What happened?

Clinton won Indiana by a tad, and Obama won North Carolina by a wide margin, which is not what the poll of polls showed would happen. Usually, when this sort of break occurs, it's due to some sort of demographical shift that occurred. Looking at the results of Indiana, and comparing the exit polls of OH voters with IN voters, here's a few things that jumped out:


  • Black voters supported Obama by 87% in OH, and by 90% in IN.

  • White voters supported Obama by 34% in OH, and by 40% in IN.

  • White Democrats moved from Clinton leading by 43% in OH, to Clinton leading by 28% in IN.

  • Liberal voters moved from Clinton leading by 7% in OH to Obama leading by 14% in IN.

  • Conservative voters moved from Obama leading by 5% in OH to Clinton leading by 24% in IN.

In short, for Indiana, Clinton's projecting of a more GE favorable image (she's risen nationally in the polls in recent weeks) appears to have cost her among the liberal voters. This also explains why the polls were so wrong, especially SUSA. Clinton didn't gain the 21% of black voters that they polled, and they polled Clinton winning among liberals by a 53-44 margin, off by 23 percent. This is most likely due to the 'gas tax' issue. Though she had a 'divide and conquor' frame of the issue that work well for a GE against a Republican, in a Democratic primary, it allowed Obama to squeeze her from the liberal viewpoint.

As for North Carolina, it just comes down to the divide of racial voting that Clinton could not overcome, even if she did dent into Obama a bit. Take a look at Obama's totals of GA, VA, and NC:

                Black (30%)   White (61%)
Georgia         88           43

                Black (30%)  White  (61%)
Virginia        90           52

                Black (34%)  White  (62%)
North Carolina  91           37
Compared to neighboring states, with similar population breakdowns, there has been a drop-off of white support for Obama, but there's been no in-roads by Clinton among black voters. Obama won GA by 61-26 and VA by 64-35, so a 56-42 margin in NC, though marginally better than past results, was no where near where where the poll of polls showed the contest would wind up.

As for Clinton's chances going ahead, they are minimal. I gave about a 10% shot after she won TX & OH, and upped that to 15% after her PA win, and around 20% a week ago. Now, it's slimmer than ever before. There's little doubt that, considering any marker, Obama is on the path to the nomination, now more than ever. Congrats to all his supporters on a good night.

I doubt that Clinton will drop out though. She'll stay in and continue to fight for every delegate. The thinking being, who knows what happens between now and the convention, every delegate counts. She'll rack up a victory in West Virginia in a week, and that'll bring up all the media chatter bugs talking about how Obama doesn't appeal to some regions. She'll win in KY and will try and win OR. Then we'll have the delegate showdown at the end of the month over MI & FL-- that'll be the most contentious. And then its on to few remaining states, PR, where Clinton will likely win, and MT & SD, where Obama will likely win.



Display:


Re: What happened? (2.00 / 1)

poblano has been the best "poll" of sorts because he looks purely at how demographics have voted in the past.

By looking at his model vs. actual results, there was absolutely no demographic shift to be seen. Demographic shifts would have made his results look crazy (which is what I thought they originally were).

It seems that the polls just got it wrong.


!
by alex100 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:39:27 AM EST

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 1)

It's not a poll, but regression analysis. If thats all there were to polling, it'd not be looked at; but yes, there were demographic shifts, as blogged above, thats why there was a different result.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

If these exit polls are wrong on their top number, why do we take the internals at face value when they're even smaller sample sizes?


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:17:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

B/c the pollsters alter the results based on the actual results of the contest.  The true problem w/ exit polls though is that they miss the sizable early vote, so until they get those actual results they are always off.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

aren't they always off? despite early voting or not?


!
by alex100 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

of course it's not a poll but he's consistently outperformed the CW and actual polls by just breaking down demographics.

it "might not be looked at" but it has determined outcomes better then SUSA or Rasmussen can and he's been infinite times better at predicting outcomes then any blogger I've ever seen. Why? because he's abandoned traditional methodology in favor of his own statistical breakdowns.

it's definitely something to look at moving forward.


