primary vote = GE vote" analysis, this would mean that he is more electable since he wins where Democrats are supposed to win?

by marcotom 2008-03-05 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

no, not at all, for missouri democrats lose elections where they only win in urban precincts.  this is why clinton is so much more electable than obama in missouri.

by truthteller2007 2008-03-05 04:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

So to follow your logic, Hillary won't win Cleveland and Columbus because she didn't in the primary and will end up losing OH to McCain?  People, your assumptions defy logic.

by niksder 2008-03-05 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

you might be new to politics but this is the case in just about every single state outside the Northeast. Cities and prewar suburbs come up big for the Democrats and the rural areas and postwar burbs go to the GOP.

your assumption does not imply that Clinton is more "electable" then Obama in Missouri.

by alex100 2008-03-05 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Like she is going to beat John MCcain in Springfield and Joplin and the Ozarks and the Bootheel? Not going to happen....to win Missouri the Democrats need to crush McCain in St Louis and Kansas City because they ain't going to carry most of the rural counties.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-03-05 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Have you ever seen a Mizzou election results map-- here's a hint cehck out McCaskill's win in 2006 then over lay Obama's win, wow, its a miracle they line up exactly.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

no, they do not, for mccaskill won many rural counties in SE missouri.  clinton won those counties, not obama.

by truthteller2007 2008-03-05 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Yeah, neither of you are right. McCaskill won mostly by running up numbers in the urban areas like Obama, and yes she got a couple of rural counties, but her other source of votes was much more suburban than rural.

Neither Hillary nor Obama reflect McCaskill's distribution.

by brimur 2008-03-05 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

And Obama tied in NM and TX.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:10AM | 0 recs
why? because its the volume of land

that votes, not people?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-05 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I was actually trying to respond to the post I responded to. I agree with you that Obama lost Ohio. I disagree with your interpretation of it.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

About Ohio or any state, it is ridiculous to predict the presidential race on the basis of the Democratic primary. It assumes that Democratic voters of the losing candidate will switch parties and vote Republican. How dumb an assumption that is.

And how dumb are arguments that imply such a thing.

by shergald 2008-03-05 03:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

But this is the assumption we've been hearing from Obama supporters for a month now.

by Dave B 2008-03-05 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Huh?

by marcotom 2008-03-05 04:33AM | 0 recs
what? n/t

by kindthoughts 2008-03-05 06:33AM | 0 recs
They don't count. Not on myHRC.com

.

by Teaser 2008-03-05 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

IA+MO+CO=7+11+9=27 electrol college votes
Florida has 27 electrol college votes. This should tell you how small Obama's victories are.
Here is the electrol map.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

by indydem99 2008-03-05 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I'm sorry to inform you, but Florida is most probably not in play this year. Both Clinton and Obama lose against McCain there according to polls.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I gave FL as an example here is another scenario

(IA+MO+CO)*2=54+1=55=CA

If Barack gets the nomination he would lose CA.

by indydem99 2008-03-05 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

If Obama is the nominee, IA and CO are toss-ups, but I think they lean towards McCain.  MO definitely goes to McCain.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Missouri? Wisconsin?  Iowa? Colorado?

by Adam B 2008-03-05 02:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Obama and clinton tied in MO, where clinton won 95 counties, whereas Obama managed to win with high turnout in a mere 5.

by truthteller2007 2008-03-05 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I believe electoral votes are tallied on a statewide basis, not county-by-county.  And Obama won the popular vote in Missouri.

by Adam B 2008-03-05 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

but clinton performed well in the entire state, not just in those areas claire mccaskill can deliver.  

by truthteller2007 2008-03-05 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

moreover, missouri democrats lose elections when they rely on the five counties in which obama performed well.   clinton's appeal, on the other hand, permeates the entire state.

by truthteller2007 2008-03-05 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

There is a difference between a primary and the general election, you know.  Winning a state's primary does not guarantee a win there in the general election, and a loss in the primary does not guarantee a loss in the general.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 02:37AM | 0 recs
Obama is still doing better vs McCain than Clinton

even after all the attacks HRC has been leveling against Obama (and helping McCain; even a w/ direct remark, the gall), as I noted below.

Further, Obama has far better favorables than HRC:


USA Today/Gallup:
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 21-24, 2008. N=2,021 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2

Hillary Clinton: 48% fav/ 48% unfav
Obama: 61% fav / 32% unfav

If Hillary stops doing the dirty work of smearing Obama for McCain, it's Obama that has far better GE viablity than HRC.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-05 02:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is still doing better vs McCain than Cli

I have to disagree, NL - Hillary adopting McCain's attacks (or previewing them) is actually good for Obama's chances in the general. If Obama weathers them and wins, then when McCain recycles the attacks it shoudl be easy for Obama to say "yes I have heard that before, doesnt McCain have anything new" and dispatch it.

If Obama cant weather Hillarys attacks and loses, then he was a weak general election candidate - Ohio is important in holding Obama to the relaities of the actual challenge of running for president as opposed to running for celebrity icon.

I am in favor of Obama but I want him to FIGHT for it. In my view the longer Hillar stays in, and the harder she hits him with McCain-type attacks, the better.

by azizhp 2008-03-05 02:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is still doing better vs McCain than Cli

I agree up to a point.  Also, the current contests are helping to test out his ground operation.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 03:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is still doing better vs McCain than Cli

The reason I disagree is because this is a primary and not the general, which makes all the difference in the defense/offense dynamic face.

While I do think that the Obama campaign should have aggressively batted the attacks, February was tricky for Obama because the GOP nominee more or less emerged and Obama was in the front on the Dem side, making Obama face two opponents going at him at the same time. What's worse, Hillary and the rightwing (to some degree McCain himself) have been tag teaming against him; that's a bad combination (far worse than the GE where he's facing mainly one opponent and a mostly unified Democratic party on his side) to deal with when you're still making your case even to Democrats.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-05 03:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is still doing better vs McCain than Cli

I agree that it was a tricky February, but if anything the general election will be worse, not easier. Obama is going to be under fire from th emuslim smear (see my diary), McCain himself, Nader on his left flank, and the entire VRWC apparatus. Plus he will be Gored and Gored hard on Rezko.

As my diaries attest I am pro-Obama on the merits, but i dont want him sailing to the nomination. We cant afford a candidate with a glass jaw.

by azizhp 2008-03-05 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is still doing better vs McCain than Cli

Doing better according to recent polls? I don't think so.

Also note that he is not doing much better than Hillary even with his high favorable/low unfavorable numbers. What do you think is about to happen to his unfavorable numbers? They will become as high as Sen Clintons when the republicans and the new media is done with him.

He looks good now because he has been treated very kindly. That won't last. This is is high point.

by Marvin42 2008-03-05 03:13AM | 0 recs
asdf

"He looks good now because he has been treated very kindly. That won't last. This is is high point."

That's a myth. Media matters reported more episodes of attacks against Obama than against Clinton in 2008. And that doesn't include attacks from Clinton against Obama.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-05 03:15AM | 0 recs
Re: asdf

I am a fan of MM but unless they did a comprehensive survey of all media reporting, they cant prove anecdotally that there were quantitatively "more" attacks on one candidate or another. I dont dobt that there were attacks but only since teh Rezko trial started a few days ago, and the NAFTA issue, have they been very aggressive. Obama has not had the kind of media scrutiny on te national stage until now (though he has done very well in facing intense scrutiny from the Chicago media over Rezko et al. He was absolutely right that hes answered the questions before, but he needs to stop being petulant and answer them again. This is the national stage).

by azizhp 2008-03-05 06:40AM | 0 recs
Ancient history

And whining about how if nobody criticizes Obama then no one will notice his flaws is a hoot.

by ineedalife 2008-03-05 03:01AM | 0 recs
It isn't about flaws.

It's about direct and specious assaults by Clinton against Obama. You want a list?

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-05 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama is still doing better vs McCain than Cli

There are other polls out there that show Obama virtually tied with HRC in negatives.  Rasmussen has his negatives at 43% for the same time period.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Obama won't be competing against a fellow Democrat in November. So this electability argument, while no totally invalid, needs more than primary numbers.

McCain is not more union friendly than Obama. Obama seems to have had two problems in OH - one of which won't be a weakness against McCain. I have no doubt many people in OH seem prone to believe the muslim rumors or hold the black thing against him. Ed Rendell was right on the mark when he said CEntral PA(not that different from most of OH) are not easily going to vote for a black guy. So this will be a disadvantage against McCain. But the trade issue controversy should not be a weakness against McCain.

Regardless of who the nominee is, it is the DEmocratic Party's failure collectively if either candidate cannot win the Presidency against a guy whose main talking point is the biggest failure of the Bush administration.

If Obama is not electable against McCain because people still think McCain has credibility on national security, then the Nader type people have been proven right because we still are too weak to even convince the public of a slam dunk issue. Come on. After 8 years, we still see some MYDDers(who seem prone to voting Clinton) saying how formidable McCain would be on this issue without any hint of regret that our leaders let him maintain that reputation.

The fact is this , despite the Democratic Party improving and getting an infusion of radical new blood since the 2000 election, we are still playing defense. Now if an improved DEmocratic party in 2008 cannot decisively beat a Republican Party at its lowest point , there is a greater problem we need to deal with. We are still talking about electability. Goddammit. We need to be ashamed of the general leadership in the party.

by Pravin 2008-03-05 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Virginia and Missourri don't count evidently.

by lockewasright 2008-03-05 09:10AM | 0 recs
Ohio is a big win for Clinton

but it will not overturn the math.

And I vehemently disagree with the electability problem you assert. McCain has the electability issue in Ohio due mostly to the economy.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-05 02:29AM | 0 recs
Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

do this calculation.  Neither candidate can get the "math" to reach enough pledged delegates for the nomination.

