Post-Election Thread

The other threads are pretty full. Consider this an all-purpose post-election thread.

Update [2008-5-14 0:19:11 by Todd Beeton]:Poblano had this to say about Hillary Clinton's speech tonight:

In its polite, if somewhat perfunctory tone as well as in its substance, this really really sounds like a speech made by a woman with her eyes on the Vice Presidency.

I have to say I agree but I actually thought she was far more obvious about it during last week's Indiana speech in which she used the pronoun "we" talking about the fall election as almost a subliminal nudge to Barack Obama. On that subject, Larry King just said that Carl Bernstein had indicated on Anderson Cooper's show that she "seriously wants the Vice Presidency." Lanny Davis's response is that "she is focused on winning the presidency, she's not even considering such a possibility, and she loves being US Senator in Robert Kennedy's senate seat. That's my direct knowledge."

If nothing else, though, the message the Clinton camp seems to be spinning out of tonight's results feels an awful lot like "Senator Obama, you need Senator Clinton." Certainly the media is picking up on the Obama's weaknesses narrative and they'll do so again next Tuesday after we have a replay of tonight in Kentucky. Let's just say I think the chances of an Obama/Clinton ticket just got a little better after tonight.

Update [2008-5-14 0:42:51 by Todd Beeton]:TPM has the NRCC press release wherein Tom Cole doesn't even try spinning the loss in MS-01 (h/t Swing State Project):

"We are disappointed in tonight's election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.

Tags: Open Thread (all tags)



Woooo Hoooo HILLARY!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-13 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Woooo Hoooo HILLARY!
by alegre 2008-05-13 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Woooo Hoooo HILLARY!

to my fellow Clinton supporters-keep that faith, keep your courage, stick together, stay strong, do not yield, stand up, WE SUPPORT CLINTON AND WE'LL NEVER SURRENDER!

by DiamondJay 2008-05-13 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Woooo Hoooo HILLARY!

Congratulations on your win. Really, I mean that without reservation.

See you in Kentucky and Oregon.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Woooo Hoooo HILLARY!

... or until she accepts the VP nomination ... =)

by stryan 2008-05-13 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Woooo Hoooo HILLARY!

I don't care what you or Todd says, I want Clinton to win the presidency. Period. After all the hours of defending her in the blogs, of volunteer work, of donating dollars, of going to rallies, we are in to win.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-13 08:57PM | 0 recs
I get teary at the 88 year old lady

who wanted to vote for a woman for president before she died, which given that she's in a hospice, will be soon....and poblano, obviously a man, thinks her speech is perfunctory and polite.

That just shows you the gap and the total lack of understanding or respect too many on that side have for the dreams, aspirations and motivations of woman and others who support her.

His comment was an insult made out of thoughtlessness and lack of empathy for those not like him, a trait that his candidate shares.

by debcoop 2008-05-13 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I get teary at the 88 year old lady

Pointing out that Clinton is trying to make the most out of her likely second-place finish has nothing to do with belittling the history of gender inequality in this country, nor is it an insult to the symbolic power of the first viable female presidential candidate.

For all the reasons I don't think Clinton should be the nominee, I'm happy to acknowledge that her candidacy has done a lot for breaking down the invisible barriers keeping women from positions of power. Her campaign has also revealed a great deal of disgusting misogyny in our press corps (specifically in Chris Matthews), and the fight against that quiet bigotry will go on long after the Clinton campaign ends.

But to accuse Poblano of sexism or thoughtlessness here doesn't make a great deal of sense. He's right - Clinton's being much more polite in less confrontational in this speech than in previous ones. She appears to be trying to curry favor with Obama rather than defeat him.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-13 08:53PM | 0 recs

She's trying to get the Party "elders" to STFU and let the election play out.  I do think it takes a certain amount of sexism to believe her speech was conceding victory to Obama.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Bwahahahahaha

Clinton's desire to let the election play out is a new. When she was the frontrunner, she was content to ignore all the voters after February 5th: sQ

Of course, the reason she was content with this was that she believed that the winner (her) would be clear by then, and the rest of the candidates would bow out gracefully. had this happened, I fully expect that Obama would have left the race with as much poise and respect as the other six candidates.

Lastly - Clinton's lack of attacks and repeated proclamations that she'll work for the nominee did seem to indicate an understanding that she's not likely to win. That's not sexism - that's probability, political science, and mathematics.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-13 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Bwahahahahaha

Then get ready for President McCain.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Bwahahahahaha

The markets say that Obama has a 55-60% chance of beating McCain, and the polls give him an advantage. I expect these odds to rise as disappointed Clinton supporters begin to realize that Obama is not the antichrist and Obama's nationwide voter registration efforts begin to kick in.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-14 02:38AM | 0 recs
oh brother

"His comment was an insult made out of thoughtlessness and lack of empathy for those not like him, a trait that his candidate shares."

Hillary openly dismisses anyone who doesn't vote for her.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-13 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: oh brother

Oh brother indeed. You live in fantasyland.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: oh brother

The Clinton campaign called by state insignificant, and I'm still kind of pissed about it. I know it' not nearly as important as any substantive issue, but it's irritating nonetheless.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-13 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

NE: President - Democrat  
  Hillary Clinton (D) 39,415 50%

 Barack Obama (D) 39,259 50%

Obama the presumptive nominee won this states caucus in a landslide and is now only able to make it a tie tonight

by rossinatl 2008-05-13 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

In a beauty contest?  Well, if you are going to bring that out, I should bring out the CA polling that says that Obama would win in a landslide against Hillary if the contest were held over again.

by LordMike 2008-05-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Cool! So can we call my state, Indiana, a tie, too?

by zep93 2008-05-14 04:46AM | 0 recs
Breaking: Obama still nominee,

maintains 100+ delegate lead!

by Firewall 2008-05-13 07:53PM | 0 recs
Talk About Premature...

... ahh hell never mind.

by alegre 2008-05-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Reality Rap

I guess the polls  (ARG) got it right.  Obama has a lot of work to do in terms of the electoral map.  Chuck Todd along with Russert were claiming that Obama's camp are expecting to make North Carolina along with a few other Southern States like Georgia battleground territories.  Honestly, I think that's wishful thinking and also a inner-circle concern that McCain will make Penn, and Ohio competitive and possibly win them.  This fall election is going be very intriguing and can either result in a complete landslide victory or a Dukakis like defeat.

by nzubechukwu 2008-05-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Reality Rap

Ohio is a red state - if it's competitive, that's a good thing.

You need the Gore states, plus about 9 more.  Ohio and Florida each have about 25 a piece - in the past, Democratic candidates have aimed at those two because they were the easiest to win, not because the needed them.  Flip Colorado and you don't need Ohio.  Same goes for Virginia, which, like Ohio and Florida, is another electoral sledgehammer.

by Jordache 2008-05-13 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Clinton 66.7
Obama 26.2

Wow. Just Wow.

Obama was crowned last week and he still suffers a loss like this. Amazing.

I guess crossing our fingers for Colorado and Missouri is what we are left to gamble on with Obama.


by GregNYC 2008-05-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

The turnout did not yield much of a popular vote margin - not that popular vote matters.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-13 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Actually, the 135,000+ is quite a yield in a state that size and for most states (excepting the big ones that she has already won.)

by christinep 2008-05-13 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

People who know that Obama will win in 3 of the 4 States remaining and probably with impressive margins aren't amazed at all.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-13 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

There are 5 more contests and I would be pleased to bet you that Hillary wins the majority of the delegates and popular vote in the aggregate of those five contests (KY, OR, PR, SD, MT).

by markjay 2008-05-13 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Obama offers a different set of competitive states, while contesting many of the 90's battlegrounds.

Colorado, yes. Virginia. North Carolina at a stretch. Even Texas, with a little effort. He's stronger in Michigan than Clinton, and is favored over McCain in Pennsylvania. Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada all favor Obama over McCain, but McCain over Clinton.

Clinton does perform better in Ohio and Florida, but at the expense of much of the west and midwest.

I prefer the Obama approach because it expands the playing field, giving us better opportunities to flex our financial and enthusiasm advantage over the Republicans, while providing more coattails for downticket races. It also grows our party where we have the most potential: the west and midwest.

This is not to say that Clinton's would-be path is a bad one; Like Obama, she would probably win, but she would do it the same way Bill did - in a way that left other Democrats out in the cold and left us with a spineless shell of a party after the Clintons left office.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

but she would do it the same way Bill did

Bill won a lot more EVs than Obama will...

