Amazing will be when Clinton makes her victory speech at the Convention.

what utter crap!

do you think people here werent paying attention?

stop the stupid juvenile lying huh?

from a neighbor, and they stopped calling them samoas! I forgot what they call that cookie now.

Thanks.

Wait for California... so far big win for Hillary.

I want to see this!

Could you provide a link to the WA state democratic caucus

For Obama a tie is a win.  I should go looking for some ripe comments from a few months ago mocking and deriding Obama based on early polling.  Pride cometh before the fall.  We have done very well, methinks.    Eh, Howard Dean?  Thanks for blazing the trail for us.

Chuck Todd was just saying about 847-847, but that's before the superdelegates.  I heard Sen. Boxer will endorse Clinton since she won CA.  But more recently Obama has been doing with superdelegates.  Clinton should maintain a narrow lead because of them for the next couple days.  But I think this weekend Obama will gain ground on her.

MI and FL do matter!  They will be represented at the convention.

How have the debates affected anything thus far?  Other than Hillary's debacle in Philadelphia, I don't think they've done squat.  More people go to caucuses than watch them.  Debates 112-117 won't change many minds.

Because no way Obama can carry CA, NY, MA, and NJ in the general election, right?

Why did this comment deserve a TR? Please explain, Sandwich Repairman.

Hang around and you will see.  Politics is all about good strategy.  Honestly, as recently as a month or two ago how did you rate his chances to holding her to a delegate tie today?  Honestly?

By winning most of the others lol

Did HRC win any states that she wasn't suppose to win?  Nope.

Did Obama?  Yep:  He wasn't suppose to win Connecticut or Missouri and he did.

So you want to nominate the Dem candidate based on caucuses in states where we won't win:

Utah
Idaho
Alaska
Kansas

Uhh I think we need Missouri. I think we need Iowa. Colorado, etc...

And 80% in one state and it's Idaho. Wow.

those are all Democratic gimmes in November?

MI and FL did play by the rules.  They wanted a stake in the early nominating process, and they will be seated.  In the end, it will be these institutional advantages that will ultimately give Hillary the nomination.

They traded media attention for their delegates.

Stupid, imho, but their right.

I strongly disagree.

I don't agree, I think it should be proportional allocation, but if a candidate gets 50% of more, it should be winner-take-all.

I just find it ludicrous in two instances so far:

Iowa, Obama wins by 8% and beats HRC by 1 delegate

Nevada, HRC wins by 8%, and loses by 1 delegate.

How about % of delegates based on % of vote?

Thank you for that brilliant insight.

Not.

The compressed, front-loaded process is already skewed in favor of establishment candidates.  We're Democrats; we don't nominate someone just because it's their "turn" a la Bob Dole.  What we need is a rotating regional primary system that runs from March to June and doesn't put Iowa and New Hampshire in front of everyone else.

Oh, yeah, I agree about the expectations:  all the press, all the polls about the incredible, inexorable Obama "Mo", complete with the blessing of Saint Ted Kennedy and Maria Shriver.

Feh.  

I expect Obama to continue to do well in caucus states.  (N.B., I've always disliked the caucus process, no matter how fascinating DesMoinesDem makes it sounds.  They're fundamentally anti-democratic, giving disproportionate power to small, passionate and well-organized groups over broader metrics of support.

However, in Texas and Ohio, sayonara to Obama.   Maryland and Virginia may be narrow victories one way or the other, certainly nothing definitive.

And I must get me sister in-law in Seattle to attend the caucuses...she's pro-Hillary.

We are way past the point of thinking about expectations and moral victories.  Over half the states have voted.

Clinton has 16 + years of favors being called in. She is the closest thing we could have to an incumbent. She has MASSIVE institutional support.  Name recognition that Muhammad Ali would envy.

And Obama is fighting her every step of the way.

The question is will the gloves come off so he can draw sharper distinctions or will he wait because the terrain favors him the next few weeks.

This is a political fight that none of us has ever seen. I'm rooting for Obama but I am enjoying all of the back and forth.

Tomorrow is a new day. I can't wait.

Yeah, well, that will what yall kept saying about California and it didn't happen.  California has a message for Oprah- "Oprah, go back home to Chicago and take Obama with you!"

Losing leads of 20+% over a couple of weeks isn't her stopping anyone cold.  At best, she held on by her fingernails...

Let's revisit how "cold" he is in a week - after 3 caucuses and the Chesapeake Bay Primaries.

Thank you.  This is an excellent test of mettle for the first female president....

Check again. It's now tied with 38% reporting.

When 20% were reporting, Clinton was leading 51-42, so the trend is looking really good fro Obama there.

Well that is Obama central so they would say he wins no matter what.  I'm sure the Hillary campaign may not be thrilled but are happy with their numbers tonight.

Your comparison is off.  People claimed that Bush stole the election because of the vote in Florida, which would have swung that state's electoral votes to Gore.  There was less protest about the nationwide popular vote.  After all, how much energy was devoted to cleaning up the elections process, as opposed to eliminating the electoral college?

In any event, I don't think you can get as much traction out of the popular vote in the primaries as you seem to believe.  Each state's rules are different - open primaries, closed primaries, caucuses that involve horse-trading, straight-up elections, etc.  You can't just look at the raw numbers and say that they tell the whole story.

Actually he has ND in BOTH lists.  Double oops.

Santa Barbara is not a big county.

A "whole bunch of beer-drinking Democrats"?  What the hell kind of demographic is that supposed to be?  I almost feel insulted.