Therefore, this will come down to more than just the math and it's about time many of you come to terms with it.

by diplomatic 2008-03-05 02:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

The difference is that there is NO reasonable path for Hillary to take the pledged delegate lead. So unless you really think the supers would go against the call of this months-long process, she is just roughing up our nominee.

by brimur 2008-03-05 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

Given how undemocratic the pledged delegate process is in some states,  the first place, I'm not sure how much that means anyway, but there is a reasonable path for Hillary to take the pledged delegate lead if Florida and Michigan are counted.

by markjay 2008-03-05 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

Oh you mean in Michigan where Obama wasn't on the ballot? Ha, good luck with that. If they do a re-do she still has to win those states by 20+ points. Ain't going to happen.

by brimur 2008-03-05 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

"Ain't going to happen."

Famous last words....

by Dave B 2008-03-05 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

Oh she might have chance to equal or improve upon her Florida performance, but Michigan will either go Obama or be a virtual tie, see its easy as hell to improve on 0% of the vote, while Clinton's already at her ceiling, of yeah and there's this little City, biggest town in the midwest outside Chicago, you might have heard of it-- Detroit, you know the city that's more densely AA than DC, the one that with even similar to 2004 turnout, and without the assistance of Flint, Ann Arbor, etc. Obama gets a big enough margin in to get 40%+ of the Michigan vote, yeah that city.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

Um, yes I heard of Detroit.  I was born and raised there.

by Dave B 2008-03-06 10:00AM | 0 recs
Big deal

Everybody is coming to realize that the pledged delegate awarding scheme is flawed.

Obama won AL by 14 points but is only tied in delegates. That is a flaw.

Hillary won NV by 6 points but is down one delegate. That is flaw.

If the supers simply vote the way their states voted, it will represent the will of the people, and we will get a candidate competitive in an electoral college election. Which is what November is.

But that would give Hillary a win which would be bad.
Very democratic, but very bad.

by ineedalife 2008-03-05 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Big deal

Why do you think that would give Hillary a lead, given that Obama has won many more states? Have you done a calculation or link? I think the contrary is the case, if supers voted with their states, Obama would have an even bigger lead.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Big deal

Democratic process is only good if it means Hillary doesn't win?

by carrieboberry 2008-03-05 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Big deal

Why would that represent the will of the people?  Obama is winning the popular vote - I thought that that was how "the people" expressed their will.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Big deal

The popular vote is tied (within one tenth of one percent).  By the end of the campaign, Hillary will be ahead in the popular vote -- and she'll be way ahead in the popular vote among Democrats.

by markjay 2008-03-05 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Big deal

I heartily disagree, but we'll see.  When the Democratic Party starts purging votes of all but "real Democrats," let me know.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Big deal

Why do you think she be ahead if she's only up (or trailing) by a 10th of a percent now, if MI and FL get redone (likely-- and the only way they would count) Obama scores bigtime even if the results are identical (since he recieved 0% of the vote in MI, he would gain roughly 250,000 or so at the very least), additionally other than PA, IN (currently Obama lead, but who knows), KY, and WV there are no Clinton states left on the board, Obama is winning in every other remaining state, that includes multiple states in which he should be able to run up the score (NC, MS, all remaining MT west states).

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Big deal

Actually according to the current list of super-delegates it would probably give Obama more delegates not less (he would lose a lot of his big names, but would pick up even more, for example right now he doesn't even have a majority of DC's superdelegates, and is lacking most of the supers in Red States who picked Hillary early, states like AL, in addition he would score basically every one of the delegates in Hawaii all of whom are currently Hill but one).

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

well, good. i dont want our nominee to have a glass jaw. McCain isnt Alan Keyes.

by azizhp 2008-03-05 03:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

That neither candidate can attain the necessary pledged delegates does not mean that a significant lead in pledged delegates is unimportant.  Every additional pledged delegate that Obama has represents one more superdelegate that Clinton would need to win at the convention.  Maybe she can convince more than half of the superdelegates to vote for her, but a commanding majority?

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 03:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

I agree with the premise, but disagree to what a significant lead is. Sen Obama does not have a significant lead at this point, and likely when this is over.

by Marvin42 2008-03-05 03:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

I think 150 delegates is significant enough for supers to acknowledge it.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

I understand, I don't think that is enough. It doesn't really tilt the thing.

But hey, we'll all see, won't we?

by Marvin42 2008-03-05 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, all you MATH wizards out there

A lead of let us say 125 = 125 superdelegates that Clinton would need to win at the convention to even things up.  From there she would need to win 51% of the remainder for the nomination.  What are there, about 700 superdelegates total?  That's the math.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 03:39AM | 0 recs
the wealthy post-graduate male clique of punditry

Please avoid rightwing attack language in discussing fellow Democrats.  

by ft 2008-03-05 02:30AM | 0 recs
Re: the wealthy post-graduate male clique of pundi

and he forgets that the political pundits are actually the ones that have kept Clinton alive during the last weeks, as the math is just not there for her.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 02:35AM | 0 recs
Obama can't reach 2025 Either

So this whole idea that the math isn't with Clinton is only half of the story. It's not with Obama either. It will come down to the arguments that can be made on each side. Obama will surely claim the pledged delegate and a majority of states won.Also, he will point to a movement which he has created and the new energy he has brought to the party.

Clinton can claim the major democratic states and swing states as well as the overwhelming support of Democratic votes. Furthermore, she will claim that the states that Obama won cannot be counted on in the general election (fair or unfair but it could be a major gamble for the party to expect to win SC & GA for example). Finally she will claim that the important block of core democratic constituencies favor her in large numbers. Incidentally, the Latino support that she has is a major point to make considering John McCain is expected to be the nominee.

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 02:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

You're arguing equivalence when that isn't really the situation.  Clinton would likely go into the convention with a significant deficit in pledged delegates.  Therefore, she would need to win that many more superdelegates than Obama in order to win.  If the superdelegates are as independent as some here are making them out to be, why would they vote in a bloc for either candidate, when both are so strong?  Likely they would either split their votes, in which case Clinton would have an extremely difficult time making up her deficit, or most would vote to ratify the candidate they perceived to be the leader in popular support.  Presumably, that would be Obama, whether measured by pledged delegates or the popular vote.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

If it goes to the convention and the Super delegate split the vote then they will in so doing split the party. They must appear to be unified. That is, in a nutshell, why I think they will all flood one way or the other based on specific arguments. This will be decided behind closed doors (least damaging to the party). They will try to avoid a split at all cost

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

And it wouldn't split the party to vote against the leader in pledged delegates and popular votes?  Your position is contradictory.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 03:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

My position is simple. The party will be split if the super delegates don't unite themselves. There is still a potention for the people to be divided but unity among party elders is the best chance they have at uniting the party (Perception of unity is a key).

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

And there is only one way left at this point that I can think of for units: a Clinton-Obama ticket (order TBD).

by Marvin42 2008-03-05 03:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

Yeah, come December, me may all look like douchebags

My gut says this is becoming inevitable, otherwise the party falls apart

by Wiz in Wis 2008-03-05 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

Obama would be a poor VP in my opinion. He will not attack (John Edwards '04). I understand that this may be the least of the Democratic problems going forward but it's something to keep in mind.

I suppose I could be wrong because he may be able to find away to "attack" without attacking (he is a skilled speaker)

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 03:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

If it's ability/willingness to attack, then Clinton would be an excellent VP choice!  Joking aside, I think the longer this drags out the better a joint ticket looks.

by CranesAreFlying 2008-03-05 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

I think there is much greater potential for the party to be split if millions of voters feel that their votes have been nullified.  Unity of the superdelegates could only be a positive value if they ratify the popular choice, otherwise the perception will be that all of these primaries have been pointless (and especially if this is hashed out in some back room somewhere).  Besides, with strong arguments in favor of both candidates, why would the superdelegates break unanimously for the candidate who is losing?

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 03:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

That is the same for those in Florida and Michigan, whose votes didn't count.  Trouble is, we need those states in the fall, and the Democratic hierarchy blew it for us.

by Scotch 2008-03-05 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either


Besides, with strong arguments in favor of both candidates, why would the superdelegates break unanimously for the candidate who is losing?

This, in someways, is what it means to be a leader. That is why they would break one way to be an example to the people. The Super delegates must stay above the frey


 Unity of the superdelegates could only be a positive value if they ratify the popular choice, otherwise the perception will be that all of these primaries have been pointless

In my opinion this talk is dangerous. It basically suggest that if Obama doesn't win the party will be split and that is a sure way to ensure that if Hillary is the nominee it will be.
If a deal is brokered prior to the convention (which is probably should be if Hillary wins PA) then there will definetly be reasons to have Barack at the top of the democratic ticket but there will be just as many reasons to have Hillary at the top of the ticket. Statements that will delegitimize the ultimate winner are ill conceived by my estimation. There should be one overwhelming chorus by the potention nominees (in public anyways). The party will be unified no matter who is on the ticket

Finally, I think this is why it is important that figures such as Al Gore stay absolutely neutral. Someone will need to be able to convince Barack or Hillary not to persue this all the way.

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 03:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

It's not dangerous, merely an observation.  Millions of people will ask themselves what they left work early for, or why they spent the day caucusing and paid for a babysitter to watch their kids, if it turns out that party insiders were the only voters who ultimately count.  I really don't think they will be less pissed if Al Gore shows up on the TV and tells them that the Democratic Party has considered their vote and, well, it's decided to back a different candidate but that it expects their vote in November.

I and pretty much everyone on this site would support the Democratic nominee regardless, but pretending that this would not be a huge problem so long as everyone at the convention put on a happy face is naive, in my view, especially when we would only have two months at that point to repair the rift in our own party, as well as to try to beat McCain.

As for your point about leadership - well, I would assume that some superdelegates would "lead," and others would follow, since 700 people are never going to unanimously agree on the right candidate.  Moreover, I have seen no evidence that the superdelegates are either capable of or willing to engage in such leadership, since several have changed allegiances already, based on the changing political winds.  Finally, such unity may simply come across as condescending, were the supers to back the trailing candidate.  The Democratic Party is not a top-down organization, after all.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

"If a deal is brokered prior to the convention (which is probably should be if Hillary wins PA)..."

"...Finally, I think this is why it is important that figures such as Al Gore stay absolutely neutral. Someone will need to be able to convince Barack or Hillary not to persue this all the way."

Wiseprince (Machiavelli?) I read these two passages. And I thought how ironic.

If it is about the vote of the people and not some back room deal making that is.

First they disenfrancise the folks in Florida and Michigan. Now, depending on the outcome of Pennsylvania, your going to get Al Gore who folk think got the popular vote and should have been president but instead lost to back room politics, your gonna get Gore to tell someone to give up before the primary season is over. Funny.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-05 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

All the party leaders have been hinting at the likelihood that a deal will be cut prior to the convention. If that is the case there will need to be a "backroom deal". Someone will have to bite theh bullet or this goes until August

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama can't reach 2025 Either

What I meant with my comment is that it would be ironic to hear Al Gore tell folks in Florida that their vote doesn't count because of the actions of a few and "back room" deals.

That was the main point.

Personally I think that Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton should say now that they are going to run on the same ticket but the vote of the Democrats in the primary would decide who would be the president and vice president.

They could start running against McCain under the "Unity Ticket" and  maybe their supporters will stop "beating each other up"  and start running against McCain.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-14 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

The demographics have shown that Obama has an electability problem time and again. OH just reinforces that fact.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 02:31AM | 0 recs
Clinton's negative attacks on Obama

are helping McCain in some recent national polls, but Obama still beat McCain in RCP averages by 4.6% while McCain  edges out HRC by 0.2%.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_mccai n_vs_obama-225.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_mccai n_vs_clinton-224.html

In some recent GE electoral college analysis I've seen, Obama was doing much better than Hillary Clinton.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-05 02:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's negative attacks on Obama

Obama people of all people should know how good polls are 9 months out.

by Scotch 2008-03-05 03:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's negative attacks on Obama

This comment was totally unfairly troll rated.  Uprate it.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-05 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

And you are extrapolating this data to the general election...how?

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 02:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

It's called the wishful-thinking extrapolation. You basically take some data points that have nothing to do with what you are trying to prove and then make up some interpretation that benefits candidate X that you happen to support.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

It's by the way a disease not limited to supporters of one candidate.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

This

by Wiz in Wis 2008-03-05 03:36AM | 0 recs
A barrage of negative attacks by Clinton

and the Canadian govt manufactured story about NAFTA arrested and reversed a tide for Obama in Ohio. That's what shows in the map and the result. In the coming days, I expect Obama to be less forgiving towards negative attacks coming his way.

And, as we have seen in most states except a couple, Obama polls better than Clinton vs McCain even is states where he lost the primary or caucus.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-05 02:32AM | 0 recs
Re: A barrage of negative attacks by Clinton

Manufactured NAFTA story? Really? Seriously?

You don't see how they stepped in it themselves? Are you blaming Canada for a Obama campaign misstep?

by Marvin42 2008-03-05 03:17AM | 0 recs
See the following for a clear picture:

Canadian Public Broadcasting Exonerates Obama

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-05 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: A barrage of negative attacks by Clinton

Frankly I think its time for Obama to take the gloves off (or at least have surrogates do so), I'm sorry but if the Hillhadi's want to get down in the gutter then it's all fair, I want Obama to say doesn't think Hillary's a lesbian "as far as he knows." I want Bill CLinton's scandals raised to the brim, I want Rose Law Firm to become part of the national lexicon once again, I want the fact that one of Bill Clinton's best friends post-presidency is a pedophile to be a national issue, I want all this and more, but I realize that Obama himself is probably above this stuff which is a detriment to him electorally and one of the many things that makes him a better person and future president than the alternative-- so I think its up to us to do it.

p.s. I also want to hear the Hillbots somehow justify whining about this after cheering on every Muslim rumor, every Rezko related scandal, and every right wing smear they could get there hands on.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: A barrage of negative attacks by Clinton

NL, i think the muslim smear hurt obama more than nafta.

by azizhp 2008-03-05 03:30AM | 0 recs
Re: A barrage of negative attacks by Clinton

Agreed... if NAFTA was a real issue, Clinton wouldn't have even gotten 10% of the vote...  She's literally married to that free trade deal, but voters here totally overlooked it.  They simply didn't care as much about it as people thought coming into the debate.

Something is going to need to be done about the Muslim smear thing... He let it slide initially, and that was a mistake...  It will have to be pervasive and underground like the smear itself.  We'll have to figure out a way to counteract it...

by LordMike 2008-03-05 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: A barrage of negative attacks by Clinton

well, I argue in my diary just posted that Obama needs to simply stand up and say "I'm not muslim, I never was... BUT it wouldn't matter one bit if I were." that last clause is the part that has been missing until now.

by azizhp 2008-03-05 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Jerome, I've always respected your analysis, but saying these white Democratic voters aren't going to support Obama is like saying the black Democratic voters aren't going to support Clinton.  These are Democrats first and foremost.  Sure, he won 5 counties IN THE PRIMARY.  If he becomes the nominee, my bet is he does a lot better with a, you know, unified party.

Now if only Hillary Clinton would stop making ads for John McCain's fall campaign...

by Vox Populi 2008-03-05 02:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I should clarify this by saying that Clinton has not won more than 20% of the black vote in any state so far.  Will you suggest she has severe electability issues and won't carry the black vote if she were the nominee?  Of course you aren't.

by Vox Populi 2008-03-05 02:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

The difference is Black voters always go heavily for Democrats (to the point that they are taken for granted). The same is not true with many of these Ohio voters that did not vote for Obama. They can swing either way and that is what the concern is

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 02:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath
So now it's Obama who wins the rock-solid Dem vote and Hillary who wins the voters who could flip either way? That is a dramatic reversal of many things I've read here.
by Mullibok 2008-03-05 03:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I think my statement was clear as a response to the original commenter.

Clinton hasn't won more than 20% of the black vote anywhere (for obvious reasons I would argue). If Barack's support is only among the blacks in Ohio then that can be perceived as a problem because we get those votes year after year and have to compete with the voter block that Hillary won last night. Obama did very poor with that voter block so that can prove to be problematic in November.

You are suggesting that others have been saying the same thing with regards to who Hillary has been winning. The difference is in the perception of the people making those comments. They feel as though in the General election those votes (Many republicans) really aren't in play anyways so to lose them in the Primary is not a sign of weakness in the general election. Ohio voters are in play (This is based on passed experience). That is one of the difficulties for Barack Obama; He is saying that in the General he will be able to get these votes that were never in play before. That will take some convincing as there is no historical evidence to back that up. I realise to get that historical evidence you will at one time or another be forced to take a risk but is this the year we should take that risk?

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

You don't see a slight difference between this year and previous elections in respect to Blacks?  

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 03:44AM | 0 recs
Actually

Clinton won over 20% of the black vote in NY, AR, MA, CT, TN and, I think, FLA. Michigan too, but Obama wasn't on the ballot there. Consult the exit polls.

by Shawn 2008-03-05 02:48AM | 0 recs
Oh boy

wow, 20%, what a rout!

The point remains that blacks will no doubt vote for the dem, and by a big margin. Turnout, however, is a different story

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton, however, fixes that.

by Wiz in Wis 2008-03-05 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh boy

Yeah, I'm sure African Americans will just be dying to go out and vote for the candidate that reversed the results of the primaries at a brokered convention with the help of a bunch of party insiders, to the detriment of the first African American candidate with a very real shot to be president. They'll just go right along right?

by brimur 2008-03-05 03:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh boy

"Party Insiders" in many cases are people who were voted in by the people who you are now suggesting see them as nothing more than "party insiders" apart of a vast conspiracy to elect Hillary.

If that is the trust level that is given to the elected officials and the people who helped to make the party something worth voting for then why continue to try and get Democrats elected?

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh boy

Yes, but there are also others such as the 21-year-old Wisconsin student who are superdelegates because of their roles on campaigns, as staffers, etc.  Let us be clear that these are not all elected officials, and that in many cases the voters themselves possess the same level of political insight.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh boy

I am aware they are not all elected but they are all very heavily engaged even when there are no elections. They work hard for the party, they are not a Clinton Cabal like some seem to suggest

by Wiseprince 2008-03-05 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh boy

The point remains, though, that they may not possess superior insight to the average voter.  Assuming that to be the case, what would be their justification for potentially nullifying millions of votes?  This is the serious problem we would face, were the superdelegates to nominate the trailing candidate.  There would still be a perception that "party insiders," many of which are ordinary people who work for the party, voted to nominate their own candidate against the express wishes of the voters.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh boy

Oh I think Jerome and the others take it for granted but I think that if Obama loses this while winning the elected delegates, or thorugh the introduction of Michigan and Florida, theey'll be in for a rude awakening, remeber that PEW poll that everyone cites just talks about crossover, it doesn't count sit outs, and I have a feeling that the record turnout of the AA vote and especially the youth vote (actually showing up for the first time in living memory) will evaporate and Hillary will be left with at best the Kerry totals (increased woman vote, offset by massive loss in the male vote, slight turndown in AA vote-- was record in 2004-- and at best a slight decrease in youth vote).  What I'm even more worried about is the fact that this could in effect destroy our future-- writing off the youth vote could very well disillusion the group most open to our message.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Show results against McCain, both here and nationally, and you might have an electability argument.  The polls I've seen show that Obama matches up better against McCain than Clinton, so I don't see the problem.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 02:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Polls this far out mean we'd have had President Dukakis.  I'm looking at the results from the primary.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-05 02:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

How could you credibly extrapolate the above data to the general?  That seems like as much of a crapshoot as what I suggested.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 02:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

At least the polls poll the right thing, whereas you are speculating on the wrong data points altogether.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 02:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Um, maybe this is too obvious a point, but the candidates in the primary aren't the same candidates as in the general.