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

This is probably true - unless the libertarian candidate of 2008 is as effective as Perot was in 1992 in tipping a few crucial states.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-13 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Ohio and Florida. Winning those two states (and ensuring that we keep Pennsylvania)more than compensate in electoral votes for all that could even be wished for in the interior/mountain West. The problem with a Western Strategy as a centerpoint this year is McCain's strength there (or, as a Coloradan, I should say here.) The demographic that will matter in the Southwest will also revolve around Latinos. As for counting on Virginia or Georgia or North Carolina...maybe one if we are really lucky. I think that Wisconsin will be problematic in any event looking at the past few seasons. And as another gainer for Clinton: West Virginia is quite possible and Arkansas is quite probable.  In many ways, the key may be Ohio--as I started off with--and the similar demographics.

by christinep 2008-05-13 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

I think either candidate wins Pennsylvania without too much trouble. Ohio is a toss-up for Obama right now, but I expect him to improve. Florida is going to be hard for Obama, no doubt. Michigan favors Obama over McCain over Clinton.

I think this is one of the differences between Clinton and Obama: Clinton's big-state map puts all of her eggs in a few baskets. Lose one of the big three, and it's over. Obama's approach makes victory possible with two of the big four, and guarantees victory with three of the big four.

In any event, we'll have a chance to put all of our theories to test in just a few months. Let's hope you're wrong about your analysis, for all our sakes.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-13 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

She will win MI.  She'll even be competitive in TX.  Obama peaked in February.  That ship has sailed.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

You're passionate about your candidate, and that's great. But attacking Obama as a losing politician is not very effective right now. He's up in delegates (pledged and super, even counting the illegitimate contests), popular vote (unless you count the illegitimate contests AND ignore the caucuses AND ignore the fact that popular vote means nothing when summing over 60 disparate contests), polls, and is currently doing better against McCain according to everyone except the mysteriously unsourced mydd electoral vote tracker.

Criticize policies, make substantive points, but don't argue something that's blatantly disprovable with readily available information. It does not help.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-13 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

As goes West Virginia, so goes the nation.

by Brannon 2008-05-13 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

As goes West Virginia, so goes the nation

You mean, down the toilet economically, embracing racism and guns while doing so?

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Just because your candidate doesn't do well in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Tennessee does not mean that the people in those populous states are racists. Thats insulting.

by christinep 2008-05-13 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

My candidate is the Democratic party nominee.

Do not assume I like either candidate especially much.  

Clinton is a liar and old school politics

Obama and his supporter are a cult, Obama is way inexperienced and his attitude/smugness are very off-putting.

But I am a Democrat.  So I will support one of the two.  Hopefully both on the same ticket, since so many seem to like the two, for reasons I've never understood.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

I live in Georgia and if Obama thinks he is going to win this state, the state of Sonny! Zell! and Saxby! he is dreaming. GA will be McCain country come November even if every African American in the state registers to vote and shows up. Hillary wouldn't have a prayer here either. Atlanta is the only bastion of sanity in this state

by rossinatl 2008-05-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

As a fellow resident of GA, I completely disagree. GA is probably behind a long list of states Obama will make competitive, but GA is certainly not McCain country.

First of all, Georgia not only has a large black population but also a more youthful population. A large increase in turnout in both of these groups, Obama's strongest, will put a big dent in the margin. Additionally, McCain is not well liked here. Huckabee, sure, but the conservatives here are some of the more likely to stay home.

Also, if you look at the primary map, Obama did very well in central and south Georgia. Unlike in states like MO and MS, where Obama performed badly in rural areas but made up for it in the urban centers, Obama actually has support in rural areas outside of the North Georgia Appalachian area.

Throw in a bit of support going to Barr, and you may have a single digit margin.

Now, I think its pretty unlikely that Obama takes Georgia unless he manages to win the nationwide popular vote  by like 10 points (thus a landslide of sorts), but there's no reason to count it out completely.

And if Obama can narrow Kerry's margin in GA, I have no doubt he can win in places like North and South Carolina.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-13 08:38PM | 0 recs
But we Democrats are an endangered species here

I go to vote - and outside of my husband - I'm the only Democrat in line.  I'm also the only progressive I know (me and the hubby, that is).  It's really depressing.  You try having substantive conversations with neighbors who drive around with gun racks and confederate flags!  One woman wouldn't let her teenaged son come do summer yard work because I offered to let the poor kid read Harry Potter.  Talk about isolation!

I would hope whoever the nominee is will do well here - but I don't think that will be the case - Hillary or Obama.  My husband hears nothing but racism and misogyny at work.  They would vote McCain if he quacked like a duck and wore lampshades to bed!  No one is planning to vote Democratic - no one.  Now - Barr's entrance in the race may indeed siphon off some of the McCain vote - but Georgia's a red state, and damn proud of it, mores' the pity.  Pigs will fly before Georgia votes Democratic in a general election.  

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-13 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: But we Democrats are an endangered species her

I'm not doubting your story, but mccain can't win GA with just voters in rural towns. There are many rural parts of Georgia that do have a lot of Dems, just look at the primary results, and compare them with old GE results. Its not enough to win, but there are at least some Dems all over the state. And most of the population is centered around Atlanta. When Bush won, he was strong in the suburbs as well.

Georgia is dark red in some places, but blue where a lot of the people are. That's why you wont see 20 or 30 point margins here.

In the places like the ones you talk about, there just arnt that many people.

Like I said, its highly improbable that Obama could win GA, but not impossible.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-13 10:40PM | 0 recs
Again - I do hope you're right -

Whoever's the nominee.  And I do live in cow country (about 70 miles north of Atlanta) - but my husband works in one of Atlanta's satellite cities - for a big corporation.  We moved here from Chicago (work related).  Now - we had both lived in the south previously (me in Texas, my husband here in Georgia, the both of us in North Carolina).  We ran into racism - no doubt about that - and sexism.  20 years ago in North Carolina I was refused work entirely due to gender.  A friend of mine was refused service at a Greensboro restaurant because she was black.  People were quite up front about it too.  I had hoped all that might change.  10 years running a theater in Chicago and operating solely within the artistic community was quite insulating.  But nothing's really changed.  We hear shit every day that just blows our minds.

So perhaps there are strong Democratic ties here in Georgia.  I don't dispute that.  I'm just saying those ties might be more apparent if Edwards were the candidate apparent.  None of the people we live near or work with are interested in voting for an African American or a woman.  It's upsetting, it pisses me off - but that's what I'm hearing.  No one would be more happily surprised if either Clinton or Obama came close to carrying this state in the general election.  

So let's hope those Democratic ties you refer to go deeper than people's surface prejudice.

by The Fat Lady Sings 2008-05-14 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Again - I do hope you're right -

North Georgia, though, is where Appalachia is. Obama will no doubt get destroyed by huge margins in the north, but the rural counties south of Atlanta are different, and will bring closer margins. Kerry actually won quite a few counties far outside of Atlanta and kept it close in even more.

Obama running up the score in Atlanta and other more Dem areas of the state could yield some surprising results.

by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-14 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

GA is safe Republican.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:41PM | 0 recs
what an awesome landslide

not just in some caucus state we'll never win like Idaho, Wyoming and Utah, but a state that no Dem except in 1916 has been able to win the White House without

by DiamondJay 2008-05-13 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: what an awesome landslide

No Dem has ever won without winning Missouri even before the WV trend.

The whole WV thing is also silly because it goes so late in the season usually everyone has dropped out except for the presumptive nominee. So of course that person wins the primary.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
there is no presumptive nominee

King Hussein hasn't been crowned yet. He is not the nominee till 2209.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: there is no presumptive nominee

As one Clinton supporter to another, please don't do the name calling thing. I for one hate the whole "Queen Hillary" nonsense, so why promote that kind of sophomoric stuff. We are Democrats; lets deal in ideas and logic, and leave the sophistry and name calling to the wing-nuts.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-13 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: what an awesome landslide

I think that "since 1916" thing means the General election, not the primary. Historically, WV has been a fairly Dem tilted state, so if you lose WV as a Dem, you are most likely losing a bunch of other places too.

Likewise, the bellweather for Republicans is Ohio. If they don't carry Ohio, it is most likely because they are losing in a bunch of other states they should win.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-13 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: what an awesome landslide
No African American or woman has ever won the nomination of the Democratic Primary...All this "no one has never won the GE without..." is bullshit.  We are witnessing a historical moment/change in terms of politics...a sign of the times if you will.
Everything will change after this General Election...everything.
by hootie4170 2008-05-13 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: what an awesome landslide

No Democrat has won the White House since 1912 without winning Minnesota.

