Something weird happened... you've got these results two posts down:    

104,928-vote margin for Clinton

   √ Hillary Clinton: 277,845 votes (59 percent)
    Barack Obama: 172,917 votes (37 percent)

   55 percent reporting as of 8:04 PM Eastern

It's a loss in a state that wouldn't vote for a Democrat if he/she handed out $500 on the street corners.  Oregon, on the other hand, is full of hard-working working class white folks that seem to really like Obama.

I'm not thrilled with the gap, but hey, I can't imagine Clinton's thrilled with the ones she's racked up in pledged delegates, superdelegates, and popular votes.

I think Obama's going to get less than 15% in Congressional District 5, making him "unviable".

Big congrats to HRC for her win in Kentucky tonight.  She worked hard in the state and deserved it.

Unopposed republican nominee, John McSame has lost 30% of the vote in they Kentucky primary!!

When you are the frontrunner, when you are about to declare yourself the nominee, when you are outspending your opponent in state, when you have offices in every city in that state for many more months than your opponent and still lose the state by a huge margin you have a problem...and when 70% of registered DEMOCRATS in that state voting for your opponent say that they will not vote for you in November you have BIG problem.

Obama doesn't have a problem; Appalachia does. It's about time they left the 19th century.

He will not win any of the Southern largely GOP states or even the midwest and mountain states.

He's more likely than Clinton to win VA, CO, NV, NM, WA, OR, MT, ND, MN, IA, and WI.

So that leaves the swing states which have gone overwhelmingly for Clinton and where the voters have been disparaged as ignorant racist hicks.

Well, a lot of people in Appalachia and the South are ignorant hicks -- I don't think that comes as much of a surprise to many people. But what swing states are you referring to and who's disparaging them (besides me)? As far as I can tell, the areas in which Senator Clinton significantly outperforms Senator Obama are all backwater Republican strongholds -- not swing states.

I am enjoying my retirement, but I want people to watch as Clinton supporters tonight become hard to tell what is a snark and what is a real clinton supporter. TONIGHT is the Night when the magic happens.

tells us nothing except that Obama has been attacked nonstop for weeks now while Hillary has been given a pass. Of course her numbers look better. It doesn't tell us anything about how either of them would perform in November.

their final NC poll had Obama 50-45, which needless to say, was off the actual mark of 56-42..

they underestimated Obama's final number and overestimated Clinton's number.

their NC methodology has no basis.

WOW!

Hillary's rockin' the EV map!

Where have you gone, Jerome Armstrong, our nation...

In any event, I loved your book.

The Superdelegates had better WAKE UP NOW! Before the landslide begins.

Thanks for keeping it lively.

51 - 43 > 9?

You're not helping the "Clinton people don't understand math" argument.

North Carolina is a red state.

Sen Obama raised $30mil
Sen.Clinton $20mil
Hopefully this will help retire a portion of her debt...

On a side note SurveyUSA had a poll in PA..
Obama by 8 over McCain..interesting match-ups in the VP choices...
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e65 8e86c5

Politico reported that McAuliffe said that April was Clinton's third-best fund raising month. I half heard McAuliffe say something to a teevee reporter tonight that HRC has raised almost $20M not sure if that includes the loan or not.

ZZZZzzzzzzz.

(crickets chirping...)

Jerome:

This North Carolina poll is a perfect example of why you should not be basing those electoral-vote maps on the most recent poll available.

That is an astounding and absurd outlier, given the history of the NC polling so far in this race.

The EV map with a bad methodology and slow-to-update positive Obama polls but quick-to-update anything that helps Clinton?

Yes, she is.

Those NC numbers are the oddest thing I've seen this campaign cycle (and there have been plenty of oddities!).

How in the world does Obama beat Clinton by 15ish head to head and then, two weeks later, trail McCain heads-up by a significant margin while Clinton leads McCain?

I think SUSA has some explaining to do--

--or the aliens just landed.

Or it's just 2008 and everything we ever thought we knew about politics, from the most cynical old-school phone-banker to the soccer mom to the NASCAR dad to the idealistic college kids blogging and GOTV, can all be cheerfully thrown out the window because this year it JUST DOESN'T APPLY.

Didn't SUSA have abysmal polling in North Carolina?

Hillary's ahead, even if you count those states that she and her supporters believe shouldn't count - Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine.

Of course, in two hours, things may change.

SUSA does poll both Obama and Clinton in North Carolina today. Obama loses by double-digits, while Clinton defeats McCain:

North Carolina

Clinton     49
McCain      43

McCain      51
Obama       43

Double digits, Jerome? 51 - 43 = 8. I mean, I make mistakes too, but this comes across as an amateur rush to spin everything as bad for Obama.

Yeah, I admire Clinton's strength and think it would be a good sign for her if she had any chance at winning the nomination. This poll might have meant something to me in February, when electability arguments mattered.

Instead, I'm going to focus on the McCain-Obama 51-43. Is it as good as a win? No. But considering that Kerry only managed 43 percent with a North Carolina native on his ticket, and McCain is currently under-performing Bush, I'd say that Obama is in a good position for some upward movement if he campaigns there.

They blew the South Carolina race by a wide margin. They blew North Carolina by widely underestimating Obama's support. Give me a more reliable pollster who knows how to poll southern states, please.

Those SUSA NC numbers are odd, and considering they were off by almost double-digits in their primary numbers, I think we can safely say they have it wrong.

Regardless, it's way too early to look at GE matchups right now.  Does anyone HONESTLY believe that a Democrat will lose MI and WI?

Ohio is probably safe as well.

The Democrats have plenty of time to unit around Obama, even though the MyDD community doesn't want that to happen.

hold on to your knickers...

1 pledged delegate away per NBC, 8 KY delegates to be allocated;

3.5 pledged delegates away per DCW, 18 KY delegates to be allocated.

that is really surprising as well as quite damning on Obama.  I would have never expected that.

Chris Matthews says Obama has little margin of error in GE.

Obama is in danger of dropping below 30% in KY in the popular vote.

It's so ridiculous to have all this heavy breathing about Electoral votes and a poll about North Carolina in the GE, FIVE MONTHS BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION!

Hillary had a great win tonight, in a primary between two Democrats. Congratulations to your preferred candidate, Jerome!

But, sheesh, I'm embarrassed to quote you, "Has Markos seen these numbers?"
You have a terrific blog here, Jerome. You don't have to have an inferiority complex about Daily Kos.

Enjoy the successes of your own website. You don't have to take shots at the bully down the street.

I thought this was interesting.

So one poll shows Clinton winning North Carolina and, despite the state's red history, the electoral map is updated to give her the state... but one poll shows Obama losing Wisconsin out of five in the last month, and the state goes to McCain.

Jesus, Armstrong, can you hide your ethical problems at all?

I guess in lieu of a victory party, Obama released his fundraising numbers.  Anything to try to steal Hillary's show.  

Jerome -- did you see that Hillary added about 220,000 votes to her total?

Apparently 650,000 Kentuckians didn't get the "race is over" memo.

Since there's no transparency on the maps, no one can see what poll you used to assign the state.

SUSA is crap in the south. As seen in N.C. actual results. They haven't been able to poll well at all.

and very classy move of you to bring in Markos on the discussion. Obviously, he's getting to you. Being wrong time in and time out while he's been right time in and time out has finally taken its toll on you.

in a southern state means that Obama is up by 5.  

You can be as smirky as you want to be, it doesn't change the facts.

I don't see you getting behind Obama even after Clinton drops out. You are too much of a blowhard and your ego enforces your delusions.

Just admit your real feelings, your coy hints on the front page just make you look silly.

1. This is a delegate race.

2. Obama has the most delegates.

3. Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic party.

4. Get over it.

unless I'm missing something with what Jerome posted, 51-43 is an extension of Hillary Math® when talking about 8% being double digits.

Jerome is on a torrid losing streak lately. I'm amazed.

That is a ridiculous misrepresentation.  Jerome, you should be ashamed.

How is eight points 'double digits'?

Are you using Clintsylvania math?

How?

McCain      51
Obama       43

Jerome wrote:
"but like the popular vote which Clinton leads"
Um, even including tonight's results out of Kentucky, Obama is ahead of Clinton by nearly 500,000 votes.

What is wrong with you?  If you want to say that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote if, and ONLY if, you add Florida AND Michigan, than say it.

Stop lying.

And by the way it's a fact that Obama now has the pledged delegate majority.

SUSA claimed Obama would win NC 50-45.

Obama won it 56-42. Throw in women who claim they won't vote for Obama because they want McCain to end abortion rights for them (it's in the internals), and there's your difference.

Am I mistaken, or did Clinton just vow to take this fight to the convention floor?

I am a little confused. If Hillary wants every vote counted, why does she (and by many here by proxie) continue to say that she leads in popular vote---yet is not counting some of the states who caucused  in that total?

Strange...i guess thats politics as usual! However, congrats on HRC win tonight.

I don't get why people here seem to treat Clinton/Obama as mutually exclusive.

I mean really. There are several analyses that show Clinton leading if the election were held today, no question.

But there are as many paths to the win for Obama -- more in some ways.

For example, if we look at electoral-vote.com, we see that it looks like Obama would lose in Michigan and Wisconsin. But at the same time he makes Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida competitive. He also polls well (tied) in Indiana, which would be a huge Democratic win. He is competitive in Ohio as well, and wins Colorado and New Mexico where Clinton gets NM only.

This means that realistically, Obama could carry the Kerry states plus Iowa and NM, which would have won the election in 2004. Electoral votes have moved since then so that won't do it -- he'd have to carry CO for good measure. But that map leaves out the places where he forces the GOP to fight, such as Ohio, and even Nebraska and Indiana. He's within the MoE in many more states than Clinton.

Clinton has much stronger support in many areas, and carries Ohio and Florida, but note that the places she loses to the GOP she loses by a bigger margin. Essentially, Clinton would HAVE to carry Ohio, as well as Arkansas. It isn't clear to me that realistically West Virginia would change radically to the Dem camp but it could happen. Same is true in the other direction for Wisconsin and Michigan. So if Clinton could guarantee an Ohio win and a Florida win she would have it. The problem for Clinton is that with her strong support comes just as many strong detractors. She's a second-term Senator, and that doesn't bode well either.

The point is these are different paths. Both are quite possible, and Obama's I think has the advantage of putting the GOP on the defensive in more places. The Dems wrote off the South and West for too damn long and look what it got them.

Anyhow, there are paths for both, and both have chances that are just as good.

Primary dynamics don't mean much, IMO. THere are to my mind too many variables left out and the formats differ too much state to state. After all, if I went by the primary results Kerry should have whomped GW Bush in parts of the Rust Belt. He didn't.

What primaries do tell us is that there are a lot more self-ID'd Dems out there this time. And I ran some numbers-- even if half the voters for the losing candidate (either Clinton or Obama) stayed home, some states still have more Dems voting than last time, no bad thing. I assumed that ONLY primary voters even came to the polls. You'd be amazed how many states look better than in 2004.

I also realistically can't see a bunch of energized Dems voting for McCain out of spite. If they do that we deserve the GOP.

A little perspective, folks, please?

Obama will run better in NC than Clinton would have. Regardless of how that one poll turned out. Why? Demographics favor Obama and judging from the recent primary November's vote will only reinforce that. Obama won big in the big growing urban counties like Mecklenburg (Charlotte) 70-29% Wake (Raleigh) 65-35% and others. The fact of the matter is regardless of whether the Dems carry NC in the fall - there are more Obama type voters than Clinton. In the general 2/3 of all voters will be within 1 hour of Interstate 85 and Obama won those areas by 22 points in the primary.

Again regardless of who actually wins NC in the fall - Obama helps Dems do well across the board. In 2000 & 2004 Gov. Easley had to run 8-12 points ahead of the Democratic presidential candidate in his win. For the first time since 1992 (with Bill Clinton ironically) the Presidential candidate will be competitive with the state candidates.

Incredible.  After all of the excitement about Obama making North Carolina competitive, it turns out that Hillary runs 14 points ahead of Obama in the McCain matchup.

Jerome and all of Hillary's supporters will be vindicated when Barack Obama, the loser of the de facto certified popular vote, is coronated nominee of the Democratic party only to lose a close (?) election with John McSame in the fall.  I don't want a McCain presidency but I've resigned myself to accepting Obama will be nominated and McCain will prevail.  People will be holding their noses and running away from Obama like he's last year's fashion fad--OUT OF STYLE.  

My enthusiasm for the Democratic party and principles will make me passionate about the down-ticket races that will be critical to making McCain's presidency as weak as possible.  Then, hopefully with the embarrassment of the 2008 primary + GE, the party will regain sanity and have a competent nominee in 2012.  

--------------
Update [2008-5-20 21:22:24 by Jerome Armstrong]: CNN updates that Obama has 1627 pledged delegates, a majority. The number of 1627, however, is not likely to hold with MI & FL being resolved (so Obama will likely get a groundhog day for this matter June 1st or 3rd). Non-binding, but like the popular vote which Clinton leads, this is a moral argument by Obama for the SD vote.
--------------

1) Clinton only holds the popular vote lead if you hold the intellectually dishonest notion that Michigan is counted without a single vote going to Obama.

2) Clinton only holds the popular vote lead if you hold the intellectually dishonest notion that caucus 'votes' are actually popular vote and not state electors. State electors typically represent anywhere from 3 - 20 actual votes.

So if you count all of the caucuses and allocate even the minimum representation, you widen Obama's lead even further, even to the point where if you give all those votes to Clinton and none to Obama, he STILL wins the popular vote.

So please, stop this dishonesty Jerome. You do no one any favors by continuing this kind of talk that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in reality.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#KYDEM

Was Gender of candidate important to you?

Yes 16 -- 79C, 19O
No 82 -- 63C, 33O

Was Race of candidate important to you?

Yes 21 -- 81C, 16O
No 78 -- 61C, 35O

I wonder if Armstrong was similarly surprised by any of Obama's many, many blowouts.

According to CNN - Senator now has 1627 pledged delegates.

So, before Oregon, Senator Obama has won more than half of the delegates that are intended to determine the majority winner of the Democratic primay.

-chris

Crowd cheers.

Wound up? No, not now. But folks, if the DNC has any smarts at all, it's polling anything that moves. And if, come time of the convention, the EV map looks anything like the MyDD front page, it would be beyond stupidity to nominate someone we know is unlikely to close the deal. So says an original Edwards supporter.

Change is coming to America.

Those NC numbers are amazing! Hillary is looking more and more like the candidate that could change the map. Obama's map looks a lot like Kerry's- just with fewer electoral votes.

pablano didn't necessarily endorse his own numbers this time around. He knew he would be way off and took the time to say why in his blog.

I just cant stand this. We're going to nominate a guy whose ego pushed him into running for President one year into his Senate career. As long as Hillary is in it, Im willing to go to the convention floor with her.

How will Mark Blumenthal spin the Poblano goof?

Nice Try Jerome, but as you have been shown and choose to ignore which is total BS, HILLARY DOES NOT LEAD THE POPULAR VOTE.  Not when the Caucuses and the Intended Votes in Mich for Obama are counted... Only with that BS George Bush type math of Saying Obama has 0% of the vote in Michigan is she leading... and if you say that, then you advocate ignoring the will of the voters.  

First of all I just joined MyDD and would like to know how I can start my own thread on this. I've tried to find out how but haven't found the answer yet.

As far as election goes, as a Clinton supporter,
I think it's very dishonest that Obama is claiming the nomination because he has won a majority of the number of total delegates. If you include Florida and Michigan then he hasn't won a majority of the delegates. Also winning a majority of delegates doesn't mean he's going to get the 2025 he thinks he needs to get nominated. Also Clinton will win the popular vote which is a good reason for her to be the nominee of her party. In addition, no one can win the nomination unless they get help from the superdelgates and not all have pledged their support for a candidate yet. Anyway superdelegates can change their mind at any time so having pledged superdelegates doesn't mean they are going to vote for you. The whole purpose of the superdelgates is to vote for the candidate they think has the best chance to win. The superdelgates started when Democrats were nominating sure losers in the General Election so Democrats needed a way to pick the nominee who has the best chance to win. I think that Hillary has the best chance to beat McCain. She has beaten Obama in most of the big swing states that Democrats need to win in the election in November. I hope she stays in the race until the convention which will have a vote for the nominee and hopefully the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated there with Hillary getting her fair share of these delegates. What's the rush to pick a nominee before the convention? I remember when they had conventions where no one knew who the winner would be. That's what the conventions are for instead of becoming the boring coronations which they have become now. Also Obama should be more sensitive and fair to Hillary or a lot of her supporters will not vote for him and he will lose the general election.

It's over.  Time to rally behind Senator Obama.  Unless you want President McCain. Those are your 2 options.  Time to wake up.  Your ClintDream is over.

Poor Jerome, he swallows the "winning the popular vote"  story with no critical examination of how those numbers are selectively applied by the Clinton dreamers.  Ad Oh Boy, she wins the white racist vote (have the pundits lost any moral courage to call appalachian white voters for what they are???  I have lived there and it is mouth droppingly normal to hear these folks speak of 'niggers' and 'porch monkeys') If it takes nailing the white racist vote to  shout about the 'win', then the Clintons deserve no respect at all

Taking a swipe at Obama and his supporters.  And Kos.  Well done Jerome, that's just what this site and the party needs!

This post had lots of good info, food for thought and concern, etc.

Until I read the bit where Jerome uncritically tosses in "but like the popular vote which Clinton leads".

Really Jerome?  Really?  I don't require that you be a math major, but do you not understand how stuff like this damages your credibility as a thoughtful analyst of Democratic politics?  

I don't mind that Hillary supporters have adopted that argument.  It's a bit Soviet to my way of thinking, but I understand the desire to make your candidate look more winning than they are.  However, based on your background, writings, and leadership position here you are justifiably held to a higher standard, and an uncritical acceptance of an argument that is almost universally discounted (outside of hard-core Clintonland), just makes we skeptical about everything else you say.