Why are you acting as if they're the same?

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Well then by those results Hillary's doomed right? I mean she can't carry the Democratic Strongholds (the urban areas) and only wins the places that McCain would crush her in. I don't get it first you argue that since Obama wins the red states he can't win in the general Hillary's stronger, now Hillary essentially does the same on a microlevel and its evidence of her electability.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

This text does not even earn to be called an analysis. What has a primary to do with the GE? You fail to make that point - are blue-collar workers who favor Clinton over Obama going to vote Republican in November if she doesn't make it? And why are people voting for Clinton suddenly voting against Obama? That would basically mean that Clinon does not attract voters herself and that this primary was a vote on Obama (yes/no). That is as far from the truth as it could get.

The Clintons over the years have earned a lot of respect with blue-collar workers and Hispanics and that is paying out. To make an electability issue out of this is the most hypocritical thing I heard from you in a long time.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 02:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

"...I heard from you in a long time."

How many alias names have you worked through here then, having just joined 2 weeks ago?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-05 02:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

You do not need to register to read, the last time I checked. But thanks for caring.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

It also fails to take into account that Clinton performs worse against McCain in current opinion polling.  So, even if we were to assume what you suggested, there would still need to be an explanation about how Clinton could overcome her apparent deficit against McCain.  After all, this analysis presupposes that demographics will vote in lockstep in favor of their preferred candidate.

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 02:47AM | 0 recs
Hillary made the point last night...

That there has never been a winning president of either party that has not won the Ohio primary (since Ohio became a state of course). So candidates that don't win the OH primary are weak general election candidates. I am taking her word on this of course and I don't know how many examples of such candidates there are.

by ineedalife 2008-03-05 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary made the point last night...

I'm pretty sure its that there has never been a canidate who lost Ohio in the General (and even that's only been true for about 100 years) and won the presidency.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

He can't win the racist vote.

The 1 in 5 Ohio voters who think race is important voted for Hillary overwhelmingly.  Nobody publicly has made this connection but I think this is similar to her support from older folks.  My grandmother is 86 and a life-long dem, and says she doesn't think this country is ready for a black president, and her sister who is a couple years younger says she's not racist because she talked to a black person once back during world war 2.  The punditry will call it politely things like a generational gap or use that stupid term that Chris Matthews uses ("white ethnics") but the bottom line - color blind people in Ohio are split 50/50 and racists overwhelmingly prefer Hillary.  That's why Hillary has an edge in PA - that's what Ed Rendell was saying.  Folks in PA didn't want to vote for Lynn Swann because of his race, according to Gov. Rendell.  That race factor made up 5 points of Rendell's victory margin, again according to Gov. Rendell.  I thought he was just race baiting.  Turns out it may be the truth.

So since most people here are HRC supporters - A) do you think I'm wrong (the exits support me) and B) How does it feel to win because of the racist vote?

-Fred

by FredFred 2008-03-05 02:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Don't blame her supporters on this site for the fact that racists vote for her. Sexists will not vote for Hillary, racists will not vote for Obama. Polls show that there is more then enough of both sorts to scare us - November won't be a cakewalk.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Except Hillary employed racist subterfuge repeatedly.

by anothergreenbus 2008-03-05 03:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I don't think she did that, no.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

There are two sides to that coin my friend. Two HRC -leaning AA friends of ours complained to us after our NY primary about the kinds of pressures they faced from AA friends and family. Some of the names family members called the woman were brutal. They are both very bitter.

by JohnS 2008-03-05 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

If you want to talk about race and how it impacts this contest, fine.  Trying to bait the Clinton supporters by asking that kind of question is just trolling.

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

You are right, unfortunately. That for some people race is an issue and they would not vote for a black person. We have to face the fact that this is true.

However, polls have shown that there are far more people who would not vote for a woman simply because she's a woman. Would not vote for a woman is almost as far down as would not vote for a Mormon.

We have two candidates who have hurdles to overcome. No matter how unfair they are. The US is a racist and sexist country.

So, we have to pick the best person for the job, regardless of how racism or sexism will affect the possibility of victory in the general. We will all have to work very hard to help our candidate perform well against whatever racist or sexist attacks the other side launches. Imagine if they are both on the ticket? Racism and Sexism galore from the GOP.

It's not racist to say that Clinton does better among whites and Obama does better among blacks. Just the same as it's not sexist to say that Clinton does better among women and Obama does better among men.

It is sexist to say that women are stupid for supporting Clinton. And it's racist to say that blacks are stupid for supporting Obama. I have heard both. I have also heard that blue-collar folks are stupid for supporting Clinton. I nearly fell over when I saw that one repeatedly on Progressive websites...  

by carrieboberry 2008-03-05 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

"However, polls have shown that there are far more people who would not vote for a woman simply because she's a woman. Would not vote for a woman is almost as far down as would not vote for a Mormon."

There may be polls that have shown this (although I don't think they are as bad as you claim), but according to exit polls Clinton wins the vote of people who think sex is important. So Clinton's sex appears to be a net positive, while Obama's race appears to be a net negative.

This is not to deny that the MEDIA is much more sexist than racist. But it appears not to be the case among voters.

by TimSackton 2008-03-05 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Beyond the media narrative, I've always had my doubts about the "less racist than sexist" meme, think about it when women got the right to vote it didn't take them another 75 to 100 years to be able to exercise that right without the fear of death, I mean I hate to trivialize it but in a way its like Chris Rock said "Women burned Bra's, people burned Blacks" seriously just 70 years ago (less in some places) the hanging, castration and live burning of a black man (with the body parts given out as souvineers) was a perfectly acceptable family outing throughout much of the South, look at postcards, and you'll see lynchings that drew thousands, not as an angry mob but as an appreciative audience much like people go to revival meetings today. The equivalent for Women would be a gang rape and murder (or possibly the Salem which trials) being treated as an acceptable community event,something that quite honestly was never allowed in America.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 06:54AM | 0 recs
All the Jerome haters out in force

Why do you torture yourselves coming to this blog then if you don't respect his analysis?

by diplomatic 2008-03-05 02:47AM | 0 recs
Re: All the Jerome haters out in force

Its like flies to the light, they can't help themselves but knowing it...

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-05 02:48AM | 0 recs
Re: All the Jerome haters out in force

I think you should run for President. We can make a stylized J logo. Maybe something like this:

http://flyingj.com/fotos/newlogo.gif

but with an american flag :)

by azizhp 2008-03-05 03:26AM | 0 recs
Re: All the Jerome haters out in force

I guess you are talking to me: I come here because this is the only place I have found some reasonable Hillary supporters so far. And I find it intellectually more stimulating to read opinions that differ from mine. But that doesn't mean I am not allowed to point out when some analysis is flawed.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:02AM | 0 recs
Re: All the Jerome haters out in force

and: I don't hate people, I disagree with them. And sometimes I use strong words doing so - in this case, I stand by my words.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:03AM | 0 recs
Re: All the Jerome haters out in force

Usually, Jerome's analysis is not this crappy.  To make a claim about the general election, with zero evidence, analysis or even assertion about how Clinton and Obama match up with McCain in Ohio is an extremely weak and unconvincing argument.

But to answer your question, I don't know why I keep  coming back to this site with it's strong pro-Hillary bias.  The front pagers in their zeal to promote Hillary have gotten sloppy .  And the diarists are down right insulting to any one who isn't a Hillary supporter.  Perhaps it's time to move on to a site that isn't a Hillary propaganda machine.

by Monkey In Chief 2008-03-05 09:35AM | 0 recs
Complete Disaster for Democratic Party

HRC has very little chance to win the nomination, because mathematically she will not be able to take a lead amongst the pledged delegates.

She is doing McCain's dirty work. I can't believe that she compared her experience to McCain.
She is throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. The Clintons are so selfish. I will never support her.

This is so bad for our party. Obama can raise 50-75 million a month and spend it attacking McCain but has to attack Clinton.

As far as electorally, Obama's message is ideal for the party. He does have some problems in bigger states, but does better in smaller states.

by optimist 2008-03-05 02:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Complete Disaster for Democratic Party

Yes, how dare Hillary Clinton not just get out of Obama's way.  What makes her think she has the right to run for President when we all know Obama can raised the most money. The arrogance of Clinton, thinking she can give people a choice. Very selfish.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-05 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Complete Disaster for Democratic Party

No one says she should get out of the way, but damaging the potential party nominee is a big no no, whether you are a democrat or a republican.  Everyone knows this, but she is ignoring the rules here... at her own peril.  Damaging the party does not put her in a better position in the general, even if she does manage, somehow, to win the nomination.  It puts her in a worse position...  Attacks based on fear and FUD give one short term benefit, but, long term, are damaging to the candidate who puts them out.  I would hope that, now, since she has the "momentum" that she would return to regular primary mode.  She only hurts herself by tearing down Obama (who, BTW, has refrained from doing the same 'cos he knows that it is damaging to the party).  

by LordMike 2008-03-05 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Complete Disaster for Democratic Party

I agree, frankly it'd be like if Obama spends the next 7 weeks bringing up the Clinton scandals in order to brand Hillary as untrustworthy, maybe changes his slogan to "Obama, a Democrat we can trust" And then for good measure comes out on the weekend before PA and say "This election is going to be about returning trust and integrity to our government, John McCain can run on his record of that, I can run on my record of that, Hillary Clinton can run on her speeches about doing that"

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

You're right.  When 1 in 5 voters cast their ballot against an African American because of race, it will be tough to win in November.  What a cause for celebration on this site.

by maconblue 2008-03-05 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

About as uncalled for a comment as I've seen anywhere online.

by JohnS 2008-03-05 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Wow.  So citing exit polls which say that 1 in 5 voters cast their votes owing to race in Ohio and that 80% who cast their votes owing to race cast for Hillary is out of bounds.

The only thing uncalled for is ignoring that crucial bit of exit polling and pretending it doesn't exist.

by maconblue 2008-03-05 05:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Jerome, I'm disappointed.

Nothing in last night's election provides direct evidence of how Hillary or McCain will perform against McCain in November. Is Hillary better in Ohio than Barack? Yes. Does that mean that Obama is unelectable in Ohio. No. Hillary isn't going to be running against Barack in Missouri or Wisconsin in November, so the fact that he beat her there doesn't mean she's unelectable in those states. And Barack isn't going to be running against Hillary in Ohio in November, so the fact that he lost to her last night in the state tells us jack-diddly about how he'll do against McCain in November.

This is just more of the same "some states count more" argument. It doesn't provide any new reason to believe Obama would be worse against McCain in November. It certainly doesn't make a case that Obama has an electability issue!

by Loreg 2008-03-05 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

LOL. Actually, there is anecdotal evidence that McCain will perform very well against McCain. Some people are even willing to bet a lot of money on McCain in this race.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

And see, it's just going to get worse. 7 more weeks of little sleep! By Pennslyvania, we're all going to be reduced to "mmm..mmm.mmm.m.mmm. grph."

:)

by Loreg 2008-03-05 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Gotta talk about something, right?  

So what if Clinton now needs 65% wins in the rest of the states to tie things up.  So what if she'll need 70-75% wins in the states after WY/MS depending on how well Obama does...  Time is running out.

Now maybe the negative attacks and smears will work.  Maybe the wins yesterday will give her enough momentum to win the rest of these contests by those kind of margins.  Maybe Obama will drop out, or there will be some sort of backroom deal cut for a VP slot.  Who knows?  But I know one thing- none of that will be discussed much here.

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 03:29AM | 0 recs
Limbaugh's "Vote for Hillary" Campaign

Don't forget Limbaugh's campaign to support Hillary by urging Repubs to cross over to vote for Clinton. I'd like to see the polls on this.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/poli ticalintelligence/2008/03/limbaugh_apolo g.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?b id=1&pid=294426
http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/cont ent/oh/story/news/local/2008/03/04/mj030 408switchweb.html

by AdrianLesher 2008-03-05 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh's "Vote for Hillary"

Look at the exit results.  Hillary cleaned up among registered Democrats while Obama did best among registered Republicans.

by markjay 2008-03-05 04:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh's "Vote for Hillary" Ca

My wife saw these antics at our polling station...  I think it had a larger effect than anticipated...

by LordMike 2008-03-05 04:58AM | 0 recs
Confused

Jerome, I'm confused.  Just over half of the Democrats voting in the primary prefer Clinton to Obama.  How can you use that info to make the assumption that those same Democratic primary voters would not vote for Obama against McCain in November?

I respect your opinion, but it's very confusing for you to make this kind of apples and oranges comparison without any kind of explanation.  And no, it doesn't make any more sense when Senator Clinton says the same thing.

by peter0118 2008-03-05 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Jerome, do you have a formal role, or any kind of agreement in place with the Clinton campaign?

Just wondering.

by tractor 2008-03-05 03:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Does Jonathan have a formal role in the Obama campaign?  See, now my comment is just as silly as yours.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-05 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

So you're basically saying that America is not ready nor willing to elect a black president?

Wow.

by goodnbad 2008-03-05 03:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I also find it a huge stretch to suggest that because one candidate lost a primary to another candidate in the same party (though you might not know they were in the same party by listening to Hillary Clinton lately) that said candidate couldn't win this state in the general. It is apples and oranges. Democrats will coalesce around their nominee and the REpublicans will coalesce around theirs and the winner will be the one that can draw the most from the middle. while this sounds obvious I think it is worth bearing in mind given that you seem to be suggesting that Obama's inability to win the Democratic rank and file in the primary will hurt him in the general. Who else will they vote for once he is the nominee? The fact that he is winning the greater percentage nationally of independent voters is the most telling thing for the general election.

by wasder 2008-03-05 03:16AM | 0 recs
I completely disagree

Last night's Ohio primary showed one thing: Ohio Democrats prefer Hillary Clinton as their nominee to Barack Obama. But it shows nothing beyond that. Ohio is a very complicated state, with sub-regions nothing like each other. Ohio resembles Missouri in this regard, where Democrats rack up huge wins in urban areas and Republicans dominate in outer suburbs and rural areas. But in a primary there are other dynamics at work, and very few of them translate into a general election race.

1) Hillary Clinton may have won some racist voters (just as Obama won some sexist voters) but she also won many progressive voters. There is nothing about the bitterness of this campaign to suggest that Democrats in Ohio won't consolidate behind Obama in November.  Liberal Ohioans will vote for the Democrat in November - count on it.

2) The point about working class whites being a problem ignores Hillary's problem among African Americans. Remember, blacks don't have to vote for McCain to hurt the Democrats. They just have to stay home. There is NO WAY any Democrat wins Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Missouri, Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, or even Illinois without massive support from African Americans. That's been true for decades now. Both sides will have to consolidate their bases in the fall, but neither side will have a tougher time of it in practical terms than the other.

3) Ted Strickland. Look at the margins Hillary Clinton gained along the WV border. Part of that may be racism, but a lot of that is support for Ted Strickland. He has a lot of influence in southeast Ohio. Having the top Democrat - and first statewide victor in a long time - on your side is a real plus. McCaskill proved the same for Obama in Missouri.

4) Ohio is Ohio. There is no other state like Ohio. It's internal mix is unique and resembles Missouri more than it does Pennsylvania. Note, however, that Missouri's top Democrat (and woman) Claire McCaskill supported Obama. That, I bet, was a big difference - especially in St. Louis County and Kansas City. Still, extrapolating from Ohio to anything else is a mistake. No other state is as uniquely tied to dead and dying industrial jobs (except Michigan). That Ohioans would look toward a candidate who resembles the better-off 1990s than think about some post-industrial future is hardly surprising. Ohioans really think the industrial jobs are coming back. I saw that in Michigan too when I lived there. Those folks really are nostalgic - both economically and politically (and often culturally).

5) Independents matter. In state after state Independents have flocked to Barack Obama. These aren't GOP thugs messing around. These are real voters. I've had numerous conversations with Independents here in red East Tennessee who will vote for Obama over McCain but McCain over Clinton. The level of hatred for Clinton is palpable among those outside the Democratic base. That may not matter in an Ohio Democratic Primary, but it sure matters in a general election. And if this is about electability, Clinton has a lot more to overcome than Obama against McCain.

by elrod 2008-03-05 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I completely disagree

Actually, I honestly think Michigan would go Obama, Ann Arbor would equal Columbus, and Dtroit is a bigger population center and is more densely African American than Cincinnati and/or Cleveland.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Graceful winner aren't you Jerome?

The racist, Rush Limbaugh listening guy on 60 Minutes is the core of your party Jerome. But, if you're a Clinton, you've gotta maintain your base. Catering to people like that may win some votes, but it's a dead end for America and the Party.

by anothergreenbus 2008-03-05 03:20AM | 0 recs
OH, and PA = Mississippi

... and I don't mean that in a good way.

Obama will be a feel good electoral disaster.

Obama will end up like Gore and Kerry hated for years after defeat.  If he is lucky maybe he can write another fairytale book and remake his image years later like Gore was able to do with his work on global warming.

by dpANDREWS 2008-03-05 03:20AM | 0 recs
Hey, I object to that!

I think a fairer comment would be

OH + PA = TN North  :)

by lombard 2008-03-05 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: OH, and PA = Mississippi

Why does OH prove more about the white vote than VA or WI, both of which are just as swing as the Buckeye state.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Thanks for the insight. I had not seen the cut and paste of Obama talking points in what now, like 2 pages. Whew, I was getting worried.

by Marvin42 2008-03-05 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Numbers to prove this FASCINATING assertion please?

by Marvin42 2008-03-05 03:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I disagree with Jerome here -- not convinced that a Democratic primary results means that Dems don't beat there Republicans there. But I am disraught about the tone of responses to Jerome -- it's ugly and childish. Why don't we all take a deep breath and realize that we're committed to the same cause, and may disagree about how to get there?

by IsaacGol 2008-03-05 03:24AM | 0 recs
ugly and childish???

Please, Jerome started that game, he can finish it.

by Teaser 2008-03-05 03:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

This argument is faulty for many reasons. One of which is that you can't assume when choosing between a Demcrat and a Democrat the results will be the same as when choosing between a Democrat and REpublican. That's faulty logic.

As an aside, I find the way the Obama supporters here will argue whatever position fits in with Obama being right annoying. They do happen, I think, to be right now, but they were more than willing to do the same faulty extrapolation as you are now doing just a few days ago.

by bruh21 2008-03-05 03:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

1 in 5 whites for whom race was an important factor voted for Clinton in Ohio.

Isn't that just un-Democratic, un-American, and just plain disgusting?

by goodnbad 2008-03-05 03:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Yeah, but it's also the truth.  Even though some don't want to admit it.

It's also true that there are a lot of people in this country that are unwilling to vote for a woman.  

I remember a few Edwards supporters telling us to vote for him for both these reasons.  

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

What's your point?  That there are continuing race issues in America?  That sometimes racists vote? That we should somehow blame Hillary Clinton because some backward racists nutjobs voted for her?

by Denny Crane 2008-03-05 04:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

How many AAs do you think considered race an important factor who voted for Obama in Ohio? With such similar positions between HRC and BHO, that's what this primary appedars to be devolving to at this point, identity politics.

by JohnS 2008-03-05 05:08AM | 0 recs
A little scrutiny

took a huge toll on Obama.  His entire campaign rests on an extremely weak foundation.  With the inevitablity of his nomination now in question he has to make a case for his qualifications to beat McCain and to be President. Not easy.

by Upstate Dem 2008-03-05 03:32AM | 0 recs
Re: A little scrutiny

What huge toll?  He finished few points below the polls from last week, and 15-20 points above the polls from a month or two ago.    

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 03:37AM | 0 recs
Put the coffee down, Mr. Obama

Coffee's for closers.  What happened to your momentum?  We're going to need a better performance out of you in November.

by Upstate Dem 2008-03-05 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Put the coffee down, Mr. Obama

You seem confused.  I'm not Senator Obama.  Slight resemblance maybe...

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 04:04AM | 0 recs
Jerome got his blast fax early

.

by Teaser 2008-03-05 03:32AM | 0 recs
Jerome's analysis

  I see that Jerome keeps venturing into the comments to attack further, but without addressing the most reasonable objections--

1.  Why assume that the Democratic Party consists entirely of utterly racist white Democrats who will vote for McCain in the general?  Does any evidence support that this would be more overwhelming than Obama's strong appeal to swing/Indy voters?  And will the Hillary Dems really mean that much nationwide?  So far, they don't have a convincing demographic profile by any account.

2.  Why attack fellow pundits as "overeducated" in the very anti-intellectual language that the right-wing media does?  I happen to have a Harvard PhD, but hopefully you won't hold that against me, because I'm also a Wellesley grad, and neither white nor male.  Does any of those things disqualify me from being a "real" Democrat like you, Jerome?

3.  Are you, Jerome, in any way officially connected to Hillary's campaign?  You seem to be reluctant to answer this question directly, which is sad coming from a "blogger."  I'm organizing an academic conference that will deal with some of these things, together with friends from Harvard, Columbia, CUNY, and the community at large, at CUNY in Brooklyn in May.  Anybody interested in presenting, contributing, or attending, email me:  raceandnewmedia@gmail.com, with topics, ideas, etc.  The "new" media is anything but, it seems, but this is particularly egregious.  I don't mind Hillary support, but to make it rest on anti-intellectualism and divisive, racist, tactics that pander to the most absurd, math-defying logic--only five counties of Democrats will vote for Obama in the general?  Can you really be serious, Jerome, or is this actually 1952?

So, folks, let's talk about creating a really "new" media--
raceandnewmedia@gmail.com

by anniewilde 2008-03-05 03:34AM | 0 recs
You don't count.

.

by Teaser 2008-03-05 03:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's analysis

You've got a harvard PhD and that's how you read this post?

by JohnS 2008-03-05 05:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's analysis
Don't worry. Harvard's not giving out pity degrees, or anything. She's just lying.
by sricki 2008-03-06 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

So why not have Democratic primaries only in these "big states"?

Forget every state except California, New York, Ohio, and Florida.

If we want to make it real simple just have the primary in Ohio choose the nominee.  We can save a lot of time and money that way.

This can save us the hassle of having some outsider coming in and winning a streak of states that don't mean anything look like he is actually winning.  We don't need to be inconvenienced like that.

by RSchewe 2008-03-05 03:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Hahaha, You deserve the best comment on the thread award.

by brimur 2008-03-05 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath
Facts are facts.  JEROME pointed out the facts.  Like Hillary said you CAN NOT WIN THE G.E without winning OHIO.  He only carried 5 counties.  Some(Fredfred) here might point out (ignorantly) that the racist voted for her.  Thats like saying Blacks only vote for Obama because he's black.  Facts are Facts guys.  Other than Missouri and Virginia, I don't see any other relevant states that  Obama brings to the table.  JEROME like I said last night thank you for your relevance.  There IS a connection between the Primary and the General.  Ohio is a Battle ground state.  OHIO WILL decide the election just like it did 4 years ago.  When You can't carry OH<CA<FL<NY< "Houston we have got a problem."  Reality is huge. LAST NIGHT WAS HUGE.  1 MORE thing the party including white women and white  men are coming home to HILLARY, the LATINO vote is in the bag, THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN RISK not nominating HRC as our candidate, if we do we are risking loosing the white women and latino vote.  Facts are Facts.  "GET IT RIGHT KEEP IT TIGHT" <br> PEACE..... (yes she will)
by nzubechukwu 2008-03-05 03:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I know facts when I see them and I know CAPSLOCK when I see it. CAPSLOCK is not substitute for facts. And neither is speculation.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

But you can win the general election without Ohio by winning a handful out of Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico and all the states John Kerry won in 2004.

It is possible to win without Ohio and Florida if people can think beyond the 2000 and 2004 map a little bit.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-03-05 06:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

If Obama's going to lose CA and NY, then isn't Hillary going to lose WI, IA, MN, and IL, omg add in MO and the entire midwest outside of OH and MI is turning red!!!  Seriously, though you're only counting states Obama would add (and not counting CO, and some of the others), and not counting states Hillary would lose like MN and WI (WI especially it was the closest state we won last time, and I see no reason we wouldn't lose with Hillary if Obama would lose PA.)

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

You can't completely ignore the kitchen sink effect.  There was a lot of stuff thrown in a little time.  It would be enough to cause a momentary hesitation, but November will be a new calculation after reality sorts out.

Rezko: no story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/200802 18/pl_bloomberg/ar8nlioqedc4

Nafta: even taking the worst reading of the memo
CTV was totally wrong (where, when, who, what was said, who initiated, why) and the memo says that Goolsbee told the Canadians that Obama wanted to change Nafta to strengthen the labor and environmental standards.

BHO's subcommittee: the HRC ad was factually wrong in assigning oversight to the BHO subcommittee.  And, that subcommittee never met much (7 times in 9 years before Obama)

The false Muslim claim was pushed again:
--Picture on Drudge, credited to HRC camp
--HRC not definitive on 60 minutes
--From earlier the fake madrassa story pushed by HRC camp http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

The 3:00 AM call issue
Where the HRC camp itself can't point to any time she had to make a decision in an emergency.  This ad may serve her as a tactical victory as part of the kitchen sink, but McCain would reveal how she has no experience in a GE, and this ad would be devastating to her argument--she is basing her reason to be elected on territory where McCain is stronger, foriegn policy and domestic legislative experience.

And, BHO came from huge polling deficits in these states just two weeks ago.  

Finally, an Obama Rendell ticket takes care of a lot of issues.  Hopefully Rendell won't join in the bridge burning that seems popular with the Clintons.

by 1jpb 2008-03-05 03:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Smears and negative attacks usually work in the short term and counter momentum. People start to think: do we really want to vote for this guy? And while they are still thinking, they might go for the safe choice, which in this case was Clinton.

However, in the long term such attacks (if they proof to be unfounded as in this case) strengthen the nominee. People will not fall for the Rezko stuff twice. They will not waver anymore if some anonymous source questions Obama's character - by basically claiming he does not say what he thinks (NAFTA). Hence, I'm not sure that a heavily fought primary is actually a bad thing.

by marcotom 2008-03-05 03:53AM | 0 recs
Re: ANNIEWILDE

Anniewilde, what is wrong with you?  Just because jerome disagrees with you doesn't mean he's working for HRC.  Facts are Facts ANNIE!

by nzubechukwu 2008-03-05 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I think the divisiveness between Clinton and Obama supporters is not constructive. However, I would suggest that as long as Jerome continues to act as a Clinton surrogate, we're going to continue to see pushback from Obama supporters and arguments in Jerome's comments sections. Too often it seems to me that Jerome's agenda is not really getting a Democrat elected president, but that it needs to be Hillary specifically. (I do recall one complimentary post on Obama, that he has a good "brand".)

If Jerome has an opinion, then of course he should let it out. But he is certainly doing nothing to bring Democrats together with his biased posting.

by tractor 2008-03-05 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

What the electability argument fails to take into account is that these are DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS. They will vote for whoever the Democratic Party nominates in the Fall election. They are not likely to have voted for Hillary in the primary and then turn around and vote for McCain in the Fall.  

The key question is, which candidate can pick up the Independent and some Republican votes in the Fall election on top of the Democratic votes?  I think Hillary is too polarizing to get those folks and Obama has a better chance, unless they are dissuaded by his race out there in the rural Southern-influenced areas.  Hillary will also bring out the evangelicals who might otherwise stay home with McCain as the nominee.  I don't think we can answer the "electability" question at this juncture without some polling.  The primary results don't tell us.    

by MikeWalk 2008-03-05 03:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

What the electability argument fails to take into account is that these are DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS. They will vote for whoever the Democratic Party nominates in the Fall election. They are not likely to have voted for Hillary in the primary and then turn around and vote for McCain in the Fall.

I'm a Hillary supporter and you are quite right. I haven't made up my mind yet what I will do in November if Hillary does not win the nomination. However, I have narrowed my options down:

a) Write in Hillary's name
b) Vote for McCain
c) Not vote

Having watched the racist and sexist attacks on the Clintons by the DNC and failed Democratic Party good ol' boys like my Senators Kerry and Kennedy, I am disgusted (and finished) with the Democratic Party.

by hwc 2008-03-05 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

And, echoing anniewilde and my own previous comment, I would like to hear from Jerome as to his formal relationship with the Clinton campaign.

by tractor 2008-03-05 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Jerome's post is excellent, and my only complaint is perhaps too much emphasis or suggestion that Obama couldn't win Ohio in Nov. and couldn't beat McCain without winning in Ohio. But he didn't really emphasize that...

Hillary's performance in Ohio was impressive and does suggest she could win the general election by winning all the Gore/Kerry blue states and Ohio regardless of the popular vote count.

It does not suggest that Obama can not win in Ohio. Furthermore, Obama has such incredible appeal and political skills, he could win the general election without Ohio by extending the blue map to places like Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, the Dakotas, Nevada and even Virginia.

I have two dream scenarios for the general election and they're both really possible. One, Clinton wins electoral college without winning popular vote. She proves her leadership skills by governing effectively without this mandate (somehow managing to fix much of the  executive branch Bush has wrecked) and with very slim majorities in Congress. She even campaigns with McCain and others to fix aspects of our presidential election system, getting many more states to pass laws giving their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote as long as states representing half the population have passed the same law. In 2012 she hands off to Obama (as agreed??) or she wins a smashing reelection. Two, Obama wins in "landslide" of 53% or more that puts close to 60 Democratic Senators in office. Both would be awesome for progressive causes and both are possible. Let's be proud of our party that this race continues, let's not tear ourselves apart.

by loiter 2008-03-05 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I think Wisconsin would be a real challenge for her, among others.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-05 04:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Do we really think Clinton will win all of those counties in the general?  I mean, look, if EITHER candidate loses the part of the democratic base voting strongly for the other candidate (African-Americans for Obama, Women and Seniors for Clinton) the party is in DEEP trouble.

Clinton won a lot of those counties, but did she really win with numbers that will beat McCain in the general?  Probably not.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/r esults/states/OH/P/00/map.html

by jakeDC 2008-03-05 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Exactly.

by anothergreenbus 2008-03-05 04:09AM | 0 recs
You are high

Head to head matchups between Dems don't tell you which Dem would run stronger against an R in the same state.

That's especially true when the candidate who lost the primary has greater appeal outside the party base.  HRC won because she's preferred by the D base in Ohio - and for that, she earned the win in the D primary.  My hat's off to her.

But these are not the people we have trouble winning in the general election.  It's the independents and Republicans - who preferred Obama - that we have to win.

by TL 2008-03-05 04:07AM | 0 recs
Last comment.

Why can't Hillary win with a little dignity? Why does she need to use fear and race to win? I would have a lot less trouble supporting her if she showed some integrity. But some will say this is the age of Rove. Sorry, I can't get over the yuck factor anymore.

by anothergreenbus 2008-03-05 04:08AM | 0 recs
PA is a lot like Ohio

The results there will be interesting.

by dpANDREWS 2008-03-05 04:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath
Hillary Cainton '08: "A bad EXPERIENCE and a SOLUTION to Democracy."
by VT COnQuest 2008-03-05 04:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

A democrat doesn't win an elction in Ohio without winning Cuyahoga County.  Yea, Clinton won Putnam, Clinton, Clemont and Bulter Counties in Ohio, places where Bush won neary 70 percent of the vote in 2004 and where Democrats will lose again in 2008.

by comotion 2008-03-05 04:27AM | 0 recs
I've Seen That Map Before...

That's the map from 4 years ago.  That small handful of blue counties are the most populous in the state and home to our party's base.  Winning them, and winning them by significant margins is enough to compete in the state.  It doesn't represent an electibility concern.  

Lets stop pretending those dozens of red (or light blue in the case of Jerome's map) represent a huge loss.  In the case of Kerry, they represented a virtual tie (51-49) in this purplish swing state.  This is the kind of intellectually dishonest game the Republicans play with their Redstate/Bluestate maps showing a vast swath of red visually drowning out the blue, with absolutely zero acknowledgment that those small blue areas represent just as many people.

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 04:28AM | 0 recs
One Additional Point....

If Hillary is our nominee, and if she wins Ohio, her map is going to look much the same.  And she will almost assuredly lose those same 70-80 counties while pulling in huge support from the heavily populated Democratic areas.

This isn't an electibility problem Jerome, it's spin, and it's dishonest.

by Brillobreaks 2008-03-05 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

here is ANOTHER tension in the Ohio analysis:

Jerome argues that Hillary wom many more counties than Obama and this is the rout in the sense that the difference in # of counties won is so much more.

But that's the exact opposite analysis from: hillary wins the big states and that's waht really matters. Notice, switch counties and states.

When it comes to Hillary, winning big states IS ALL THAT MATTERS

When it comes to Obama, winning small counties IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

huh?

by poserM 2008-03-05 04:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Here's another tension in the analysis. When Obama wins read states, everyone on here cries: BUT THEY ARE RED STATES. Don't count.

But Hillary won all the red counties and what does Jerome say: Apperently Rred counties only count when Hillary wins them. But red states don't count when Obama wins them.

huh?

by poserM 2008-03-05 04:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Those "big" states that Hillary won WILL go under Barack's column come November.  Does anyone really think that California, New York, MA, NJ will flip to McVain.

by sbbonerad 2008-03-05 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I hate to use the R word, but racism was a huge factor here (not the only factor, but a big one).  The exit polling mentioned it, and the results are evident in the Cuyahoga county results, where she won 2:1 in the lily-white west side of the county...  The west side results are astounding!  She should have won that region by her final tally, about 55% 'cos of old guard union support, but the numbers are through the roof for her and sets off alarm bells in this racially divided city.  

This is definitely an issue for Obama.  For the first time in the campaign, the Bradley effect reared its ugly head in both the exit polling and the polls leading into the race.  She outperformed (for the first time, BTW) buy about 5% which is very Bradley-esque...

Ohio has some serious race issues (I was just told that they have the second highest clansman population in America).  I've seen it myself with Cleveland being the most segregated city in the U.S.  It is the first time that racism reared its ugly head in this primary campaign, and it is a sad commentary on where our country is 50 years after civil rights legislation.

Obama will struggle in Ohio... I still think he can win, because there is a good democratic machine in place now, but it is definitely a concern.  He should not assume Ohio will go his way should he win the nomination.  Since he only lost 3 delegates for the night (current estimates), he's still the leading frontrunner for the nomination.  Hillary has no real clear path for the nomination, at least not though delegates...  but, that's for a different diary...

Hillary is surprisingly strong in Ohio.  For years, she was reviled here with people here repeating the most foul and nasty epithets about her... now, suddenly, out of nowhere, everyone loves her!  I don't understand where or how the transformation took place, but her lead here against McCain is mind-boggling.  Since Ohioans are stubborn and never change their minds no matter how hard you try, that lead should hold into November.  Unfortunately, she is getting trounced in Wisconsin and other states, so just because she can win Ohio, doesn't mean she can win the presidency.  That is important to note.  The idea that she'll win the Kerry states plus Ohio is  patently false... she's losing many Kerry states in head to head matchups at the moment, many by double digits...

She is doing one thing that is interesting.... she's managing to become the "populist" candidate.  Her husband kind of did it in his 1992 campaign, but she's doing it real well... I don't know how a multi-millionaire Wellsley girl pulls it off, but she does... Bush did, too... and if it takes hold, she may actually win a few independents.  At the moment, though, Obama still (even after getting creamed in the right wing media for several weeks, and getting killed in the media this past week) wins more independents...  She's going to have to improve on her negatives, which is hard to by going negative all the time...

And how the heck does she get more delegates?  She only gained a handful last night... she needs a lot more than that and fast!  What's her delegate strategy?

by LordMike 2008-03-05 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Your own comments (and the exit polling) indicate that she's managing to become not the populist candidate, but something far easier for her:

the white candidate.

by maconblue 2008-03-05 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Obama's losing Kerry states like PA and NJ. I don't seem him having a winning map to the presidency right now. And if there truly is a bradley effect, then he can shave about 5 pts off the polls in other states too.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Kerry was losing NJ and PA, too... but NJ always polls light on democrats and then votes them in, so that's not a good analysis...

PA may be an issue, but Obama has strong draws elsewhere...

This is the first time the bradley effect has reared its head...  It won't happen in traditionally blue states, or the states that Obama has done well in...  those are states which race plays little role.  Ohio has race issues.  PA has race issues... A lot of red states have race issues, but they won't be in play so it won't matter.

The muslim whisper campaign is what's really hurting him, and that's something that is hand in hand with the race issue... fix that, and much of the race issue goes away...

by LordMike 2008-03-05 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I believe that the by far majority that voted for Hillary in Ohio will back Obama come November.  I don't think the opposite is true, however.  The young voters simply wont be energized by her.  I see a tough road for her in the general because her negative number is simply too high.  It's hard to win when about the half of the country can't stand you, including some hardcore dems.

by sbbonerad 2008-03-05 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

There are no young voters in Ohio... They all leave for greener pastures, 'cos there are no jobs here anymore...  youth turnoff won't have as big of an effect here...

by LordMike 2008-03-05 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Come on, there are plenty of young voters. Hello, Columbus, Cincinnati.....

by sbbonerad 2008-03-05 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Others have said it, but there is one assumption you make that in my mind discredits your analysis: the notion that Obama losing in Ohio to Clinton--a Democrat--implies that he would lose to McCain--a Republican. The assumption that the bulk of Democratic Hillary voters would suddenly switch there allegiance to McCain strikes me as preposterous. What your analysis misses is that people who voted could only choose between Obama or Clinton; they chose one or the other, which doesn't necessarily imply that those who chose one over the other disliked the one they didn't chose or that they preferred the Republican candidate.

by Panhu 2008-03-05 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

According to the exit polls, Obama would lose about 1 in 5 Hillary voters. Other polls like AP also confirm this.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Is that based on the "race is important" whites who voted for Clinton or other data? I haven't seen straightforward cross-electability exits yet. Assuming it was asked, how many Clinton voters in OH said they would also vote for Obama in the general, and vice-versa? I think that answer is pertinent to Jerome's assertion about Obama's electability.

Also, it is just possible that even among the "race is important" Clinton voters, party affiliation might trump racism for at least some of them in the general--i.e., at this stage in the game, they'd rather have the white Democrat, but in the end they'll take whatever Dem they get. I'm not asserting that this would be a huge phenomenon, but it probably exists.

by Cole Moore Odell 2008-03-05 05:34AM | 0 recs
Enjoy the primary

just a general vent based on some comments I hav read. I am disgusted by the fact that some DEmocrats have shown themselves to be as undemocratic as Republicans. I see problematic statements from both sides based on who they think they will win. Neither candidate should drop out until the end. If Obama can manage to win this, he will be a better candidate because of the opposition he faces from Hillary. Same with Hillary. And no one should be depriving the remaining states of their voice to be heard. THIS IS A GREAT PRIMARY. No one should drop out until the end.  Sit back and enjoy  and let the remaining states be heard. Stop acting so defeatist about "oh this only going to weaken us".

by Pravin 2008-03-05 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Enjoy the primary

There is nothing to enjoy... when the primary was clean and based on issues, extending it helped us tremendously.  But, now it has become dirty and nasty!  That hurts the party significantly!

by LordMike 2008-03-05 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Enjoy the primary

THen the complaints should focus on fighting a hard clean fight. I find it highly offensive whenever I see handwringing about making it easier for the supposed leader to win.

by Pravin 2008-03-05 05:41AM | 0 recs
Bingo!

by JohnS 2008-03-05 05:35AM | 0 recs
Dishonest argument

Elections are about people, not counties.

Remember "Its a Mandate!"?

by faithfull 2008-03-05 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Sorry kids but I was born and raised in Northeast Ohio. Ohio will NEVER be in the Barack Obama column. Obama is unelectable and the sooner people realize that super majorities of young voters and African Americans is not going to be nearly enough

by rossinatl 2008-03-05 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Isn't the same true for Hillary, I mean there is pretty obviously a major rift between her and the African American community.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I'm not that sure there is as big of a correlation between winning a primary and winning in the GE as one might think. Remember GWB losing the NH primary by about 15 percent, and Gore winning easily? Then GWB won the state in the GE.  

If I remember correctly, Kerry lost Iowa in the GE after winning the Caucus. I think most

by Mr Sifter 2008-03-05 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath
I agree that the vote in Ohio had anything to do with the fact that Obama is AA, if anything, it helps him. To me, it finally comes down to a victory for substance. If one has a chance to watch her town hall meetings, especially the Texas town hall meeting, it would be apparent how she did it. She commands such extensive knowledge on all issues! As a person who has been in school for >25 years of my life, I know that takes dedication and real passion - everyone knows, it is easy to get an A-, or A, but not so easy to get A+s all the time - that is what she represents - solid A+s ALL the time on issues. I have to say, with no real passion and real dedication and with just hunger for power alone, nobody will be able to do that so well for so long! I think America will be lucky to have her as a president!
by observer11 2008-03-05 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

Well you know all issues except Iraq and Civil Liberties, other than that though she's golden.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 07:19AM | 0 recs
Well done, Jerome

The majority of Obama's supporters will never listen, of course, but maybe a few are starting to have doubts.  Even if he gets his clock cleaned in November, they'll blame the loss on the Clinton campaign.  They'll be like the subset of Germans after WWI who believed the only reason they lost the war was because of traitorous politicians in their country.

by lombard 2008-03-05 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Well done, Jerome

Just out of curiousity, will it be anything like the people who are currently talking about how the African American community is "ungrateful" to the Clinton's?

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 07:20AM | 0 recs
I'm not sure who you are talking about

Surely not the candidate herself who has continued to attend African American sponsored events despite lack of support from that demographic.  One thing this woman has shown through her career is the ability to fight through bitterness against those who either oppose or don't support her.  Ask Lindsey Graham or Newt Gingrich.

by lombard 2008-03-05 09:29AM | 0 recs
The Swift-Boats are Back

We knew somebody would put these guys back in business...and I'm not referring to Jerome.

First and foremost, NAFTA is a dirty word in Ohio and the Rust Belt, but the treaty has many beneficiaries in Texas. The way the comment was made, it allowed Clinton the ability to split the baby on Obama as far as trade goes. Very effective politics, but she's from the home state of Wal-mart and her allegiances probably haven't changed much.

Race...while it's true that race was definitely a factor in the Butternut parts of Ohio (and maybe elsewhere) this isn't a new story. Obama probably lost Massachusetts due his race (and the struggles of Deval Patrick) and Pennsylvania posits the same dilemma, along with do-overs in Michigan and Florida. It's sad to see the Clinton campaign seemingly abandon the black base that treated them so well in the 90s...but I guess c'est la vie.

Make no mistake, John McCain is thrilled. If there's one person he can count on the Republican base hating more than himself, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton.

by risenmessiah 2008-03-05 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: The Swift-Boats are Back

Well she has recieved by far the most donations by Wal-mart execs of any Canidate in the nation, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

All OH & TX dems have done is help John McCain.  Hillary Clinton will never be president. It going to either be President Obama or President McCain.  All OH & TX did is make it more likely to be the latter.  dummies

Speaking of dummies: simply reiterating Senator Obama's middle name (even in CAPITAL LETTERS), like a freakin' retard, isn't going to defeat him, and isn't even relevant to this debate. Get over it.

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-03-05 07:39AM | 0 recs
blinders.

you have them on.

So all of those people that voted for Clinton are just going to vote for McCain now?

please.

This isn't like running a general and losing a state, it's a primary.

All of the negative campaigning by Clinton paid off.

That's like saying Clinton won't win Illinois in the general, it's a misleading and lame statement.

by neutron 2008-03-05 07:59AM | 0 recs
delegate math for sports fans

It's as if the Clinton team was down 21 - 3 after 10 minutes of the 3rd quarter on Monday night.  It was a three score game.  Team Hilary got the ball on Tuesday and picked up a bunch of 1st downs and looked really good doing it.  

However, not winning Texas by the large margin that she needed has allowed the caucus portion of that contest to negate the primary portion.  She drove the ball down the field and settled for a field goal.  

The score in my imaginary football game becomes 21 - 6.  15 points is still a three score game and guess what.  There's less time left on the clock.  Her situation mathematically is worse now than it was on Monday.  A 3 score game in the 4th quarter is worse than three score game in the 3rd.  Yes, the defecit is down to 15 points instead of 18, but the time lost was worth more than the points gained.

Before anyone crucifies me for pullin the scores in my imaginary game out of my butt (and I absolutely did), they aren't the point.  I am trying to use an analogy to demonstrate that the horizon is approaching much faster than the defecit is closing and that having Texas and Ohio out of the picture with only a small net gain to show for it is a BIG problem for Hilary's hopefuls.

That said, she did ruin my hopes for an Obama clincher last night.  Kudos to her.  I don't think that she will have such helpful demographics in the populations of the remaining states except for Pennsylvania which, even though it is the one remaining large state, won't be large enough.

by lockewasright 2008-03-05 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

This is just nonsense.

Obama has an electability problem in the GE because a Democrat beat him in the state? What kind of goofy reasoning is that?

Does Clinton then have an electability problem in Illinois or Maryland?

Is there a Democratic scenario where they win the White House without winning Illinois? Etc etc.

And, come on, no Democrat will win Ohio without massive turnout in those five counties.

And what's the point of focussing on counties? Bill Clinton, Gore, and Kerry all won Illinois despite winning a minority (and sometimes only single digit) of the counties. Why? Because they won Cook county by 50 points, and that is where all the people.

This post is simply a lie.

by Octavian82 2008-03-05 08:33AM | 0 recs
It's stupid goofy

.. that's what it is.

by JCPOK 2008-03-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
HRC still has GE problems in...

WA, WI, MN and OR.  She can't win the presidency without these states.  Yet the most recent polling shows her losing to McCain in all of them.

by mikelow1885 2008-03-05 08:38AM | 0 recs
Truly Ignorant Diary

Are we to assume that more than 40% of these Dem primary voters will bolt and vote for McCain in the general rather than vote for the Obama if he is the nominee?  That's what this diary assumes - look at the numbers.   In any case, the assumption is ridiculous.  Under almost any set of assumptions (based on party participation and results of both primaries in OH), the Dem candidate should win the general by a significant margin.

It is these types of pseudo-analytical diaries that create a lot of nonsense in the political blogs.  A 9th grade statistics student would laugh at this diary.  

by JCPOK 2008-03-05 09:12AM | 0 recs
Women's and Latino vote

In Ohio, Clinton won the votes of Democrats by a 14 percent margin, 56-42. Clinton and Obama tied among Republican & Independent voters. I find it ironic that the most strident of "progressives" find themselves backing the candidate whom does the least well among self-declared Democrats.

Ohio and Texas proved all she has to do to win the general is get out the women's and Latino vote.

by nonwhiteperson 2008-03-05 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Women's and Latino vote

No, it didn't.  That is as absurd as Jerome's original post (which he has conspicuously declined to actually defend).  You simply cannot extrapolate Primary results to the GE based on how one of the primary participants did.  

In fact, the only states where you can make any kind of argument for the GE based on primary voting were the pre-Florida states - and that argument isn't candidate specific but solely relative strength of the parties when each party has a competitive race.

by SKI 2008-03-05 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

I'm no longer sure we are all committed to the same cause.  In theory, we all want to elect a Democratic President in November.  However, the in fighting that this primary is causing is weakening both candidates and the party brand as a whole.  Why don't they just continue fighting on until the convention and spend the rest of their primary war chests?  Why again, did I donate so much money to these campaigns?  

I thought I saw a real opportunity here, but we're blowing it, just as we so often do.  This should be an easy election for us to win, if we rally around one candidate and push forward.  How can we deny the nomination to someone who has won 27 states?

by titanrw 2008-03-05 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio aftermath

What do you think of the declaration of "A Unity" Democratic Party ticket. One where the two remaining candidates declare they will now run on the same ticket but will let the Democratic primaries determine who will be president and who will be vice president. Meanwhile the two candidates together equally run against McCain on the same ticket. You'll still have a pres/vice pres nominee, but they'd all be running against McCain in the mean time.  The both would run UNITED IN UNITY campain. Just a thought.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-03-14 01:07PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads