MyDD :: Another Wyoming Results Thread

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

No, those are actual votes.

Remember, this is Wyoming. I spent two decades living in different parts of that state. There are domociles where the closest neighbor is about thirty miles away. There are towns with a population of 2.

There are a total of 319 delegates to the State Convention in Jackson Hole during Memorial Day Weekend.

Looks to me like Clinton did best in the badlands and the red desert.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."

Are you oblivious to the fact that your candidate is going to need Hillary's supporters to vote for him in the off chance that he wins? The latest polls are showing that 51% of his supporters will vote for her , but only 47% of hers will vote for him.

by LadyEagle on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:18:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And those people are stupid!

FACT: Supreme Court justices will be up for dibs.

You want McCain picking them?

by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your number are certainly wrong. I think both number are actually in the 10% range and the one with the off-change is also not Obama, but how am I to wake you up from your dreams!

This is my favorite blog to read in all of the intertubes. I get frustrated when I watch Hillary's team get nasty and "traditional." The only solace I get is that they will fight like their lives depended on it in the general (unlike Kerry).

by lqbruin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM EST

Thanks, I'll check it out.

by lqbruin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes...Obama/Webb would be the best ticket in my mind.

by lqbruin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:24:37 PM EST

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't Webb on Hillary's side?

If not he would be the best VP

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Supporting Hillary makes him untenable as a VP? Wow.

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no what I meant was if he is on Hillary's side he may not want to have the job

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Supporting Hillary translates into not supporting Obama.. that does not spell good news for us in November.

by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop trying to make that comment into something it isn't.

by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Webb on Hillary's side - not that I know of.

by Trowaman on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Webb is on AMERICA'S side.

America's side = undeclared.

by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:57:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

obama campaigned for him.

he would gladly be his vp and i would like either webb or kaine as vp.

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:01:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that would be so awesome! That ticket right there will give Obama an extra 5-10% boost in the polls. (not that he needs it)

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not that he needs it?

Oh yes he does. What planet are you people from? I mean that in the friendliest possible way. Seriously, do you really believe he will win in a landslide? That's just so bizarre.

by phillyred on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. Obama vs. McCain will be a GOP knockout. Webb won't help, and a drawnout fight with the Clintons won't help either.

If Hillary can take the air out of Obamas sails with "friendly" campaigning, then imagine what the GOP can do with a few months of right hooks. And who knows what the Rezko mess will turn up.

Congrats to Obama for another nice win.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

You've got it backwards. HRC is using the right wing attacks against BHO. She is even feeding fake stories to the right wing, e.g. the madrassa lie:

This will inoculate BHO because everything is out.

But, HRC hasn't seen the right wing attacks. For example they'll pull out the part of the 9-11 report that says Clinton foriegn policy mistakes inspired Bin Ladin to do 9-11. And, when the tax returns come out the right wing will have a field day figuring out just what WJC has been doing:

http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clint on_net_worth-wealth.html

They'll pick up on Frank Rich, and the $400,000 HRC's brother received for pardons from WJC, and pardoning FALN terrorists so HRC would get Puerto Rican votes in NY. Sure, this is water under the bridge, but smears work and the right wing attack machine will frame a picture of corruption so that it leverages peoples already existing fears about the Clintons.

Then, there is the question Romney rasied in one of the debates, "what will WJC be up to roaming around the white house." But, they'll be more ruthless than that phrasing would suggest.

And, HRC is claiming her justification for winning the nomination is her experience dealing with foriegn policy crises. This is the perfect setup for McCain to knock her over.

And, there are about a hundred other things waiting out there. myDD diarists often get their anti-BHO material from right wing websites like "Sweetness & Light." Of course these diarists, ignore the huge amount of anti-HRC stuff, but you can check it out if you don't believe it is sitting there ready to go.

By the way the Rezko story is hype.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/200802 18/pl_bloomberg/ar8nlioqedc4

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:17:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by hctb on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you mean Marc Rich? I mean if you are going to spend your time throwing dirt at Democrats you should probably at least troll around the conspiracy sites to get your facts straight.

Unless Clinton has been having some secret dealings with the NYT columnist.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

You believe that noting a misspelling will inoculate HRC. It sounds like you HRC supporters are tapping my Obama Kool Aid.

by 1jpb on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, way to go and take a comment out of context, I know you are a rabid Hillary supporter but no one has ever predicted it will be easy. I firmly believe it will be easier for Obama to win the general election than Hillary (with her negatives in the high 40's.) Recent polling by SUSA backs me up, but don't let facts or logic get in the way of you frothing in the mouth.

Wyoming rejects Clinton's politics of fear (1.66 / 3)

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:29:46 PM EST

Re: Wyoming rejects Clinton's politics of fear (2.00 / 3)

Or there is no politics of fear, and we have another state being taken by Sen Obamas superior caucusing strategy.

Which of course doesn't mean he didn't win. But no need to try to smear the other side.

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wyoming rejects Clinton's politics of fear (none / 0)

Yeah, let us be better than the gloating Hillary supporters that smeared us when they narrowly won last Tuesday!

by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wyoming rejects Clinton's politics of fear (none / 0)

When the past catches up with Sen Obama and it will you fans are going to fly around the room backwards. This week was the start of something big

by bradydundee on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wyoming rejects Clinton's politics of fear (none / 0)

The past catches up? The past?
You are a pathetic person to try to start rumors like this. You don't know anything we don't know about him and you most probably know much less, otherwise you could not sustain your irrational hatred for Sen. Obama.

by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wyoming rejects Clinton's politics of fear (none / 0)

Listen, I honestly think both sides should be civil, win or lose. Someone's gotta start!

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wyoming rejects Clinton's politics of fear (none / 0)

It's hard when you only hear Obama Obama someone needs to give you folks a shot of reality.
Besides he does have a past and if he should be the nominee you'll find out. The republicans won't be this kind.

by bradydundee on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wyoming rejects Clinton's politics of fear (none / 0)

As it becomes more and more apparent that Obama will be the Dem nominee, you will hear more and more about him. And that's a good thing.

That One is the Right One for 2008.

by GFORD on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Won't be this kind" (none / 0)

Do you really think Hillary is being "kind". You must be a wonderful friend.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ann0nymous on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:30:04 PM EST

Could somebody please clear whether 1532 is the total number of votes or not? It seems too small for a state where there are around 60 k Dems.

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:31:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is the number of state convention delegates who will in turn elect the actual convention delegates.

Re: Another Wyoming Results Thread (none / 0)

No, it think this is the number of caucusers, isnt it?
The popular vote in Cheyenne is out of 1500 voters.
Perhaps I misunderstand these reports though.

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:47:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:50:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. That's the total vote count. There are basically four places in the whole state with any Democrats: Jackson, Cheyenne, Laramie, and Caspar. Caspar is the only thing most of us would even call a city. Most likely, Caspar and Jackson haven't reported.

Number on votes (none / 0)

Go check on politico, it has an auto refreshing site. They have 6715 votes so far.

by del on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:34:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by americanincanada on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:30:34 PM EST

Does anyone really think Obama can carry this state in November? Really?

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What difference does it make ?

by mainelib on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you suggest that the Democratic party not hold nominating contests in certain states?

And, besides, there are elections when one candidate wins a huge number of the states, including ones that the other party typically wins: 1964, 1972, 1984.

It is fairly doubtful that WY would go to a Democrat, but then again they have elected Dems statewide recently. Their Governor is a Democrat.

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Won Texas."

Delegates are more important than votes: Obama has hauled those goals posts a bit himself.

by Aris Katsaris on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If the popular vote was what counted, then Gore would have been elected president in 2000, without need for those recounts in Florida.

Or perhaps different amounts of people would have come to vote in a number of states, and it'd have been Bush again.

Either way the system is what it is, even if we'd prefer it otherwise. Pledged delegates are what these primaries and caucauses determine -- that and the vague notion of "momentum" ofcourse.

by elrod on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, delegates matter more than votes. In fact, Wyoming is a state where Obama's delegate pick under plays his vote total. He'll win 60-40 (when Teton comes), but he'll only up 2 delegates (3 when the add-in is included). Or in Alabama, Obama won by 15 but only won the delegate total 27-25. It happens in both directions that delegates don't match votes. But it's delegates that decide the nominee and they are selected by the voters in primaries and caucuses.

by mainelib on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Add NH, too, where Clinton is currently behind McCain and people are seriously pissed at her leaving NH and then trying to get FL and MI to count.

NH folks are also mad when they found out that they lied about Obama's record on abortion.

Think NH doesn't matter? If Gore had won NH in 2000, he would have won the presidency.

Oh, and by the way, the Bush folks seriously contested Maine both times and Obama won by 19 points and we don't like being told we're insignificant - especially after the 3 Clintons made numerous appearances in order to try to win the state.

by del on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What do you mean by Clinton leaving NH?

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Margins in caucus states are really deceptive. Caucuses are all about organizing: If the campaigns don't get people there, they don't show up. Here in Colorado, Hillary pulled out all her money a week before Feb 5 and as a result Obama beat her by 20 points. She knew that she would get a respectable number of delegates and her money was better spent elsewhere. Or at least that was the calculation. My point is that since the numbers are relatively low (in CO's case, about 225k statewide) a little bit of organizing can make a huge difference. Get another 10k people to show up, and all of a sudden 5 points disappears in his lead. For reference, Obama's lead in the last polls before caucus day, among all Democrats, was barely outside the margin of error.

Re: margins in caucuses deceptive (none / 0)

Along those lines, the WA caucus was 68% to 31% the primary that followed in WA was close to 50-50. Unfortunately the Dems only use the caucus results not a combination of the two.

by del on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: margins in caucuses deceptive (none / 0)

Using WA as an example of this is laughable.

The Democratic primary up here is meaningless, and everyone knows that, so claiming that its an accurate means of measuring support for a particular candidate in the state is ludicrous.

by sorrodos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmmm, (none / 0)

You really took the wrong meaning I simply stated the primary had substantially different results and it is too bad the State Dem Party won't combine them. According to the Sec of State it is up to the State party.

by del on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:51:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Umm ... Hillary won New Mexico.

Here we go again (none / 0)

How long did it take before Wyoming was reduced to insignificance? The latte-sippers in Teton County haven't even caucused yet and you've alright consigned the Equality State to irrelevance. Oh the tragedy!

by elrod on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Wyoming Results Thread (none / 0)

I don't understand that argument. Moreover, the argument that Obama can't/won't win CA, NY, and NJ in November is ridiculous. He'll win the traditional "Blue" states. He'll also show much better and possibly win CO, NV, MO, and IA.
Seriously, look at the number of voters he has brought out to vote. That is the telling fact.

by lqbruin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oops, looks ike I copied Al 1000. I'm just a slow typist.

by lqbruin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:00:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. There is no evidence that I'm aware of showing the Obama has brought out more voters than Clinton. In fact, what circumstantial evidence there is points the opposite way. The highest turnout states have disproportionately gone to Clinton. And more telling, in the two states where we've had simultaneous (low turnout) caucuses and (high turnout) primaries, Clinton has done better in the primaries. In fact, much better. That strongly suggests that it's Clinton drawing unlikely voters into the process. What Obama's doing is making caucus goers out of regular voters. And frankly, in a high voltage election like this where most people Dems will vote, that and a couple bucks will buy you a nice latte.

Re: Another Wyoming Results Thread (none / 0)

You may be right. Honestly, I'm just looking at the turnout for his rallies compared to hers. He plays better and draws huge numbers that are highly visible. Add that to the fundraising lead he has over Clinton, and you have the explanation why the MSM is pumping his ability to bring new voters out.
And in the end, we need that MSM meme for help.

by lqbruin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by haystax calhoun on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, ColoradoGuy is wrong. Obama has more votes cast than Clinton, period.

Wait, you/we are right. But more importantly, we Democrats need to stop arguing with each other.

by lqbruin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:11:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Trowaman on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:12:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He can narrow the margin, make the democratic brand non-toxic, and get Trauner elected to congress.

So, yes, Wyoming does matter at the Presidential level.

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:03:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Trauner has no chance. Nice guy, but he had his chance last time running against the all time least popular Republican in Wyoming. He's going to lose by 20.

by Trowaman on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow. Just wow.

For the 100th darn time... (2.00 / 1)

it's NOT just about the general election!!!

It's unlikely that either Obama or Clinton could actually win a state like Wyoming. But do you even care if it's competitive?

A more competitive race does two things:
1. Forces the GOP to spend money they can't afford to spend on a state that Bush carried without breaking a sweat. Expanding the map is a good thing, especially considering our superior financial position.

2. It betters our chances on down-ticket races. If candidates like Scott Kleeb are going to have any chance, we need as many Democrats as possible to turn out. It appears so far that Obama can accomplish that better than Clinton, ergo, I want Obama to win.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the 100th darn time... (none / 0)

If Obama's going to lose Ohio, Florida, and maybe Pennsylvania and New Jersey, then no, I don't care if Wyoming's competitive. And I don't care if he wins Colorado and Virginia either.

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the 100th darn time... (none / 0)

Perhaps you didn't see Survey USA's numbers. You should really take a look at them before you make such grim prognostications, which aren't even factually correct.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:14:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly! (none / 0)

The more states that the Dem candidate puts into play, the more thinly spread McCain's campaign becomes.

by haystax calhoun on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by CalGirl on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM EST

Is Wyoming the last caucus?

South Dakota? (none / 0)

I think South Dakota and/or Montana have caucuses, but I'm not sure. Puerto Rico just moved to a primary.

by elrod on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:40:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LiberalFL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:43:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, it is.

And I don't know if there's anything to this, but I noticed it on CNN, and I've seen it in other states: how many times has Senator Clinton gotten 60% or above against Obama? Counties or Statewide. He's winning 6 (I think, it may be 5 or 7) counties in Wyoming by 60% or better.

Just throwing that out there.

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In caucuses, right? Let's add that to the note. Because in Washington state he didn't do nearly as well in primary as in caucuses.

by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And in that beauty straw poll in Wonderland he did even worse! What were you saying?

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What I am saying simply is that caucuses slightly distort outcome. For example Sen Obama is doing 3-4% better in delegate count than in popular vote count, most of it because of caucus distortions.

That's all I am saying. No need to be defensive. Didn't say he didn't win.

by LiberalFL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Certainly in caucuses, but also in primaries. The Potomac primaries, for sure, though I don't know about others.

by elrod on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can't compare the WA caucus to the WA primary. One counted and everybody knew it. The other did not, and most people knew it too.

A better comparison is Texas, where everybody knew both counted. But Hillary's Limbaugh supporters who put her over the top in the primary contest couldn't bear the though of showing up in a room with Democrats and so stayed home. Among voters who actually cared to caucus, Obama won big. Thus, he won Texas.

by sorrodos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:19:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Claiming that the WA Democratic primary is an accurate means of determining support for one candidate or another is asinine.

The primary doesn't matter at all, everyone here (I live in WA) knows that, so some people don't vote in it.

The Washington State Democratic primary is meaningless. Attempts to attach meaning to it are dishonest or ignorant.

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I live in WA. I participated in the caucus, with mild support for Obama. I did not bother voting in the primary; it didn't count.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Primaries were also held in Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, Maryland, Connecticut, Missouri and Wisconsin, among others. Do those count?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/report_girl_safe_and_asl eep_in.php

Actually, I don't know if its the last closed primary or the last primary period.

And did you see, on TPMelectioncentral.com, the girl in the 3AM ad is now 17 (will be 18 by Nov) and she voted for Obama. Not really news, but pretty funny, nonetheless.

by LiberalFL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama

Wyoming shows how Hillary isn't popular in the whole West/North West swath of States.

In next door Idaho Hillary got a paltry 17% to Obama's 79%

In next door Colorado Hillary got 32% to Obama's 67%.

In next door Nebraska Hillary got 32% to Obama's 68%

In Next door Utah Hillary got 39% to Obama's 57%

Here in Washington's caucus Hillary got 31% to Obama's 68%.

by Lefty Coaster on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:40:50 PM EST

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And in the Washington primary she got 46% to his 51%. Forgot that one.

Of all these states the only ones that matter (or may matter in GE) are Washington, Colorado.

by sorrodos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again, the Washington State Democratic primary is meaningless, it isn't used to determine anything, so to base an argument off of it is moronic.

Since its outcome doesn't affect anything, there are scores of people who do not vote in it. Thus, its not an accurate gauge of anything.

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its not meaningless. It didn't have pledged delegates, but it doesn't make it meaningless. People came out and voted. You know, a lot of people.

It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama

Not quite came out to vote, it was by mail.

by Lefty Coaster on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by sorrodos on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:04:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Marvin32, yes, a lot came out to vote.

But there were also a lot who didn't come out to vote.

My point isn't that no one voted, its that because some people didn't vote (simply because the primary is, practically, meaningless), you can't claim it as an objective means of gauging public opinion.

by mainelib on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In the SUSA general election 50 state poll, Obama wins WA and OR and Clinton loses both.

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:49:21 PM EST

hahah I saw that last night, take notes MSM!

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The blatant misogyny of Maher is disgusting. He played a clip from her book about finding out about Lewinsky as a sign of her leadership.

You know you are an asshat when Joe Scarborough thinks you have crossed a line.

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh please first of all he is a comedian and secondly, he rips democrats and republicans. The difference beteween Maher and the MSM is he isn't afraid to call BS when they won't answer questions.

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh. Yes he rips both, but hates women, political or not.

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he doesn't hate women, he has had numerous women on his show and he has been respectful. He is the type of comedian that when he sees BS he calls it, regardless of sex, age, or religion

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:33:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

uh.. sure. He is completely objective and honorable! (chest bumps)

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah just because he tears into your candidate that makes him a meenie! I get it

by Brillobreaks on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like him, pretty good comedian. But he's very definitely sexist. Anyone's that's listened to any of his standup knows that, nevermind his personal life.

by Scotch on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One of his really good friends is Ann Coulter. That says a lot about his view of women and whether anyone has to respect him or not. Anyone who thinks Counter is worth anything, doesn't have respect for anyone.

Bill Maher states that anyone who believes in God (none / 0)

is nuts. Now, if he doesn't want to believe, have at it. To denigrate the millions who do - who the hell does he think he is?

I stopped watching him - as in click - when he said that Jon Benet Ramsey pranced around the stage like a little whore.

For me, ANYONE who sees Jon Benet in her outfits and sees "a whore" has something VERY WRONG in his head.

by Southern Mouth on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:30:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ad Hom attack. Try actually addressing the discussion.

I'll play Jerome for the thread (none / 0)

Wyoming doesn't count.

by Teaser on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:53:11 PM EST

BREAKING: PA moving to a CAUCUS!!! (none / 0)

Oh noes!

http://plush-life.blogspot.com/

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:27:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It kind of doesn't. It's a margin of 3 delegates and like a thousand in the popular vote. Big whoop-de-do.

Re: I'll play Jerome for the thread (none / 0)

Funny you say that coz you know those HUGE results you were so happy about on Tuesday ? Yeah, that's right. She gained 4 delegates from all that.
So back to square one :)
Big woopydoo.

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by rejectandenounce on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

haha

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:51:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So now you are pinning your hopes that the MSM become mathletes?

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, the superd's are now waiting for Pennsylvania. If she wins big there and takes over the popular vote lead, it's anyone's game and the superd's want to be in a position to play kingmaker. If I were a superd (and I know many uncommitted ones) I would sit tight and not answer the phone until June.

by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is highly unlikely that she takes over the popular vote lead though. Highly unlikely. I'm not 100% sure we have to wait that long, but I guess Clinton earned the right to have us all wait a bit longer given last Tuesdays results.

Re: I'll play Jerome for the thread (none / 0)

Absolutely.
That's how I read the results too.
They didn't change the race. Just prolonged it :)

by Benjaminomeara on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:20:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wyoming is a latte drinking African-American (none / 0)

state and that is why Obama won it.

Of course it doesn't matter.

by puma on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:30:08 PM EST

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

Zellary plays well in the badlands and the Red Desert.

An interesting point about the Red Desert is the fact that the entire desert is the great divide. Yep, that's right, the entire desert sits right on top of it. It's the highway to the west coast. This si why the transcontinental railroad, the Lincoln Highway, and Interstate 80 all went through it.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:43:58 PM EST

Re: Another Wyoming Results Thread (1.00 / 1)

Tha'ts your problem, not mine. After her endorsement of McCain, she remains Zellary Lieberton to me always.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:50:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by hctb on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:53:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe that will help her win Georgia in the general. Zell Miller is still quite popular there, ya know? Hope scholarship and all.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

She should ahve her super delegate status revoked under the Zell Miller rule.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by hctb on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:02:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Right, because Hillary is beloved by Republicans.

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey I've been wondering: Why is it bad for Lieberman to win because of Republican and Independent votes, but good for Obama to do the same thing?

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

Because Lieberman wasn't the Democratic Candidate.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:12:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Being Offensive seems to be their strongest suit (none / 0)

Scream, cry foul, call names, generalize .... make wild accusations without proof over and over, then say "see it's a pattern", accuse the other party of EXACTLY what you are doing - and in general be very prejudging.

Hmmm, sounds like a Republican to me!

by Southern Mouth on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:02:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:45:38 PM EST

Webb was here in CO doing the Dems Jefferson-Jackson day speech. He was asked about being Veep and he basically said no way. For most majority party Senators, particularly one with as much buzz as him, you arguably have more power in the Senate than as VP. Which is why Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama is so unlikely. They loser could in fact by Majority Leader next year.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

Tim Kaine is the better pick. IT solidifies VA.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:49:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by bradydundee on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:07:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like daffy duck or how about mickey mouse

by bradydundee on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like daffy duck or how about mickey mouse

A 7-5 Delegate Split... (none / 0)

The Obama campaign's spreadsheet from over a month ago predicted a 7-5 split in Wyoming (+2).

That campaign sure knows how to count.

by BBCWatcher on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:49:01 PM EST

Re: A 7-5 Delegate Split... (2.00 / 1)

Whoever did the electoral math for Obamamakes Chuck Todd look like a rank amateur.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by bradydundee on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:03:04 PM EST

Jim Webb has more sense then to join Obama.

by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How come?

by bradydundee on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sen Webb has common sense

Re: Another Wyoming Results Thread (1.00 / 1)

Quit the crappy Republican talk and start acting like a Democrat. Present a cogent argument.

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by bradydundee on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not crappy republican talk it's Obama crappy talk. I'm for Hillary.

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:13:21 PM EST

Excuse me? Hillary "has" the DNC? You're accusing Howard Dean of supporting Obama?

You guys are so blind you don't even realize that your guy long ago became the establishment candidate, the one with all the money and the high profile endorsers. Right down to the Oprah imprimatur. It's HRC that's crashing the gates.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

Most members of the DNC in the states Hillary won were put there by Bill.

I thought everybody understood that.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Leftyy2k4 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:18:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah cause her husband isn't the last elected democratic president.

yeah she didn't have over 150 super delegates lined up before one vote was cast.

the advantages obama has he has built from scratch. like this win. his grassroots ground game is killing her. please the gatecrasher is obama.

by tysonpublic on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:59:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton Obama
Gov.    10    11
Sen.    13    15
Rep.    72    70
DPL    10    4
DNC    138    101
Add-Ons    0    2

Note the nearly 40+ lead in DNC Superdelegates. You want to say again how Clinton isn't the establishment candidate?

by Will Graham on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently winning caucuses fair and square is undemocratic and evil but cashing in favors from DNC big shots is just fine.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

Except she actually campaigned in Wyoming and she ignored the surrounding caucus states. She and Bill and Chelsea covered much more of the state than did Obama. By taking the state seriously she managed to still lose by 20%. I bet if she'd tried in Colorado or Minnesota or Nebraska she would have cut her margins there too.

That Cheyenne with its AFSCME voters went so heavily for Obama shows that Hillary has no momentum to speak of. In fact, today's Rasmussen tracker shows Hillary's post-March 4 momentum has disappeared too.

Note also that Obama now leads McCain again for the first time since February 21. Looks like Obama survived the rough patch and is looking good going to Mississippi and then the campaign for Pennsylvania.

by elrod on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:15:13 PM EST

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

Also, Obama is averaging over 40,000 online donaitons per day. If the average donation size of ~$75 from February holds up, that's just above $3,000,000 per day. That would put Obama at over $24,000,000 so far this month.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well done, CNN! (none / 0)

They waited until the Teton County caucuses opened to call it.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:15:17 PM EST

http://www.e8voice.blogspot.com

The argument that is being articulated consistently that Obama only wins caucuses in Republican states (or variants) can be quite easily dismissed.

I have done an analysis of the performance of the two candidates in states that were Democrat in 2004. Obama is ahead in terms of pledged delegates and number of states.

The analysis is available here:

See latest on US, EU and UK politics at http://www.e8voice.blogspot.com

by e8voice on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:17:53 PM EST

by hermansf on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:20:31 PM EST

despite predictions that Hillary would have momentum and do better than in other caucuses, it looks like it's another loss by close to 20 points...

does this state count or is it another of the non-important states??

by njsketch on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can we actually stop counting state delegates as popular vote totals. Yes, if you want to be technical, the state delegate percentage was roughly 18%. But you know the vote differential that separated them, roughly 1400 state delegates.

This is why caucus' suck, no matter who wins them. If you're being intellectually honest, tell me that Obama would win the same percentage in a primary as he would in a caucus. It just wouldn't happen.

See latest on US, EU and UK politics at http://www.e8voice.blogspot.com

There is just no way of knowing how he would or wouldn't perform- it's just speculation. From what I see the actual results in caucus states don't vary too much from the overall poll numbers. Though, of course the Texas caucus was an interesting exception to that....

I might do an analysis of how Obama performs in primaries as opposed to caucuses at some point. Having just done the democrat state v republican state analysis it seems that a lot of what is being bandied about just doesn't stack up...

Analysis at http://www.e8voice.blogspot.com

by e8voice on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by njsketch on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:36:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, so far we have two other states that held both primaries and cacucuses. Obama won the Washington caucus but narrowly won the primary, and he won the Texas caucus but lost the primary by over 100K votes.

I do not think that his 30-40 point spread of wins in other caucus states would translate to the same primary percentage wins. It may be speculation, but looking at these other examples, it seems highly unlikely.

by ColoradoGuy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whose predictions would those be? Yours?

SHERIDAN COUNTY GOES FOR OBAMA (none / 0)

By a huge margin of 61-39.

IF Teton goes by a similar margin, the spreadsheet will have been dead on accurate for Wyomng.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:23:05 PM EST

by njsketch on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:26:42 PM EST

Yes, and Dukakis' main challenger, Jesse Jackson, would have done much better in the GE matchup with Bush 41.

Stop this nonsense.

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Asking a HRC supporter to be fair? Good luck with that.

I'm about ready to ditch this blog due to the complete bias and incoherence of Hillary supporters. Most are as irrational as their Republican counterparts.

If this blog is any indication, HRC supporters want her or nothing.

Disgusting.

Clinton says she won't accept caucus in FL and MI (none / 0)

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/camp aign-2008/2008/03/06/exclusive-interview -clinton-looks-ahead-to-mississippi.html

"I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted."

So much for compromise and trying to unite the party.

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:38:44 PM EST

Re: Clinton says she won't accept caucus in FL and (none / 0)

What? Because she won't surrender? Are you serious? So if Sen Obama won't agree to sit the delegates based on the current votes then he is not uniting the party? Both arguments are bogus, imo.

Both sides have to come up with a compromise they both find acceptable. No need to try to spin either side as evil for trying to get something that makes sense for them.

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton says she won't accept caucus in FL and (none / 0)

I got told on another thread at MyDD that when HufPost commented stated this, it was biased and not to trust it.

Hillary supporters are always trying to have it both ways.

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton says she won't accept caucus in FL and (none / 0)

I am sorry, I don't understand. You are now even lumping Hillary supporters into one massive evil bunch?

Not to trust what? That both sides will fight to get the best outcome they can for the revote?

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:39:10 PM EST

Guess HRC lost her momentum.

by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:54:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure, sure, its over. She'll drop out any minute.

I am sure (none / 0)

that her losing in Wyoming is part of her come back

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:14:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by mainelib on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:39:12 PM EST

It's exactly the same margin as Maine.

by mainelib on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:41:11 PM EST

Does anyone know: In the last week, by how much has the delegate gap changed?

Pledged delegates ---

Superdelegates ---

Total ----

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

Pledged Delegates - +1 Obama (After you factor in Texas Caucus and California Recount)

Super Delgates - Depends on whose estimate you trust but my closest estimate is +14 Obama

Total - +15 Obama

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another Wyoming Results Thread (none / 0)

Are you including WY in this count?
I think you may need to post a diary after WY is counted that reviews this week's delegate totals.
Lots of confusion about the tally.
I see CNN still hasn't counted the TX caucus delegates yet.

by haystax calhoun on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

Yes, I'm including Wyoming because it's certain that Wyoming will be split 7-5 in favor of Obama for a net pickup of two.

Hillary picked up nine after the Texas Caucus results are factored in, which state officials say fo 37 for Obama and 30 for Clinton.

There was a net swing of 8 delegates in Obama's favor after the completion of the CA primary recounts.

That ends up being +1 for Clinton going into Wyoming.

So net pledged delegates this week are +1 Obama.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by haystax calhoun on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:29:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Check new diary here with detailed breakdown:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/8/20235 1/9859

I think these numbers add up to a net +10 gain for Obama in March, counting supers.

by Skaje on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:58:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama gets an add-on delegate for winning Wyoming. Add-on delegates are given to states as gifts, more or less, and they are subject to the same control that pledged delegates are. So Wyoming breaks down 8-5 for Obama, although the add-on won't be officially allocated until the state convention in May.

Re: Another Wyoming Results Thread (none / 0)

Ha! Somehow I knew this would be a sign of Hillary's momentum.

by Becky G on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:42:06 PM EST

Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016

Why would you troll rate this comment? unfair and uncalled for. UPRATE

by Its Like Herding Cats on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:46:05 PM EST

by marcotom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess some people believe that their state of disillusionment is sacred and that everybody who tries to pull them into reality is a troll.

by hctb on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

broken link with no information in the post. x-posted.

by Timetheos on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:06:50 PM EST

If you asked Hillary supporters, Wyoming Democrats don't count.

by cath on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:14:50 PM EST

Bottom line. She cut into his expected momentum with Wyoming (his spreadsheet aside).

The fiasco in Texas helped to highlight the undemocratic nature of the caucuses. Out of 59,000 registered democrats in Wyoming only 5,000 voted. A whopping 10%.

So keep peddling their importance while the Obama campaign refuses to seat and/or allow a re-vote in Florida/Michigan. It's becoming apparent to everyone that Obama can only win by vote suppression or railroading through caucuses.

In the meantime the rest of us will see you with Hillary as the nominee and winner in November.

by rfahey22 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:21:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton herself has rejected the idea of a re-vote in FL, and rejected caucuses in MI (of course, now her surrogates may have done their typical 180 on that idea). If you're going to spin, spin honestly.

ok, I really have no idea what you said (none / 0)

How did she cut in with his expect momentum in Wyoming?

Railroadign through caucuses eh?

How about railroading through with SD's, you think t hat one is better.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:13:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

by rfahey22 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:18:35 PM EST

I guess Obama can win closed contests. Another myth busted.