Two can play this game, friend.  Get over it.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-13 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: what an awesome landslide

but no Democrat is going to actually LOSE it. Hillary will never lose that state. get it in your head.

by DiamondJay 2008-05-14 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Congratulations to Hillary and all her supporters for winning the West Virginia primary!


by toyomama 2008-05-13 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

I have to hand it to her Hillary does well in Appalachia.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

You know... people have complained about their party's nominees for years.  The Republicans don't like McCain... We didn't like Kerry all that much (we put him in 'cos we thought he was electable...)  We grumbled, we moaned.. but we supported ort guy...

But, I don't think there has ever been a time where a guy who is pretty much on track to win the nomination (and has been for months) has had to deal with a group of people trying to literally take that nomination away from him by the most contrived reasons ever imagined....

It's truly amazing!  He's won every metric, and yet people still want to take the victory away from him... Amazing, really...

The good news is, it won't work... The Clintons have long memories, and certainly a penchant for political vengeance... that's the only reason why this has lasted so long... the supers have been afraid of them... but, the supers' memories are long, too.... and they remember how the Democratic Party was gutted under the hands of the Clintons... They remember being victims of the Clinton's wrath over the years... Once the axe falls... once it's safe to go against the Clintons... they will come out in droves... There is no love lost between the Clintons and most of the superdelegates....

The Clintons holding supers out for ransom only can work for so long.  When the time comes, the revenge of the bullied supers will be swift and total.

This whole campaign has been a lot like a Greek tragedy...  and, unfortunately, they never end nicely...

Sad... June is going to be a tough month for everyone...

by LordMike 2008-05-13 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

One of the reasons the Clintons don't want to give up is that Bill will no longer be considered the leader of the party. He and his folks, who have lost power in the DNC, will lose more.  

by politicsmatters 2008-05-13 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Dude, no matter what happens out of this, there is no more "the Clintons."  It is now Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.  She's become her own now.  

I am impressed by her in this.  She was running on nothing much in the NY senate but Bill and running on nothing much but name in 2008.  She's arrived, whether you like it, or not.

Might never been president.  Might never be Senate majority leader.  Might never be a SCJOTUS.  But she's done damn well against a fad candidate who has every media advantage one can have.

I didn't like either candidate that much when it started, for different reasons.   But, she's earned a little of my respect.  Either would get my vote.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Whoever wins the nomination must win the White House...obviously, for many reasons.  But, there is one inside aspect too. If the Democratic nominee loses, the resultant upheaval and purge in the party could be nastier for that person's supporters than we have experienced in some time.

by christinep 2008-05-13 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

That does worry me...  

by LordMike 2008-05-13 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

I do find it a bit hypocritical when Clinton wines about how every vote should count ie; Fla/mich. Then in the very same breath demand that the super delegates ignore and over rule the voters votes and their duly elected delegates and install Clinton as the party's candidate. Amazing isn't it.

by eddieb 2008-05-13 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

She would argue that when you include FL and MI after June 3, she would have more votes, he more delegates.

In what way do you say supers are overriding the "will of the people" by going one way or another?

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

She can only make that argument if you allocate zero votes to Obama from Michigan, and also do not include the votes we can easily determine from four caucus states.

I'm not talking about projecting, either.  I'm talking about four states where we can easily tell how many people showed up for each candidate.  The Clinton math omits those four states because they didn't actually officially announce how many people voted for each candidate, though we can extrapolate it with basic multiplication.

So for her to be ahead in that metric, we have to count two states that broke the rules and leave out four states that followed them.

Yep, makes sense to me!

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-13 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Well, he took his name of the ballot so he got no votes.  She had no caucus strategy so she lost votes.  Politics ain't beanbag.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

You're missing my point.  Her calculations OMIT FOUR STATES from the popular count.


by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-13 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

No, they don't.  Those staes were included with what is believed to be the caucus votes.  Real Clear Politics has a chart that includes them.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

When Senator Clinton last claimed to be in the lead in popular vote, she did so by omitting those four states.  She won Nevada, but lost Iowa, Washington, and Maine.  She omitted those four because she could do so, and it was the only way to claim to be ahead.

Just wait until tomorrow.  If she claims it again, and omits those four AGAIN, I simply cannot take her seriously.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-13 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

It is likely that giving Obama uncommitted in MI, all of the 4 caucus states you mention, that a strong showing in KY and especially PR will put her in the lead.

In reality, he deserves no votes in MI.  He was not on the ballot.  

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

In reality, she deserves no votes in MI because the primary did not follow the rules.  

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

We'll see how it turns out.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 10:07PM | 0 recs
never before in the history of...

I love Obama supporter's sense of history. Hart Mondale? Kennedy Carter? McGovern Muskie?

Most contested Democratic primaries end in tough procedural fights. So not only has there been a time, but this is what usually happens. And those primaries weren't as close as this one is.

As for the party, Clinton has won more votes of registered Democrats. She has a huge following. Democratic politicians who decide "it's safe to go against the Clintons" will have a whole bunch of constituents to answer to. Especially from the party's growing majority, women and Hispanics. So many Obama supporters, and apparently Obama himself, forget that this is not about Obama or Hillary, it is about the voters.

by souvarine 2008-05-13 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: never before in the history of...

Who do you think is bringing new voters into the party? Obama has grown the party like never before.

by elrod 2008-05-13 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: never before in the history of...

They both are, with a lot of help from non-partisan groups. Although at least Clinton doesn't try to smear voter reg groups and shut down their funding.

by souvarine 2008-05-13 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread
Good for Hillary! A win is a win! Congrats.
I'm sure her fans here will be as gracious if and when Obama gets the nomination!
by eddieb 2008-05-13 08:06PM | 0 recs
Two Things

(1) Pretty nice call by Poblano, who called it +39/+105k for Clinton.

(2) I'm getting pretty tired of the "He is the presumptive nominee and yet he lost!" theme. This is entirely different from when someone is really the last person standing. Clinton is advertising, actively campaigning, and claiming she's in it to win it still. If someone was predisposed to vote for her, they're not going to go to the polls and say, "Gee, I guess Obama has this in the bag because CNN said so, so I'll vote for him." This whole meme is a red herring.

(as a ps, let me throw out that saying "Clinton is now ahead in the popular vote" is also topping the "most ridiculous meme" list, because I'm sure a couple willfully ignorant diehards will push it. It was a nice win, but the only number where Obama is not way ahead still includes FL & MI, excludes unreported +Obama state estimates, and excludes the uncommitted MI vote. So it's not even close to legit.)

by mattw 2008-05-13 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Two Things

It's ok they can pat themselves on the back, her biggest win in a long time, and she ends up losing ground.   She will need bigger margins in upcomming states to close the delegate gap.

by Tumult 2008-05-13 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Two Things

It was a nice win, but the only number where Obama is not way ahead still includes FL & MI, excludes unreported +Obama state estimates, and excludes the uncommitted MI vote. So it's not even close to legit.

Actually, that's the most legitimate way possible because it is the exact way that the popular vote is always counted -- by tallying up the official votes reported by every state election body.  When people discussed whether Bush or Gore won the popular vote, they didn't include things like exit polls, estimates, how much effort candidates put into particular states, etc.  They just added up all the state tallies.  And when you add up all the officially reported state tallies, Hillary Clinton will definitely be up in popular vote by the end of this campaign.  

by markjay 2008-05-13 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Two Things

Except that in the general election, every state votes (no caucuses), and every state must report totals. There are also no people who take themselves off the ballot in the general, because no states try to jump ahead on the primary calendar.

by mattw 2008-05-13 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Two Things
Please don't let reality get in the way of HRC's only remaining argument.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Two Things

If only the SD's were as naive as you wish they were...

by hootie4170 2008-05-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Two Things

> getting pretty tired of the "He is the
> presumptive nominee and yet he lost!" theme.

That kind of thing is bound to happen when you label one candidate the "presumptive" winner before the contest is over. The same thing happened to Clinton early on when she was the "inevitable" winner. As soon as she lost in Iowa, she looked much weaker than she really was, because her standing had been inflated (mostly by the press, but her campaign egged them on).

Now it is happening to Obama. He should have kept his powder dry and quietly worked on swaying SDs one at a time - a strategy that has been working for him. Instead, he announced his intention to crown himself victorious on the 20th, thinking he could start a stampede of SDs. Now losing WV by 40% damages him much more than it would have.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-13 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

West Virginia was not a landslide.

Reagan-Mondale was a landslide. Reagan beat Mondale by 18 points.

This was a mountain getting up and taking a walk.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-13 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread


by SHIBAM8P 2008-05-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Awesome analogy.

And, yeah, I'm an Obama supporter.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

To my fellow Clinton supporters, please go to her website and DONATE as a show of our support (I did) and make calls to Oregon!!

by mikes101 2008-05-13 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

just did :)

by SHIBAM8P 2008-05-13 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Mark Penn called. He says thanks.

by mattw 2008-05-13 08:41PM | 0 recs
Donate/relief efforts

By the way, when you go to the Obama website the first thing you see is an area where you can donate to the Red Cross for relief efforts in Asia.  I assume there is something like that on Hillary's site, but just a suggestion, when you donate to whichever candidate you do, maybe throw some money to one of the relief agencies.  I had gone to donate to Obama today and ended up sending the amount instead to the Red Cross but certainly one can split and do both.

by mady 2008-05-13 08:35PM | 0 recs
Got the 1916 talking point out of the way..

OK, so we already got the 1916 talking point out of the way a few posts above.

Can someone please post the "Barack Obama pro-choice smear" up here?

After that, let's see that cute picture of Messianic Barack.

And we need a few more, why can't he close the deal posts....

Snark aside, congrats to HRC.  A win is a win and that was truly a win tonight.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Hey guys!  This is going to be a huge Democratic year!  The Dems just won a House seat in a heavily Republican district. They swept the three special elections which the Reps held.  Given this, Obama will do just fine.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-13 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread

Unfortunately the Republicans have also nominated their strongest candidate in a GE - John McCain.  So reading too much into results elsewhere is not too helpful.

And a lot of independents have no problem with the idea of giving Congress to one party and the presidency to another.  Would be nice if Obama could win but I still don't see it happening.

by mikes101 2008-05-13 08:15PM | 0 recs

Every Republican who's running for Congress next Fall must be really scared of what's in store for them. The G.O.P sent $25 per voter in MIssissippi- 01 and still lost.

Their only hope for victory next Fall is to sign on for Duhbya's impeachment.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-13 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: MISSISSIPPI - 01 was HUGE!!!!

Indeed.  And they tried hard to bring Childers down by linking him to Obama.  Ads don't get much more negative than this: JY&eurl=

But it didn't work.  Heck, it may have backfired---Davis was only 3 points behind Childers last time, this time it was 8.  8!  In a district that Bush got 62% in!

If we can have a united party in November, I think we win.  Let's talk about how we do that.  

by bosdcla14 2008-05-13 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: MISSISSIPPI - 01 was HUGE!!!!

Step 1 is for all of us to stop with the silly name calling and the endless parsing of every offhand comment for proof of the evil racist/elitist/misogynist/whatever nature of the other candidate. Fight on until the end, but fight fair.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-13 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Post Election Thread


Hillary is the best candidate for the Presidency.  NO to VP position.

by SHIBAM8P 2008-05-13 08:15PM | 0 recs
A WV rec diary at Daily Kooks...

"Dear Keith Olbermann & Superdelegates: Hillary Failed in West Virginia".


by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-13 08:16PM | 0 recs
I Hope Not

I would rather see either of them at the top of the ticket with a VP of their choosing than trying to work together.  It would be an awful situation.  It's bad enough for the top of the ticket to have to fend off GOP attacks.  Usually the VP is pretty inconsequential and immune from that, but this would be an invitation to a constant stream of Clinton residual problems from Bill's administration, and the stuff that is going to be thrown at Obama.  Together, it would be incredibly messy.  Add to that the things she has said about him during the campaign, the things her campaign raised that were identical to what the GOP will raise (Ayers for instance) and it really is not a match made in heaven.  

by mady 2008-05-13 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hope Not

It is not an awful situation for the 2 leading primary vote-getters in the history of the Democratic party to work together to bring a Democrat back to the White House!

Clinton residual problems from past scandals?  About as consequential as the Ayres stuff.  Bring it on!

by mikes101 2008-05-13 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hope Not

I think it would be a nightmare for them both.  

by mady 2008-05-13 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hope Not

You just don't like Clinton - period - judging by this and other posts.  Well, Obama is not going to win without Clinton - so deal with it.

by mikes101 2008-05-13 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hope Not

I'm curious mady. If Obama wins and asks Clinton to be his VP will you be angry at him? disappointed? or will you accept that he has his reasons and let it be?

Because while I still want Clinton for president, I think she offers more as a VP candidate than absolutely anyone else Obama could pick.

1) Plugs most or all his demographic weaknesses.

  1. Plugs most or all his geographic weaknesses.
  2. Would be able to carry the attack to the opposition all by herself, freeing him to do his unifier schtick.
  3. Would crush any Republican VP candidate in a debate.
  4. Is clearly qualified to be President - no Dan Quayle comparisons or "You're no Jack Kennedy" zingers.
  5. 100% name recognition.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-13 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I Hope Not

I started out this campaign really not liking Hillary Clinton, then grew to like her until the Ayers thing hit.  You can look at my posts and trace my sentiments as they waxed and waned for her. I still would vote for her for president assuming she does not pull that kind of garbage again for the rest of the campaign.  The word I used at that time was McCarthy tactics and I still feel deeply offended by that. It's the one thing she did that I really felt was totally off limits for a Democrat to do to another Democrat.  She seems to have stopped that kind of negative stuff now, so yeah, I would vote for her at the top of the ticket but would hope she did not choose him for VP.  I think it's a bad fit.

If he chose her as his running mate of course I would vote for him, and yes, I would be somewhat disappointed but so what, you know, my disappointment or joy is totally irrelevant to the process.  It might or might not be a successful ticket, just as either of them alone might or might not be successful.  We're in new territory here so who knows?

by mady 2008-05-14 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

If she's willing to be VP, which I don't believe for a second, then she's prepared to concede?

I doubt it.

If that were the case, she would be far more effective as leader of the Senate.

Make a deal with Obama to help him get elected and in return he modifies his health plan to match hers.

Hillary kicking ass in the Senate and Pelosi in the House. A solid Majority in the Senate and the House?

A solid Decade to reverse the GOP blitzkreig?

Sounds good to me!

by TimO 2008-05-13 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

> she would be far more effective as leader of the Senate.

I have seen this idea come up many times, but nobody who proposes it ever explains how she is going to be elected Majority Leader. Harry Reid does not seem disposed to give it up for her, and many of the power players in the Senate are lined up against her: Obama, Reid, Kennedy, Dorgan, Durbin, Kerry, Leahey, Byrd. Schumer is about the only prominent Senator who would definately back her for Leader.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-13 11:04PM | 0 recs
I'll take some of whatever it is you are smoking.

That was no VP speech.  She overtook the pop vote again tonight, and it's highly unlikely she'll lose it.  Do tell me the nominee who has ever not had the popular vote lead.  that speech was hey SDs, you wanna win in November, I'm your girl.  Tonight confirmed for me that Obama will NOT win a GE.  Just not gonna happen.  It's all in the numbers.  He peaked in February and no amount of wishing it were not so is going to put humpty dumpty back together again.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 08:35PM | 0 recs
The popular vote doesn't decide anything

And can't be tabulated properly with caucus states unable to correctly give the numbers each candidate received.

So it's a moot point; and Senator Clinton doesn't have the popular vote. You're under the assumption that Michigan and Florida would ever be included a popular vote total; at the moment, most are discussing whether they'll have delegations.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-13 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

It's not moot.  They've calculated the caucuses as well as can be done.  She has the pop vote lead.  get used to it.  Again, I ask you, recall the nominee without the pop vote lead?

by masslib1 2008-05-13 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

Ok. Let's go through what you basically just said. You're going to use a total that can't be 100% correctly verified to decide a nomination when there's already a 100% verifiable method by which to determine the candidate.


Now let's run through some realities, as well. 1824. 1888. 2000. What do those have in common? Oh. Right. The person who won did not carry the popular vote.

The popular vote isn't the metric by which this country chooses it's president and it's not the metric by which this party chooses its nominee.

This is goal-post moving on the part of Senator Clinton; the entire campaign, up until it became obvious she could not win by any other metric, has been delegates.

No mention of popular vote.

And no, she doesn't have the popular vote lead.

No site that isn't Pro-Hillary currently reports Senator Clinton having a popular vote lead. So "get used to it."

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-13 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

ABC does.  Real Clear Politics will if they don't already.  Look, what kind of nominee doesn't win the majority of the votes?  Ask yourself that.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

The one that wins the most delegates. Again, we don't run the primaries to find the flaws in primaries and to change the metrics.

If the metrics were to win the popular vote, then the campaigns would camp in Illinois, California, New York, Texas and Florida.

Your candidate never used the popular vote; don't change the metrics now.

Just take a look at the mirror and realize how unreasonable and cruel your being to a candidate who followed the rules.

And all because you want to win by any metric you can come up with.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-13 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

She will finish with more votes than obama when PR is included.

You might not like including FL and MI, but it would be factual to say she received more votes.  Caucus state estimates included...

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

I had a bunch of people over to visit the other day and a bunch of them placed votes in my shoebox for her.  Should we count those too?

FL/MI were bogus elections that don't count.  The results do NOT represent the will of the voters in those states.

There's a term for people that change rules in the middle of a contest.  That term is cheater.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-13 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

LOL.  They were not bogus elections.  They were certified by the states.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

Also, the pop vote should have ALWAYS been counted in the totals.  They are seperate from the delegate division(as we know all too well).  Look, a nominee who doesn't clinch the pop vote is not very promising.  But Obama peaked in February.  He won't win a GE.  It's in the numbers.  Statistically speaking, I see no path to victory for BO in November.  that's the harsh reality.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

Nevada - 5 Electoral Votes
Colorado - 9 Electoral Votes
New Mexico - 5 Electoral Votes
Iowa - 7 Electoral Votes

If he retains either the 2000 or 2004 map, and even picks up New Hampshire with 4 Electoral Vote, he will win handily.

In case the math's difficult - that's 26 delegates, 30 if you include New Hampshire, which is currently a toss-up.

538 has correctly predicted the primaries and currently predicted the West Virginia primary, the Indiana Primary and the North Carolina primary correctly within 1-2% percentage points.

That means Senator Obama currently wins 266 Electoral Votes with the potential to easily flip New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and a few other borderline states.

Senator Clinton currently achieves 259 electoral votes.

So no - your opinion isn't steeped in any poll of poll averages or by a reliable source. It's just cherrypicking and doomsaying.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-13 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

He isn't going to win these:

Nevada - 5 Electoral Votes
Colorado - 9 Electoral Votes
New Mexico - 5 Electoral Votes

Not a chance against John McCain.  Not. A. Chance.

And, Virginia???  Come now.  That's a conservative, military state.  This isn't pre-peak February.  Not. A. Chance.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

Bullshit.  He is going to win both NV and NM, and come damn close in CO and VA.  I am IN CO and see the energy for Obama.
With a DEM GOV, a very popular SEN in Salazar and Mark Udall as favorite to replace Allard, I think CO will be VERY competitive, in fact, I think Obama will win.  And remember - the DEM convention is in Denver, with weeks of free party publicity.  

On a side note, if people post, please argue  with semi-coherence based on fact ... not NO.WAY.HE.WINS.CO ...   Act like an educated adult, not a child who lost his favorite toy ...

by stryan 2008-05-13 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

No way in hell he wins the mountain west against McCain.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

Agreed. The Obama fans are dreaming about a map-expanding candidate. This election will be won or lost in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and maybe one or two smaller states (like West Virginia!). Obama is in big trouble in all those states. He is the weaker candidate on the electoral map.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Then the election is lost

Clinton will win both.  

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Of course she will.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Nope. You are in fantasyland. Lalaland in fact. But I do know that McCain will crush Obama's coconuts in Florida--that is an absolute, incontestable fact.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

A conservative, military state with a popular Democratic governor that is about to elect a second Democratic senator.

You don't think Mark Warner's presence on the ballot might help Obama get a win there?

by tastycakes 2008-05-13 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

No.  Absolutely not.  Please, it is just embarrassing when people suggest mcCain won't win Virginia.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The popular vote doesn't decide anything

Kerry won New Hampshire and lost the election, how could Obama retain the 2004 map and "win handily?" And don't forget that electors have been re-apportioned since 2000, Gore's map plus NH doesn't win anymore.

You may want to look a month further back before you start touting poblano's track record. Yeah, he can read the polls a few days before the election and come pretty close. Predicting five months out? His record there is abysmal.

by souvarine 2008-05-13 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

A bunch of hillbilly racists vote for Clinton in a crazy margin and now Obama needs her?


We've got AK, ND, SD, NE, KS, CO, NM, NV, GA, NC, and maybe even TX.

Let her win WV in some imaginary GE race she'll never be in.

Sure, Bubba won WV before and if Gore had only won it...but that's pointless now.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:36PM | 0 recs
It ain't racism, it's the Bill Bradley message.

Colin Powell could win Appalacia.  Wilder did.  

by masslib1 2008-05-13 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: So Obama is losing Applachia

It's the message.  he's winning the Bill Bradley set + African Americans.  that won't win a GE.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: What message?

His message is posture...shake up the system.  It's never won a GE, won't this year.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Well maybe it should

That's the problem.  It's just a posture.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: No, it's not

Well, you probably would have liked Bill bradley too.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: What message?

He is about as honest as a snake. He's a two-faced phony and anyone who can't see it is deluded.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: She's the biggest liar I have ever seen

Look in the mirror--you'll see a bigger one.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Gotta love those creative-class elitist snobs and racists. Gotta love em, there Obama's bread and butter. To hell with working people! Now, there's Obama's new slogan!

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:19PM | 0 recs
Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

embracing defeat for the presumptive front runner in a late contest.

I think this is the first time that something like this happened.

I tried to find ways to spin this defeat positively and tried to find explanations for it, but i just could not after i looked at the WV map and Senator Obama lost every single county. And i mean every county.

This is pretty bad and just have to say congratulation to Senator Clinton on a great win and be an adult about it.

Tonight, i think that Senator Clinton has just made herself totally indispensable for a sure win in the fall. Yes, Senator Obama might win in the fall(emphasis on might), but both of them on the ticket it is a SURE win. I don't know about you folks, but i want to win more than anything else, and if it has to come through a combined ticket, so be it and i even welcome it.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

Not the first time... Huckabee rocked McCain in a few states after McCain was the sure nominee...  I think Hucakbee won Kansas in a landslide (don't quote me on that)...  So, it's not unprecedented at all, really...

by LordMike 2008-05-13 08:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

A loss of 40 points at the end of the primary season is completely unprecedented.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Not True

Carter won California in 1976, and he did not won by 40 points. He barely squeezed  a win and clinched the nomination by the way the same day.

Those primaries went on to the end and the leadership position changed hand a couple of times. Carter eliminated one candidate after the other and the last primary, i believe and if i remember correctly, was California and Carter beat Jerry Brown on his home turf.

So, i don't think such a defeat ever happened to the presumptive front runner.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Nope

I might have been mistaken since those primaries where a mess anyway and everyone was running around trying to stop Carter. I think as long as it was not Frank Church that won that primary, i think it was okay for Carter. Jerry Brown (was be the governor of California at that time? not sure) and he won only Maryland and Nevada i believe. So a win by Brown was not really a threat for him. But Carter was i believe threaten by either Wallace coming from behind or Frank Church. Mathematically, Carter did not have those primaries in the bag yet.

Anyway, 1976 notwithstanding, this defeat is even worse to be honest with you. our candidate is running around declaring himself already the winner, the press declared him the winner, and everyone in the media is declaring him a winner and yet he lost by 40 points. There is no movement out there called ABB (that is Anyone But Barack) like it was a movement back then ABC (Anyone but Carter).

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 10:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

I think Hucakbee won Kansas in a landslide (don't quote me on that)

Too lazy to look it up?

With less than 20,000 (lol) people participating in the KS "causus," Huckabee indeed won "big," 60-24.

But with a 11,600 to 4,600 vote margin, it's not that impressive in KS.

When there are caucuses, you can win in big % amounts because no one shows up.

And McCain was not the nominee yet.  He hadn't reached the magic number yet.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

Obama hasn't reached the magic number yet either. The fact is, the Kansas caucus result was a significant rejection of McCain by Kansas Republicans, just as Obama's loss in West Virginia was. As a result, polls show Kansas much closer to the Democrat this time than in a very long time. Obama only trails by 5 there. With WV, the same holds true. Clinton has a small prayer of winning the state and Obama has none. Of course, neither state has a whole lot of electors.

by elrod 2008-05-13 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

polls show Kansas much closer to the Democrat this time than in a very long time

They do?  The Democratic nominee, Obama, is at 38% in a poll of poll averages there--see link below.

Obama only trails by 5 there

In what poll? O.php

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

Again, McCain did not clinch yet the nomination on Feb 5th and that was super Tuesday. He clinched it on Feb 12th.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

Kansas was on February 5th. And yes Huckabee won 59.6% and McCain won 23.8%. And it was not a primary, it was a Caucus actually.  

That was super Tuesday and that was before McCain clinched the nomination. I think McCain clinched the nomination on Feb 12 (DC, Virginia and Maryland primaries) and never lost a primary ever since.  

I have been involved in politics before and observed it for a long time now and i am quite sure  that i have never seen such a big defeat of a front runner. What i am sure about is that it did not happen in the 1980 Democratic primary or 1984 or 1988 or 1992. I forgot about the 1996, but that couldn't have happened since Bill Clinton was the incumbent and he almost unopposed. As for 2000 and 2004 i am also pretty sure it did not happen. So, i think you have to go beyond 1976 so check if such a big defeat happened before.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

Right, February.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay, 67% to 27% is pretty

Frank Church was the leader of a movement that i called ABC: Anyone But Carter. And Carter was not the presumptive nominee yet. I remember those primaries very well because my dad worked in the Carter campaign.

Frank Church also beat Carter in Oregan, Nebraska, and Idaho, but Carter was not the nominee yet. The whole story behind Senator Frank Church was to keep Carter from clinching the nomination because they thought he was too conservative for the Democratic Party, but they failed as we all know.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

The VP should go to the politician who can win the most net votes for the ticket, or who delivers a key state or states.  If that's Clinton, then she should be the VP.  If not, then it should not be her.  The polls about Democratic preferences really miss the issue entirely.

by rfahey22 2008-05-13 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Clinton as Obama's running mate would be a serious demotion.

by bowiegeek 2008-05-13 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Not really. Senator Clinton's chances of being either are pretty low at the moment, so it'd be quite an achievement, actually.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

It's a step up from Senator, so no...

Although some people think that the VP slot isn't worth anything... so, in that sense, you may be right.

by LordMike 2008-05-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

I don't think she is after the VP spot, at least not at this moment. I think she can win on her own, but unfortunately their earlier strategy has put her campaign in a tough position.

Also I don't see how when white people vote HRC 70-30 is more racist than black people vote BO 95-5.

by observer11 2008-05-13 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

It's not racist. It's just demographics. The same demographics that won't change for the rest of the primary.

Senator Clinton won't surpass Senator Obama in the pledged delegate lead; Michigan and Florida won't be seated in full - they may be seated in halves; and Senator Clinton will likely not be the Nominee.

I don't mind a Obama/Clinton ticket; but no one in the world is acknowledging that Senator Clinton has anything but a snowball's chance in hell to usurp the nomination from Senator Obama.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Because white solidarity is different from black solidarity. If you don't understand that, I don't know what you're doing on a progressive website.

by elrod 2008-05-13 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

I am black.

I find both disturbing.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

I find your comment condescending and insulting to the black community.

by observer11 2008-05-13 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

You don't hear talking about racist vote. I totally agree with you, if our supporters are going to call WV racists, we have to take the criticism of calling NC voters racists too. I am well aware that the accusatory finger can go both ways and this is why you will never hear me make that argument. I think it is a stupid argument and quite frankly juvenile.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 09:52PM | 0 recs
Appalachia is not America

Appalachia is a part of America. But it does not define America. I love Appalachia. The people here are warm, friendly, hospitable, generous and have lots of character (in the best sense). The green hills of Appalachia are more beautiful than the Rocky Mountains or anywhere else. And the music here is the greatest in the world. There is no place I'd rather live than East Tennessee.

But on two matters I disagree with most Appalachian folks: politics and religion.  I am Jewish and attend a Unitarian church with my wife (not Jewish) in Knoxville. This area is big enough to support such non-traditional houses of worship like the UUs, but outside the metro area there are few options other than fundamentalist Baptist, Pentacostal or Methodist.

As for its politics, Appalachia is deeply conservative, and often in the worst ways. Though not as historically racist as the Deep South, many voters here are deeply uncomfortable with black politicians. Politics is all about the familiar here; who you know and whose daddy you knew. Outsiders are looked at with suspicion and often scorn. And outside some well-educated pockets, most Appalachian whites shudder at the notion of change in any meaningful sense. If we could go back to 1796 when Tennessee was first formed, lots of folks around here would take the trip in a heartbeat. Modernity implies destruction of old ways of life, and older and more familiar values. There's a reason that John Edwards - the Southern-sounding white male - won over 7% of the vote in WV.

For all these reasons, it should be obvious why Obama does poorly here. It should also be obvious why we should not read the tea leaves in Appalachia to foreshadow November. Appalachia is unique.

by elrod 2008-05-13 08:43PM | 0 recs
Earth to Todd

Next week the media will be focused on Oregon's results.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-13 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Earth to Todd

Will they ignore a state with a similar population, Kentucky, on the same day?

If so, why?

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 08:55PM | 0 recs
Because Senator Obama will achieve

an important milestone: plurality of pledged delegates, the metric by which most superdelegates will chose the nominee of our party with.

If Michigan and Florida are seated at all, it'll be with half-delegations. That moves the posts to about 2,118 Delegates to nominate; he'll have 67 delegates to spare by then and so he'll be able to hit the 2,118 mark relatively quick.

by Lord Hadrian 2008-05-13 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Because Senator Obama will achieve

So that is reason to ignore Kentucky's larger MOV on the same day as Oregon?

You didn't really answer the question.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Using Clinton's rules

Kentucky could.  Bill Clinton won Kentucky.

by masslib1 2008-05-13 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton won Kentucky

So much for Obama's 50-state strategy.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton won Kentucky

He still won it.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Well good

Clinton did not win because of Perot in either 1992 or 1996.  This is a myth that has been disproven over and over again.  Most credible statisticians note that Perot took support from both candidates.

Next myth?

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Using Clinton's rules

The same argument can be said about WV and Idaho or Kansas. Idaho and Kansas won't go democratic, but WV will. Quite frankly, the same argument can be made about Pennsylvania and Ohio versus Montana and South Carolina or Georgia and Alabama and Mississippi.

Let us not demagogue this. Hillary Clinton won a great victory. It was terrible defeat from my candidate; and embracing one i would say.

Kentucky is a good state to win in November. If Al Gore won either WV or KY, he would have won.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Using Clinton's rules

Moreover, WV should be a very easy state for the democrats. The democrats outnumbered the republican 2 to 1. WV is the hanging fruit from the tree as they say. Low dollar media market and we have the advantage, all we need is campaigning hard over there.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: My point

Quite Frankly, that argument should be made by everyone, including us.

by likelihood zero 2008-05-13 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Using Clinton's rules

If Al Gore won either WV or KY, he would have won

Yep, but that's just factual information.  Most want to spin themselves into a vomit spell.

by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 11:44PM | 0 recs
Because the press hates Hillary

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-13 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Because the press hates Hillary


by reggie44pride 2008-05-13 09:09PM | 0 recs
I don't know. it goes back to the early 90s

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-13 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know. it goes back to the early 90s

Bottom line is you need to cultivate the press.  Give them access.  Talk to them.

That's why McCain has such a lovey-dovey relationship with the press.  That's why he's a "maverick", he'll give them a contrarian quote that makes good copy.

Has HRC worked as hard to cultivate those relationships.  No idea, but I would bet not.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Ok, this is not a new thread, which confused me...

Anyways, Stephanopolis said a week ago that she really, really wanted the CP slot... if anyone had insider information, it's him...

If for no other reason, she would want the slot to get some debt relief... they could combine funds...

Of course, Lanny Davis would say what he said... no one is going to say we are running for second place.

I think having her as a VP is disastrous...  they are two incompatible people with incompatible campaigns...  Kerry and Edwards were like that and look what happened...

We'll say... there's plenty of time to decide...  I don't think the Obama camp would do it... His supporters are vehemently gainst it... and many Obamicans would bail on the candidacy if it happened....

She is angling for something... I'm certain she's continuing the race for more than just vanity.... for what, though, I don't know...

by LordMike 2008-05-13 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

2012.  When people are tired of centrism, Obama, and his Southern conservative Establishment supporters.  Governing coalitions like that only vote for retreats and how to spend money on themselves and refuse to do much else.

That may be enough for 2009, but not for much after that.

by killjoy 2008-05-13 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

As you know :) She still needs to win what 80-90% of the next 3 states.......... A real solid chance good luck.

And thats with the supers staying put....... oops

Im betting BO rolls out more super-Ds than hill picked up tonight.

A real solid chance..........Good luck with that

by goalie40 2008-05-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Though I believe there are better choices for Obama, I've never been against an Obama/Clinton ticket and I would be 100% in support of it should Obama choose Clinton.

by RussTC3 2008-05-13 08:51PM | 0 recs
I'm happy for Senator Clinton.

I'm especially happy for her supporters who get a chance to see what it feels like to win by a huge margin.  Feels pretty good, doesn't it?  Makes you want to crow a little.  I know the feeling.

by GFORD 2008-05-13 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm happy for Senator Clinton.

Been awhile since you had it, huh? Ah, those palmy days of February!

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Others...? Ohio? Pennsylvania? Indiana? Hm....? Ah, February! February!

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Well there was Mississippi which was in, ummm, March March. March!

Woo hoo.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't forget Wyoming

Exactly.  Funnily enough, right before IN/NC, I heard some NBC reporter (you know, the Obama channel) talking about how Clinton had won 4 states in a row going back to March 5th.

Guess Obama won VT, then Clinton 'won' TX, won OH and RI and then, ummmm, PA.  Hmmmmm.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Enjoy! Mississippi and North Carolina are really gonna help Obama in November.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Oh yeah, and Wyoming too. Obama will sweep all those states in November. He doesn't need no stinking Ohio or Pennsylvania (or Florida or Michigan or West Virginia).

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

I agree that Clinton seemed to be pointing up her willingness to be VP tonight. It was more the tone than anything, a certain wistfulness in her voice at times. But I disagree that this would be a good thing in the end. I just don't see how that pairing works, despite its apparent strengths on paper.

by wasder 2008-05-13 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Once again, we see caucuses not representative of the state as a whole and dominated by some activists who can sit around a room for 2 hours. Obama won the Nebraska caucus by more than 30 points and racked up a lot of delegates. He is currently leading in the non-binding primary by only 2% with 14% to count. Many, many many more people voted today than caucused and Obama's is barely ahead of Clinton in Nebraska. Shame on the Democrats for this terrible system that is on the verge of nominating Obama. There are no caucuses in the general election.

by gomer 2008-05-13 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm so fucking sick and tired

It's too bad the general election isn't run caucus style. Too bad for Obama, that is.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Yes, the people are really energized to vote in a non-binding primary.  I'm sure that vote is FAR more democratic than a caucus with results that count.  It's almost as democratic as that totally unofficial and unsanctioned election they held in Michigan that Clinton supporters want to count so badly!

OK, so there were 14 caucuses.  Obama won 13.  He's also won 16 primaries.  Insinuating that he can't win "real elections" is a bunch of nonsense.

Look, I can appreciate arguments about the democratic merits of caucusing, but those are the ways in which these states have decided to contribute their delegates.

Remember, the system exists to generate a party leader and candidate AND to build the party organization and platform.  Having caucused in Texas, I can see first-hand that there is value in getting a group of people with similar attitudes together and engaging in the process.  (In fact, I sort of like our weird hybrid system of 2/3 primary, 1/3 caucus).

We live in a representative democracy.  Our national elections reflect this fact.

by tastycakes 2008-05-13 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

and there are also democratic merits to counting the popular vote because a democracy should try to be as inclusive to everybody as possible. Democracy is about letting people vote in private without outside influence, disturbance or fear of being outed by someone you dont want them to know who you voted for.

Democracy is about freedom and inclusiveness, only a primary and a secret ballot offers freedom and inclusiveness and true represetnation.

by alright 2008-05-13 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm so fucking sick and tired

so i guess you would support wrongdoings as long as the other side didnt say they oppose to it?

so i guess you support torture and voting frauds as long as the other side didn't complain about it.

by alright 2008-05-13 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: What a crock of shit

It's not childish. Its never too late to voice your opinon. You remind me of someone who blamed the disabled woman for not knowing that wal mart employee can't claim for health insurance money from her company becasue she didn't read the fine prints of the contract. If something is wrong, it is wrong, and its never too late to express it.

by alright 2008-05-13 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: What a crock of shit

it is fine to express it but do not expect the rules to be changed for this election.  Work to change it for the next election.

All the candidates knew the rules beforehand and they should have plotted their strategy accordingly.

One candidate apparently expected to be the presumptive nominee right after Feb 5th.  Until then, her campaign kept claiming only delegates mattered.  After she lost state after state, the goalposts kept moving, the metrics kept changing, etc.

Doesn't mean that caucuses are fair, but they were the game that was to be played.  HRC should have played that game better.  Take your outrage with the system (which I share) and use it to fix the process before the next election.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: What a crock of shit

I dont think the rules can be changed, but the superdelegates should take that into consideration when they choose who they would support, instead of throwing around the word "the will of the voters". The "will of the voters" can only properly expressed in a PRIMARY that is opened from 6 to 6 , with secret ballots, rules or not.

Thats the spirit of democracy, and thats the spirit that the superdelegates should take into consideration.

by alright 2008-05-13 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: What a crock of shit

Hopefully, the rules will be changed next time around.  This system sucks.  I absolutely agree, primaries with secret ballots are the best way to go.  I also think that either we need to get rid of proportional delegate allotment or get rid of the supers.  This race has been needlessly rancorous and that is due to the system.

However, this year was never about popular vote.  If that was a meaningful metric, the candidates would have competed differently early on.  But yes, the superdelegates are free to consider whatever they want to consider.  

It is pretty clear that the two candidates will end up virtually tied for 'popular' vote. By 'tied' I mean within half a million votes.  Given the difference between caucuses and primaries, anyone arguing for an exact vote total is spinning (imo).  Let's face it, both candidates have performed roughly equally as well.  However, BO will end up with more pledged delegates, more states won, more money raised, and (arguably) more votes.

Given that the contest is about collecting delegates, I think it will be difficult for the supers to override BO's lead in pledged delegates.  It is absolutely their right to do so, but without some sort of cratering by BO, I believe it would be incredibly divisive to choose HRC at this point.  

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-14 07:09AM | 0 recs
Honest question, no snark

Clinton supporters -- does it bother you that the cornerstone of your candidate's support is among the least educated and informed segment of the Democratic party?  

I know, I know, brand me as an elitist, but the fact that the GOP has always taken refuge in those groups is one of the (many) reasons I've always found them so distasteful.  I'm PROUD that liberals, that NPR listeners, that Daily Show watchers, tend to be the most informed citizens in the country.  

So when I see Clinton winning those same demographics, those same uninformed, uneducated voters that are more susceptible to bias and rumor and makes me a little sad.  So, Clinton supporters, does that ever give you pause?  Don't you think there's something wrong when you're RELYING on the uninformed to win an election?  That just strikes me as something I wouldn't want to be associated with.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-13 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

I think it is elitist. While it is true that the uneducated can be ignorant, i believe the "educated" and the "high income earners" can just be as ignorant on other issues that the "undeducated" has a clear knowledge on. Everyone brings something different to the table, everyone lives a life with diverse experience, and it is not only elitist, but wrong, for you to make a negative generlaization about uneducated voters.

by alright 2008-05-13 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

There are very few people as pig-ignorant as those who imagine themselves sublimely enlightened.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

I honestly believe that to be true, I have a B.A degree, went to a very left wing school , took psychology and political science. I would never claim to be more educated than my mom , who didnt even finish highschool.

She always show me that she knows more about life than I do , and i am suprised by her everyday.

by alright 2008-05-13 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

I wouldn't call myself "sublimely enlightened" (nice straw man though), but I would say that I'm more informed and educated than the average voter.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-14 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

Sorry, but I believe that being uneducated and  uninformed is bad.  Those traits make you more likely to be swayed by specious arguments (Wright, muslim, etc), and as such you're more likely to vote based on not just different, but WRONG information.

Yes, working-class folks have a different set of priorities from white-collar folks, and that's a genuinely good thing, but that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about relying on a demographic of voters who are just plain misinformed about a lot of things.

The other unfortunate thing about relying on this demographic is that it actually becomes a political conflict-of-interest to have an informed electorate, which I think is a pretty bad thing, and can give rise to stuff like Fox News.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-14 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

I think there is gentler way to say this.  The voters that are most likely to buy the notion that a very liberal Hillary Clinton is a friend of Guns and God, are just, if not more likely to fall for all the crap ginned up by the Republican slime machine come November.  This is not a reliable coalition for Clinton, and she should know this.  If she, in some magical turn of events, became the nominee, she would find herself with the elitist tag, and would likely lose to McCain.

They did vote for George W. Bush, Twice.

by enozinho 2008-05-13 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

How do you know they think she is a friend of Guns and God?

I have no problem with what Reverand Wright said, but i can understand why some people have problem with his speeches and the close association Obama has with Wright.

If Obama has come clean about his relationship with Wright and that he knows about some of the controversial beliefs that he has, some people wouldn't be as skeptical about him.

Obama has not been honest, and it leaves alot to the imagination , for people who don't know about him.

And also, some people feel that he does not or could not relate to them the same way Hillary Clinton has, it doesn't matter if Hillary really love guns or God, but she at least tried to relate to them, and I think thats an effort that voters can appreciate it.

by alright 2008-05-13 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

In the ABC exit poll 51% of WV Democrats believed that Obama shared the views of Rev. Wright.  That's not skepticism.  It isn't even ignorance. That is stupidity.

Clinton is just ask likely to land on the wrong side of stupid against McCain.  Should we try to peel off as many of these voters as we can?  Of course.  But you don't put your electoral hopes on whims of dopes, unless you're a Republican of course.

by enozinho 2008-05-13 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

I honestly dont know if he shares the views of Rev. Wright, he very much could. I dont think its a stupid thing to believe.

by alright 2008-05-13 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest question, no snark

Are you from WV?  Just kidding.  Sort of.

by enozinho 2008-05-13 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a personal belief

Um, yeah, he also said it over and over again hes a christian, i believe that he might be an atheist or an agnostic, if not believing the words of a politican just because he says it over and over again makes me "stupid", than I am "stupid."

by alright 2008-05-13 10:17PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a personal belief

Obama has been very clear that he shares many of Rev. Wright's views. He rejects some of Wright's more extreme views, but most of what we know of Obama's values come from Rev. Wright, as Obama describes in his books.

Hell, I share some of Rev. Wright's views. But I have no chance of becoming president so the point is moot.

by souvarine 2008-05-13 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: That's a personal belief

yes he just happens to reject those views that were too "extream" for the public which would cost him substantial votes. ah huh.

by alright 2008-05-13 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I think we're specifically

The exit poll did not specify which views:

As noted, there was significant criticism of Obama among the West Virginia electorate. Half of voters thought that at least to some extent he shares the views of his controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (though fewer, about two in 10, thought he shares "a lot" of views with Wright).

Based on what Obama has written and said it is accurate to answer that Obama shares a lot of views with Rev. Wright.

by souvarine 2008-05-13 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I think we're specifically

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that many (most?) voters will be talking about the most extreme of his views, because those are the only views they're likely to have been exposed to.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-14 06:57AM | 0 recs

I'm a Democrat. The one thing that has always distinguished the Democratic party from other parties is a deep belief in democracy. That means that even the uninformed, uneducated, biased, racist votes count. We believe in the wisdom of the American people, all of them, that is what it means to be a Democrat.

Beyond that I disagree with your premise. Poor and less educated people of all races often have a better understanding of the implications of different government policies because those policies impact them immediately and directly. Wealthy, well educated people are pretty well insulated from changes in government policy, and are more easily persuaded by sophistry. Since different policy options won't make much of a difference in their lives it is not worth the effort to dig below an appealing argument. You may also want to check the numbers on liberals again, both candidates have exchanged the lead with self-described liberals.

The demographics Clinton wins reaffirms my conviction that she understands the needs of most Americans best. Obama's demographics convince me that he understands African American's needs well and that he knows how to perform a pretty speech. People who fall for the goo-goo stuff are easy marks for McCain.

by souvarine 2008-05-13 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Yes, that's a good point, and I don't mean to say that we should rely only on white-collar, college-educated demographics.  There is obviously value in considering the opinions and needs and desires of the American people as a whole, which includes lots of lower-education folks.

However, it feels to me that Clinton is relying on (and thriving with) poorly-informed demographics not because her policies address their concerns better than Obama's policies (policy-wise they're very similar), but because they're more likely to hold factually false views about things like Obama's religion, his renunciation of Wright, etc.

The unfortunate side effect of this is that it actually becomes to your advantage to have an uninformed, or misinformed, electorate.  Exhibit A: The GOP and Fox News.

by ChrisKaty 2008-05-14 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Wow, a 41 point win against a presumptive nominee. That is ball-crushing.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Just curious.  If Obama supporters made some reference to HRC's anatomy, would you be offended?

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

IF they did? IF they did? You're kidding, right? Go check out any thread on Dailykos. Then talk about IF.

by doyenne49 2008-05-13 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

Thanks for not answering my question.  

Or is the answer, "it's ok if I do it because some jerk on another site does it."

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-05-13 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

17% of the Democratic primary voters in WV admitted to real, live person that they voted against a black man because he is black. If these are the people who you think represent the heart and the soul of the Democratic party, then you need to GTF back to the '50s.

by MissVA 2008-05-13 11:00PM | 0 recs
I don't see how WV helps the argument

that Obama needs a Hillary VP ticket.  

The Clinton argument, the last few weeks, has been that Obama is weak with white voters.  In the USA Today article, she stressed that he was "weakening" with white voters, thus suggesting it was a progressive, evolving thing.  That is important because otherwise Obama and his supporters can point to his gigantic lop-sided victories in heavily white working-class states like Idaho and Utah.  Hillary's argument is that that doesn't count because he's "weakening" now.

So, if given that as a premise (a premise I don't accept), what does Hillary bring to resolve that problem?  The fact that she's white?  What's so special about that?  The Democratic Party has many, many fine white running-mate possibilities to choose from, none of whom carry any of Hillary Clinton's excess baggage.  If Obama needs experience, there are also plenty of non-Hillary experienced Democrats out there.

The only thing she can bring to the ticket is the Hillary Clinton brand name, and at this point, she has not shown that it was the Clinton brand that the voters of WV wanted.  Yes, they voted for her, but her OWN ARGUMENT is that they voted for her because of Obama's "weakening" support among white voters.

She undercuts her own argument for why he needs her, in particular.

IF Obama wants to win in WV, he might do much better to turn to a white Catholic like James Webb, senator from Virginia, who is a retired naval admiral who worked as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy.  This guy has serious foreign policy chops that Hillary can't compete with, he has real connections to the area (next door Virginia), to the working class, and he is not seen as a panderer.  

I only point Webb out as one possibility among many.  Obama doesn't NEED Hillary.  The only real reason I can think of for him to choose Hillary is to make her go away more quickly.  I don't think that's a good enough reason, but, hey, I'm not Obama.

by Dumbo 2008-05-13 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

The best part of her speech is describing the working people who are skipping meals out to save money to contribute to her campaign. This woman has $109 million, but she wants the poor to finance her doomed campaign.

by MissVA 2008-05-13 11:04PM | 0 recs
In its polite, if somewhat perfunctory tone as well as in its substance, this really really sounds like a speech made by a woman with her eyes on the Vice Presidency.
Right, this REALLY sounds like she wants to be VP:
I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate - the strongest candidate to lead our party in November of 2008 and the strongest president to lead our nation starting in January of 2009. I can win this nomination if you decide I should, and I can lead this party to victory in the general election if you lead me to victory now. The bottom line is this - the White House is one in the swing states and I am winning the swing states. And we have done it by standing up for the deepest principles of our party with a vision for an America that rewards hard work again, that values the middle class and helps to make it stronger. The question is, why do so many people keep voting? Why did 64% of Democrats say in a recent poll they wanted this race to continue? Because in the face of the pundits and the naysayers, they know what is at stake. They know that we have two wars, an economy in crisis on the brink of a recession, $9 trillion of debt, oil prices shooting through the roof, gas prices and grocery prices hurting people who desperately are looking for a way to just keep going day to day. They know they need a champion. They need someone who's going to never stop fighting for health care that covers everyone, no exceptions, for an economy that lifts everyone up, for good jobs that won't be shipped overseas, for college affordability, for all that you can do to own a home and then to keep it.
She said Obama should be HER VP or drop out.
by nonwhiteperson 2008-05-13 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Post-Election Thread

heh.  todd, no offense, but i think both you and poblano are projecting.  she's not campaigning to be VP.  she knows--as do i, as does the DNC, and as do many of the superdelegates who're currently withholding their endorsements--that obama will lose the general to mccain.

i'm also glad that hillary's not letting an utterly corrupt media--especially the likes of NBC, that propaganda arm for obama--dictate our party's nomination.  an insightful comment by petey over at talkleft:

You misunderstand General Electric's reasons for running their "news" operation.

General Electric earns more than 20 times as much profit from their healthcare and financial divisions as they do from NBC.  Their "news" operation is a loss leader run entirely to disseminate propaganda designed to increase profits for the entire company.

In this case, General Electric's "news" operation is being run to help the candidate opposed to universal healthcare and weaker in support of Social Security - Barack Obama.

General Electric has been on a multi-decade long jihad against government social insurance programs.  This isn't personal for them, it's about their bottom line.

hmmmmmm....  most DEMS don't want obama, but the GOP and our thoroughly corrupt media do.  gee, i wonder why hillary's still in the race?  (hint:  it's not because she wants the VP slot.)

by nance 2008-05-14 01:14AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads