Follies in the blogosphere

It continues to amaze me-- the contortions that folks who dearly want Obama to win will rationalize to themselves about his candidacy. Now, I thought the 2003-2006 netroots was all about the 'fighting dems' that invigorated the Democratic Party with a strong sense of partisanship and Howard Dean's "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" candidacy. But then The Nation comes along, and rewrites that entire history to say that really, it was all just a precursor, that really, "Obama is Dean 2.0".

Obama does have phenomenal fundraising numbers among upper income boomer liberals and their offspring, no doubt. Except that, when you listen to the Obama campaign talk about it's victories lately, I have this inclination to see right through it-- that they are not talking about support of the people, but instead having gamed the process. "The Math" as one of their talking point leaders, Jonathan Alter, likes to call it. But, as riverdaughter calls it, "people are just now starting to notice that he gets more delegates by suppressing Clinton voters than by actually, you know, winning."

The latest being that Obama "won" Texas (you know, like Bush "won" Florida). Clinton won the state 51-47, by over 100,000 votes, and yet, Obama, his campaign, and all his supporters now say they won Texas. Why? Because of the undemocratic proportional allocation of caucus delegates, such as an urban areas that voted Obama being worth more delegates than a Latino stronghold for Clinton in another part of the state, because of a previous election. That's not a Democratic system-- its a relic of machine-age politics. And to claim a "win" based on a system like that is not people-powered politics.

And its certainly, for anyone who's cared to look at who is voting, not due to partisan Democratic support that Obama has done so well. If anything, it's in spite of hardcore Democrats, that Obama has won, through inclusive organizing of Republicans and Independents. Sure, this is a good thing in the long run, but lets be honest and agree that its not representative of the type of progressive partisanship that places like DailyKos and MyDD, and the rest of the progressive blogosphere, have been proponents. And I'm not saying that Clinton is either, that would be too clever by half-- she's got her own thing going on that I'll get into in a bit. Just please, if you want to kid yourself into believing Obama is something that he's not, don't take exception to people like me calling you out on your bluff.

So there's this post by Chris Bowers today. Now, Bowers is in an awkward partisan progressive position of all of a sudden needing to register Republicans to register as Democratic in PA before the 24th. A good thing, no doubt, but not exactly representative of the base-politics that the blogosphere has been fighting.

The other day, when he turned his attention to how he could help Obama win Pennsylvania, Bowers wrote:

My initial take of Pennsylvania is that Obama will do very well in Philadelphia (at least 60% of the vote, and possibly 70%) and the "T" (mainly Central PA, sometimes dismissively referred to as "Pennsyltucky"), in concert with his coalition of the extremes (grassroots progressives and grassroots red state Democrats). Clinton will do well in Western PA (including the Pittsburgh metro area), Northeastern PA (Scranton / Wilkes-Barre / Hazelton and "The Office" country), and the Bethlehem / Allentown metro area. The decisive swing vote will come in the Philadelphia suburbs, which is just about the only growing area of the state. It is also a region trending blue very quickly, and has a lot of independents and Republicans who are voting for Democrats in general elections, but who can't vote in the primary unless they register as Democrats by March 24th. This three-week registration period could decide the election, since these "new" Democrats will favor Obama, while the currently registered Democrats probably favor Clinton.
Now, I don't know what Chris is saying for sure about those potential T Obama supporters, but I'd bet that those "grassroots red state Democrats", otherwise known as Obamacans, are not the voters he writes about today as the ones that Democrats need to expand into a majority:
I don't care if Democrats never make up any ground among Reagan Democrats ever, as long as we lock up the support of expanding groups like the creative class, white non-Christians, Latinos and Asians for a generation. I'll take that trade any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Importantly, it feels to me as though we can make that trade if Barack Obama becomes the nominee, but that we will be making the opposite trade if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee.

For that latest post, a screed against the "Reagan Democrats", BTD names it the "Post of the Day" saying:

Yep. Except for those pesky Latinos and, of course those older women, and white working class men - I hate the Clinton coalition and I love the way Obama does not make appeals to Reagan Democrats. Why yes, that is what I really love about Obama - the way he is sharply partisan against the Republicans and has not run one of those Unity Schtick campaigns to appeal to Reagan Democrats. Heck never would Obama even say a word of praise of Reagan EVER. And Republicans? No where to be seen in that Obama coalition. Nosirree.

Some things can not be parodied.

Yes, that's quite a contortion.

I don't find myself in love with a candidacy in this nomination fight. I had a number of candidates that I supported, a few I really liked, and they all dropped out. In the choice between Clinton and Obama, I don't see much of a difference in substantive policy, nor in the people running their campaigns, and basically chose Clinton because I think she's got a better shot at winning than the gamble of going with the untested Obama.

I don't deny that it will be close with Clinton, or that she doesn't have coattails in red state areas, but she's undeniably got some real tangible benefits that not only have benefited her candidacy, but mean terrific things for the Democratic Party. Women and Latinos, neither of whom belong to the "Reagan Democrats" clan that Bowers dismisses as the base of Clinton's support.

Women composed about 60 percent of the electorate in both the Ohio and Texas primaries. Amazing. The Latino vote in Texas was nearly 1/3rd of the electorate, up from 25 percent in 2004. I work with a bunch of Austin Texans (Obamafans) that have been moaning to me for years that they can't activate the Latino voters to win (and yes, I told them Hillary would do the work for them).

That's Clinton's base, women and Latinos, many of them whom voted Republican or Independent previously (for anecdotal example), or haven't voted at all, that Clinton is turning into Democrats. It's immensely under-appreciated, and god-forbid, may actually have coattails. Neither am I convinced that Obama will just as easily be able to tap into these supporters of Clinton. It'd be just as difficult for Clinton to tap into the quasi-evangelical/republicans that come out to support him in the red states, but the deeper problem for Obama is that the number of those Obamacan voters is not that enough to flip any of those red states either.  

The numbers for Clinton are very large and undeniably unique to her candidacy. I've mentioned this before, that I can see the path to Clinton winning, and it goes through the southwest and Florida with the Latino surge, and nationally, especially in the midwest, with the surge in women voting. Obama does have a substantive problem with the "Reagan Democrats" who will not support him, but to make that into Clinton's crutch, instead of Obama's unique problem to overcome, is wrong.

I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome, but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)



Re: Follies in the blogosphere

and when, exactly, has Clinton been tested?

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-07 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

That was Bill.  When has she been tested?

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-07 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

uh. 2000 & 2006 Senate races. She is the Senator from NY, you see. Her critics seem to think that she has only played a role as political spouse. But she has done a lot since the days of FLOTUS.

by hctb 2008-03-07 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

According to a lot of NYkers she hasn't done much as a Senator, especially the "millions of jobs" she promised.

by beve83 2008-03-07 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere
Apparantly those NYers you cite do not vote.
55% in 2000 to 67% in 2006..
by hctb 2008-03-07 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

More importantly, she won the metropolitan area in 2000 and lost in some small counties, but I believe she won every county in the 2006 re-election!  She won them over through substantive work.

by observer11 2008-03-08 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

both those races were against laughingstocks, she has yet to face a real republican opponent.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-07 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I was simply responding to the failure to consider Hillary's service as a Senator-which she includes in her experience and is being neglected by those who want to paint her as someone's wife. Essentializing her to the First Lady role.. hmmm.

by hctb 2008-03-07 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

obama won his senate race, too.  And State senate races.  So?

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-07 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I suspect you were young in the 90's.  If you weren't young, you'd know that both Clintons have been raked through the coals.  

Whitewater was a Hillary thing.  And I laugh when I hear people say, "Watch out!  They'll investigate Whitewater!"

To which, I always say, they already spent 70 mill doing that, isn't that enough?

by Sensible 2008-03-07 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

A lot of those scandals only dragged out as long as they did because the Clintons refused to cooperate, just as they're doing now with the tax returns, WH papers and library donor lists.

This is a very troubling tendency in the Clintons.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

actually, the Clintons have a ton of shady dealings from the 90s.  The Rethugs pursued them for all they were worth and more.  What we don't know about yet are all the shady dealings they've been involved in in the aughts.

Hillary isn't vetted just because the GOP pursued Whitewater.  That's just the tip of the iceberg with the Clintons.

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-07 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere tested as in leadership...oh wait she was in her Iraq vote but she kowtowed.....

by Chavez100 2008-03-07 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

"I hate the Clinton coalition and I love the way Obama does not make appeals to Reagan Democrats. Why yes, that is what I really love about Obama - the way he is sharply partisan against the Republicans and has not run one of those Unity Schtick campaigns to appeal to Reagan Democrats. Heck never would Obama even say a word of praise of Reagan EVER."

The Reagan Democrats were the white backlash racists that helped Reagan succeed in 1980. The Clintons saw the power of that group when they too went racist in the 1992 election, with the campmaign motto: "changing welfare as we know it." Who didn't know that the public perception was that all Black women with children were dependent on welfare, and who didn't know that Reagan was referring to when talked about welfare queens in Chicago that rode around in Cadillacs.

Reagan did change public opinion and started the Reagan Revolution. Obama referred to that change, but distanced himself from Reagan policies. It is disingenuous for anyone to say otherwise.

This is a bullshit post otherwise.

by shergald 2008-03-08 02:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Changing welfare 'as you know it' was one of the best policy changes made by Clinton. He blunted the way most Americans now look at blacks and Obama has become a beneficiary today.

I'm black and even we in the black community despised the 'welfare class' that was developing in our community. Bill Clinton restored the 'dignity of labor' back to the black culture and blunted racial stereotyping of black unwed mothers as wellfare queens. Black churches 'preached' against welfare and Bill Clinton put action to their preaching.

by meliou2 2008-03-08 04:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Go back to CheetoLand and stay there with yer misogynist, crypto-facist Oborg buddies.

This question is so damn dumb that it's not worth a substantive answer. Fool.

by Pericles 2008-03-08 03:19AM | 0 recs
Where have you been this past two months?

There isn't a candidate in modern history who wouldn't have been swept away by the Obama tidal wave. It is a huge testament to her political ability, and her wide-spread appeal, that she is still standing and has Obama on the defensive. As Jerome says, in that political firestorm, she is forging a new coalition. Obama has a political movement and, now that the heat is on him, he maybe able to forge it into a new lasting coalition. If he can great.

by ineedalife 2008-03-08 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

also, no commentary on Hillary's latest comments on McCain?  Quite convenient.

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-07 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

How does Hillary get 62% of the remaining pledged delegates?

She doesn't, Jerome.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yeah, I have to say I don't get this.

"I don't know how, but she wins the nomination."

Well, that leaves us with one option:

He wins more pledged delegates, she wins through superdelegates.

a/k/a "The Gates Prevail."

by ChrisR 2008-03-07 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I give the superdelegates a bit more intelligence than that, but they are poltical animals and there is a rumor that the Clinton campaign is doing oppo research on all of them to be able to blackmail them.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I assume you'll share your evidence of this?

by Denny Crane 2008-03-07 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Um,didn't you catch the keyword?

Hint: rumor

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Okay, I've had a busy day.  Can you share the rumor and where you got it from then?

by toonsterwu 2008-03-07 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I think the remaining superdelegates are scared to death to have the Clintons back in the WH -- if they can even get there.  I'm sure her negatives are higher than ever.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and I don't want him roaming the halls and the secretive Hillary Clinton standing up for executive privilege.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Dick Morris and others were discussing it on Faux a couple of days ago.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Oh, well that settles it then.

[rolls eyes]

by Lou Grinzo 2008-03-07 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yeah, I've got to say, that's pretty thin sourcing.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

May I just say, if they think this is going to the Convention, they'd be pretty dense not to learn everything they can about the delegates.  Anyone out there remember the Gore Vidal/Henry Fonda film "The Best Man"? (It should be required viewing this cycle.)  The only two aces any campaign can carry into a brokered convention are potential appointments and potential embarrassments, both of which are determined through research.

I'd be incredibly disappointed if they picked a fight at Convention without bringing the big guns with them.  Lawyers don't ask questions unless they know the answers beforehand, and politicians don't throw elbows if they aren't expecting to gain something from fighting.

by Jay R 2008-03-08 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

This one I gotta hear.  So, what's the evidence that Clinton is going to "blackmail" these supers?

If you had said that Clinton was gonna offer them benefits, I could buy that.  Obama will do the same as well.  Blackmail?  That's a very ... well, put it this way, I'd love to see the evidence.

by toonsterwu 2008-03-07 05:44PM | 0 recs

The keyword was "rumor".


Dick Morris and a company of favorites were discussing it on Faux a couple of days ago.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:54PM | 0 recs
so we are now spreading a whispering campaign from Dick Morris?
All class.
by hctb 2008-03-07 06:02PM | 0 recs

MAn, you really have no clue, do you?

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 02:56AM | 0 recs
Not sure I buy that

I'm a huge Obama supporter, but I don't think Clinton is trying to blackmail superdelegates. She already earned the support of all those who owe her favors. That's why nobody is moving to her anymore. She has to win them on the merits now and she is not the presumed nominee that she was in 2007.

by elrod 2008-03-07 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Not sure I buy that

HEnce the inclusion of the keyword "rumor" in my post.

IT was discussed on Faux a couple of days ago.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

They aren't going to blackmail them.  But you know as well as I do that both campaigns are soon going to have to face allegations of "quid pro quos" re:  support.  Which superdelegates get jobs, which got offered x, which got offered y.


by ChrisR 2008-03-07 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

The one to really watch is Rahm Emmanuel.

He owes his start to the Clintons, but Obama is a powerhouse in Illinois. Either way he goes he burns bridges,so right now he's undeclared.

If he endorses,you know which way the winds are blowing.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I dont buy that Obama has power over Rahm Emmanuel. I think the suggestion that he is afraid of Barack or his supporters is pretty laughable.

Holding back his vote is all about playing House politics and taking care of Rahm. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?
He is looking for a ring before he gives it up.

by hctb 2008-03-07 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I don't think the voters of his district would look to fondly on him if he was a superdelegate who delivered the nomination to Clinton.

I think that he's probably waiting until there is a clear nominee - he may, in fact be one of the potential powerbrokers to settle this thing.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere


by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Nice insight.  

I hadn't thought about that angle.  I'll keep my eye on him.

by nintendofanboy 2008-03-07 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

No offense but Rahm Emmanuel is a tool, even his own family doesn't trust him. l/my-brother-the-superdeleg_b_85924.html

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-07 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

He is a tool.

His Super Delegate vote is also a key performance indicator.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-08 02:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Well I agree, somewhat.  I think if he came out for Obama, it would be a sure sign that the Clinton candidacy is doomed.  

Rahm has been a long time Clinton employee, surrogate and supporter. He is "perceived", as being a national figure who carries some clout.  Though I disagree with that perception. I still believe that is how most people view him. His defection from the Clinton camp would be a sure sign of the Clinton apocalypse.

On the other hand, were he to come out publicly for Clinton, I doubt people would think it anything more than a partisan move, much like Wasserman-Schultz's support for Clinton.  I just don't see his movement carrying any weight at all unless it was for Obama.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I'm glad that you're content with trading temporary Hispanic support for permanent alienation within the vast majority of African Americans.

I want someone to explain how you're going to calm down the black electorate when the man they've overwhelmingly supported has won the pledged delegate lead, but still lose the nomination. Clinton's upset victory will go down in history as the Corrupt Bargain, party II.  

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

don't forget about throwing away motivated young people who could bolster a democratic majority for the next 50 or 60 years or so.

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere know, that sounds really immature..."nominate Barack or I'll never, ever participate in Democratic politics!!"

Maybe this will be a learning experience for them...real change takes dedication, it takes being able to keep standing up for what you believe in even if you don't get what you want right away.

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-07 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Real bothering to show to caucus. Looks like Obama's supporters have plenty of dedication.

by elrod 2008-03-07 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

There is a problem with your insight if the intensity of participation is dependent upon your free resources, of which young people, rich people both have in abundance. I find that pretty troubling. It is tantamount to arguing that people who give lots of money should be heard MORE than people who give, but only a little. The size of the gift (in time or money) is a function of intensity AND resources.

by hctb 2008-03-07 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Its one thing to not get your way.  It is completely different to have it ripped from you in an undemocratic way.

I have no doubt that if Hillary had won more pledged delegates and the superdelegates handed Obama the nomination, Hillary supporters would throw a fit, as well they should.

by you like it 2008-03-07 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

cuz none of Hilary's fans have ever made such an ultimatum.  It's amazing they've had the wind left to do it after hurling charges of sexism at anyone who questions Hilary at any point ever.

I don't want to here about juvenile.

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I am constantly amazed at how some of you continue to put up a constituency comprising roughly 13% of the citizenship and less than 10% of the Dem vote in a GE as being more important than women, who comprise roughly 51% of the citizenship and 59% of the Dem vote in a GE, or Hispanics, who are quickly outpacing As in Dem membership and participation.

Do you ever consider the math when making these arguments?

by anna belle 2008-03-07 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I thought math wasn't a valid method of argument on MyDD. My mistake.

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

"Women" don't support Hillary - Just some of them - and most would support Obama, too.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Empirical claim. More women are voting in these democratic primaries than ever before.. it seems unlikely that they will be as activated to participate in the general.

I think (if it goes to convention) Democratic AAs or women are probably going to see some depression in turnout. That is not much time to lick your wounds.

by hctb 2008-03-07 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yeah because only blacks would be disappointed in an Obama loss....if Hillary lost, absolutely no one, especially her supporters who are apparently invisible "people" right?

Give me a break. They are not the only important constituency in America, and despite the crap you read, they would support Clinton for the general.

Everyone seems to think that the surge in participation in the primary is all Obama's doing, if that is so...explain to me why she has gotten nearly 50% of the votes? If Obama is bringing in all these new people, why isn't HE winning all of them?

by need some wood 2008-03-07 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

We know for a fact she's going to lose the pledged delegate count. Show me some projections for how he's going to lose the popular vote. No, Michigan and Florida do not count unless they hold revotes.

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Whether their delegates count is up to the convention committees, but now you want to pretend that even their votes don't count? What part of "Florida" and "disenfranchisement" don't you understand? Or did you become politically conscious after 2000? You do know that the Democratic party is the voting rights party, right?

Every vote counts.

If you can't advocate for that, you are not a Democrat.

by souvarine 2008-03-07 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I live in North Carolina. I would have liked to had the opportunity to vote for John Edwards. However, because my state party decided to hold it's primary on May 6th, I will not have that opportunity.

So I'm disenfranchised, correct?

by tysonpublic 2008-03-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

You'd have to take that up with John Edwards. In the meantime you may write his name in and have it be counted, so you have lost no opportunity.

by souvarine 2008-03-07 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Thank you for pointing out such an obvious point that the majority of media and Obama bloggers seem to fail to recognize!  Whether the delegates get counted or not, the votes are clearly on record--which means every superdelegate knows what the outcome was of the primaries that were conducted in FL and MI.  The delegates may have been silenced for now, but the voters were not.  To "pretend" those 2+ million votes didn't take place, and disregard these two states, is just asking for another 2000 all over again. I don't think any Democratic leader wants to take the chance of that.

And, yes, people say...but Obama didn't have a chance to talk down there.  Neither did Clinton.  But he did run commercials in Florida--so if anything he had an edge.  And honestly, how much had we seen of both of them up to the time of those votes through debates and interviews, etc.--people had a good idea of what their policies were and had plenty or resources available if they had any interest in finding them out.  Anyway, yes, every vote counts--or is at least heard even if the DNC is setting this all up to be a "foul" regardless of the outcome.      

by ChargedFan 2008-03-07 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

So you're stating: Blacks are voting for the black candidate because he's black. And they'll all throw a hissy fit and bolt the party if they don't get their way. Ummm, isn't that the textbook definition of racism? Or is only racism when whites and Hispanics vote in large majorities for a non-black candidate?

By the way, using a term like "calm down the black electorate" is incredibly condescending.

by McSnarky 2008-03-07 07:42PM | 0 recs
Temporary support? What's the basis for that?

Kind of like temporary Republican crossover support Obama has been using to win so many of the states?

by diplomatic 2008-03-08 03:37AM | 0 recs
Thanks Jerome

You basically nailed my frustration. It's been difficult to watch a lot of people in the netroots twist themselves into contortions to support a candidate who policies and positions bear so little resemblance to the strong stance they've been taking for years. People-powered politics, indeed.

by anna belle 2008-03-07 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks Jerome

The Clintons have been FAR from exemplars of progressivism.  I remember those years with the triangulating, centrist, small bore policies.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks Jerome

her Iraq vote, her bancrupcy bill vote really proves she is a super duper progressive.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yes, she won Texas by -3 delegates.

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

HEre's a clear picture of where things stand:

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

But somehow the superdelegates will go the way Mark Penn and Harold Ickes and Universal thinks they should. Because, you know, the superdelegates have already been moving to Hillary since the primaries began at a significant clip of -66% and she'll surely be able to ride that momentum among the superdelegates to the nomination.

by elrod 2008-03-07 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

If enough super delegates immediately endorsed Obama to a degree where Zellary would require 90% of remaining pledged delegates to catch him, I still don't think she;d give up.

And JErome would probably still see her winning the nomination.

I wonder how Jerome did in high school math?

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

This is my question, which as far as I know never gets answered:  When is the shift in superdelegates to Senator Clinton going to happen?  After PA?  After Puerto Rico?  At the convention?  When?

Seriously.  No snark intended.  I'd like to hear a solid projection/prediction.

by bjones 2008-03-07 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

If it happens (and please note the "if"), it will come after she wins the re-vote in FL, ties in MI, and is just slightly behind in delegates and can then tell the SD's she swept the four biggest states plus OH and PA.

I suspect that will amount to a pretty strong electability argument for enough of the SD's to make it a decidedly interesting situation.

by Lou Grinzo 2008-03-07 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Thanks for the response.  It was cogent.

I guess it comes down to margins then.  And speaking of margins, doesn't the fact that Obama lost to Clinton by only a few points in most of those "big" states, except for OH,  coupled with his decimation of her by double digits in most other states (i.e. Potomac primaries, WI, and the South) mean something to the SDs too?

by bjones 2008-03-07 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Ok, fair enough, but how do you get to the 'just slightly behind in delegates' bit?

#1) She's not going to win Florida significantly bigger than she did last time in a redo

#2) He's obviously going to get way more than the zero delegates he got in Michigan in a redo

Just when do all these delegates get made up???? Put any sort of reasonable split onto the Michigan delegates, and he's still a decent ways ahead come convention time.

by tysonpublic 2008-03-07 06:29PM | 0 recs
Double votes DO count

Sorry, but Texas set up its two-step system for its own weird reasons. And everybody knew it - except for the Clinton campaign until February. Does it occur to you that the Clinton campaign just stinks at organizing for caucuses? It's another riff on her "insignificant states" insult on states that don't vote for her.

Clinton has a point in complaining about the delegate apportionment system in the primary portion - except the delegate apportionment came fairly close to the popular vote. But she has no case whatsoever to whine about the caucus. She lost it because outside the Latino areas her supporters are not as passionate as Obama's. I know that pains you but there are a LOT of Clinton supporters out there who only support her because they're familiar with her - and not because they particularly like her. Those voters are not as passionate as voters like yourself or the some of the women and Latinos that have shown up to caucus.

It's about delegates. Clinton lost Texas.

by elrod 2008-03-07 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

that's right.  You just keep trying to make up new rules in the middle of the game.  It'll pay off too.  No, don't you worry.  It doesn't look like the desperate twitches of a candidacy falling apart.  Please keep it up.  It's really endearing to the public.  You can see it in the reactions of everybody outside of this blog.  Gary Hart, KO, Nancy Pelosi, etc.  SDs dig candidates cannibalizing the party too.

Hell, between the juvenile attempts to change the rules in the middle of the game like my son when he's losing at chutes and ladders and the propping up of the gop nominee it's hard to see how she could lose.  Maybe she should dis a few more entire states just for good measure.

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

do you think the super delegates are gonna go against the person who actually won the election in a bid to disenfranchise more then half the popular vote, more then half the states, the burgeoning youth vote, independants and black people? and by doing so destroying the party? all so they can support a candidate with less funding who ran an inept campaign and ignored more then a third of the states in her campaign?

by Lazeriath 2008-03-07 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

the rules are that in Texas they have a primacaucus.  You don't like the results so you want to discredit it.  This is called trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Why do we always have to make gender an issue in this discussion.  Didn't feminists fight for decades to remove gender bias as a factor?  If a male brought it up as a factor he'd be rightly labeled a bigot.  The reverse doesn't apply?

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

There are so many inaccuracies in this post. Where do I begin?

Utah was a primary. Obama's within the margin of error in Nebraska and stands a good chance of picking off an electoral vote there. But, go ahead, write us off.

Missouri is a swing state. It's also a state that no Democrat has ever won the presidency without winning. And Obama won it.

Virginia? Swing state.

Superdelegates have to defect to Hillary at about a 66% clip for her to win the nomination. Since Super Tuesday, she's lost superdelegates.

"A very different electoral strategy." You mean competing in more than six states? Yeah, that's really risky.

I'm ashamed of what's become of this site.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:33PM | 0 recs
well my favorite part is

where March 4th the same amount of PD's as California and Hilary only won like 10-14 (pending).

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

Survey USA Poll:

Clinton 30
McCain 57

Obama 42
McCain 45

Obama's numbers are stronger in the 2nd District (Omaha), where he is actually polling ahead of McCain. The way Nebraska allocates its electoral votes, Obama could win 1 electoral vote in Nebraska.  The Survey USA poll has him winning 2.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:56PM | 0 recs
It's not necessarily about winning.

The odds of Obama actually WINNING Nebraska, Idaho, etc., are pretty slim.

But he appears to be more COMPETITIVE there. That's the goal. Spread the GOP's more limited resources out. Make them actually have to spend money on states that Bush formerly won by 30.

Just as important, more competitive races help our down-ticket races. When I root for Obama, I'm doing it in part because it will help folks like Kleeb in Nebraska and LaRocco in Idaho.

For whatever weird reason, there's still high amounts of Clinton hate in a lot of those places. Throw Obama at them instead, and I think it changes a lot of calculations.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-07 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

Utah was a primary, but I think the poster's main point was that the Democrats (Obama or Clinton) will not carry it in November. Do you disagree?

Obama will not win Nebraska. Do you disagree?

Even if he manages to win one congressional district, and pick up 2 EVs, is that such a big deal? We have been hearing for months now that Obama "puts in play" all these Red States in the mountains and great plains, and now it's down to 2 EVs in Nebraska? Color me unimpressed.

Yes, Obama won MO. But look at the margin. And look at the map. He carried very few counties. Do you really think, when the Republicans get to vote too, that his majorities in KC and St L will be enough? Look at McCaskill's election, she made a special point of campaigning in the rural areas, did pretty well there, and barely squeeked by. What makes you think Obama will do well in those areas in November given how poorly he did there in the primary? Hillary, on the other hand, would carry the Obama areas with only a slight diminution of support, and, like McCaskill, would do pretty well in the rural areas.

It's easy to say that VA is a "swing state," but it hasn't voted D in a presidential election since 1964. Bush carried it by over 8% in 2000 and 2004. Neither Carter nor Bill Clinton, as southerners, could carry it once in the 4 times they tried. The overwhelming majority of US reps are R's. Yes, the Gov. is a D, but that has been true before and has not led to a D win in the presidential election. Webb, a former Sec of Navy, barely won in 2006 against a guy who made an overtly racist remark, lied about it, and was caught out on video.

I'm loathe to put my hopes for Obama's GE win on carrying VA. But that is looking more and more likely. VA seems to be the state Obama is targetting for his breakthrough. But it's a tough nut to crack, especially as it's a big Navy state and McCain is the "Senator from the Navy" plus a war hero.

Superdelegates don't need to "defect" to Hillary. All that is needed is for most of the uncommitted superdelegates to back Hillary. And, yes, she's lost sd's since SuperTuesday, but now that the map seems to favor her that trend may be reversed.

As for the strategies, I'd ask you to take a look at the maps Bill Clinton put together in 1992 and 1996. Unlike Gore and Kerry, Bill Clinton competed in the south and the mountain west. While I don't see Hillary competing in the mountain west (except for in NM), I do see here competing in Ark, Tenn, Ky, WVa, Ohio, Mo, and Florida. Those are the southern, border and swing states that we need to win. And Hillary is strong in those states. She will mend fences with the African American community and, unlike Obama, she will appeal to lower middle and lower class whites in this region. These voters loved Bill Clinton, and they are loyal. They will vote for his wife because, even though she does not share their accent and childhood worldview in the way Bill Clinton did, she has earned their trust over the years. These are the people who want universal health care, and don't care about the hi-falutin' issues that endear Obama to the so-called "creative class."

Finally, I think you do Jerome a great disservice with your comment about being "ashamed" of this site. It's Jerome's site. Isn't he entitled to put forth his views? He lets everyone comment on them. He doesn't ban dissenters the way some prominent websites do. He thinks Hillary still has a chance. You and others disagree. Well, what of it? Where does "shame" come into it?

Why does it bother Obama supporters so much that one, or a handful, of websites in the left blogosphere support Hillary? I think this intolerence for dissent shows a disturbing authoritarian tendency on the part of both Obama supporters and the denizens of the Obama-supporting sites.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-07 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

Thank you!

by freemansfarm 2008-03-07 08:44PM | 0 recs

"Unlike Gore and Kerry, Bill Clinton competed in the south and the mountain west"

Gore's situation was complicated because of Clinton scandals, media smears and the Nader factors. Please see my analysis and data compilation here.

Had Gore not been handicapped in several ways that were not under his direct control, he would have very likely run in all 50 states.

BTW, in 1992, it was Gore that made Clinton more competitive everywhere, including the south.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-07 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: asdf

I see no reason why the factors you listed prevented Gore from competing in the mountain west or south. Certainly those factors may have hampered Gore in general, but I don't see how they prevented him from campaigning in the states I mentioned, particularly the border states region in which he was born. I'm sorry, but, in all honesty, I found your linked post at DK to be a little confusing and hard to follow. Perhaps you could summarize what you are saying there.

I'm afraid that I simply don't buy your claim that Gore made Clinton more competitive in 1992, especially in the South. Clinton was truly a southernor in a way that Gore, who really grew up in Washington as part of an elite family, was not. Clinton had the accent, he had the love (real or feigned) of Elvis, he "felt the pain" of poor southern whites, he had the whole grits-eating package.

Even now, Hillary is using him in "southern areas." In Ohio, Bill was sent to the southeast region, which has an Appalachian/southern feel to it. The morons in the MSM and the Obamasphere said that she was hiding in hillbilly country, but she knew what she was doing. Bill had appeal there, and he helped bring in those votes for her.

And, in general, Bill Clinton had the personal charisma and magnetism that Gore never did. And, Clinton was simply a much better politician than Gore. I'm not sure what your agenda is here, but I take it that you are a big fan of Gore. That's fine, but, in my opinion, he can't hold a candle to Bill Clinton.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-07 09:06PM | 0 recs
I'll respond in installments

step by step :)

"I'm afraid that I simply don't buy your claim that Gore made Clinton more competitive in 1992, especially in the South. Clinton was truly a southernor in a way that Gore, who really grew up in Washington as part of an elite family, was not. Clinton had the accent, he had the love (real or feigned) of Elvis, he "felt the pain" of poor southern whites, he had the whole grits-eating package."

The Gennifer Flowers scandal already surfaced by then and Clinton had image problems competing against a real southerner Perot and a semi-southerner Bush Sr. Gore's clean image was Clinton's asset in the south (and to some degree around the country).

Let's also not forget that Gore won 6 races in the south, and he won his 1990 reelection on a landslide all-county victory. Clearly, before getting tangled up with the Clintons, Gore had plenty of southern mojo.

Nationally, editorials across the country lauded the VP choice made by WJC. In fact, Clinton assumed a lead in the race for the first time a week or so after picking Gore. His numbers in the south also jumped up after the VP pick.

Next, Gore was a key asset for WJC on the national security front. Recall that:

  1. Bush Sr's main claimed/alleged strength was national security
  2. Bill Clinton had ZERO foreign policy experience in 1992. Bush Sr was calling WJC's FP experience visits to International House of Pancakes (#1 below)
  3. Gore was already considered strong and knowledgeable on this front
In fact, Gore hammered Bush Sr. on foreign policy, filling major hole in Clinton's armor.

Further, Gore was a strong asset on the stump. He seems to have brought his exposure to the national economy as well to the platform. Please see this awesome 1992 stump speech by Gore talking about the economy.

More responses to follow later. Have fun!



President Bush, declared that the sum total of Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience came at the International House of Pancakes.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-07 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll respond in installments

Bill Clinton won in the Mountain West because Ross Perot was on the ballot.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-08 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I'll respond in installments

OK, I see now where this is going. Obviously, Clinton picked Gore because he thought he would be an asset, rather than a liablitiy, to the campaign. But Clinton dominated the primaries in 1992, winning almost every state, and sweeping the South. Gore was not even a candidate, and the "states" you claim he won in the South were in 1988. Gore was chosen as VP within days of the convention, when a candidate always gets a boost in the polls.

I could go on with this, but I'm not going to bother. You are a big fan of Gore, and that's fine. But it's going to be pretty off-topic for us to get into a tit for tat over who was responsible for the electoral success of the Democrats in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton or Gore. Sufficed to say, Bill Clinton was at the top of the ticket; he would have gotten the blame if they lost, so it's only fair for him to get the credit for winning.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-08 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

Hey Universal,

Are you counting votes or counties?  You seem to change with each state.

As for Missouri, he won more votes than she did.

You're better off staying with your Texas argument.

by swarty 2008-03-07 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

how are these numerically ineffective people beating Hilary in state after state after state after state?

I guess now it's voters that don't matter who live in states that don't matter.

Clearly demostrable reality doesn't matter either.

You know that koolaid is just loaded with sugar.  It's not just your mind that it's bad for.  It'll rot your teeth too.  Be careful.

by lockewasright 2008-03-08 03:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count
So, passionate support is more important than broad support? I think social conservatives in the Republican party are currently making a similar argument.
It is equally ridiculous.
by hctb 2008-03-07 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Double votes DO count

Well, Obama has broader support, too. As you are all too happy to point out, Hillary has only won big states.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:34PM | 0 recs
Hilary's wins do not count

because she is nto winning the caucuses.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:39PM | 0 recs
one person, one vote

unless you are a a Super Delegate.

In that case you are worth thousands if not tens of thousands votes.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:35PM | 0 recs
just keep changing the rules

I am a little surprized you said Primaries do not count when Obama won some.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Jerome how does Hillary win the nomination?  Super Delegates continue to go towards Obama, he is primed to win more Post March 4th states then her, and is nearly untouchable in the Pledged delgates.  How in the world do you see her winning?

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-07 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

HEy, give him a break.

Math has a well known Barack Obama bias.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

You're not being fair to math. There's a little known DNC rule that you have to take the swing states that matter (tm) and multiply their pledged delegate count by two. No wait, Obama would still be ahead. Hmm, I think the rule was that you divide any the pledged delegates that came from open primary or caucus states by two. That will for sure put her over the top!

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:28PM | 0 recs
It's a GRIM picture for Zellary


by Walt Starr 2008-03-07 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I think we are also forgetting that the credentials committee, and the entire convention, actually meets on opposite day. Down is up!

by LiberalFL 2008-03-07 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

You see, when the stars align, Michigan and Florida being seated as is (laugh), and with BHO being so bloodied by her slash and burn campaign (cringe), the superdelegates will have no choice but to vote for her despite being behind in pledged delegates.

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

But it's all different now that she's locked up the "we hate other democrats and love John McCain" vote.  Oh wait, those votes go to John McCain already.  Maybe she could prop up Ralph Nader too!  She could stand to pick up his massive .5%.  Yep, that's the stuff.  She could pick up the McCain AND Nader votes, then it'd be a flat out landslide!!

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 05:25PM | 0 recs

Are you and Markos doing a good guy-bad guy routine?


by Coldblue 2008-03-07 05:21PM | 0 recs
Sorry, Jerome,

but you really can't say stuff like this anymore:

"its not representative of the type of progressive partisanship that places like DailyKos and MyDD, and the rest of the progressive blogosphere, have been proponents."

Sadly, Kos was the loudest voice saying BO "won" Texas.

Also, a note on the candidate's policy differences: I think you (and BTD over on TalkLeft as well) should get a blogger on here who knows a lot about health care (maybe Krugman would put in a guest appearance), so people could see why the mandates difference is a huge difference and goes to the heart of the progressive agenda.
(notwithstanding the post below by risenmessiah with its completely false and disingenuous analysis).

by desert dawg 2008-03-07 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I agree Jerome. Obama has shown big weaknesses in demographics. Also, looking at the polls, putting up a general election candidate that doesn't carry PA, NJ, FL and OH is a sure election loser.

I hate the smarmy attitude towards "reagan democrats." Darn it, we need those voters in the party and I don't think Obama can get them. McCain seems to have more appeal to them.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

in those same GE polls he wins both more states and more electoral votes than Hilary.  Also he wins more states by solid margins whereas Hilary barely gets some of her states.  

Do you prefer the grape or the wild cherry?

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Nope, he loses. Sorry. Maybe picking up a state like CO doesn't come close to making up for losing a state like PA or NJ. Besides, Kerry led in CO in 2004. If the Obama campaign has already conceded that they won't carry FL, I doubt that they'll be able to carry CO either. Boulder and Denver aren't enough to carry the state.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

He carried OH just as well as Clinton did. sigh

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

No he is basically tied with McCain whereas Hillary beats McCain by 10 pts.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 05:45PM | 0 recs
Are you blind?

Obama beats McCain by 10 in Ohio. Clinton also beats McCain by 10 in Ohio. See here: rt.aspx?g=cba94d6c-f1b7-4a85-8ef2-812406 a2c17c%20

by elrod 2008-03-07 05:53PM | 0 recs
erm, dude read the poll first n/t

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

again grape or cherry?

Are you familiar with numbers?  I mean a regular base 10 number system.  You know 0 through 9.  You've seen it, right?

Hilary: 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinto n-276-mccain-262/

Obama: 03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama- 280-mccain-258/

Obama wins more states, more electoral college votes, wins by bigger electoral college margins (22 BO margin vs 14 HRC margins), and has larger leads in the states that he wins.  If there was another metric to win he'd get it too and I'd list it here.  Alas, he's already won in every category that matters.  But hey, if you don't like it you can always make some shit up like you did above.  Speaking of which maybe you could make up another category that he could win.  You're into making shit up anyway evidently.

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Wow, according to that Obama does 4 ev's better than Hillary? That's a great endorsement for Obama/snark. He loses FL. He loses NJ. He loses PA. All those states that Hillary would carry and have time to campaign in other states whereas Obama would lose. One 527 ad and he'd be sunk.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

you don't seem to grasp that 4 more EC votes is um... hold on... let me get my calculator... I've got it!!!  4 MORE votes.  More as in greater than.  It looks like this > expressed as a symbol.  Seen it before?  Here, I'll use it in a few sentences for you:

Obama wins his states by MORE than Hilary wins hers so there is less chance of a change in the outcome.

Obama has won 12 states to Hilary's 3 (actually 2 if you go by delegate count) since super tuesday which is 9 MORE than Hilary.  (tune in next episode as we discuss multiplication such a 12 is 4 times MORE than 3)

Obama beats McCain by 22 electoral votes while Hilary only beats McCain by 14 electoral votes which means Obama wins by 8 MORE than Hilary.

Starting to get it yet?  I've got lots more examples if need be.

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Why, at 44-44 does Michigan go to McCain according to the SUSA poll?

(following your snark)..
That is +17 for Hillary... which would be 13 more than Obama.

Or, do ties always go to the Republican?

by hctb 2008-03-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Look, everyone knows that its a long way till the general election. But IF you're going to claim that the polls/results show that he can't win the eleciton, you have to deal with what we have.  And what we have clearly contradicts that claim.

Now I agree that 4 EVs isnt a big difference.  So I'm not here claiming that Hillary will never win the GE.  But I will say that, and there are various ways of look at this, but if you consider giving +5/-5% points to each candidate, Clinton has a lot of defense to play, somewhere around 115 "safe" EVs with basically no blowout potential (cant do much better than 300), whereas Obama has something like 200 "safe" EVs and "striking distance" of over 400 EVs.

Again, no one's saying that this poll means the world.  But it's the best we've got, and if it indicates anyone's in better shape for the GE, it's Obama.

by jackstah 2008-03-07 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

And your reason for having such unshakable faith in polls this far out from the general election, before the Republican 527's and 501(c)4's have even gotten into the act, is... what, exactly?

by Lou Grinzo 2008-03-07 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

did you read the conversation?  I was responding to Ga6thDem who brought up the polls.

It does, however, show that at the moment Obama is at a better starting point than McCain's new surrogate.

by lockewasright 2008-03-07 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Why can't Clinton consistently win the white male or Black vote? Something is fundamentally wrong with her candidacy. We can't nominate someone with big weaknesses in demographics.

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Actually, didn't she tie with Obama in TX? Since she started the national security campaign his numbers with white males has been declining.

And if those are the only demographics that Obama can get in a general election then we're sunk if he's the nominee. That's what Dukakais got.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

So she'll carry the majority of white males in Texas? That's reassuring. What about the other 49 states?

If Clinton can't carry more than 20% of Blacks then we're sunk in the general election. Why can't she close the deal?

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

We'll we're sunk in the states with large black populations anyway. Do you really think Obama is going to carry GA, AL, MS or SC in a general election? Some of these people will vote for Hillary but some of them won't in the general election. Hispanics will definitely choose McCain over Obama and so will Reagan Democrats. If the GOP was running Romney or Huckabee I wouldn't be making this argument. Obama would probably do fine with those demographics then. However, the GOP is not running those candidates so Obama will lose those demographics in a general election.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

"National security campaign"? That would be the one that says your children will die if you vote for Obama, and that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, right? I never knew that strategy had a name other than "republican tactics."

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-07 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Why can't Obama consistently win the white female or Latino vote? Something is fundamentally wrong with his candidacy. We can't nominate someone with big weaknesses in demographics.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-07 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Agreed, so neither Clinton nor Obama are viable candidates. All hail President McCain!

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Why can't Hillary consistently WIN much of anything?

by mainelib 2008-03-07 05:55PM | 0 recs
its not true,

at calling states insignificant.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

There is only one constituency that Clinton will get that Obama will not as of now: Appalachian and Southern Baptist whites.  He will get working class whites outside Appalachia. He will get white women. He will get Latinos. But he will have to do something different to get Appalachian and Southern Baptist whites.

The states where Hillary does much better than Obama vs. McCain:


Of those three, Hillary can win WV, TN and AR and Obama cannot. But both will be comfortably ahead in PA by late April after both campaigns have toured the state extensively. After all, Clinton is only tied in PA now too.  But like in Ohio, Pennsylvania voters will pick either Obama or Clinton over McCain after seeing them campaign.

And don't even talk about New Jersey. That state pulls this crap every cycle.

Barack Obama will win PA and NJ.

Then look at Florida. I was shocked to see Obama within 2 points in Florida. But if that's true, a campaign in a re-vote of Florida could put him over the top. Clinton has more advantages in FL than Obama, but both could win.

Now look at the vulnerabilities of Clinton. She actually loses three Kerry states by a sizable margin: WA, OR, and NH. If she plans on losing those states and making them up in WV, TN and AR then she's taking a big gamble. Moreover, she loses purples states like IA, NV, CO, VA and is tied in NM even though Obama leads each of these. And Obama turns red states like Texas, Nebraska, North Dakota, North Carolina, Alaska, South Carolina and South Dakota purple. Some of those states are tiny but others - like Texas and North Carolina - are incredibly important, even if just to make McCain spend time and money there.

Her path is much riskier than Obama's.

by elrod 2008-03-07 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

The latinos are a problem for him. He doesn't do well with whites making under $40,000 a year because his economic policies apparently don't have much of an appeal. They are designed for the latte drinkers not the working class as the whole NAFTAgate thing showed.

Obama won't be able to win PA in a general election. Even Rendell said so. Obama campaigning doesn't seem to really help. I mean, after all, he spent tons of money in TX and OH, way more than Hillary by most accounts, and still couldn't pull out a win.

The latest polls showed Obama getting his hat handed to him in Fl if there's a revote.

I keep hearing about how it's going to be different from Obama supporters but in the end it never is. One 527 going after him will be all the GOP needs to do to win. Haven't you seen how poorly he's handled everything that's come his way this week? Do you really want someone who is so weak they whine about an SNL skit?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Not trying to give a hard time, but my understanding is that much of Clinton's and Obama's policies are substantively quite similar on paper.  Aren't we really arguing about style, strategy and rhetoric?  The NAFTA mess isn't really a fair assessment as it seems the Canadians have been talking out of their ass about both candidates.  And if you look at Obama's rhetoric regarding NAFTA before this whole debacle, his words were much more harsh towards NAFTA than Clinton's were.  Wouldn't the working class find that appealing?

by spacerock 2008-03-07 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Well, why did he do so poorly in OH then? Yeah, it was rhetoric but that was all. He was made to look idiotic after all that rhetoric and then the memo came out showing that he and his campaign had been lying. After that, he really doesn't have much credibility on that subject.

Obama doesn't support universal health care so that's a major difference.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

My point is if you look at his rhetoric regarding NAFTA before Ohio and before this whole bullshit controversy was used to damage him on that, he should have had more support with the working class, correct?  Therefore there must something more to point to.  Is "universal healthcare" enough or is that all there really is?  There's got to be more than that, right?  

by spacerock 2008-03-07 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

It's telling that Clinton doesn't win Iowa or NH, two states that know her well.

Of course one reason is that she supported the rules that were against states moving up their primaries and then, after NH, went the other way.  They don't like being lied to.

Also, NH women feel hoodwinked by her misleading pitch on Obama's abortion position.

BTW, if Al Gore had won NH, he would have been president.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

if Al Gore had won Arkansas, he would have been President.

by hctb 2008-03-07 06:48PM | 0 recs
Had Gore won ANY one of the states he didn't win

he would've been sworn-in.

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-07 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

A statistical analysis of the polling data suggests otherwise /6/212016/8597

by tysonpublic 2008-03-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere
pledged delegates: Obama +153
w/ supers  Obama +121
Hillary's "big week"= net delegate loss as he was +110 with supers.  I honestly hope Hillary has many more "big weeks" like this one where she loses on net 11 delegates.  
McCain-Clinton '08!
Restore Americas cynicism
by affratboy22 2008-03-07 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

JEROME FORGETS THAt the reason most of us don't support Hillary is the war in Iraq and her vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. But more important she did nothing to use her prestige to try to stop this war, She was supporting stay the course till mid 2006 when it then became obvious that the politics of support for the war had changed.

Her statements about McCain has passed the commander in chief test shows me that her policy going forward will be closer to his on Iraq than a policy for withdrawl.

Jerome this may not be big to you, but I have been in war and it is big to me. I have seen the destruction and bloodshed and have had men die in my arms. You never forget this for it is with you the rest of your life,

Her decision to go to war with out doing her homework is un-conscienable. She is not affected by this decision, for no member of her family is in the service or going to war. We know that Chelesa is never going in the military. She would have looked at that decision of her vote much differently if a member of her family would have been sent to Iraq.

by BDM 2008-03-07 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Another absurdity is that Bill Clinton wasn't a progressive president. He co-founded the DLC and was a triangulator who tore down the Democratic party as a whole.  

by mainelib 2008-03-07 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Another absurdity is that Bill Clinton wasn't a progressive president.
 I think you meant to say 'another absurdity is that Bill Clinton WAS a progressive..."  We all know he ran somewhat as a progressive, then governed as a DLC right center President.

I can think of at least half a dozen things he did that I could never forgive him for, and nothing good he did can outweigh the bad.  Much of the good that happened during his term happened despite his actions.

I still think Edwards was the only candidate who could enact real change and get us out of the BS status quo that is eating our country alive, but I am more than glad to support Obama because I think he is the next best thing.  He is considerably smarter and more progressive than Hillary albeit a far cry from the fighter that John Edwards would have been.  

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-07 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Clinton was not left-progressive. He was a centrist at best.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

and he didnt run as a left-progressive.

Oh, and there are other people in Washington-Clinton had some constraints, and dont even start with the 1994 was all Clinton's fault stuff. It is indefensible.

Retirements. Weak Challengers. National tide.

He was no help, I am not claiming otherwise, but he did not "destroy the Democratic Party." It was in disarray. Exacerbated by retirements.
Clinton left it with alot of cash and parity with Republicans. Further, several from his administration went forth and populated office--many who were critical for taking back the house.

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere
I know.  Dont lose hope 2025-1581=444.  Also, most people dont like Hillary because she is running her campaign right now for the sole purpose of using McCain to help beat Obama up so bad that she can have a chance to subplant democracy with her lowest common dominator politics and overthrow the will of the voters via the super delegates.  THAT IS HER CAMPAIGN.  
  1. Use Republican talking points to damage Obama and bolster McCain's CIC crudentials.
  2. Overthrow the votes of the people at the convention with Rovian tactics.
THEN: She really does not care if McCain wins, she can come back in 4yrs after he has failed (as she knows he will) or is in to poor of health to continue.
Hillary's 1st choice: use McCain to beat Obama then beat McCain
Hillaty's 2nd Choice: use McCain to beat Obama,wait for McCain to fail and/or die.  
Hillary's 3rd Choice: 8 years of McCain
Hillary's 4th Choice: 8 years of McCain + 8yrs of Jeb
Hillary's 5th Choice: running as Laura Bush's VP
Hillary's 6th Choice: "Isn't Obama older than McCain yet"
by affratboy22 2008-03-07 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Well put and thank you.

It wasn't just her initial vote either.  Hillary was one of the biggest perpetrators of the "the war itself wasn't a bad idea, it's just been carried out ineffectively." meme through to 2006 when it became truly unpopular.  

This really enabled the media to deflect any culpability Bush had for deceiving us in the first place, by insinuating that "even without WMD we needed to go in so what did Bush's reasoning matter?"

Every time I heard her say that I cringed.  The war was a bad idea period and doomed to be a disaster.  Hell, Even HW Bush knew better.

This is the perfect example of her triangulation on issues.    

by nintendofanboy 2008-03-07 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere


I thank you for your service to our great country.  
I agree with you that as a democrat, the war vote is such a difficult hurdle for me as well.  Jerome talks about supporters doing contortions, but this is the biggest contortion for any Democratic Hillary supporter to embrace.

I understand that we take a politicians positions as a total picture, but the Iraq vote and the consequences of the worst foreign policy decision in several generations looms so large over any other of her political choices, I cannot support her for this reason.

by swarty 2008-03-07 07:42PM | 0 recs
Do da math

The political math. Any Harvard Braniac can do simple arithmetic. It is the real life solution that eludes them.

If Hillary pulls ahead in the popular vote. If Obama continues to fade in  the national polls. He has dropped 15 points to Hillary in the tracking polls in less than two weeks. From up 9 to down 6. (Rasmussen poll)

As soon as the heat got turned up his team melted down. He has had three close advisors commit tremendous gaffes in the past two week.

Factor all those numbers in and the political math says that yes the supers will vote for him: as a VP candidate.

Notice I said IF above. Obama has a chance to right the ship and show leadership skills he hasn't to date. If he does he stays ahead in the popular vote and wins. If he doesn't he falls behind and loses. Pledged delegates are just one piece of the math.

by ineedalife 2008-03-08 03:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Do da math

Cherry picking season ain't 'til summer.

And what do you know... Obama's currently up 2% in your favorite poll.

by nstrauss 2008-03-10 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere


I wonder what you think of the new voters Barack may be bringing in.  I've been under the impression that  one of the big changes with Dean was the 50 state strategy, motivating those who felt marginalized to participate.  Shouldn't this weigh heavily in Barack's favor.  Anecdotal, I know, but my gf's mother, an evangelical who has never voted for a Democrat is seriously thinking about registering as a Dem to vote for Barack in the PA primary.  Even though he may not be using the rhetoric I favor, doesn't this help the Democratic Party in the long run; in a way Hillary could never do?  Isn't he breaking down the stereotypes and caricatures of what a Democrat is in a way that makes liberal policies not taboo?

by spacerock 2008-03-07 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Two more questions.  Do you think the people Hillary would appoint in the DNC would be more or less likely to change the direction that Dean has taken the DNC. And same question in regards to Barack.

by spacerock 2008-03-07 06:14PM | 0 recs
Lesser of Two Evils?

Some of what you say Jerome is a little disturbing, because it seems to fly in the face of the hard lesson of 2004...that Democrats using electability as their lodestar is not a way to pick a president. So I have to disagree and say there is a fundamental difference between the Obama camp and Clinton camp. Now I'm not going to argue Obama is Dean 2.0 but I think there are three things which Dems have to reconcile.

1. The War. The fact is, both candidates have nakedly political reasons for their positions on the conflict. Even Obama supporters can't deny that the biggest recipient of ethanol subsidies is one of Illinois's most successful companies. Nevertheless, I think the Democrats can't run anyone who did vote for the war for national office. I think Clinton, Biden, etc...all the War Democrats are done politically. This is because the nexus between the current economic problems (where Dems do well) and Iraq can't be overstated by Clinton. McCain will say, "so you are voting against Iraq after you voted for it" and that will be the end.

2. The "mandate" issue. While it's been debated endlessly I think it reveals a little bit about why Obama has done so well in the West and Clinton has done well other states. Clinton has the mandate in her plan because she wants the big insurers (and Wall Street) on her side. (After all, if everyone has to buy health insurance that's a lot of money for those firms to play with on the Street). Obama isn't an angel, but I think he realizes that if the Fed's offer insurance but don't make it mandatory it's less likely to result in gouging. I also think there's a latent race issue which isn't being discussed.

3. Openess. The Clintons are an established political dynasty. They are bringing the same old people back to Washington, even if it's the third best people for the job. And this even assumes some of the old guys like McAuliffe come back at all. (I know everyone wants to see Rahm Emanuel as Speaker of the House). Obama on the other hand I think simply has a deeper bench to play with and offers more diversity (not just racially) in his team, but I could be wrong.

And truth be told Jerome, with so few states in play left there's nothing left to do but watch and let the superdelegates decide.

by risenmessiah 2008-03-07 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

Wall Street has no particular love for Clinton, and certainly not because of the relatively minor issue of mandates.  Clinton's plan doesn't require anyone to buy private insurance, so it's certainly not perceived as a big bonanza for the insurance industry.

My impression is that Wall Street is relatively indifferent as between the Dems, although lately there's been some evidence that they see Obama as better for business.

by Steve M 2008-03-07 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

How do you interpret a mandate to mean you DON'T have to buy insurance?

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-07 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

You don't have to buy insurance from a private company, because there's a public Medicare-like option you can go to if you think the private companies charge too much.

From a progressive point of view, that's like the #1 feature of the program.

My larger point, and I say this with 100% certainty, is that Wall Street is not having orgasms at the thought of health insurance mandates.  If you believe that, then your eye is way off the ball.

by Steve M 2008-03-07 06:38PM | 0 recs
Mandates are not the ploy

Talking about holding a gun to someone's head is the ploy, like we all don't have to pay for missiles and bridges and social security. The mandate option could lead to the withering away of the private option, since publicly provided insurance overhead costs have consistently been at least half those of private insurers.  Obama's insistence on leaving large numbers of people free to game the system means that the otherwise more efficient public option will continually be crippled by these people and never be able to overtake the private option.

As the previous poster said, this is the key progressive option to any health care plan (other than single payer, which no candidate has shown the courage to endorse), and I'd add, it's the key to any progressive agenda at the Federal level.  HRC should be making a stronger case of it, so specious arguments like those above by risenmessiah will get the examination they deserve.

by desert dawg 2008-03-08 04:44AM | 0 recs
what about that

bancrupcy bill she voted for? They loved her for that.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: what about that

She admitted it was a mistake, and the second time it came up voted for every consumer protection amendment added to it and voted against cloture on the bill (she missed the actual vote cause Bill was having heart surgery)

It should be noted that BO voted against it as well.

However, he did vote for the anti-consumer class action bill, which she voted against.

by desert dawg 2008-03-08 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: what about that

People have strange ideas about what Wall Street loves.  Do you really think they care that Hillary once supported a version of the bankruptcy bill that didn't pass, many years ago?

by Steve M 2008-03-08 05:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

I think you are missing the point.

The economy is taking a beating. Wall Street is looking for new money. Insurance companies love to take their money to Wall Street. If we have more insured people, or have government using more private insurers to cover more's good news for the rowhouses.

by risenmessiah 2008-03-07 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

That's a different point entirely: both Clinton and OBama's plan call for private insurers. What you're arguing is that neither of their plans is as good as single payer, and that's correct.  

But comparing his and hers, his is a disaster from the point of view of ever getting to single payer.  Hers does it thru the back door, his closes the door on it.

by desert dawg 2008-03-08 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

Acutally I'd argue that both are equally difficult, if I can be so specious. I understand your reservations about Obama's version but remember we've already done this before. In the 1980s states began to mandate auto insurance. Yet if you look at Australia, they include liability coverage in the cost of registration. I think that's a superior way, but yet by having the mandate for private coverage I never hear anyone arguing for the Australian system even though I'm sure it would save everyone money.

by risenmessiah 2008-03-08 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

These are all good points I particularly agree that electibility should not be how you pick a candidate but in response wasn't the electibility argument the one that Obama started out with it?  

I've always thought that Hillary was the safer bet you know what you you are going to get.  Last December I feared that Obama could crater and feel even more so now.  He should have won at least Texas and didn't.  He'll get the nomination alright but I'm not too sure about the fall.  I like Obama - his supporters are becoming unbearable but whatever there's a certain quadrennial which I'm prone to myself. However if, and its a big if, Obama loses in November I will be saying, at the proverbial water cooler, that it was Oprah, the media and a bunch of non-Dems who picked him, electibility don't you know.
Just like a bunch Iowans picked Kerry because of electability.

by rambler 2008-03-07 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

I don't think so. I think the big Dem donors who didn't want Hillary to be the nominee "picked" Obama. David Geffen comes to mind.

by risenmessiah 2008-03-07 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

And we are following Alan Solomont, et al, WHY?

Aren't they precisely the reason that the netroots emerged? The control of the party apparratus by the elites?

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Lesser of Two Evils?

You answered your own question. The netroots has been extremely successful at Congressional races but because of the money involved and necessary organization...not so for the Presidency.

by risenmessiah 2008-03-08 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

You majored in miracles (not math) too, eh?

If you don't like the rules, change them for 2012.  You and Mark Penn and the Clintons can't keep moving the goalposts in the middle of the game.

by peter peter 2008-03-07 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Hear, hear.

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:35PM | 0 recs
The rules are

the delegates vote for the stronger candidate for presidency at the time of the convention.

They would look silly  if Hillary continues to widen her national poll lead and if she leads in the popular vote then.

The delegates have to look at the situation in August and project to November.  That is why pledged delegates allocated based on the race in February are, by design, insufficient to decide a close two person race.

Obama-fans like to cite rules but don't seem to actually understand them.

by ineedalife 2008-03-08 03:27AM | 0 recs
The rules include superdelegates

Some rules you like better than others probably.

by diplomatic 2008-03-08 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I don't find myself in love with a candidacy in this nomination fight.

You've got to be kidding.  If that were true you'd be far more even-handed on this site.

I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome

Well then take a damn minute and think about it.  And recognize that there ISN'T a path for her win the nomination that doesn't leave the Democratic Party totally crippled.  For you to willfully ignore the reality of the situation is incredibly irresponsible.  Do you not see the damage that she's willfully doing to the likely Democratic Presidential candidate?

but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination.

Based on what scenario, exactly?  What's the path?    This assertion is wholly unsupported by reality.

Look, if she was winning, then yes, play up the women and latino votes -- those would be the strongholds for the Democrats this election.  But the reality is that she's not, and therefore AAs and the newly energized independents and youth should be our focus.

I'll also note that you're ignoring the boost Obama could get from someone like Richardson joining him on the ticket.

by EvilCornbread 2008-03-07 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yes - Richardson or Sebelius sharing his ticket would be a godsend for Obama.

by bjones 2008-03-07 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I thought the 2003-2006 netroots was all about the 'fighting dems' that invigorated the Democratic Party with a strong sense of partisanship and Howard Dean's "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" candidacy.

Actually, 2003-2006 was about growing disgust with Democrats who have enabled the worst aspects of Bush's agenda; from bankruptcy, through NCLB, to Iraq, and beyond --  disgust with Democrats like Hillary Clinton.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-07 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Throwing out DLCers is simply throwing away the party. Unless we have total control of government,further  polarization is only going to further impede any reforms, progressive or otherwise.

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Jerome, you ignore the obvious about GE math - a joint ticket that would combine the very different, but complimentary electoral strengths of Clinton and Obama.

With Clinton's resurgence and Obama's delegate lead, it certainly looks like that's where things are headed, even if Obama/ Clinton now looks more likely than Clinton/ Obama.

Given the difficulty of overruling the pledged delegate leader without pure chaos at the convention and lingering bad taste in the mouths of AAs and Obama voters, wouldn't Obama/Clinton be the most logical solution?

Stop me if I'm wrong, but this seems like the most sensible solution. I'd be curious to hear what you think about an Obama - Clinton ticket's chances in the fall.

by animated 2008-03-07 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Thank you. You can count on the primary partisans to miss the point, but finally, admidst the normal claptrap, someone actually says the truth.

by bruh21 2008-03-07 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I love the idea of the joint ticket, but I just don't think this combination would work.  I think Clinton would rather be in the Senate and would feel like Johnson in the Kennedy administration.

by ejintx 2008-03-07 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

In my opinion you're not wrong.  I've been saying the same thing for at least a month.

How we get there will be the challenge.  Assume we get revotes in MI and FL, which seems likely.  Clinton will likely get a net gain out of those states combined--figure a draw in MI and a gain in FL.  That leaves us with a very tight race, with the trailing candidate having won the four biggest states, plus OH and (I'm guessing) PA.  At that point the back room dealing gets very heated.

I suspect the outcome would be something like: A critical mass of the SD's block vote for one of the candidates, with the provision that the other is offered and accepts the VP slot and is given a hefty policy portfolio.  In this context, "hefty" means we have the media talking heads blathering on about whether it's really a "co-presidency".

Will it unravel exactly that way?  Who the heck knows.  But that's how it feels to me right now.

by Lou Grinzo 2008-03-07 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

At a certain point the negative campaigning makes a joint ticket look like a farce.  I think we've already reached that point and we're extremely lucky that McCain will be eviscerated in debates by either Obama or Clinton.

by ficus1 2008-03-07 07:05PM | 0 recs
HIllary not a defender of working people

I am not sure where this idea has come from, but it is funny.  And Jerome repeats it.  As if either Hillary OR Obama has ever done a damn thing for the working class.

The bottom line is that both of these people are centrists in liberal clothing.  John Edwards would be a vastly better candidate and president than either one of them.  Obama gives a nice speech, and Hillary is good in debates.  Who cares?      

by Calikid 2008-03-07 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: HIllary not a defender of working people

Man, what if Edwards stayed in this thing? We could have the Democrats tearing themselves apart in three directions.

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: HIllary not a defender of working people

You are right. Why allow their voice (resoundingly in support of Hillary) to be heard? I think we have a much better sense of what is good for them. Trustee government all the way.

For that matter, let's not let them vote at all. Or, maybe a literacy test.

Facts are facts-- this is a part of Hillary's electoral coalition. Arguing it should not be seems counterproductive.. sort of like arguing the Republican is more qualified as CiC.
Both are probably not going to help us win... anything.

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Thank you Mr. Armstrong - wonderful post!

by mlr701 2008-03-07 05:47PM | 0 recs
TX Rules And PA GOP Votes For HRC

TX rules are unfair? Bill won twice under those rules, so it's too bad if Hillary can't close the deal.

I checked with friends in PA, and a republican friend is registering to vote for Hillary, then switching back later to vote against her in the general election. Even though this will require TWO trips to the courthouse, but being a trustfund Republican, he has time, when he's not complaining about lazy poor people.

by bernardpliers 2008-03-07 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: TX Rules And PA GOP Votes For HRC

Yeah, well math didn't have an anti-Clinton bias in 1992 and 1996. Things change, get with the program!

by carbocation 2008-03-07 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: TX Rules And PA GOP Votes For HRC

You have no evidence that Obama's voters are voting for him with no intention of voting for him in the fall. Obama's crossovers are with Independents, not Republicans. Obama HAS been able to inspire some Republicans to actually support him. But Hillary is now getting these trust-fund Limbaugh voters because they see Hillary as easy to beat in November. I wonder, though, if her survival of March 4 will make them change their minds.

Also note that in the general election matchup in Texas according to SUSA, Obama loses to McCain by 1 point. Clinton loses by 7. It seems her popular vote margin in the Texas primary may, in fact, have come from Limbaugh crossovers.

by elrod 2008-03-07 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: TX Rules And PA GOP Votes For HRC

Actually, being from that area of PA sometimes referred to as Pennsyltucky, there was evidence just this past Sunday again appearing on the front page of our Review & Opinion section of Sunday paper--a younger Republican who very clearly stated both he and his wife (a registered Independent) have switched their registration to "Democrat for a Day" to vote for Barack, but will both be voting for McCain come November.  I've seen many such references.

In the financial markets, we talk about "whisper numbers."  There are the stated expectations or public opinions, but then there is also the "whisper."  Many Republican talking heads on the news shows would seem to indicate the Republicans switching are switching to vote for Clinton because that's who they'd rather face in the General...but the whisper (that doesn't always remain so whispered) is clearly that they'd rather face Obama.  Bottom line is we will never know for certain the extent of such manipulation of our Primaries--and even in the state of PA where we have closed Primaries and make it a little more difficult for such trickery it will still happen.  But at least we make it a little harder on the switching voters.  It seems the Democratic Party would be better off if we closed off our Primaries, but that's just my opinion.

by ChargedFan 2008-03-07 07:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I don't see much of a difference in substantive policy, nor in the people running their campaigns, and basically chose Clinton because I think she's got a better shot at winning than the gamble of going with the untested Obama.

Jerome...have you been a coma the last 6 years?  You do not see a difference in the people running their campaigns?  Howard freaking 'I never met a candidate i can't smear into the postion Wolfson?  Mark 'I never met an electorate I could not carve up to win an election without a majority' Penn?  If the goal is progressive change then the President needs a broad coalition to accomplish it.  The 50+1 strategy may win Presidential elections but does not effect any change save the Court.  Use Bush as the example.  He had the White House the Senate and the House yet he could not effect the signature change he sought of privatizing Social Security.  The reason...because he did not have a majority mandate only a Penn-Rove style victory of 50+1.  He vanquished better candidates within his own party because he controlled the message of his campaign, and may well re-write the narrative of his Presidency only because he can marginalize dissent with his Wolfson-Atwater style smear campaign tactics.

Hillary may well win the election but only by destroying the Democratic party and progressive politics in the process.  The fact that you and the other Clintonistas at this site cannot see that makes me grieve for the future of the party and the country.

by conqdad 2008-03-07 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

IMO, Obama is the one damaging up the party with his inept foreign policy team and the antics of his wife. The sense of "I'm owed" doesn't wear well with the electorate. It's the same attitude that W. has. That elist sense of entitlement.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Jerome, stop whining like a baby man. Rules mean something. Without the rule of law, there is no democracy. I don't care how unfair the rules are, but once you agree to play by the rules, don't even try to whine about it when you're losing. You can whine about the refs but complaining about rules which you had agreed with before the game started is just childish and ludicrous. If you don't agree with the rules, dispute it from the start and stop freaking whining about why a field goal is worth 3 points in the forth quarter because field goals are not fair and you're only down by two points. Stop this crap. If you don't like the rules, don't play the f*cking game. Go home! You whine like a freaking as*shole man! Stop it already.

by Barackulikahurricane 2008-03-07 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere
And to claim a "win" based on a system like that is not people-powered politics.
The Obama campaign claimed a win based on the fact they got 3 more delegates than Clinton. Don't you think that is a logical basis to make such a claim? The system may be flawed but it was not created by the Obama campaign.
...but the deeper problem for Obama is that the number of those Obamacan voters is not that enough to flip any of those red states either.
You mean like Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and North Dakota? The SUSA national poll shows shows Obama beating McCain in these states and Clinton losing. Other states Obama wins and Clinton loses are New Hampshire, Oregon and Washington.
I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome...
There is no way to get around the math. Obama will be up 100+ pledged delegates when all contests are finished. Do you really thing the SD will overturn the will of the people? Not gonna happen. They are not that dumb.
by supsupsup 2008-03-07 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

"It's immensely under-appreciated," (white women and latino vote)

First lets be clear that the "women vote" is really older white women (because I know Black women are not really considered women, just black, and latino women aren't considered women, just Latino).

Second, the quote above would be true if it wasn't for the other under-appreciated voters: youth and black people.

by beve83 2008-03-07 06:01PM | 0 recs

I don't agree with a single thing you're saying on this thread (other than "the" and "of"), but you don't deserve to be troll-rated.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-07 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Uprated.

I'm not one who troll-rates people I disagree with here, but there are as many Clinton supporters who do that here as there are Obama supporters. Frankly, the whole site has turned into a giant flame war.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I don't have a problem with your diary except that like when the Obama folks it's only half true. You are right as far as you go, but then so are they as far as they go. The truth is complicated becaus eof the reality, and points to a unity ticket. Something partisans seem unable to comprehend.

by bruh21 2008-03-07 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere
Any one seen the Texas delegate count?
Obama got more delegates. OBAMA WON TEXAS
by dbeall 2008-03-07 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

LOL!  Democrats were always one-person, one-vote before.

Now, who gives a crap about the votes, lets award the Delegates!

I want nothing to do with that attitude.

by Sensible 2008-03-07 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

When were delegates awarded differently than they are this year?  This is the system the Democratic party uses.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere
Any one notice the Super delegate Count.
Obama has a net gain of about 50 in the last two weeks.
by dbeall 2008-03-07 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I don't know know why you would be disturbed that people who had previously registered as Democrats would register as such to vote for a candidate they actually liked in the Democratic party and wanted to win.

It seems to me that that sort of thing demonstrates that Obama can and has expanded the Democratic party.  Or do only people who were in the party a few years ago have the right to choose the nominee?

When I was at the Maine caucus, I saw a couple I know who were registering as Democrats.  They had been independents.  One of them said to me, "Because of Obama, we are now Democrats."

Yet Jerome finds that sort of thing troubling.  Why?

History shows that you get big change in this country when new people flock to a political party.  If Obama can move people to want to register as Dems, bless him.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

oops - correction to my first sentence above - should be "people who had NOT previously registered as Democrats"

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

my point exactly

by spacerock 2008-03-07 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Seriously. We had 7,000 people register as Democrats in Nebraska because of Obama. He is helping the party grow in deep, crimson red states. And somehow this is a bad thing?

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

It's not bad, it's just not truly building the party.  Are those people now really Democrats, or do they jsu tlike Obama? What if Obama decides to leave the party, or gets hit by a bus?  

Only time will tell if he is really expanding the party.

by ocli 2008-03-10 10:45AM | 0 recs
Great post
Great post, just one thing to add.  Obama supporters go on and on about "the delegate math" as evidence that Hillary can't win and therefore shouldn't continue.  Ignoring the fact that Obama can't reach 2025 delegates without superdelegates and that the losing candidate in this race will have the most delegates accumulated for a loser in modern history, and I think those are important reasons for people calling for Hillary to drop out to stop talking, but ignoring that, the "math" issue is ridiculous on its face.
    The reason I say that is that the argument is predicated on "the rules."  Someone earlier in this thread wrote that Obama won Texas because he won more delegates and that's the system we're under.  Which is all well and good if that's how you want to define win.  But if you're going to define it that way, then how can you say that Hillary will win the nomination illegitmately if after june she trails in pledged delegates and gets put over the top by superdelegates?  Because that's undemocratic????  But its also the rules.  So which is it?  Is it democracy or the rules?  Because it certainly is undemocratic to hold a caucus, especially when you just held a primary and know what the larger group of people think and then still award delegates based in part on the caucus.  Obama supporters are all for the rules and for an undemocratic selection process until it gets to the superdelegates.  And that's bogus.  I agree with Obama supporters that delegates matter and so to bemoan caucuses or other weird rules is moot for this election.  But i'm also consistent and therefore see superdelegates as a perfectly legitimate and fair way of breaking this extraordinany tie.
by wjr24 2008-03-07 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Great post

I think Hillary's approach is mostly appalling superdelegates who are remembering how they had to defend the Clintons when they were last in the WH.  They don't want a repeat of those horrid years, particularly with a secretive individual who will pursue executive privilege much like our current president.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Great post

Yes, those horrid years of prosperity. I mean, it was awdul all those surpluses, cheap gas.. I can only remember those days with contempt!

If the Clinton's are so hated by the other Democratic elite, than what are you worried about? Under your reality, all SD will never vote for her and put a Clinton in office no matter how many pledged delegates she gets.

It seems you should be lauding their power.

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Great post

Yeah, the 1994 GOP sweep that brought Newt to power. Bill's zipper problems that led to impeachment and weakened Gore enough to let W steal it in 2000. The Dick Morris triangulation strategy that Bill used to  bring back his own political fortunes while screwing the rest of the party.

I'm sure the SD's are itching to relive all that.

by jimBOB 2008-03-07 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Great post

That is precisely the point. If it was so awful, than Obama should be quite excited for the selection to go to the SDs. But all I see here is discussion of how they are evil and threats that they better follow 'the will of the people.'  Those dont seem like the arguments of people who think the SDs are on their side.

by hctb 2008-03-07 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere
Any one noticed the Maths - with a projected pledged delegate lead of 160-165 after next Tuesday - explain how this can be overcome.
by dbeall 2008-03-07 06:13PM | 0 recs

I have a friend in Pennsylvania who has switched his registrationn from R to D so that he can vote for Obama.  The office told him that they had been swamped people doing the same thing.  He has been working with his republican friends and he alone has convinced 40 to make the switch. They will support Obama over McCain if our candidate is Hillary.  As a life long Democrat, I will not vote for McCain, but I will never vote for Hillary, the queen of mean.

by DemoDan 2008-03-07 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obamacans

I hope he can organize those former Republicans to get even more people on board for Obama.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:22PM | 0 recs

I have a friend in Pennsylvania who has switched his registrationn from R to D so that he can vote for Obama.  The office told him that they had been swamped people doing the same thing.  He has been working with his republican friends and he alone has convinced 40 to make the switch. They will support Obama over McCain if our candidate is Hillary.  As a life long Democrat, I will not vote for McCain, but I will never vote for Hillary, the queen of mean.

by DemoDan 2008-03-07 06:14PM | 0 recs
I know how Clinton can

go from the current "Math"  to the nomination.

She has to win the narrative.  If she does, the Math will

It is not impossible to see how this can happen... BO campaigns seems to be cooperating with her on that recently.

by SevenStrings 2008-03-07 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I know how Clinton can

The analysis along with the Gallup tracking poll says that there has been no movement to Clinton after Tuesday.  

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I know how Clinton can

the math is that she had to win 65% of the delegates left to beat barack in pledged delegates, and that's impossible

by Lazeriath 2008-03-07 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I know how Clinton can

Man, you all are living in a world where the media decides our nominee. Narratives? Doesn't work like that in the reality-based community. Tell me how she makes the case to superdelegates that she should be the nominee. If they split the remaining pledged delegates roughly down the middle (which at this point seems likely), she needs about 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates to support her. How is she going to do that?

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I know how Clinton can

If you all soo strongly believe that she cannot win, then you should counsel your man to hold his fire.

After all, if she cannot win, then he cannot lose.

So why is he expending his energy going after Clinton (and losing his foreign policy team in the process)

by SevenStrings 2008-03-07 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I know how Clinton can

After all, if she cannot win, then he cannot lose.

So why is he expending his energy going after Clinton (and losing his foreign policy team in the process)

Yes, barring Hilliary pulling some shenanigans, I don't believe he can lose.  The Primary, that is.  

But I think the longer Hillary is attacking him, the more likely he is to lose the GE.  And that's troubling.

by EvilCornbread 2008-03-07 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I don't know how to embed images, but pollster now has charts of general election match ups. Take a look

Clinton vs McCain C.php

Obama vs McCain O.php

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Clinton vs McCain

Obama vs McCain

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

So they are both in the ME if looking at a rolling average? Yes. That is how it feels, doesn't it?

Also, do you see how erratic the Obama/McCain matchup is for the recent polls? That should engender some skepticism, no?

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:23PM | 0 recs
you are right

Hilary looks much better rolls eyes

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: you are right

oh. can the snark.

There is greater variation in the second graph than the first. Why should that favor Hillary? Put your partisan flag waving away, take a breath, look at the graphs.

I was suggesting skepticism about the polls that have always been pretty erratic in judging Obama support... Political Arithmetik does a good job explaining this.

by hctb 2008-03-07 08:51PM | 0 recs
I suspect a lot of that

has to do with name recognition.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-07 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

This is the last one - I promise.
Any one figure out what Hillary must to do win.
Yes you've got it

Thats right do as Limbaugh says.

by dbeall 2008-03-07 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yeah, let's nominate Obama, the guy that can't even get his foreign policy straight and hasn't even held one meeting on Afghanistan. He'll get swamped in the general election. All McCain has to do is keep the focus on national security and he'll win.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Oh, yes, because McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran are oh so popular!  

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Remember the basic rule of politics:

strong and wrong beats weak and right.

In the public's eyes McCain is "strong and wrong" while Obama is "weak and right." There's a reason as to why McCain has 35 points on Obama in national security. Don't be fooled into thinking that because the war is unpopular that it will be a winning issue. Vietnam was very unpopular but it didn't help McGovern did it?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-07 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Nixon claimed he had a secret plan to end the war. He did not run to continue the war for 100 years.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

i don't understand jerome.... you malign obama for saying he won texas because he won the delegate lead, but you support hillary despite the fact that the only way she can win is if the superdelegates ignore the will of the people i.e. the popular vote, and the pledged delegate lead, to support her.

he won the caucus, she won the primary, but when the results are combined, he wins texas.

and i fail to see how his win in texas is undemocratic, he won the overall vote count, factoring in the caucus.
it was split into two contest he came close in won, and handily won the other.
 you can bitch and moan all you want on how undemocratic his victory was, but everyone could participate, and in the overall participation he won.

claiming it's an undemocratic win because of delegate allocation is a load of shit, because he won the overall vote.
 it isn't a technicality like in nevada, he straight out won.

either way, jerome, you pathertic pro hillary line of shit that essentially says obama is undemocratic, while supporting hillary who's even more overtly undemocratic (since it's the only way she can actually win) is fucking stupid.
    this is a piece of shit troll you've posted on the front page.

if this is the best youi can do then you should go to ebaumsworld where you belong.

by Lazeriath 2008-03-07 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

This seems a misrepresentation. Obamafans are claiming a Texas win and touting their delegate math--and many find this disingenuous.

I don't know anyone who thinks an election that goes to the SD is gonna be good, but "winning" is not a relative concept. A candidate needs to outrun the bear* to win, and right now, it looks like a question of who is going to outrun the other candidate. And the superdelegates are going to decide this, in whatever calculus they deem appropriate.

^You know the story: two hikers in the woods come across a bear, one of the hikers books it and the other says "you are not going to outrun a bear" and the running hiker replies: "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you."

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere


Normally if you want tomeone to F*&*off and die, you don't ask them to do it kindly.

I don't particularly like a bunch of the rules we have in place in this primary season.  A two step vote in Texas seems a bit screwy, but that is what the party decided.  So for this year we live with it. No use complaining. Work to change it in 2012.  

I also don't like completely closed or completely open primaries.  To me, a primary that allows Dems & Independents is sensible, as it encourages Independents, WHO WE MUST GET TO VOTE FOR US IN NOVEMBER, to vote for our candidate.  I'm not in favor of letting Republicans vote in our primaries. Promotes too much mischief, like what we saw with Oxycontin man.

Hopefully you will read this and see that, while Lazarieth may not be the most tactful writer, his underlying point is sound.  These are rules WE DEMOCRATS have come up with in 2008 and we will live by them. This latest notion that the supers should support the popular vote winner of the primary is just an argument.  If it gains traction, it will be a good argument. I suggest you use it, because there is no way in hell that she will be ahead in elected delegates by the end of the primary calendar.  

by swarty 2008-03-07 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

and that's "testing" how again?  Millions of people still believe this.

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-07 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Not that she actually killed Vince far as I know.

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-07 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I know its totally screwy, but I know people who do believe she killed him (actually, they believe she had him killed, i don't know anyone who thinks she pulled the trigger). Messed up, and for sure not the majority opinion, but its out there.

by LiberalFL 2008-03-07 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

yep.  And people believe Obama's a Muslim, too.  That doesn't mean either of them are "tested".

by thereisnospoon 2008-03-07 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I didnt say it did.

by LiberalFL 2008-03-07 08:05PM | 0 recs


You brought a tear to my eye with that 'people-powered' stuff, but given the delegate totals at the moment, the reality is that there is only one path to the nomination for Hillary Clinton;  the superdelegates have to hand it to her.

That is the ultimate in 'un-democracy.'  Obama went out and accumulated his delegates the hard way, state by state.  He has built a significant lead in earned delegates, thus Hillary can only take the prize by somehow convincing the SD's to give it to her.  And that is a recipe for disaster in our Party.

She can make up all the bullshit rationales in the world about how she won the big states, blah, blah...    Do you really think the SD's are stupid enough to diss the huge number of states that Obama is winning and take us right back to the old DLC model of winning a few core states?  That mindset is precisely what Howard Dean and most of us progressives have been trying to overturn.  In this campaign, Hillary didn't even bother with many of the 50 states; is that the kind of President you want?

How in the world is Hillary going to sell the SD's on the 'electability' argument when every poll indicates that Obama polls much stronger against McCain in November?  How is she going to peddle the electability argument when everyone knows she is the ultimate object of hate for the Right?  She'll be the lightning rod for them to rally their battered party and fundraise like crazy.  And further, it is Obama who has energized and expanded key constituencies (youth, African-Americans, Independents.)  The turnout that he generates will serve us very well in all the down-ticket races for Congress, Governorships, state and municipal offices, etc.

Take a look at his fundraising model as well-   huge amounts of money raised from small donors.  What could be more expressive of a populist, people-powered movement than that?

I haven't read the book you wrote with Markos, but am I correct in thinking that you subscribe to Dean's 50-state strategy?  Hillary has utterly ignored the concept, and the results speak for themselves.  And don't you regard Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe and the rest of Hillary's staff as exactly the sort of people we need to get out of leadership positions in the Party?


by global yokel 2008-03-07 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome, but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination.

You better hope so. Your credibility is riding on her winning the nomination. For someone who was a strong advocate of the 50 State Strategy, you've fallen a long way. A long, long way. Say hello to a general election campaign centered in Florida and Ohio - where it won't take much energy or effort for the Republicans to wrest the election away again.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, if she does, she's going to do it ugly. And many of us red state Democrats who have been insulted by her campaign and the African-American voters who have been taken for granted by her campaign will not show up in the numbers she needs to win.

Generally the idea of a Democrat who's a fighter is not a Democrat who fights against other Democrats while praising the Republican nominee.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

The latest being that Obama "won" Texas (you know, like Bush "won" Florida). Clinton won the state 51-47, by over 100,000 votes, and yet, Obama, his campaign, and all his supporters now say they won Texas. Why? Because of the undemocratic proportional allocation of caucus delegates, such as an urban areas that voted Obama being worth more delegates than a Latino stronghold for Clinton in another part of the state, because of a previous election. That's not a Democratic system-- its a relic of machine-age politics. And to claim a "win" based on a system like that is not people-powered politics.

Obama won the most delegates. Since no one defines what "winning" is, I think any reasonable definition is fair and both have a claim to winning.

Listen, this isn't a contest for votes; it's a contest for delegates. Since delegates are the metric for "winning" the nomination, why does it not make sense for delegates to be the metric for winning a state?

As for hitting the "undemocratic" primary because of delegate distribution... isn't the entire nationally primary the exact same thing? Some states get more votes because there are more dems there, right? And if 2 states have the same population and the same delegates, but one state turns out twice as many people, each of those people is effectively being disenfranchised of half their vote.

by mattw 2008-03-07 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Didn't you know? Al Gore is finishing up his second term in the White House. Because the popular vote is what counts.

by Dave Sund 2008-03-07 06:35PM | 0 recs
Women and Latinos

Women and Latinos were the deciding vote in 2004 and the 2006 midterm elections. They will be the deciding vote in 2008 if Clinton is the nominee. Why does the blogosphere continuously ignore these groups? From Clinton's website:

Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor, elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same numbers.

* The two groups that fueled President Bush's victory in `04 were women and Hispanics, and they are among Hillary Clinton's strongest supporters. From 2000 to 2004, Bush's support among Hispanics rose from 35% to 44%. And Bush's support among women rose from 43% to 48%. That five point gain among women and nine point gain among Latinos gave Bush his victory in 2004.

* Women reached an all-time presidential election high of 54% of voters in '04. As a factual matter, an outpouring of women for the first woman president alone can win the election. Hillary leads all candidates among women.

* These political and demographic trends project positively into the general election and strongly favor Hillary.

by nonwhiteperson 2008-03-07 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Women and Latinos

Here's a question though.  If Barack won the primary, do you think women and latinos wouldn't vote for him?  And on the flip side, if Hillary won, do you think the independents voting for Barack would vote for Hillary?

by spacerock 2008-03-08 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Democrats, long suffering, long loyal, voting Democrats are coming to need a rescue from a kind of electoral Jim Crow.

For myself, having been a liberal and progressive activist and organizer (there are differences between those two roles) and having been a self-identified and registered Democrat, I can't but see what's happened this primary cycle as a kind of hijack of the party.

Long time Democrats who are invested in the party, who care about the party and it's reputation have no wish to see the party hijacked.  People who cross-over, who are new voters, just waking to the fact that elections happen and might matter, that aren't invested in the Democratic party don't care about the Democratic party or it's reputation.  Those kind of voters see the Democratic party as a vessel to "send a message" to the political establishment.  The Democratic base doesn't see the Democratic party as something that trivial or disposable.  The Democratic base isn't looking merely to "send a message"; the Democratic base is looking to get a worthy Democrat elected President.

Being a Democrat isn't a hook-up, it's a marriage.  Too many online "progressives" are treating it like some meaningless, self-gratifying hook-up.  

by autumnal 2008-03-07 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Let me get this right: You think that if a voter wasn't a Democrat before this year, then your decision to become a Democrat because you honestly like one of the party's candidates is just not worth  much.  

by mainelib 2008-03-07 06:41PM | 0 recs

FACT #1:

If Hillary was better at caucuses and actually won one every now and then, she and her shills would probably think they were much more 'democratic' than they currently do.

Complaining during televised debates about how unfair they are (the world isn't fair honey, that's something a president needs to know), trying to change the rules of the election at every turn, dismissing the value of entire states and demographics of Democrats simply because they didn't vote for her, praising the Republican candidate while tearing down a fellow Democrat...

Hillary is a model of what a Democratic candidate SHOULD NOT BE. She is the anti-candidate.

FACT #2: If Obama was in Hillary's position right now, with virtually no way to win the nomination without tearing the party apart, he would concede.

People talk about how Obama is self-centered and vain, but Clinton is the real egomaniac. Victory at any cost, even the destruction of the party. I have lost all respect I ever had for her.

by joed 2008-03-07 06:37PM | 0 recs

"Honey."  Just beautiful.

by Steve M 2008-03-07 06:43PM | 0 recs

It is fair, I think, to patronize adults who act like children.

by joed 2008-03-07 06:47PM | 0 recs

Sweetie, just calm down. Now, I know you feel like if you just scream loud enough, you will get your way. But people don't like to be bullied. I know it doesn't seem fair that everyone doesn't see things the way you do. This will pass, poppet.

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Can someone point me to where Obama or his campaign is claiming to have won texas because if you look at his counts of states he has it as a split verdict.

Jerome, please provide a link or some other for of source for the assertion.

by poserM 2008-03-07 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

When are you guys going to understand that the math for your proposed Pyrrhic victory doesn't exist in a democratic manner and that barring a complete collapse of the Obama campaign this race is basically over already?   When?  Clinton shot her campaign in the foot irretrievably with the red phone ad and yesterday's alliance with McCain. Wonder how long this post will last.  

by Carlo 2008-03-07 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Explain how the math works for either?

by Si Ella Puede 2008-03-07 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

SD`s defined by the creator of them.

"Got a Problem? Ask the Super"  By GERALDINE A. FERRARO
Published: February 25, 2008 in the NYT n/25ferraro.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year's primaries -- clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party's membership -- but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated."

by mcctx 2008-03-07 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

So basically democracy is the problem here.  We should follow the supposed whims of the portion of the party that hasn't participated.  Hmmmm.

by Carlo 2008-03-07 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Can I suggest that we avoid getting into an unnecessary discussion over this ridiculous article? There are already hundreds of coments on the NYT ripping Geraldine a new one in every possible way.

by joed 2008-03-07 06:56PM | 0 recs


Another thing.  There is widespread disgust with Hillary Clinton's transparently self-serving cry for seating the Michigan and Florida delegates.  The 'primary' in Michigan was a bogus event that confers no legitimacy whatsoever.  Florida wasn't much better.  And she only managed to take 55% of the vote in MI while running unopposed.  If she was so deeply concerned and sincere about the 'disenfranchisement' of the voters in MI, she would have advocated for a full primary or caucus that would afford everyone the opportunity to participate.  She wasn't even politically astute and decent enough to realize that our Party risked the alienation of a huge number of African-American voters in that important state if we accepted the results of that 'primary.'  They didn't show up to vote because they were told by the Party that the results would be meaningless.  Hillary Clinton's cheezy attempt to claim the delegates in MI should have set off alarm bells throughout the Party about what sort of person she is.

IMHO, the moment she took that cowardly and devious stance on Michigan, she lost a lot of respect.  Until that time I was open-minded and neutral and enjoying the fact that our Party had two attractive candidates who could capably represent us in November.  But Michigan gave us a window into her soul and her character, and it's ugly in there.

by global yokel 2008-03-07 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies

Couldn't agree with you more.

by Carlo 2008-03-07 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies

My thought exactly. She has, to be fair, done many despicable things since then, as well.

by joed 2008-03-07 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies

Yes, absolutely.  The moment she started her transparent campaign to get the obviously invalid results of MI and FL counted was the moment I stopped supporting her and starting supporting Obama.

by EvilCornbread 2008-03-07 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Why don't Wyoming democrats like Hillary? What's wrong with them?

by poserM 2008-03-07 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

They won't want to have to labor in November with her at the top of the ticket.  It is simple self-interest.  Being from a state that doesn't matter can kinda suck.

by Carlo 2008-03-07 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Lately all of Jerome's posts, and the Clinton campaign itself, have been reminding me a great deal of President Bush, in they all refuse to exist in a fact-based reality.

"I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome, but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination."

Don't you realize how stupid you sound? I'll give you a hint: think Bush.

by joed 2008-03-07 07:06PM | 0 recs
Thank You Jerome!

Your posts goes right to the heart of the race right now. The race has turned to Hillary's advantage. Unless an upset in Pennsylvania or Florida, the Supper will vote for her. Their role, if my memory serves me correctly, as defined in the 80's was to pick the best candidate capable of winning the general election. And that means winning in places like Ohio and Florida.

As an aside, I remember, when Bill said if Hillary wins in Ohio and Texas she wins the election, if not she cant. I think he was right. My strong feeling is that Hillary will be our nominee.

by moi moi 2008-03-07 07:08PM | 0 recs

From that Geraldine Ferraro article in the NYT--

"But if they are actually upset over the diminished clout of rank-and-file Democrats in the presidential nominating process, then I would love to see them agitating to force the party to seat the delegates elected by the voters in Florida and Michigan. In those two states, the votes of thousands of rank-and-file party members will not be counted because their states voted on dates earlier than those authorized by the national party."


Nice job pimping for Hillary there Geraldine, but I ain't buying it.  If you are so deeply concerned about the voters of FL and MI, then you ought to be advocating for a real primary, not one where the voters are led to believe that the results won't be counted.  This is precisely the kind of chickenshit tactic that have some of us loathing Hillary Clinton.  She "won" in those two states (FL and MI) in deeply flawed and bogus elections, and would like to have those delegates chalked up in her column.  No fucking way.  

It's a shame and embarrassment to all Democrats that people like this occupy positions of prominence in our Party.  Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and imagine that Obama had come out ahead in those silly FL and MI 'primaries.'  Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro would be pushing hard to include those states in the delegate total?

If you can answer 'Yes" to that one with a straight face, I'll buy you a premium imported beer at the venue of your choice.

by global yokel 2008-03-07 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Hillary will win over the superdelegates and be our nominee, and here's why.

1. When ALL the votes are counted, she will have gotten the most.

Look, when more people vote for you, and yet you "lose" the state on delegates, thats just undemocratic. The superdelegates will know its not right. I am speaking specifically about Nevada here, as an example, but the fact is....the pledged delegates are important, but so is the will of the electorate. They will not vote for someone who got less votes to be the nominee. It would be THE END!

You need another reason?

OK, she won the big states that democrats have to win in order to get to 270 electoral votes.

by Scan 2008-03-07 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

As I have said, keep trotting out the popular vote argument, as that is your candidates ONLY hope for the nomination.  If it gains widespread traction, it will be considered a good one.

However, in the Democratic race for the Presidency, we select our candidate based on delegates.  And barring a deus ex machina, Obama will enter the convention with a good chunk more than Hillary.

But good luck with that argument of yours.

by swarty 2008-03-07 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere d=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

"...Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead."

15 more "dramatic turns" like Tuesday.

by joed 2008-03-07 07:15PM | 0 recs

Hillary got some amazing press out of the Tuesday primaries.  She had huge leads in both OH and TX just four weeks ago, yet Obama managed to battle her to a draw in TX, and he lost by just a handful of delegates in OH.  In Texas, Clinton won the popular vote by a slim margin of 3%, but managed to turn that into a public relations triumph that would have us believing that somehow her floundering campaign is revitalized.  

So she squandered a big lead in TX, hung on by her fingernails to win the popular vote, and lost in the caucus.  Yet somehow our media define this as a 'huge day' for HRC.  I guess the bar of expectations has been set even lower for her.

The next day California finalized and certified the results from its primary, and Obama came out with a net 8-point gain.  And the same day 3 more superdelegates came on board with Obama. Bottom line, Hillary is no better off now than she was going into Tuesday, but through the remarkable use of smoke and mirrors her campaign and the MSM have managed to create the impression that her campaign is on a roll and enjoys unstoppable momentum.  To really get some perspective on this, just think back a month or two.  She was the presumed nominee, and had all sorts of structural advantages.  Obama has managed to turn the whole thing around, and now Hillary is the 'scrappy challenger.'  Quite a role reversal.

by global yokel 2008-03-07 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Tuesday

It just shows how "media narrative" can put a cheap gloss over mathematical progression.  And because of  it we now get to witness the slow bleeding of Obama over the next few months, which will not erase the delegate lead he enjoys, save a complete bailout by the SDs.  In other words, a deus ex machina worthy of any Greek myth.

But you know this already :)

by bjones 2008-03-07 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

To reiterate a sentiment I expressed earlier:

This comment can be summed up in two words, SOUR GRAPES.

If Hillary was ahead right now you would be singing a different tune. Instead all we hear is:

"Wahh! Caucuses are SO undemocratic! Instead, let's let a group of 800 party insiders overturn the results of months of primaries. Now THAT would be democratic."

And please keep your pants on; Obama is WINNING the overall popular vote right now, and there is no indication that he will lose it, just as there is no indication that Hillary will magically gain the support of massive amounts of super delegates out of the blue.

The fact remains that the rules of this election are the rules of this election are the rules of this election are the rules of this election. Everybody agreed to them, and now Clinton is getting to show everybody in the world just how poor a loser she is.

by joed 2008-03-07 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Pretty Boy Floyd,

Why don't Hillary's supporters show up for caucuses?  Are they lacking in inspiration, or what?  Would they rather not been seen in public supporting Hillary?

By this time I would think the Clinton campaign would have made it clear to her loyalists that she needs them to attend the caucuses.  Her supporters tend to be long-time Democrats, familiar with the process.  But they aren't showing up.  Why?

by global yokel 2008-03-07 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yokel-- see my comment above, all the many discussions of the caucus-primary distinctions, and the political science literature on participation.. Voice & Equality from Verba, Brady, and Schlozman as a good start.

All participatory acts are not created equal. Yes, there is an intensity demanded to precipitate participation. But the participation decision is also predicated upon the availability of resources.

This would be fine if Obama's supporters and Clinton supporters were similar in the allocation of these resources. They are not. Clinton's electoral support  comes from groups who are frequently underrepresented at caucuses.

by hctb 2008-03-07 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

That wasn't true in Maine.  All the regulars showed up, mostly for Clinton.  And then there were the new ones, who came in swarms, for Obama.

by mainelib 2008-03-07 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Regulars at a caucus before are the same. I am not arguing otherwise. I am saying that some groups are disproportionately represented in caucuses. This is a perennial representation problem, but I mean we are talking about 20-30% of the voting population. The PROBLEM , or the good coalition choice, is that Obama's supporters are drawn from those who have the capacity to participate in these more resource intensive modes.

by hctb 2008-03-07 08:45PM | 0 recs
You have become ridiculous, Jerome.

To call Obama's following the rules and getting more delegates in TX "gaming" is not honest.  As it is not honest to equate Obama's TX delegate win to Bush's coup in 2000.

by Garret 2008-03-07 07:48PM | 0 recs
Great post!

yes.  We may wonder about who is the more electable, but I am sure that Karl Rove and GOP have run the numbers few times now.   And I think the person more electable is the one who brings huge numbers of new voters (single women and latinos), quite possibly gets crossover votes from Republican women, and puts AR, TN, OK, and even Texas in play.   Not to mention OHIO, which Bill Clinton won, and by the same math (strength in the same areas of the state) she would win.  

Note all the states she does well. It's the states Bill Clinton carried.  There are lots and lots of goodwill there.

Unfortunatly, backseat drivers at blogs think they know better, or they are so enamored with their own new-found power that they don't see what they are doing.   Don't get me wrong, I am all for passion, intensity and different opinions and of course, supporting different candidates. That's democracy.  But the big so-called lefty blogsphere (we know who they are) has become a parody of rightwing radio.  Maybe they can officially start a bash-Clinton coalition and leave the sane people alone.

by ghost 2 2008-03-07 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Hey Jerome--I think there is a lot of sense to your post...and I personally agree with your conclusion.  But I did want to raise an issue with one portion of your post that some of us here in Central PA are a little uncertain of.  You note:

"The other day, when he turned his attention to how he could help Obama win Pennsylvania, Bowers wrote:

My initial take of Pennsylvania is that Obama will do very well in Philadelphia (at least 60% of the vote, and possibly 70%) and the "T" (mainly Central PA, sometimes dismissively referred to as "Pennsyltucky"), in concert with his coalition of the extremes (grassroots progressives and grassroots red state Democrats). Clinton will do well in Western PA (including the Pittsburgh metro area), Northeastern PA (Scranton / Wilkes-Barre / Hazelton and "The Office" country), and the Bethlehem / Allentown metro area. The decisive swing vote will come in the Philadelphia suburbs, which is just about the only growing area of the state. It is also a region trending blue very quickly, and has a lot of independents and Republicans who are voting for Democrats in general elections, but who can't vote in the primary unless they register as Democrats by March 24th. This three-week registration period could decide the election, since these "new" Democrats will favor Obama, while the currently registered Democrats probably favor Clinton."

I'm not so sure about Barack's presumed strength in Philadelphia nor the "T" (funny that I've never heard our region referred to as that before?).  And I think the main key might be our Governor.  While he's not necessarily that popular here in Central PA, he's a Philadelphia politician who remains extremely popular and continues to be very highly regarded in Philly, not only for his politics but his very present involvement with major Philly sports teams, which might have some appeal to younger voters--and he's a staunch supporter of Clinton's.  So if Clinton does have an area of weakness in PA, Philly would be it--but Rendell's support is a wild card that we're not quite sure how to read here. Even if Barack would score more in the Philly area, most of us aren't believing it will be by huge margins (unless it is in fact due to Dems for a Day).  

And outside of Philly, it truly seems that Hillary has the much stronger support.  I guess only time will tell...but I'm very much looking forward to seeing how it plays out.  

by ChargedFan 2008-03-07 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Rendell also has quite a machine in Philly that could rival Obama's organizers. This is a critical asset for Hillary since that media market is so expensive.

by hctb 2008-03-07 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Ah, yes, another good point! Thanks for adding that!

by ChargedFan 2008-03-07 08:37PM | 0 recs

I am done with this website. The community's tolerance of not one, two, but dozens of obviously fallacious attacks by Armstrong on Obama is disappointing. From the "present" votes to "Obama has an electability problem in Ohio because he lost to a Democrat yet leads in GE matchups" to this current ill-conceived jeremiad, Armstrong has demonstrated an incapacity or an unwillingness to follow even the basic principles of good faith discussion. This post is simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

I have visited this site at least once each day I had internet access since before the 2006 elections, and it pains me to say that this place, as a community, has simply imploded.

I was one of the people who believed in the power of the "netroots" to change the way politics was funded and conceived. Yet, I now see that some members of the blogosphere are uninterested in any real reform but rather simply want a place at the table. I no longer hold hope for the blogosphere, which has become as petty and narrowly driven by short-term interests as any other aspect of progressive politics.

I wish you all good night and good luck.

by Octavian82 2008-03-07 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Saddened

Let me get this straight? You are "saddened" because the community at this website "tolerates" the owner of the website presenting his views? You talk about believing in the power of the netroots and changing the way politics is conceived, but you seem to think that everyone in the netroots should see things exactly the way you do, and back the candidate you back. And see "real reform" the way you see it. Is that what the netroots is supposed to be? An echo chamber? A million piece brass band with everyone playing the same song? You give up "hope" for the blogosphere because one website owner has the temerity to disagree with you and the Obama consensus. You chastise Jerome for his supposed lack of "good faith," when a million more egregious examples abound on the pro-Obama sites (eg Markos and his astoundingly stupid and absurd claim that the Clinton campaign had "darkened" Obama's picture). To me, your version of the netroots sounds more like the MSM. And, it is not enough that you can't abide with any diversity of opinion, but you chastise others for not being as equally intolerant as you are

Finally, you talk about selling out for "a place at the table," but if that is what Jerome wanted, wouldn't he have long since joined the Obama bandwagon? Clinton is the longshot. Everyone here understands that. By continuing to make the case for her and her candidacy, Jerome is not doing himself any favors with the powers that be in the likely next presidential administration.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-07 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

"Super delegates" were invented and given considerable power in order to calm the runaway enthusiasm of temporary, extreme, callow primary voters who might elevate an unelectable general election candidate.

How can you possibly argue that Obama is "unelectable" when he's faring better in every head-to-head poll with McCain and polls to more EVs than Clinton?

I actually kind of like states with both the Primary and the Caucus, because it allows you to gauge both the breadth and depth of the support for each candidate.  Primaries favor breadth, and caucuses favor depth.

by EvilCornbread 2008-03-07 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Good to know that Blacks dont't count Jerome

My family are consistent democratic voted (nearly 100%!) Obama doesn't seem troubled to leave me behind! The injustice!

If elections are a numbers game, than Jerome is right. I think we would all agree that the systematic support of Democrats by AA is critical for our identity of the party. I think women are equally important for this reason, AND they are a much larger proportion of voters.

Which superdelegate wants to be Solomon?

by hctb 2008-03-07 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

jerome, thank you so much for keeping this blog sane.  i saw the trey rentz post earlier and worried with a sinking feeling that this had become another obamablog (like we need any more of those), but was relieved to see this.  thank you for all you do!!!

by nance 2008-03-07 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Just by way of reminder (I know you know this), Obama is winning the popular vote nationwide 13 million to 12.4 million.

Texas has an unusual set of rules.  They are not the rules that I would have written, but they are the rules that both campaigns  knew about.  Bill Clinton ran twice on these rules.

Under the rules, Obama earned more delegates than Clinton.  He is supposed to apologize for that?  He is supposed to listen to charges that he stole the election?  He is supposed to be compared to Bush's campaign in Florida of 2000?

Obama has not spent much time whining about rules or procedures.  He has just been out inspiring a new generation of voters who could be active Democrats for the rest of their lives.  Or, maybe the cynicism of the Clinton campaign will prevail and we will go back to the same old warfare that we've been stuck in for decades.

Can we possibly say yes to the most inspiring leader that the Democratic Party has had since Kennedy?  Yes We Can.

by smoker1 2008-03-07 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Senator Clinton does very well when there is no campaign against her (e.g., Florida and Michigan).  Sadly, she would face a vigorous campaign from the Republicans if she becomes the nominee.  Except for that, she would be a fine candidate.

by smoker1 2008-03-09 02:14PM | 0 recs
really a side note

i'd really like to see the Democratic Party aggressively court Asian Americans.

by toonsterwu 2008-03-07 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

As a Democrat I will never vote for a elogan and neither will millions of others. Watch the Dems lose in November AGAIN if OPanzy is nominated.

by bsavage 2008-03-07 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere


Just look at where the votes where at. Aside from certain Hispanic heavy areas in Texas that traditionally had been under participating almost the entire Clinton "coalition" has been made up with vote groups that represent the past both in age and in dynamic. While Hillary would certainly gin up those voters a bit more in the GE, it is likely most of those votes will go Dem anyways.

Obama, while new, has energized a whole new group of voters from young to independents to disaffected Republicans. An Obama - McCain race will feature perhaps the widest disparity in ages of candidates that a Presidential race has ever seen and youth on Democratic's side. Surveys indicate he breaks open whole new states to Democratic effort as well as provides a lot of cover to down ballot candidates.

The bottom line is most of Hillary's Dems will come home to Dems in November while Obama has potential to add to coalition. Clinton still faces an "anti" fatigue rightly or wrongly still exists and not because she is simply a woman.

While Bush & GOP was in better shape in 2004, we learned a lesson in turnout politics in that race, one that the Republicans won. This time around the GOP is demoralized and we have opportunity to win based on momentum rather than facing off of troop strength. Sure fire way to gin up the GOP vote is put Hillary on the ticket. The GOP cannot give voters a reason to vote FOR them but put Hillary on ticket and give them a reason to vote AGAINST Dems.

Yes the difference between Obama and Hillary in reality on paper isn't much. But it is the style that counts. I myself was originally an Edwards supporter, coming from North Carolina it is naturally understandable, but in choosing between Clinton and Obama it came down to this. Clinton has the potential of possibly winning the GE in a squeaker by keeping as much of the old Democratic coalition together as she can. Obama has the potential of mixing up the race in ways we have yet to see and prove useful for Dems now and in the future.

by southerndemnut 2008-03-07 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Except, Hillary didn't win latinos (in this part of the country actually Mexican-Americans) in one part of one state.  She has continuously won the latino vote.  State after state. Not by squeakers either.  She has won by at least 2:1 margins.

As a college educated affluent liberal Mexican-American I am chagrined to say Obama is going to have a huge problem with latinos in Nov. I knew Hillary would win Texas by my family who are a long line of Texan Mexicans. The dearth of latino pundity voices on television is shameful.

People have to understand, there is a lot of resentment between AA and latinos in various parts of the country.

I expect him to win California, but latino defection is going to make the state more competitive than it should be.

You are correct that blue collar white democrats are a voting bloc that is in decline in numbers and importance.  But so are African-Americans.  The future of the Democratic Party lies in the creative class and latinos. To write off either one is foolish in the longterm for us as a party and as a nation.

P.S. I was an Edwards guy who went for Hillary.  Obama can win me in the fall with Universal healthcare.  Great for business.  Great fro America.  And really Great for the Democratic Party.

by kevko24 2008-03-07 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

While some of your argument "may" be true (note, I'm not saying it is, only that it may be, because truthfully, there is no concrete way of proving much of what you ascertain and credit to Barack, as some of it can also be credited to Hillary), you close by saying "Obama has the potential of mixing up the race in ways we have yet to see and prove useful for Dems now and in the future."

He had the "potential" of taking my vote away from Hillary as well, but he lost it when I realized he had the "potential" of actually putting some of his words into actions regarding NATO in Afghanistan, and instead made the "judgement" that running for president was more important than taking time for his Chairmanship duties that might have offered some valuable insight or assistance in that situation.  (By the way, Hillary held 3 meetings of the committee she chairs since Barack obtained his Chairmanship, even though she was also campaigning for President...not to mention her initiatives and accomplishments with respect to our military on the Senate Armed Forces Committee. And she also took her third trip to Iraq [and Afghanistan] since she's been Senator, while campaigning.). And you note that " ways we have yet to see."  But what I've found and seen and heard doesn't give me much confidence in what we haven't yet seen from him.  I'm in no way saying Hillary is perfect, because she is not, but she has done and accomplished many things that have already been seen and lend credence to her ability to knowledgeably and effectively carry out appropriate Presidential actions.  

Bottom line, our country is in a bind and currently involved in two wars, and we will need a multi-tasker who is capable of tackling the many different and complex issues that will face the next President--not someone who will take more than a year because he's too busy with other things.

by ChargedFan 2008-03-07 09:58PM | 0 recs
Facts, Data, and Disgust

Jerome's post is very poor.

1) The name of the game is delegates.  Much like the electoral college, it sucks, but were stuck with it until it is changed.

  1.  We can try to make lemonade out of lemons by at least requesting the super-delegates respect the will of the people.  The leader of the delegate count gets the super-delegates (or some other representational system).
  2.  Barring a catastrophe on Obama's part, Hillary cannot win the delegate count unless she does some funny business that violates the rules or the will of the people.
  3.  I was a mild Obama supporter, but Hillary's repeat attempts at tearing Obama down by bolstering McCain have crossed the line.  I have gone from mild to strong support of Obama.  Hillary be damned.  
4a)One does not fight dirty against family.  Hillary has.
4b)One does not bolster the current Republican opponent.  Hillary has.  They will be playing snippets of her comments in the general.  DISGUSTING!

I've written my representative super-delegates asking them to respect the will of the people of their state (WA) and support Obama.  I plan on donating to Obama and volunteering when I can.

I feel strongly about the party, and when idiots such as Hillary and Lieberman start hurting the party for self-glorification, I draw the line!

by Timetheos 2008-03-07 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts, Data, and Disgust

"The name of the game is delegates.  Much like the electoral college, it sucks, but were stuck with it until it is changed."

I'm calling BS on this.  Obama supporters love to compare delegates to electoral vote/college.

They are nothing alike.  The electoral vote/college is not proportional.  In a general election will get precisely NOTHING out of those deep red states he is using to attempt to win the nomination.  And he will get nothing for 45% of the vote he will pull in PA,FL,OH during a general election against McCain.

by bdog 2008-03-07 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Facts, Data, and Disgust

They are something alike in that they do not always reflect the direct will of the people.  Just as one can possibly win the popular and lose the electoral, one can win a caucus and yet not be popular in a state.

No BS, just facts and data.

by Timetheos 2008-03-08 07:51AM | 0 recs

obama is crashing the gates AND he has money; YOUR girl is going down, JEROME

by jjgtrs 2008-03-07 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: PA will be a surprise upset

You have never been to Pittsburgh have you? Obama wont stomp anyone - especially not in Philly or in PA. At least do a little research to educate yourself. I've lived in both Pittsburgh and Philly. I lived minutes away from the University of Pittsburgh, That IS Clinton Country.

by bsavage 2008-03-07 08:53PM | 0 recs
Double Standard With Lapsed Republicans

Why is it that Clinton's Hispanic voters who were Republicans the last round in Texas are good voters to attract, while the "Reagan democrats" Obama is said to attract are not?

by AdrianLesher 2008-03-07 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Jerome, I find your post to be insightful if misguided... I agree with you that the Texas Caucuses (and in fact Caucuses in general) are a relatively undemocratic way of choosing the nominee.

However, Obama did not make the rules and it seems unreasonable to bash him for playing the game as it was laid out. I do believe that we should look into all of these things and make huge changes before 2012.

But bashing Obama's campaign for developing a strategy that took advantage of the rules as they were written makes no sense to me. First of all, it only makes sense if they had something to do with making the rules; it does not seem to me that they did. Secondly, it assumes that they would not have developed a different winning strategy if the rules were different and quite frankly considering Obama's intelligence and the intelligence of his campaign staff I find that to be a difficult assumption to buy into.

by JDF 2008-03-07 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I have several Republican friends and relatives who will genuinely vote for Obama, primarily because the hate McCain, they hate Hillary, and the see the economic train wreck we are headed towards.

They are not trying to game the primary; they like Bo best.

Hillary is divisive.  If she wins the Dem nomination, we will lose these voters, guaranteed.

by Timetheos 2008-03-07 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

>>>> ...we will lose these voters, guaranteed.

No matter who the candidate is, we will lose some voters.  Don't fool yourself.  

Obama will do very well in some states.  But his appeal in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey scares me very much.   Taking, say, Colorado in return is small comfort.

by InigoMontoya 2008-03-07 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yeah republicans are good at hating.  Hate hate hate, and that makes Obama great because?  Oh they haven't yet found a reason to hate him, but they will, they will ..... if you base your vote on hate, then go ahead and do it, no one can stop them.  Who do they hate more and why? Surely we can't select a nominee based on this?  Oh some republicans hate Hillary so therefore we have to have a person who is not qualified, but is not hated.  Yeah that works in the GE.  Really?  We can find reasons to hate whenever we want to, just like the Hillary bashers, they find any reason at all, its not Obama they love, its that they hate Hillary.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 03:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I don't think that the Republican hatred of Hillary is rational (for example, I was listening to my step-mom rant about Vince Foster, and no matter how I tried to correct her, she kept spouting).

My hatred of Hillary is fairly recent, and because of her actions in building up McCain.  Her vitriol is going to be spouted in Republican commercial from now until November, and maybe even after that.  You don't build up the current opposition to hurt someone in our party.

I just want to see a fairly reliable Dem in the Whitehouse.  If more people will vote for Bo instead of Hrc, I don't really care if it's because they hate Hrc.  It's sad, but what are we going to do?  

Now, in terms of Bo losing votes.  That is true, but very minimal.  The Republicans I know that will not vote for Bo because of race will not vote for Hillary anyways.  I don't know any racists Democrats.

Even though I can't stand Hrc right now, I'll still vote for her if she gets the general, just as I expect every Hrc supporter to vote for Bo.  The is too much at stake for the Supreme Court and related matters.

by Timetheos 2008-03-08 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

"I don't pretend to know how we get from "the math" to the final outcome, but I do I believe that the contest has made a dramatic turn, and it points in the direction of Clinton winning the nomination."

It's official: Clinton supporters are the new faith-based community. Math-shmath!

by leshrac55 2008-03-07 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Didn't have anything else to do this A.M. so read all this and have come to the conclusion that Hillary supporters will probably not vote for Obama, and Obama supporters will not vote for Clinton.  Seems to me the "party" everyone keeps taking about is already torn apart, not by Clinton or Obama but by the supporters who keep lamenting that the other guy is awful, etc.etc.etc.

Seems that Obama supporters have to tear Hillary down to feel that Obama is up, and Clinton supporters find Obama unacceptable and the Hillary bashing to be over the line.

When you actually look at the demographics, Obama's support comes from kids, not a very strong voting block, latte types, who don't have as much to worry about because unlike the rest of the democrats they do have health insurance, jobs, and are much better off generally, and the "progressive" who wants to change the system and thinks Obama is that change agent, which is debatable but they think so, and those who hated Clinton for whatever perceived reasons they can come up with, and the AA community who supports Obama because he is the same skin color.

Hillary supporters are older democrats who have been around and know what faces this country at this time, poorer people who actually do need health insurance, are losing their homes, or jobs, women who have more struggles than men ever give them credit for, and those who recognize the foreign policy deficit of Obama, and Latinos, who are the group that is expanding in this country by leap and bounds, whereas the black community is contracting, for various reasons that don't need to be discussed here.

It would be hard for either candidate to appeal to the other candidate's supporters in the best of circumstances but with the basically equal split, even with the math contortions people talk about this race is evenly divided, not withstanding claims by both sides that their candidate is winning.  It seems to me that neither candidate is actually winning but both have strong suits, and downsides.

What can be made of this?  If the Obama supporters keep trashing Hillary as vehemently as they do, and the Hillary supporters find the Obama supporters to be trollish, which they seem to be given any opportunity, how can this "party" come together?  Well it can't and it never did.  In the long history of parties, the groups of voters supporting either democrats or republicans have always had these divisions.  But can we assume that voters from one voting subgroup could vote for the other guy or visa versa?  No there can be no assumption based on past as prologue.  That is where the term Reagan democrats comes from.  

So, what determines the GE race?  Is it party affiliation that is the general measure?  No.  Is it personality?  No but sometimes a great personality like Reagan can overcome the policy decisions of a voter, however, when time are tough  in the country, as now, people vote based on two, count them, only two issues.  People vote their pocket books, and they vote on security.  These are the two overriding issues that determine who will be the President.  Most people don't really care about all this other stuff.  I know its great to argue about, but these people who vote, don't have cable, can't afford it, or if they do, they watch something other than politics, sorry to burst anyones bubble, but most people don't care all that much about politics until it affects their own pocketbooks, then they pay attention.  When time are basically O.K. in peoples lives, they vote on marginal issues like values, gay marriage or abortion have driven voters in the past, or during times of war they vote for the person who can keep them safe, or who can make them feel safe, which is a different thing than actually being safe.   Voters aren't driven to vote because they just love the person as much as those who are so fired up and ready to go in the Obama camp, and don't vote for someone in the general election just because they are inspired.  Inspiration is fine, but not if you are worried about your own economic situation or if you feel insecure.  The AA community is voting in a block for Obama for one reason, because they see a pride of race in his candidacy.  Voters in the Latino community see danger in his candidacy for their community and won't vote for him for the same reason.  They see what is happening and much of Hillary's support there is based on their not wanting Obama.  If Obama is the GE candidate, they may well vote for McCain.  This is just a fact.  It could also be true that if HC is the nominee, AAs will either vote for McCain out of some feeling that he "deserved" it, which he of course does not "deserve" the nomination just because they vote in mass for him, or they could see their own economic situation and vote for her.  Who knows until we actually have a nominee?  But to threaten the party with the better support Obama or the AAs will riot seems to be a thin reason to me.  Where do those voters go if its HC or MC?  Maybe they just don't vote, but then they get MC, so what do they do then?  The Latinos could actually vote for Mc before Obama, and that would not be surprising at all.

When you dispassionately look at Obama and Clinton and think about what they bring to the table on the two most important issues, economy and security, the problem with the Obama support is that even though it is passionate it is not wide.  It is deeply felt by those who support him, but he is weak in the real issues department.  He is not a known element and people who are worried cannot get past that worry to support inspiration.  He also has not demonstrated any foreign policy experience and even if Hillary were not pointing that out, the voters already know that.  No amount or ranting or raving can erase that deficit of the candidate because he has not invested the time and trouble to acquire that knowledge.  In short, his qualifications are not strong.  So there must be a reason to vote for him besides his qualifications.  When people are worried or hurting they want someone who will take on the responsibility of helping them, however so far Obama does not make people feel that he will help them.  He inspires them but help them?  Yes he talks about hope and change, but how to get there?  Whereas Hillary seems to be the safer bet.  The reason is pretty clear.  During the Clinton administration household incomes went up.  That sums it pretty well, people think she will be able to get our broken economy back on track like Bill did then.  Whether that is so, people feel like it is, this is why her support is so wide, as in winning the big democratic strongholds.  They see her as helping them get ahead, get health care etc.etc.etc.  Then there is the national security issue.  I know that Obama is a wild card here.  His positions are out of the mainstream of the country in this regard and will be exploited by republicans if he is the nominee.  It can be no surprise to those who just hate the Iraq war that we are already in Iraq.  Not as supposition but as fact.  So the argument often made about the vote in 2002 is pointless on its face.  Clinton didn't take us into Iraq, GWB did.  I realize the O supporters are just livid about her vote, but frankly its a moot issue, we are there.  Her vote one way or the other wouldn't have even mattered in the least.  The reason it does matter is because in the GE unlike the primary, people don't want a pacifist.  People want someone who is strong on national security, not a wimp.  Even though some are mad about her vote, it does stand up well for the GE.  If she had voted against, she would be no good for the GE, thank your stars Obama didn't have to vote because just his position on this issue is a loser for the fall when the rest of the country and not just the left wing get a say on who will be president.  Obama's position on the war is fairly unacceptable to a vast right and middle of our country even if you don't agree, no one who is a weakling will ever be president.  No one who basically says America is wrong will ever be president.  So if we have Obama as the nominee, you can figure that even with the support he has now, he will lose the GE.  There is just no way around that.  He will have to modify his position to even stand a chance.  As stated above, strong and wrong beats weak and right every time.  I know this country having seen many elections and I can tell you that Obama doesn't stand a chance in the GE.  And not because of all these trash talking excuses either.  Because of his experience and his positions.  Clinton might win, but Obama will lose.  That is unfortunate because we need a democrat in the WH and his supporter just demand that it be him, but it won't be.  This country is not so far left and won't vote for someone without at least some experience which Obama does not have.  In the GE the age of the voter is 40+ not youth but the older voters are the people who elect a President.  They want experience and all the side show is just that a side show.  Keeps you busy but doesn't put food on the table, get you insurance, help you keep your home, or stop an unjust war.  You may not like HC but she is really the stronger candidate for the GE.  Obama needs more on his resume especially at this time of trouble. He could never get elected to the Oval Office.  Just saying.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 02:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I love that I have been reduced to my coffee preference as a demographic. So what if I happen to think that Dunkin Donuts coffee sucks? I DO like lattes, and believe that if most people tried them, they would be hard pressed not to become addicted. But seriously, this means I have less of a stake in the election and my vote is only an intellectual exercise because I have health insurance?

Listen to me, here: I am a teacher, and I have been listening carefully to Obama's positions and priorities, which is why I think he'll be a better President than Clinton or certainly McCain. When is a candidate, besides Obama, going to understand that our terrible schools, record dropout rates, and failings with our children are a MUCH bigger threat than that stupid phone ringing at 3 a.m.?

This election has taken more twists and turns than anything I have ever seen. Obama wasn't even supposed to BE here...Clinton had it all sewn up, remember? Don't count your chickens..or delegates...

by magnoliagirl 2008-03-08 03:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

If I may summarize, "We really need to stop tearing each other down.  Also, Obama sucks.  Just sayin'."

by jere7my 2008-03-08 08:38AM | 0 recs
Why would anyone TROLL rate or hide that?

Universal's comment doesn't even come close to deserving those ratings.

by diplomatic 2008-03-08 03:35AM | 0 recs
Jerome, The Even-Handed


Can we finally, just stipulate that any argument in this election that claims that the state's (or voters) that by candidate won are the ones that "really" matter, and the state's/votes won by my opponent "matter less" is nothing more than an argument based on complete horseshit?

Democrats vote for democrats, Republicans vote for Republicans.  Independents swing both ways.

Both Hillary and Obama can win, as long as the nomination contest doesn't tear the party apart.

Arguements like this feed the fire of dividing the party, they don't help.  And same goes for the Obama side as well.

Please stop, Jerome.  You used to be better than this.

by Grady 2008-03-08 03:35AM | 0 recs
Hillary wont win an extended campaign

Her victories have come when time is short.  Because of the time involved Obama will win the rest.

Regardless even if he didn't he would still probably have the popular vote and the delegate lead.  

The ends justifies the means is a possible philosophy to get your candidate elected.  

It just isn't as good as being good in both the means and the end.

by TerraFF 2008-03-08 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere


I have been one of thos "fighting dems" probably since before you were born.  The tone of your statement is disheartening to say the least.  I supported RFK, I supported Fred Harris, I supported Jesse Jackon, in primaries.  I always campaigned for and happily voted for the winning Democrat and NEVER mocked the party's choice.

Howard Dean was, until he caught on with net people, a middle-of-the-road governor, not at all the people's radical that you folks make him out to be.  He said some good things but his politics were more of less average.  I never was sure what the attraction was, or, for that matter, why you folks think this was the start of some sort of movement.  The same with Hillary Clinton; she is a classic old-style politician.  I think the fact that she is a woman obscures this.  

Your smug refusal to acknowledge any benefits from Obama's candidacy (well maybe a few independents more but so what, we Democrats don't like "outsiders" in our party, right?) puts you in the category of the old guard in any party who don't like the idea of any force coming along that they do not actually understand and cannot control.  

I think Hillary will be the candidate.  I think she will lose (I will vote for her but reluctantly after all this, and with real ambivilence as to whether I trust her as president, I hated the original Clinton administration and do not feel ready for part II).  I hope, maybe then, this little club we thnk of as our Democratic party, will finally become what it was before the fifties, McCarthy, the death of any real populism, made it puny and weak, and scared of its own shadow.

by mady 2008-03-08 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Obviously you don't need people like me in the blog or in your party.  I don't "get it" I guess.  Just an old radical with bad ideas.

by mady 2008-03-08 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Yes - I agree with Jerome's analysis.

Obama has been more successful in process, assisted by the undemocratic caucuses, but Hillary is ready on Day One.
With the exception of his health care plan, Obama released policy positions AFTER Edwards and Hillary - and sometimes copied them word for word.

by annefrank 2008-03-08 04:06AM | 0 recs
by annefrank 2008-03-08 04:08AM | 0 recs
Hi, I'm just here to beat my dead horse

2004 exit polls were crap. Latinos were not just 24% of the 2004 Dem primary. The 2008 exit polls put Latino share at about the same level as the 2004 actual. 2008 exit polls put African-American share up about 50% from 2004 actual. I can't say for sure whether the 2008 exit polls are good or bad yet, but they are pretty close to my model.

Latinos scaled up in proportion with the overall increase in turnout. African-Americans scaled up, plus took share away from the white vote. White Kerry voters lost considerable share overall, but white Bush voters crossed over for both candidates.

General elections are where the Texas Latino vote tends to underperform and/or cross over.

by IVR Polls 2008-03-08 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

How could anyone who came of political age in the middle of the Dean frenzy profess to still be "amazed" at the contortions people are willing to make to support their belief in a candidate?

by Kagro X 2008-03-08 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere
What has been the rallying cry of the left blogosphere since the temndous failure of the Reid-Pelosi Congress destroyed the uphoria of 06 - "Better Democrats". But here we have Obama and his irrational exuberance followers sucking in republicans. Could someone please square that circle or are Bowers, Stoller, kos, Marshall et al just plain ole full of sh*t.
by gak 2008-03-08 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

Not an Obama-maniac by any means, but as philosophy major (with a focus in logic and analytical thought), and a lawyer, I really detest sloppy thinking.  So Jerome writes:

"I don't deny that it will be close with Clinton, or that she doesn't have coattails in red state areas,"

How can someone who has been consistently about creating working majority in Congress, one who has passionately and repeatedly championed NetRoots, who has complained long and hard about how the Republicans can use gridlock to stop real progressive politics from springing into action, so casually toss aside the central argument for the Obama candidacy?  That is, if he wins, he wins with a new coalition, and brings with him (those "coattails" you see) a significant number of Democrats with him into office, ones that won't win with Hillary.  Hillary might win (at all costs), and sure we can "trust" in her Terminator-style bowing to none.  But how can Jerome who really calls himself a progressive, who says he cares about the "big picture" here just care about there being a sure thing?  Sad. Sad. Sad.

by denis diderot 2008-03-08 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Follies in the blogosphere

I guess you all failed math in school.  I was not good at it either but at least I an add (with the aid of a calculator). If you look at Hillary's "win" you will see that she only picked up a handful of delegates, and even that was mostly negated when the final delegate counts came in from California. Even this represented a 10 to 15 point drop from where she had been two weeks out.  

The only way for her to have a prayer of winning the nomination is to game the system by getting the FL and MI votes to count somehow and winning big in PA plus picking up WV and KY.  Even with all of that, she would still go into the convention with fewer delegates from primaries leaving the only option to lean on her old cronies among the Supers.  This will be perceived by the Obama camp as a theft of the election by inside baseball and they will walk out in mass into the streets of Denver. Moveover, all of the more marginal voters who had been energized by Obama's campaign will have had their cynicism confirmed and will drop out of politics, possibly for a lifetime. The hope of a realignment of American politics will be gone.  

Does she really want to do this?  

by MikeWalk 2008-03-08 06:00AM | 0 recs
You all are beginning to annoy me

Classic head-in-sand comment by an Obamaton. Seriously, do they issue borg implants at those rallies, or what? Couple salient points:

1. "All those marginal voters who have been energized by Obama's campaign" are mostly mythical. Democratic turnout this year has been driven easily as much by enthusiasm for Clinton as for Obama (and significantly by disappointment with the Republican candidates). Witness the fact that Clinton has won most of the highest turnout states, and in the states where there have been low turnout caucuses and high turnout primaries simultaneously (WA and TX), Clinton has done better in the primaries. Clinton supporters recognize that Obama has instilled enthusiasm in his people. Obama supporters seem incapable (or are just too elitist and arrogant) to admit the opposite. Just because you don't KNOW any Latinos, older women, or Catholic working class families (precisely the classic "swing voters" in American politics, btw) doesn't mean they don't exist.

2. So figuring out a way for Florida and Michigan to count is "gaming the system"? Huh. But winning the nomination based on pledged delegates while receiving fewer votes than your opponent isn't? I repeat: Huh?

3. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has won big ONLY in those states where he has outspent Clinton more than 3:1 (Wisconsin, his most impressive win, was 5:1). In politics, a 3:1 money advantage is normally virtually insurmountable. Yet, Clinton is still in it. She won OH and TX despite being deluged in Obama cash. Do I need to point out that neither Obama nor McCain will have a money advantage this Fall?

4. Clinton's path to the nomination is quite simple. Wake up after the last primary (likely the FL/MI redo) with a substantial lead in the popular vote and a deficit among delegates or around 50 or  so (1%). There are 350 unpledged super delegates and another 30 or so Edwards delegates up for grabs. Get Edwards' endorsement, and then make the argument to the super d's:

"The 'will of the people' says I'm the nominee, since I got more votes. Moreover, Obama's lead in delegates is mostly earned in states neither he nor I can win, and he's got a huge problem in states we absolutely need, like NJ, OH, and PA. He's made a series of beginner mistakes since he became the frontrunner, and maintains his lead only because he ran off a series of states when he had a 5:1 money advantage, which he won't have in the Fall. He would be backing into the nomination. I've got the mojo and the buzz. It doesn't matter how you start; it's how you end."

Pretty strong argument. This thing isn't close to over.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-08 06:40AM | 0 recs
Hillary the next FDR

First off, Hillary was absolutely right in her  'threshold' comment.  I thought we chose our presidents based on what they have done? There is no dam way I am going to vote for a guy who has done nothing in his political career.  There's an old saying, 'failure is the greatest teacher' and it would behoove us to remember that she failed in one of the biggest endeavors in arguably this nation's history, nationalize healthcare, better known as 'Hillarycare'.  And if I saw nothing else in her after her near miss in NH, it was that she knows how to learn from mistakes, she takes them to heart, and she hears what we're telling her.  I'm not enamoured of her, though she is earning more of my respect each day, but from what I see at this point, she will not fail at health care the next time she takes it on!

I can claim to have voted for Ted Kennedy in every election he's been in except the first in 1962 (I was eighteen but the minimum age at that time was 21).  What I think caught the voters of this state when Kennedy made his famous endorsement was how incongruous it was that a self-described agent of change would accept an earth shattering endorsement from a guy who's been in the Senate since 1962!   We have a very high bullshit threshold (speaking of thresholds), and I get the same impression of Mr Obama as Jerome, Obama is  just trying to see how much he can 'pull off'.  It's similar to the Bushies whole bully thing, let's see how many people, states, countries we can intimidate.  Or more appropriately, like an auto salesman, let's see how many we can sell today!

After New Hampshire, and what Hillary learned, I could see her being a good president.  If we (the people) require it of her, she will be a female FDR.  I think her heart is ready for that, but we have to be the vanguard.  And for those who say she hasn't paid for what she wants, I would say there is probably few in the history of our nation who have paid more 'dues' than her and her husband, and more her than him!  And if you don't remember, then I have a bibliography for you that's as long as my arm.

by Andre 2008-03-08 06:25AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads