thanks-

Actually, the state with the largest percentage of white Southern Baptists is Tennessee, followed by Kentucky, Arkansas and Oklahoma.  These are also the whitest Southern states.

MS, AL, GA and SC trail because of a high black population. And LA has a lot of Catholics.

Obama is likely to get about 90% of the black vote and about 25% of the white vote.  Assuming blacks make up about 55% of the MS primary.  This translates into a 61%-38% victory for Obama, much like Wyoming.  

There are more black democrats (55%) than white democrats (43%). Hillary is actually doing well in that if she got 100% white dems and Obama got 100% black dems Obama would still win 55 to 43. So a final outcome in the election of 60 to 40 means Hillary loses in the aggregate by only 8 points in the emotional attachment of blacks to Obama than whites are to Hillary.

Easy win for Obama by default - not from any effort on his part- he gets it whether he campaigns or not.

But I wonder how that would play out in the delegate #s, considering proportionality and the district math.

Assume Hillary Clinton gets three times the number of net delegates over Obama in Florida than she did in Ohio.  That's 27 pledged delegates to dent his lead of 150.  Michigan is seen as a toss-up between the two.  It's not enough, especially when you look at North Carolina, Guam, and Indiana.   After tomorrow, Barack's overall delegate count will be past 1,600.

They only made predictions based on playing by the rules.  Rules that all of the candidates were aware of and had not objected to at the time.  Those rules included that Florida and Michigan delegates wouldn't be seated.  It was only when she knew that she was going to lose that she suddenly grew interested in "making sure those 2 states were represented".  The spreadsheet was for use in predicting delegates earned by Obama and for use within Obama's organization.  As they have the honor to make no attempt at changing the rules midway into the game, they had no need to make such a prediction.

for EVERY rule change Hillary demands.

primary

Mississippi's districts are different than Alabama.  Hillary was lucky in Alabama because there are three districts(AL-04, AL-05, and AL-06) with virtually no blacks which she carried.  All of the Mississippi districts have significant black populations and Clinton will have a hard time picking any off with the exception of maybe MS-04 if she does better than expected.  

It's my understanding that Hillary Clinton is running for president, not Bill.  Or did I miss something?

Also, all this red states talk ignores the fact that there are a lot of red states Obama won with Democratic Governors and Senators. If these can win state wide, it is at least conceivable that they could go Democratic for the presidential race.  

Bill Clinton taught the Democratic party how to win?  Does losing Congress for the first time since 1952 and not getting it back your idea of "winning".  

Thank God you're not a political advisor, otherwise the Democratic Party would be viable in only about 10 states right now.  It's this sort of thinking (which, surprise surprise, was in vogue during the Clinton years) which causes us to lose elections.

This is the gate to be crashed.

Couldn't help but think of Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Maine when you brought up Ohio.  Perhaps that will wake wake you up out of your snooze.

Fringe States like Oregon, WA, WI, MN, and IL, and non-swing states like NC, VA, IA, and MO.

"Bill Clinton, the only twice-elected Democratic President since FDR, taught the Democratic Party how to win, win again and govern successfully."

How many Dems won after him?

Is was a thread that didn't involve any of the Obama v Clinton rancor that pops up on so many of them. We were actually discussing polling percentages and odds and whatnot...

Thanks for doing your part to break the peace.

Yawn.

Is this what you were saying when Clinton 'won' Texas?  (I say 'won' because Obama actually took more delegates.)

Another disgusting, insulting, and anti-democratic  comment about how only some states matter.  If you're going to play that game, then go ahead and discount blue states like California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York.  After all, there's no way John McCain will win any of those states.  And get rid of the red states like Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas -- that Clinton will never carry in the general election.

When you're done with your idiotic game of deciding which states actually 'matter' (the actual nomination rules notwithstanding), you're left with Ohio and Florida.  Maybe the Democratic Party should just hold two primaries -- Florida and Ohio.  Winner takes all.  Sound like a plan?

We are now moving to the insult the 49 state strategy, only Ohio matters!

And where Senator Obama tanked, losing 83 of 88 counties.

Obama won most of the counties that Democrats win in Ohio.

Lambros,

If NAFTA, Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, losing Congress in 1994, "I didn't have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN", lying under oath, and impeachment is your definition of governing successfully, so be it.

The 50 state strategy is about securing the base AND laying the groundwork for the future of the party.

BTW, your base would be better off with Obama because he will draw in people from the fringes of the party, while Clinton is very likely to scare them off.

Personally, I'd like to see Obama drop out to fight another day, perhaps in 2012 after McCain's first term. Yes, Clinton will lose to McCain. A major factor in Bill's victory in 1992 was Ross Perot. Check the numbers. Unfortunately, Hillary will have Nader to contend with.

Anyway, the idea that Obama cannot or will not carry Blue states in the general election is ridiculous.

BTW, your arrogance reeks of Clintonism. Perhaps you're a superdelegate who favors voting for a candidate who won fewer states, fewer pledged delegates, and maybe even lost the popular vote. The superdelegates are the least democratic thing about the Democratic Party.

I still scratch my head over this "untried, unvetted neophyte" line every time I hear it.  I guess if you're untried because you haven't been first lady then it's true.  If it's time spent in public office then Obama has twice the amount that Clinton does.  Is it that only time spent in the US Senate counts?  

I guess beating someone with way more name recognition, insider support and a former president husband in a national primary race points to incompetence?

Well, maybe it does, except it points toward Clinton.

Depends on the state.  Most are decided by the delegates from the primary/caucus contests, but the state party structure has some pull in some of the states.

Rasmussen is right up there with ARG.  Rasmussen also says that Hillary's nationwide negatives are at 50% if not trending past 50%.  Do I care?  Nope.  Why?  It's Rasmussen.

Mississippi is the most racially polarized state in America. I don't care how much progress the state has made since 1965, or how many black legislators there are. No state is more racially polarized - even now.

Consider this:
In 2004, George W. Bush won 85% of the white vote. That was highest anywhere.
John Kerry won 90% of the black vote.
Race means everything in Mississippi politics - much more so than in Arkansas (where you live) and Tennessee (where I live). In our states we have a vibrant Democratic party based on bi-racial support. Arkansas's has done much better than ours in recent years.

Mississippi Democrats are only slightly less racially polarized than the general electorate. Ray Mabus is the only high-profile white MS Democrat to back Obama.

I think the threat of not voting for the other candidate if mine doesn't get the nomination is a little high right now statistically because we're in the heat of the competition.  That's one of the reasons that I don't like the idea of going all the way to Denver without this thing being decided.  We need time for whichever side loses to lick it's wounds and then come back to the reality that we have important work to do in repairing our nation and the other democrat is better than McCain.

McCain is:

* anti-choice

* wrong on economics

* will continue to shift the tax burden onto the middle class and working poor while giving out corporate welfare and relieving the wealthiest americans of any tax obligation

* pro-Iraq war for 100 years

* bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

* too weak to stand against torture

* pro warrantless wire-tapping

* pro (un)Patriot(ic) Act

* a veto pen to counteract democratic legislation even if we do maintain majorities in the face of a McCain win

* basically the opposite of everything progressive

* another term for W and the neocons

Folks the sooner we repudiate neoconservatism once and for all the better off we are.    But in order to force the GOP to abandon neoconservatism, and unitary executive, and preemptive war, they need a thrashing at the ballot box.

I will ardently support Barack Obama here and now, but when the GE comes around I will acknowledge that this election is MUCH MUCH bigger than Hilary vs Obama.

I miss the good old days when democrats said:

"Hey let's spend our money on education, strengthen unions, and make the tax structure fair for all americans."  

and Republicans said:  

"Oh no way!  Let's buy some more of them there bombers, and drive wages down by breaking up them union thangs, and then why we'll make sure that them thar rich folks gets all the money so's they can create us some jobs.  No, they won't just put it in their bank accounts like they have every other time!"  

Odd as it seems that's far better than today:

Democrats: "We must obey the Constitution!"

Neocons: "We have a constitution?!"

Less than half of Clinton's supporters would vote for Obama vs. McCain? Wow. I guess that's what you get when  you run your campaign on spite and sarcasm: bitter, cynical, disloyal democrats who'd rather vote for John McCain than Barack Obama. Impressive.

No, this ensures a choice that is palatable to the majority of the party and builds party infrastructure.  

How is this delegate thing bad for the party?  

Also, all those Republicans...

nice way of saying racist.

Obama - 61 Clinton - 36

This is very true.  Survey USA had a poll that Obama within 3 points of McCain in South Carolina.  

This is very true.  Survey USA had a poll that Obama within 3 points of McCain in South Carolina.  

Illinois-14 was just the beginning.

a state with a near 40% black population isn't perennially in play.  There have to be some loyal white dems in MS to get us to 50%.  Right?

How could he unite the racists?

What a smackdown.  He really needed to respond to this VP nonsense, and he has done so masterfully.

Though I've said before that Hillary would make a nice veep.

china hussein paulo

Yeah.  She came out of March 4th with 6 delegates over him, then he got 2 out of Wyoming.  I think maybe ten superdelegates have endorsed him since last Monday.

But if he doesn't resign for a bit, there will be lots of media coverage that will remind people of the sex scandals of years past.

2 hypotheses:

1) Whether or not she campaigns in Mississippi, the internals say that she won't increase her delegate total (the ceiling and basement of her support are very close);

2) She's living the "big state" strategy - if Mississippi is not important but Pennsylvania is, then she would be acting contrary to her campaign's philosophy by appearing in Mississippi when she could be campaigning in Pennsylvania instead.  Campaigning there implies that it has significance.

because its an insignificant state :)

also, does she have to be there when Obama isn't? She's already pretty high up. The numbers only tighten when he campaigns in the state. As long as he isnt there, there isn't any reason to skip out on mississippi the day before the primary.

I know she doesn't want to look like she's chasing Obama across the country (though that'd be easy to avoid, since they're both heading to Penn next anyway) but I think it would go a long way to changing the narrative of the campaign if she at least put up a fight for Mississippi. It would keep the delegate count and the popular vote close.

Since the Clinton campaign may have to argue that the super delegates should go based on the popular vote, she should try to keep the numbers as close as possible. Granted, the racial divide is pretty stark, but she needs to keep his numbers down so he can't run up the score on both counts.

A Clinton loss by 10 in MS is a moral victory.
An Obama loss in PA means doom to the REALLY REAL DEMS and President Yawn McCain.

At least that' what I learned at MYDD after OH.

polls 8 month out from the election. If history is any indicator that is nto gonan work out for Hillary.

That wasn't misleading.  You cited 2 out of many surveys and said "Clinton has the largest lead (+2) in any of the polls, however."  The "any" is 2.

Also, any poll that came out more than a day ago is useless in this race. On march 8, for example, Gallup had Obama up against Clinton by 1, in today's poll it +5.

They haven't repolled the match-ups with mccain since March 8, its probably changed too.

Further, can we acknowledge that those polls don't mean anything? Gore won 51% of the country in 2000. The only poll that comes marginally close to showing what the electoral field will look like is the SUSA state by state poll, because it focuses on particular states, not just nationwide.

The fact that both are leading McCain is good news no matter how tentative a poll this far out can be.  The fact that they are basically tied (in other recent polls he has a slight lead) puts an end to the argument Obama's delegate and popular vote lead should be reversed for issues of electability.    

Also--
That same poll (Newsweek) puts Obama in the lead 45/44 among Democrats for the nomination.  Funny, since one of the favored spin points around mydd is that Clinton wins "Real Democrats," while Obama's voters shouldn't count in a Democratic nomination.

There is a kernel of truth to the "real Democrat" argument here, but that actually puts the argument in a worse bind:

The Newsweek poll does seem to count Independents who are leaners towards Democrats as "Democrats."

However, if Clinton maintains a slight lead vs. McCain, it is b/c Obama increases his lead among Independents, while bleeding off some of Clinton's "real Democrats" to McCain.

Thus many "Real Democrats" are potential McCain voters.

the uncommitted voters in Michigan thank you.

TR'd because this has nothing to do with anything else in the thread - but I guess you'd rather us talk about something else. Posting inflammatory statements to change the subject is known as "trolling."

I know this is the latest talking point for the Clinton crowd but Obama doesn't just win the AA vote.  I'm in CO and we voted heavily for Obama.  We have very few AA people here. My county voted an Obama majority and we don't even have a Starbucks, too rural.  Average age here is squarely in Clinton's demographic too but we take politics seriously and we want change.

Don't make assumptions based on race or you will be eating your words later.  

Obama hasn't lost a state with as high a black vote as North Carolina is likely to have.  The black share of the vote should be similar to that in Virginia.  His share of the white vote ought to be about what he got in Georgia.

Obama's Black vote - 85% of 35% - 29.75% of total vote

Obama's White vote - 42% of 65% - 27.3% of total vote

Total - 56.8%

it's called Hillary Math® jbsloan.

don't try to understand it, just watch those whom subscribe to this type of math spin effortless towards the ground.