!
by alex100 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:42:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on, we all knew that Clinton... (1.50 / 2)

wasn't black enough to win North Carolina.

The party and voting is splitting along racial lines.

Oh goody.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:42:04 AM EST

Re: Come on, we all knew that Clinton... (2.00 / 4)

You could also say it's splitting along gender lines, or certainly along age lines. Clinton lost Indiana among those under 65.

Moreover, her margin in Indiana is possibly entirely explained by the Operation Chaos effect.

Do African-Americans support Obama. Sure. That's a good thing going into the general. A great GOTV tool in the AA community. We also get to harness the enthusiasm of the youth vote, which is great. There are definitely constituencies that we need to bring back into the fold, but it should be doable, especially when you look at McCain. I see the glass not as half empty, but as 90% full.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:50:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, we all knew that Clinton... (none / 0)

It's 40% full.  McCain will have the other 60%.


by Montague on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:51:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

your opening line is out of line. (2.00 / 5)


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Still true. (none / 0)


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No. I don't think a black person has ever (none / 0)

won statewide in North Carolina.  It's not that she wasn't black enough.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That will be true in the fall. (2.00 / 1)

Right now it's pretty much Democrats who voted, which from what I understand is not a majority of the electorate there.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:39:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Primaries, as well. (none / 0)


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:46:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Primaries, as well. (2.00 / 1)

Harvey Gannt won two statewide primaries for the US Senate and Ralph Campbell was a long time winner for statewide auditor elections. Nevertheless, I don't agree with cosbo's initial comment. Obama has won the white vote in numerous states including Wisconsin and actually did better among white voters in NC than he has done in other states. Furthermore, all these correlations of voter demographics to election outcomes are getting so tiresome. Just because you can spot a correlation does not prove causation in a subsequent election. The dynamics of McCain vs. Obama in NC will be different.


McCain sides with Bush against war veterans
by jeffbinnc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:42:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry for the ignorance of NC electoral history... (none / 0)

I didn't mean to malign the state (and I don't thin you thought that I did, but I just wanted to confirm it).  I think I would still be right in saying that the state has never voted for an AA in a presidential primary, right?  Or did Jesse Jackson win the state?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry for the ignorance of NC electoral histor (none / 0)

No offense taken. And you're right about presidential primaries. JJ lost to Gore but not by much.


McCain sides with Bush against war veterans
by jeffbinnc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, we all knew that Clinton... (2.00 / 5)

The deep denial of HRC supporters is entertaining.

Outside observers saw it that HRC's surrogates, like Geraldine Ferraro, were deliberately trying to polarize the Dem voters along racial lines.

It's the type of politics that usually works. And there are more "White" Dems than Black.

When the Obama supporters and more objective observers called out Clinton's tactics, the HRC supporters whined that Obama was playing the race card.

And then they whined some more that Blacks moved away from Clinton and toward Obama.

The denial has graduated from being infuriating to pathetic.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, we all knew that Clinton... (none / 0)

Glad you're entertained.  Because a lot of us won't be voting for Obama in November.  I hope you find that entertaining as well.


by Montague on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? (none / 0)

I don't understand this "not voting for Obama" line from any Democrat.

What do you like about McCain:  100 more years in Iraq?  Bush's health care plan?  Making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent?  More legislation written by lobbyists for major corporations?  More Roberts and Alitos on the Court?

If you are not voting for the nominee in the fall, I wonder if you are really a Democrat.


by MoDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

I won't vote for McCain.

Don't insult me with your stupid line about whether I'm really a Democrat.  Ask why your favored candidate is willing to look at partial privatization of Social Security.  Ask him why, in this day and age, he couldn't even apologize properly for the anti-gay hate on offer at his own event, much less stop it from happening in the first place.  Ask why he plays divisive politics.

Here is the fact: If McCain is president, the Democratic Congress will fight him (not hard enough - they have been shown to be chicken).  If Obama is president and makes nice with Rethugs and helps them privatize SS, then the Dems will feel obligated to come along.

Obama has no ability to do much more than McCain about ending the Iraq debacle.  McCain will not have the power to make the tax cuts permanent if Congress goes against him.  Obama is having lovefests with lobbyists already, so I don't see why you think that would be any different.


by Montague on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

On supporting gays.  Did you hear Obama in a black church talk about the homophobia in the black community?  I missed the occasion when Clinton told her core supporters they were wrong on anything.

The nomination is essentially over, so I don't think we should engage in whose politics were more divisive.  Just one observation: Obama never said he and McCain had passed some mythical test to be commander-in-chief and he was uncertain whether Clinton had.  

If you want four more years of the same, vote for McCain or don't do anything.  Personally, I don't want four more years of the same.  

This election is going to be very, very ugly in the fall.  And, it would be just as ugly if Clinton had been the nominee.  It will require ALL real Democrats to support the nominee and work for that nominee.  We have a chance for a truly transformative election like 1932 or 1964, but not if we are not unified.  


by MoDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

YES, I heard him.  Not good enough.  

As for the CIC comment, that's not discriminatory.  I hope you understand the difference.

In 2012, I look forward to entirely new candidates on the Dem side after we live through four years of McCain.  

Of course the campaign will be ugly.  The difference is, I would have worked to get Hillary elected.

If I hear that word "transformative" one more time I will puke.  I am an intellectual skeptic, not the kind of person who is easily swayed by a nice speech.


by Montague on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:29:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, we all knew that Clinton... (2.00 / 1)

Don't be a racist ass.


Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts
by jaiwithani on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Utter crap. (2.00 / 3)

What a pack of terrible, ignorant lies.


John McCain, maverick
by lojasmo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:24:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, we all knew that Clinton... (2.00 / 2)

Not only is this post thinly veiled bigotry, it's also factually wrong. Obama won the black vote not because of charges of racism but because he won Iowa and because Clinton stopped trying to win black voters. When black people saw that whites would vote for Obama, they took him seriously.

What hurt Hillary was her refusal to even pretend to try and get the black vote back. Obama could have won 70-30 among blacks after IA and would have lost MO and done much worse in GA, LA, MS, NC, SC and PA. OH would have been a far greater margin. But by refusing to campaign for black votes, Clinton ceded 90% of the black vote to Obama.


by elrod on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, we all knew that Clinton... (2.00 / 1)

If I could get my ability to rate posts back, I could help hide race-baiting crap like this.  Of course, since no one's willing to tell me why my ability to rate posts was yanked, or even respond to my e-mails about it, I guess I'll never get it back.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:12:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

HRC for the Supreme Court!

That would be great.  I would love to hear here sparing with Roberts...
If The Big O would offer her that, think she would take it?


by gil44 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:45:04 AM EST

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 2)

I'm not a huge fan of that idea.

I'd like somebody who's a stronger progressive.  She's a little too pro-corporation for my tastes, especially when we've got so many corporate-based problems to deal with nowadays.

I think she's fine as a Senator.  Maybe some more committee chairpersonships or something, potentially majority leader if she can stop talking about killing brown people.


by Capt America on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:49:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Also (2.00 / 1)

Someone who's spent some time as a federal circuit court judge, please. We need to set a good example by nominating experienced, non-political people to these offices. This is also why Edwards should absolutely NOT be an Attorney General.


by Hatch on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:09:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Also (none / 0)

I couldn't disagree with you more.  The federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court, would benefit from a different perspective.  Traditionally, former elected officials were often elevated to the Court.  I would love to see it happen again, whether that means Senator Clinton or someone else.  


by HSTruman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:14:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Also (none / 0)

I also disagree, there is no reason a S.C. justice has to come from the appellate courts.  I am a lawyer and I think some of the S.C.'s worst decisions are partly due to their in-the-clouds, very unpractical legalistic approach to decisions.


by snaktime on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:46:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Could not disagree more (2.00 / 1)

Your well-meaning proposal could be described as unilateral disarmament vis-a-vis the judiciary.

They nominate ideologically driven individuals and you would have us "set an example" by appointing politically neutered circuit court judges.  To be successful, setting an example requires a target audience that is open to change given the example.  There is no evidence, there is less than no evidence, that the GOPers are open to change on their core issue of court-packing.

We need to fight back, and not just with corporate-leaning justices with somewhat more support for due process and reproductive rights.  We need more than anything, in my opinion, a labor law specialist, a la Brennan, or a stronger due process rights advocate than Bader Ginsburg on the court if only to mitigate the damage from the Roberts and Alito appointments.

Your advice, if I understand it correctly, would lock in their advantage.

Regarding Edwards, I think it is no problem to appoint ideologically driven AGs and I think he would make a fantastic AG that would undo some of the damage of the last eight years.  The problem is not having a veiwpoint, the proplem is corruption, nepotism, and biased enforcement of the law.  Are you suggesting these characteristics apply to Edwards, because if you are I strongly disagree.


"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:03:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Could not disagree more (none / 0)

I have no doubt that she would be a truly excellent justice.  Not my first choice, but I would accept it as means for her to concede.  She may need something for her pride and we need her support to win.  It's unusual nor untoward.  


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:03:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

HRC Constitutional philosophy (none / 0)

HRC is way to far in the direction that the legislative branch should show deference to the executive branch.

From the point of view of restoring Constitutional rights stripped by the Bush administration there's hardly any Dem who would be a scarier nominee from my point of view.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:16:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

If she wants the Court, she's earned it.  I don't agree with her either, but we don't need to be so disapproving in victory.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

I don't feel that she's "earned" a lifetime appointment to what is quickly becoming the second most powerful branch of government in the country.  She's not progressive enough to balance out Alito and Roberts, we need a true liberal, not a centrist.

Oh, and I'm not being disapproving in victory, I'm being disapproving in general.  She's a right-leaning DLC Democrat.  I'd prefer if we could send those types the way of the dixie-crats, and I always have.  Her losing the nomination didn't change a thing.


by Capt America on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:54:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 1)

she wouldn't be my first choice (hello, edwards). but there will more than likely be more than one in obama's first term, and after he stacks one or two young progressives on there, hillary is by no means a bad choice. i actually think that, freed from her political ambitions, she's probably more liberal than we think.


by jbill on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:39:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 1)

I'm no Hillary fan, but maybe if she wasn't trying to get votes she'd be more progressive.  I agree she hasn't "earned" it.  It's not like she's been some champion in the courts or anything.  But I mean... it's not a horrible idea.  Honestly, I just don't want her to be VP. So I'd be happy with her in the Sup Court.


John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."
by jturn17 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No on earns a Supreme Court seat... (none / 0)

by being a strong candidate.  It's not something that should be given out as a reward for one's political deeds.


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

People have in the past... (none / 0)

read John Marshall.  If she needs this to concede, I see no point denying her.  She is not my first choice, but she certainly wouldn't be my last.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: People have in the past... (none / 0)

Give her a strong cabinet position or majority leader.  She shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.  


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll have to agree to disagree. (none / 0)


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We'll have to agree to disagree. (2.00 / 1)

Okay, we can agree to disagree, but do we have to agree on that?


I'm only a click away
by juliewolf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 2)

She's too old.  That's not ageism!  I just want someone around 40 years old that will be there for generations.  Plus, she hasn't practiced any constitutional law.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

I used to think she would be an incredible Justice, but I would want someone who was anti death penalty on the court now, and she emphatically is not.  Neither are Bill's two appointees.  Georgia just executed a prisoner last night following the Court's refusal to act against lethal injection.  Lives are in the balance and I would like someone who could bring our country into the modern age on this one.


by mady on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:36:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 1)

The supreme court is not a reward or something you earn by running a good political campaign.

The job of supreme court justices is to interpret and apply the constitution. That is their one and only job. Sure they do this job with a gloss of their political beliefs. But that is the job description.

I'm not sure Clinton is the pest person to be interpreting the constitution.


by poserM on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

I'm rather amused at all this concerned job hunting going on with Hillary Clinton. The need to find the lady a job is fascinating. What is it? Guilt or anxiety?


by superetendar on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (none / 0)

Potential necessity.

Her hardcore partisans are going to want something for their trouble.  While we here on the blogosphere won't probably have any say in what that is, we can still speculate.


by Capt America on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 4)

I think it is notable that the over 60 crowd seems to be Clinton's saving grace.  Her lead in white voters comes from that group.


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:45:45 AM EST

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 2)

What does Clinton gain by staying in?  

Aside from hoping for a political or physical disaster involving the presumptive nominee I really don't understand what she hopes to gain.  This is now about psychology, not politics.  It's time for a delegation headed by Al Gore (others might inclide Pelosi, Reid, Mitchell, Carter, Edwards, Biden, Nunn) to have a visit with the Clintons.  She has hit her stride as a candidate.  I think she was looking & talking great on the stump.  Too bad the closing message was an anti-enviroinmental pander to yesterday, not a message about the future.


by howardpark on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:49:43 AM EST

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 4)

Let her stay in.  It's done.  Let's just open up to the Clinton supporters and welcome them behind our nominee.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great attitude.... (2.00 / 2)

I see it as over at this point-last night pretty much cemented that. That knowledge is very tough for a lot of people so I think it would be beneficial if Obama supporters opened their arms and tamped down the mean and snarky.

I am a realist who had been leaning Clinton because I had concerns about Obama in the GE-I still do but clearly the job will be to work on overcoming those concerns. I still say she doesn't have to drop out-democracy doesn't demand it, but she has an infinitesimal chance of being the nominee.


berkshiretrueblue Commited to helping elect a Democrat as President "Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo" Ambroise Bierce
by berkshiretrueblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The disaster idea doesn't work (2.00 / 2)

Clinton could suspend her campaign today and if Obama self-destructed she'd be the nominee. That's not it.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:52:49 AM EST

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (2.00 / 1)

There is still a path, via counting MI and FL. That's anathema to Obama supporters, but has been her stance to count the votes as is. Doing that makes it a much different contest.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (none / 0)

Can't Obama seat Michigan and Florida now...he just cannot seat Michigan 92-1?


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:56:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome, the math doesn't work (2.00 / 4)

Even if you count MI and FL she still comes up short, and it's highly unlikely that MI and FL will be counted as is without any penalty. Far more likely is that they lose half their delegates, or something like that. It's over my friend.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, the math doesn't work (1.00 / 2)

They will both be FULLY seated and then IGNORED by the Super Delegates regardless if they put HRC ahead or not.

As a not-so-wise pundit said - "After 300 years in this country, for the Dem Party to deny an African American the nomination after he finally wins the jackpot would not be wise".

So FL & MI will be just Token delegates in the end.


by BarackIs44 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not Ignored (none / 0)

They don't have to be ignored by the SDs. As Jerome says, there's a path via Michigan and Florida. But it's not a realistic path, at all. I now expect the delegations to be seated in full, and for Obama to get most if not all of the unpledged delegates from MI.


by Hatch on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:11:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What path? (none / 0)

Show me the numbers. I see no path.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:18:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Path... (none / 0)

The path is Obama not getting any of the undeclared delegates from Michigan.

Like I said, it's an extremely unrealistic path.


by Hatch on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:26:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No. Show me the numbers. (none / 0)

I don't think that works.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not Ignored (none / 0)

Yeah, I think they'll agree to seat them with Obama getting all the undeclared, but only after he's gotten enough supers that that would put him over the top.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:22:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who the hell are you to TR Jerome... (none / 0)

Armstrong when he is being conciliatory and gracious in defeat?  This man is a hero of the progressive movement.  He's been fighting the battles for progressives throughout this decade when Bush was rated at 91%.  He choose his candidate and I've questioned his tactics, but not his motives.

What coward you are as well to not even tell him why.  I hope others will join me in this.  You should adjust and I will then consider doing the same.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:51:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who the hell are you to TR Jerome... (none / 0)

is he above reproach? Did I TR a God? will I be a newt by sundown? I'm not sure what your beef is.

I went back and posted my reason. He is a cheerleader for an ugly mob at this point and I expect a bit more from him (other than a banning of course)


by BarackIs44 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:11:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, but you don't TR a person whose conceding... (none / 0)

it's just tactless.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:56:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, the math doesn't work (none / 0)

Is it all about entitlement?  That's not the way to win the GE.  

Neither Clinton nor Obama has won the jackpot yet, and neither CAN win it prior to the convention.  So I could turn it around on you and say that the party had best not deny the nomination to the woman who finally wins the jackpot.


by Montague on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome, the math doesn't work (none / 0)

Let us know when that woman comes along.


by KyleJRM on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (none / 0)

Yeah, but 1) we know that it isn't going to happen (meaning they won't be seated as is)... Reality is at the least Obama has SOME (I believe its 37) of those Michigan Delegates making it a heck of a lot harder.  And thats a BEST CASE for Clinton... My guess is she stays in, the SDs throw it to Obama, Obama is forced to take her as VP and at that point, the Rules committee splits it 50-50.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:13:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

While I don't think she needs to drop out... (2.00 / 2)

Nobody is going to "force" Obama to take Clinton as VP.  He's writing his own ticket by this point.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:22:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: While I don't think she needs to drop out... (none / 0)

Yeah, technically. But as much as I have been resistant to the idea for a long time, last night I had a change of heart. I think Hillary has generated her own energy that we'd be stupid to squander. And though I don't believe that anywhere close to the number of Hillary voters who claim they won't vote for Obama if he's the nominee, will actually follow through, I do think that even a fraction of that could hurt Obama seriously in key states. I think there's about a 75% chance he picks her.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama picking HRC as VP (2.00 / 1)

I think it would make Obama look weak and tarnish his image as the candidate of "change".

Also, she kinda burned her bridges. Actions have consequences.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I see your point, but... (2.00 / 1)

I do think that it would harm Obama's percentages with independants and disaffected Republicans.  I suspect that Clinton isn't going to be getting as favorable treatment from Limbaugh, Coulter, and O'Reilly in the general election.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (2.00 / 1)

I see the FL and MI issue as the reason she should not wihdrawl yet.  We need to find a compromise on that.  That may require the SDs swinging hard enough to the nominee (likely Obama) to make seating their delegations possible without changing the result.  It is going to take time to work that out, and her supporters will feel like she was 'forced out' of the race if she bows out before that.

Jerome, thanks for your work over here at MyDD.  I know it must not be easy managing/moderating a forum like this during the 'silly season', trying to keep the political pie-fight from getting out of hand.  You've done an amazing job.  I've enjoyed the different perspective I find here compaired to DKos, and I'm saying that as an Obama supporter.

Peace


by protothad on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:20:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (2.00 / 1)

No compromise needed... She still loses even with the states counted as is...  The issue will be settled at the end of the month...  I wish we had a revote in MI, but ce la vie.  The delegates will be seated somehow, some way, that is fair to everyone.


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (2.00 / 1)

By the way - this is slightly off topic, but I'm really looking forward to being able to post to the liberalblogosphere blogs without the addendum "and I am an Obama supporter" :-).

And I'm saying that as a Democrat!


by Exhausted Pennsylvanian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:58:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (2.00 / 3)

For me, the strongest argument that Hillary had was the making the electability / non-electability case to the SDs.  As a HRC supporter, my gut tells me that she has lost this argument, unfortunately.

I had hoped she'd be within 5 or 6 in NC and would win IN by 9 to 12. Wow, was I wrong, and my intestinal barometer says the campaign has turned.


by sarany on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:23:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (2.00 / 2)

I should add that I agree with some that she should stay in, but turn her attention to exposing McCain's vulnerabilities, and then choose her timing and bow out gracefully.


by sarany on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:26:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No there isn't (2.00 / 2)

Jerome, though I understand you know lots more than I do about all things wonk....there is no path to the presidency for Clinton that doesn't sunder the party.

There may be a minute possibility for clinton to get the nomination, it would come at a cost too great to bear.


John McCain, maverick
by lojasmo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:30:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The disaster idea doesn't work (2.00 / 1)

She cannot win a national election by counting those votes "as is" though.  There needs to be some level of compromise, and at this point any commpromise at all leaves her short.  


by mady on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you, Jerome. (none / 0)

I know that you came to Clinton as a last resort (after Edwards), but you were forceful in her defense.  I know it must be difficult to say and I'm glad that we are nearly past these primary wars.  We're going to kill in this election and grabing vastly larger majorities in the House and the Senate and the WH.  And I'm glad that we can all be along for the ride.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:57:20 AM EST

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (2.00 / 2)

The last resort is Obama.... he's been as far back as possible in the choosing, but keeps knocking off my alternatives.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:59:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (2.00 / 1)

Who knew you were such a Mike Gravel fan.


by chrispy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:02:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As For Clinton (2.00 / 4)

I hesitate to criticize Clinton anymore, but seriously... where would SHE be without the "Washington establishment" you're decrying? Her superdelegate lead comes almost entirely from unelected DNC members who are accountable to absolutely no one. They're the most entrenched establishment people you can possibly imagine.

Where would she be without "the media" that fanned the flames of all these stupid Obama scandals and gaffes and kept her in the race for the past two months? At home in Chappaqua, probably.


by Hatch on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:16:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (2.00 / 4)

"The hate runs strong with this one.  Soon I will turn him to the dark side." -- JSM


"I'll bite your legs off!" -- HRC 2008!
by username3 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:18:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get it (2.00 / 1)

What's your beef with Obama?

It doesn't seem logical.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:20:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get it (none / 0)

Obama's not a DLC candidate.


by The Animal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get it (none / 0)

He's too much like Bush.


by Montague on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (none / 0)

You haven't been around the past couple of months.  The media has tried to destroy Obama...  But, even if you are correct, wouldn't it be nice to have someone that the media actually likes?


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry that person TR'd you... (none / 0)

that was tactless.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:53:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm sorry that person TR'd you... (none / 0)

"The last resort is Obama"

that is tactless. It is high time to stop attacking the Democratic Nominee for President.

I would expect a so called progressive leader to know that he is cheerleading a damaging force for the party at this point.


by BarackIs44 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:10:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've battling Jerome since before you... (none / 0)

came on the scene and for him acknowledge that she lost, is tough for him.  There is no insult in his coming to Obama as a last resort.  That was Jerome's choice.  He was wrong, but not inappropriate.  For you to attack person whose giving is sad.  Grow up.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (none / 0)

I'm a teetotaler.  No beer with Obama for me.  

You know nothing about the building of this movement.  Many of us became interested in Obama after his 2004 speech.  We learned more.  We read his books.  And we networked with each other.  I don't watch TV.  At all.  Most Obama supporters I know had their own path to supporting him, and it didn't involve drinking kool-aid or doing what the media told us to do.  


by nwgates on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (none / 0)

Jerome - now that the primary is effectively over, could you consider giving the many Obama supporters their reccing and rating rights back?


by interestedbystander on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (none / 0)

There are many Clinton supporters in that boat too.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (none / 0)

So that's a no then?


by interestedbystander on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you, Jerome. (none / 0)

Maybe later.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She should stay in (2.00 / 2)

And I am saying that as an Obama supporter.  She owes it to her supporters and the remaining states to let the primaries conclude.  Of course both campaigns should now turn their focus onto beating McCain and on Dem party unity.  The SDs can put the nominee over the top enough to allow FL and MI to be seated as is or at least with some reasonable compromise delegation, and we can wind this thing down with the least amount of acrimony on all sides.  I'm not calling this thing 'over' until one of the nominees withdrawls (even if we suspect who that will be).  The SDs and the candidates themselves are smart enough to make the conclusion of this thing orderly.  We don't need to have a pie fight in the blogotubes trying to call the official end of it.

I commend the activists on both sides for working so hard, even if sometimes we let our passion run ahead of our ability to be polite.  Lets keep that passion alive for the general but focus it on taking back the whitehouse from the Republicans.

Peace


by protothad on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:58:09 AM EST

Re: She should stay in (none / 0)

As long as she keeps it civil, that's cool!  The nice thing about IN and NC is that the race ended on issues like the gas tax instead of personal attacks.  That's what a primary is supposed to be about!


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:21:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe time to give it a rest? (2.00 / 2)

Your devotion is admirable, but I think you're losing sight of the bigger picture.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She should stay in (2.00 / 2)

Either show proof of that statement or get TRd. I watched CNN all night last night and NEVER saw that.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No need. This is pain... (2.00 / 2)

being expressed in public over the internet.  There's no need to add to it.  Let's greet hatred with kindness.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry you feel that way (2.00 / 1)

I know some Obama supporters have been over the line, but really, most of us really respect HRC and all she has done for the Democratic party and our nation... we just like Obama's stand on various issues better.  For me, it was his stand on the 50 state strategy and his grass roots organizing skill that put him over the top in making up my mind between these two great candidates.

As for Obama being an empty suite, I found that his record of accomplishment is rather respectible for someone who has been on the political scene such a comparitively short amount of time.  I particularly like what he has done in the area of government accountability and transparency.  His bill on campaign finance reform even gives him something to stack up against McCain's signature accomplishment.

I hope that, assuming he really is the nominee, you will give him a second look and conclude at the very least that he is a much better choice than McCain.  I hope we can at least count on your vote in November.

Peace


by protothad on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She should stay in (none / 0)

"Obama made Race a big factor in the primary - falsely accusing the Clintons as racists and waging a campaign based on vitriol and hatemongering"

Were we watching the same campaign. His candidacy wasn't perfect, but the last words I would attach to it would be "vitriol" and "hatemongering"


by jbill on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:56:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What happened? (2.00 / 2)

Thanks... and you are right... she won't drop out now... She'll stay in until the last primary... at this point, she might as well... 1) You never know what will happen... I mean we might get a video of Obama with an underage person or something like that... so it doesn't hurt her to stay.

2) As KOS points out, she will probably win Kentucky and WV even if she leave the race, which will hurt Obama.   Better for her to be in it.  

However, the SDs are going to start getting off the fence.  If not now, then after Oregon.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST

NObama bumper stickers can be found here! (1.00 / 9)

http://www.nobama.com/

We just ordered ours!


by CoyoteCreek on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:01:27 AM EST

Re: NObama bumper stickers can be found here! (2.00 / 3)

It is over...it is time to united.  Why would you promote this kind of Crap?  Do you like McCain's war or McCain's plan to bankrupt our economy more?


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has "brought in" as many as... (2.00 / 0)

he is driving out.  You boyz refuse to notice the droves of Dems who will not vote for your guy...and will be leaving the Dem party.

No.  Obama.  Ever.


by CoyoteCreek on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:06:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has "brought in" as many as... (2.00 / 2)

I'm sorry I fail to see how you are doing anything good here.


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:09:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't realize that "doing good" was (1.00 / 1)

a requirement to be here.

Oh, sorry, I haven't had any Kool-Aid this morning.
Silly me.


by CoyoteCreek on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:24:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If you're not "doing good"... (2.00 / 1)

What is your motivation if you're not interested in the best thing for the most people?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I didn't realize tha (none / 0)

Glad to see you admit you are not "doing good"


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you notice that "doing good" (none / 0)

was in "  "  - as in the Obamaphile Definition of doing good.

I always do good - you may not like it, but that's tough luck.


by CoyoteCreek on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has "brought in" as many as... (none / 0)

Coyote is face down in a creek of his own tears.

It's Obama vs McCain now.

Pick a side or get rolled over.


by BarackIs44 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:09:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have. NObama! (none / 0)

But that doesn't mean that I will vote Repug.


by CoyoteCreek on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]