Post PR delegate update

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:27 PM EST

Clinton wins by a wide margin in PR, 68-32 with just 2% remaining. About  360K total voted.  CNN is projecting the 55 delegates go 38 for Clinton and 17 for Obama. Here's the latest delegate totals:

Pledged Delegate's remaining 31
Super Delegate's remaining   203
Needed to Win #              2117

Barack Obama                 2071
Hillary Clinton              1914.5 
John Edwards                 13.5
Uncommitted                  0
These numbers are from DCW, updated with the PR and SD numbers from today. They show Obama lacking 46 delegates, that's about 18 percent of the remaining 248.5 delegates remaining. Clinton lacks 203 delegates, and would need to win about 82 percent of the remaining delegates.

Update [2008-6-1 19:59:27 by Jerome Armstrong]: The chances of Clinton gaining 82 percent of the remaining delegates are near to nothing. And if so, Clinton's chances were lost with the closed-door 14-13 (15-14 with the proxy votes included) vote to award Obama half the delegates from Michigan (which led to adopting the MDP resolution instead of the Clinton resolution or going to the credentials committee).

But to show where we would be if the Clinton resolution had been adopted, this would stand at 1916.5 for Clinton, 2012 for Obama, 55 uncommitted, and 13.5 for Obama. Obama would lack 105 delegates, or about 35 percent, and Clinton would lack 202.5 delegates, or about 65 percent, of the remaining delegates. That would have represented a wider open outcome.

One RCB vote changed everything.




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 289 Comments :: Post a Comment


46 can be capped by Tuesday night. (2.00 / 5)

I am so ready for the general.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:43:58 PM EST

I am so ready for the general. (2.00 / 2)

Obama won't have to worry about being "mean" to McCain.


Anybody's vote is worth having. But not everybody's vote is worth campaigning for.
by Freespeechzone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Well, she sure as shit isn't getting 82% in SD and MT.


I voted for Hillary!
by deepee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:44:06 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Well since 82% of 31 pledged delegates (25.5) isn't much, it's all down to the Superdelegates as has been the story for the past 3 months.

It's all about Electability.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:58:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Don't you think if the Supers were going to turn this thing around for her, they would have by now.   She had a MASSIVE SD lead thats been hemmoraging since Feb 5, including losing several SDs.  If the majority of the Supers were worried about Obama, they would have not endorsed him.  I respect your wishing hard that she will pull off a miracle, but right not the score is 15-3 in the bottom of the 9th with two outs.  Could she come back... Sure.  But its probably not going to happen.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

You know, initially, he was winning all sorts of demographic categories (working class, men, college, young etc. . .) that would have made it an unmitigated landslide in November for him.

Since April his core demo groups have softened so significantly (and in many cases flipped) and with Exit Polling consistently showing that large numbers of Clinton supporters would actually go McSame . . . that it is now conceivable that McSame has a shot against him in the General. . . as I've said I'll vote for the democratic nominee but will they.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

He'd have to be unelectable not less electable for enough supers to go for her. He's not unelectable. Though if she walked into Denver trailing and walked out the nominee she would be.

BTW,  did you know that  Senator John McCain joined his fellow Republicans to vote to maintain a filibuster on the minimum wage hike.  A hike in the minimum wage is supported by at least 75% of Americans -- that number includes a large percentage of Republicans.  John McCain doesn't support the troops. He does not support the GI Bill which is the minimum that we owe the men and women of our armed forces.  John McCain agrees with Bush's Iraq strategy. As we have seen, Bush's Iraq strategy is a dismal failure and any continuation will needlessly cost more American and Iraqi lives. How many more lives? Who knows but since John McCain is fine letting our troops rot in Iraq for 100 years it would be thousands upon thousands.
 John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He is anti-choice and would appoint Supreme Court justices that will take from women their right to choose what to do with their own bodies. John McCain supports NAFTA. John McCain is a puppet for the lobbyists. Despite pretending to be a "reformer" John McCain's whole campaign is controlled by lobbyists and there is evidence of quid-pro-quo activity that postdates the Keating 5 scandal.


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Disagree.  I do hope she walks into the Convention and takes her chances.  She is CLEARLY the more electable of the two, and by then it will be plain for everyone to see.

Obama is crawling across the finish line on his hands and knees, praying that the finish line they moved closer for him after the despicable cowardice of the RBC comes up fast enough for him to claim a tainted victory.

I am ashamed to be a Democrat.  

I feel exactly like I did when Dr. Dean was thrown under the bus to give the nod to another weak, feckless, undeserving John Kerry.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

If situations were reversed, I'd be against Obama going to the convention.  Why?  Because even if you win that gamble (and she won't... she doesn't have that kind of party support... Hillary is not the Don Corleone of the party... she doesn't control enough people to do that or else she'd have the Supers support already... this is what you fail to understand) we lose in November.  There is no chance that the party isn't forever divided by an action like that.  

And if she made that gamble - win or lose, her chances of winning the nom again are none (unless she defied the odds and won the presidency).  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I am a bit surprised that someone who previously supported Dean instead of Kerry would now support Clinton over Obama.  Its the whole DLC swing state politics vs the Dean 50 state strategy all over again.  I'm just curious what your reasoning is.  What attracted you to Dean?

Thanks


by protothad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:22:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

Thank you thank you thank you,
I am glad someone pointed this out.  I speak this as someone who has gone the other way.  I am sick and tired of the whole DLC.  I am glad Lieberman is gone, now if we could just get rid of the rest.
by monkeyga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are welcome (2.00 / 1)

Actually, the non-DLC, grass-roots, 50-state approach that Obama is taking is a primary reason I support him.  I have to laugh every time someone accuses us Obama supporters of being'koolaid drinker' or claims we are taken in by an empty suit.  I made my decision to back Obama from very raional and easily researched facts.  I poured over campaign finance reports, voting records, and platform statements.  I looked at the coalition that was forming around him and what their objectives were, and found common cause.

Obama's detractors criticize his 'change' message and call it empty, a promise he can't deliver.  What they don't get is that the change is already happening, and the success of his candicacy is one aspect of it (in truth, it is more a symptom of it than a cause).  He has blown away fund raising totals, both in the amount raised and in the number of donors, all while refusing lobbyist donations and receiving most of that from small dollar donors... and he has not even finished the freakin primary yet.  He has built an unprecedented grass roots ground game, brought out record numbers of young people, and energized a sizeable chunk of the electorate.

The Change that is happening is that Americans are becoming engaged in the political process again.  They are taking back their democracy.  Obama isn't the cause of that, but he seems to be most in tune with it.  His bottom-up, grass-roots, 50-state approach stands in contrast to the top-down, swing-state, DLC approach that has been the standard operating procedure for the last several election cycles.  That in itself is a significant change from the politics of yesterday, one that many of us find very attractive.  It is, perhaps, just the downpayment on a future Obama presidency.


by protothad on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:16:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are welcome (none / 0)

Well said, proto.  Well said.
It's the whole 50 states that is in play. We have all been a part of this historic primary.
by Mae Scott on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

That's a factor of the calender more than anything else. Later primaries including West Virginia and Kentucky, where 30% of Democrats voted for Bush. Those states are uniquely DINO. Polls show Obama doing fine in PA and OH.


by elrod on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)

He's still up big in the places he won like Nebraska, Iowa, Oregon etc.  But they use this slight of hand thing where they show her winning recently in Appalachia and make the claim that he's losing among 'hard working people.  white people.'  (urp)  

As though the difference is in time instead of place.  

One thing that is getting little or no mention is how Obama's numbers were going up in CA relative to hers right up to the primary and then continued going that way.  Funny that Obama's people aren't shouting back at all these dumb arguments that if CA was held today, Obama would almost certainly win.  

But that would be cheesy and that tends to be Hillary's job.  


by Sun Dog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

Very little chance Obama wins NE, IA and even if he did (combined 12 EVs) that does not offset FL or OH (47 EVs).  A loss in OR by any democrat means it's over in November.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)


Very little chance Obama wins NE, IA and even if he did (combined 12 EVs)

Step back from the unreality. Obama has led McCain in every single head to head poll in Iowa since mid-February, averaging a 6.6 point margin.


by Casuist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

I stand corrected on IA so that's 7 EVs for Obama, just 40 left to make up after FL and OH (if he loses those 2)


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)

why does he need to make up FL? the Gore states + NH is a win.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

Because Gore won MI, NM and WI a total of 34EVs.

Obama is losing MI in every poll.
NM is a dead heat.
WI is a dead heat.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So freakin what, you're changing the subject (2.00 / 0)

My point was that they've tried to make it appear that his numbers among certain demographics have eroded by literally equating white people in Appalachia with white people anywhere.

Quit changing the subject.  You really don't have a leg to stand on with this baloney and niether does Hillary.  Having to change the subject just illustrates that.  


by Sun Dog on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So freakin what, you're changing the subject (none / 0)

Tut tut my little young grasshopper. . .

Change what subject? Did you learn that in debating class?

I'll indulge you, Obama is losing FL, MI and tied in OH, NM, WI these are Swing states or states we MUST carry in November to win . . . there are plenty of non-Appalachia WHITE people in those states . . . explain that spanky.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So freakin what, you're changing the subject (none / 0)

spanky? where you learn this eloquence from?

polls this far out mean little but I'll attempt to discuss your "indulgence". First and foremost, we'll ignore the fact that polls have been up and down for both candidates. We'll also ignore the fact that Hillary hasn't been attacked by anyone in nearly a month. Anyhow...

Obama will lose Florida. I don't see a path for him winning there. Unfortunately.

MI was a state that Kerry barely carried in 2004. Polling is within the MOE and the AA vote is being underestimated. The lack of a unity bounce also hurts him currently. The fact remains, MI has been trending GOP at the national level for some time now. I don't think this is the year the GOP breaks through.

SUSA shows Obama winning WI by a decent margin despite claiming McCain will win close to 1/4 of the black vote. Kerry won it by less then 1% point. Doesn't seem as dire as you claim it to be.

In Ohio, SUSA has Obama winning outside the margin of error. 9 points.

NM is another one of those states that always comes close after the votes have been counted. Polling has been mixed. SUSA has it tied which seems about right.

In any regard, Obama needn't win FL to win the majority of EVs. Heck, according to the EV counter he could lose NM, WI and MI and still win the nomination if you took away VA from states he's currently up in.


!
by alex100 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So freakin what, you're changing the subject (none / 0)

spanky? where you learn this eloquence from?

polls this far out mean little but I'll attempt to discuss your "indulgence". First and foremost, we'll ignore the fact that polls have been up and down for both candidates. We'll also ignore the fact that Hillary hasn't been attacked by anyone in nearly a month. Anyhow...

Obama will lose Florida. I don't see a path for him winning there. Unfortunately.

MI was a state that Kerry barely carried in 2004. Polling is within the MOE and the AA vote is being underestimated. The lack of a unity bounce also hurts him currently. The fact remains, MI has been trending GOP at the national level for some time now. I don't think this is the year the GOP breaks through.

SUSA shows Obama winning WI by a decent margin despite claiming McCain will win close to 1/4 of the black vote. Kerry won it by less then 1% point. Doesn't seem as dire as you claim it to be.

In Ohio, SUSA has Obama winning outside the margin of error. 9 points.

NM is another one of those states that always comes close after the votes have been counted. Polling has been mixed. SUSA has it tied which seems about right.

In any regard, Obama needn't win FL to win the majority of EVs. Heck, according to the EV counter he could lose NM, WI and MI and still win the nomination if you took away VA from states he's currently up in.


!
by alex100 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not yer damn grasshopper (none / 0)

You're not indulging me at all.  I can't believe you just said, 'change what subject' when I pointed out that you'd changed the subject.

You're like a kid with chocolate all over her face, a huge piece of cake in her hand and when you bust her she just says, "What cake?"  

I could address the debate you started but you discounted the point I made by changing the subject.  Then I pointed that out and you called me a grasshopper.

Good stuff.  

All you're doing is making the claim that we should choose our nominee based on what gallup is saying instead of who won the primaries.  

Ya see, that would be insane.  That's why we have primaries and caucuses to allocate delegates over half a year.  We learn more than if we just consulted the pollsters and lobbied superdelegates based on that.

Can you really not understand that Obama's numbers are being effected by the fact that he's being attacked on several fronts, the most potent of which is currently in his own party?  Clinton and her supporters work to depress Obama's numbers even as the GOP ignores her for months because she's already lost the nomination.  

So you point to polls at this time to say she should be the nominee?  That Obama is 'losing' somewhere?  

The election is this fall.  It's against John McCain.  He's incredibly beatable selling exactly what the country can't stand another minute of.  Obama's going to try to beat him while trying to help the bastard maintain his pride.  You can bet he's going to beat him.  Ask Hillary.  


by Sun Dog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:20:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

[blockquote]
Obama is losing MI in every poll.
NM is a dead heat.
WI is a dead heat.
[/blockquote]

dude, check fivethirtyeight.com

he's been up in WI for every poll except two.

he's been up in NM for most polls too, with an average of +2.4%

as for MI, maybe if clinton wasn't essentially campaigning against him non stop there, ( and actually helping the nominee ) things might turn back in line.

finally, IT'S JUNE 1st. also, he's had to deal with attacks from the clintons & their surrogates, and John McCain & the republicans, while hillary's had essentially NO OPPOSITION from anyone.

nonetheless she's managed to lose in every poll vs. Obama.

dude, please. stop peeing on the parade, for the party you support.


by scorinaldi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

So you've declared Obama the nominee already but the Democratic party has NOT. . . unless and until that happens I will support my candidate . . . if you feel that that pissess on you little personal parade . . .  then put your raincoat on.

The Nomination is still OPEN . . . go Hillary.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (none / 0)

given that he's up in WI and NM... even if he did lose MI, he can pick up VA and CO and it's a wash. Obama's electoral map is pretty open, the only places where Clinton has a massively better chance to beat McCain and Obama doesn't is Florida.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)

He leads McCain in EVERY poll of Iowa.  And today's SUSA poll of Nebraska shows him almost tied in CD1 and down only 5 in CD2 in Nebraska.  He is way ahead in Oregon.

He is basically tied in Ohio and down by about 5 in Florida. Considering has hasn't really campaigned in FL yet, he's in good shape.


by elrod on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mississippi (none / 0)

That is right Missi-a freakin-ssippi my home state is in play.  Latest Rasmussen poll had McBush with a narrow 6 point lead over Obama.  The most encouraging number in the poll for the days going forward, is that Obama won the under 40 vote. Change is happening down here folks, very exciting.  Voter registration is the name of the game.  Don't look now, but we just might shock you in November.


Musgrove for Senate.
by Countificus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's basically a cheap trick (2.00 / 1)

Nebraska I'll give you.  He will win Iowa.  He also has a great shot in Ohio.  

Florida will be harder.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

OH is within the margin of error (dead heat)Obama-McCain, and if any Democrat lost PA he would Lose Period (PA is not a swing state, we must carry it).

Clinton wins OH, PA by double digits.  Wins FL the other key swing state.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

That's why we welcome your support in helping elect the Democratic nominee Barack Obama this November.  There are still 5 months left before the GE to shore up support in areas you deem critical.  We look forward to working with you.


by edg1 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Partly discovering Obama (none / 0)

and partly running a simultaneous campaign against Clinton, who thinks she and McSame have the cred to be commander in chief.

In an effort at party unity it would be nice if you guys would start showing some.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partly discovering Obama (1.00 / 1)

Yup.

As usual with Obama people, "unity" means shut up and sit down.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:51:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It means stop whining (2.00 / 1)

about how mean everyone is to poor poor Hillary while you keep attacking Obama.

But whatever........ rant on, if it makes you happy.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And nobody told you to shut up (2.00 / 0)

What's with the persecution complex.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Partly discovering Obama (none / 0)

Even the Republicans were mostly able to swallow their pride and support John McCain, who many of them hate passionately. If you can't do the same, then Republicans have shown they care more about their party than you do.
by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Remember though, besides taking a hit on wright, which polls show haven't hurt him too bad, he has been battling BOTH Hillary and the GOP.  So that explains some of the hits he has taken.  Given those hits, he is neck and neck with McCain and ahead or slightly behind in EVs depending on the map you look at.  

Now you act as if Obama gained all his SDs PRE April and hasn't gained any since April.

But that really isn't the case:

Febuary he gained 88
March he gained 19
Since April he has gain 103.5 SDs.  

So yes, He did get a big amount in Febuary, but he has gained nearly a third of his SDs since April.

Meanwhile, Hillary has only gained 81.5 SDs since February... and only 33.5 since April compared to Obama's 103.5.  If the SDs were going to turn, they would have done so or he would NOT have gotten 103.5 SDs since April.  

These numbers don't include Florida and Michigan... just SDs through 5-25.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ superdelegate-history-tracker.html


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Oh gosh.

Do you really think Hillary would win without the African American vote?


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Could Hillary swing the election to McCain with a few more national security "threshold" remarks, "He's not a Muslim as far as I know",  or perhaps with faint praise.  

But if she just gets out of the way, I don't think Obama will have any trouble with McCain.  Obama can move numbers in ways that no other candidate can.  He just needs to execute a general election strategy that is as effective as his primary election strategy.  There are plenty of volunteers.  There is plenty of money.  The Democrats have their wind to their back.  

As long as the Clinton's are not there with the long knives, he will do just fine.


by smoker1 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I have more faith in Hillary than THAT.  She might be upset, but (and I hate to use this example but it fits) I feel she will do exactly what McCain did if she isn't or doesn't want the VP slot.  She will campaign for Obama, she will tow the party line.  In 4 years, she will do the same and then we will see probably see a battle for the nom in 2016 between Obama's VP (provided it isn't Hillary) and Hillary.  

Hillary will NOT sabotage Obama. No chance.  She is a better person than that.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:48:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I believe you are right.  But there is an outside chance...


by smoker1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:35:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Many would have believed that "Obama can move numbers in ways that no other candidate can" prior to April.

Since April, Obama has decisively lost the majority of primaries, the popular vote by a large margin and shown, far from being the "transformational candidate" that he's just like ANY other candidate.

If Obama is the nominee, he will win it or lose it on his own, and if he does lose, there will be no-one to blame but himself.


If you had everything, where would you put it?
by wasanyonehurt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

SD and MT (2.00 / 0)

So when Clinton loses big in SD and MT on Tuesday, are you going to admit that the tides are turning against her?    When the count of races comes out to 8-7 are you going to admit that she blew her amazing 8-5 lead on the last day of the election?

Of course not.  But since you are making the same arguments about Obama, through today, I guess I will have to make these on Tuesday to show the Supers that Clinton stumbled at the end when she had all the momentum.


by monkeyga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

April has exposed Obama's weakness.  He does not do well in Appalachian country.  He did badly in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, the rural parts of Indiana, rural Pennsylvania, rural Ohio.  Let's face it.  There are many people there (including Democrats) who are racists.  

Let me be very clear.  Clinton is not racist.  Her campaign is not racist.  I think that the "outrage" over her "hard-working, white Americans" was totally synthetic.

But when you look at Obama's weakness, it has more to do with a region of the country than any kind of loss of mojo.

This is going to be a challenge in the fall.  But Superdelegates should not deny him the nomination because they fear that Obama won't appeal to Appalachia.  We are better than that.


by smoker1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:01:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

When you resort to words like "electability," it's a fair sign the game's up.

And I feel for you, I really do. Frankly, I'm still not real happy about needing to rally around the candidate way too early four years ago when Edwards' message was far superior.


by mcd410x on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Or 65 percent of the delegates either.

So that "one vote" is hardly as decisive as it seems.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 4)

We've had great candidates running for the nomination this year.  I'm very proud to be a Democrat.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:44:28 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 2)

Thank goodness this thing is almost over. Now on to the General.


by politicalfan on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:52:07 PM EST

Ickes said it (2.00 / 2)

MR. ICKES:  I think he would make a very good president, yes.

MR. RUSSERT:  Now, that's the spirit of unity.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:53:39 PM EST

P.S. that was from this morning. (none / 0)


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

spoiler alert! (none / 0)

It's Sunday, so the DVR is bursting at the seams.  I hear MTP was pretty good today.


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's already on-line (none / 0)

DVR be damned.

the entire show is already online as a netcast

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's already on-line (none / 0)

I wish they put more shows up in entirety.  Hardball and Countdown are put up piecemeal, and the stupid MSNBC video player forces you to watch the clips backwards for some reason.


by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

accomodating dial-up users (none / 0)

rural america still lacks cable and dsl


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: accomodating dial-up users (none / 0)

I lack cable and dsl


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
by Lefty Coaster on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: accomodating dial-up users (none / 0)

I lack a 100mbps fiber hookup.
by semiquaver on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (2.00 / 1)

I'm sure yesterday was pissed off emotion and today after a long talk among the HRC campaign, they are gearing up to end it.  I have a feeling there have been more talks than the media knows about and that there is an informal agreement on the table for Her to endorse him and appear with him and him to help her fundraise and to give her some concessions on healthcare and let her lead the charge in congress or as HHS or maybe (but unlikely) VP.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've been reading the Telegraph again... (none / 0)

From today:


Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

The former First Lady would get the chance to pilot Mr Obama's reforms of the American healthcare system if she agrees to clear the path to his nomination as Democratic presidential candidate.

Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.

Tim Shipman - Hillary Clinton to be offered dignified exit Daily Telegraph 1 Jun 08


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been reading the Telegraph again... (none / 0)

That would be outstanding!  Then again, we'd need assurances that Hillary's Senate seat would stay in Dem control.  How does NY handle this?


Let's elect a Dem President!
by SpanishFly on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been reading the Telegraph again... (2.00 / 1)

If there were genuine efforts at reconciliation I'm confident that the ructions would be easily mended.  But she has to choose, be the perennial candidate or change tack and strengthen her position in the Senate and/or the Obama administration.  In the latter case I have no doubt her Senate seat would remain secure for a long time to come, at least from where things stand today.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been reading the Telegraph again... (none / 0)

David Paterson our Governor gets to select her replacement.

If you Obama people think this is over, think again.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been reading the Telegraph again... (none / 0)

I'd highly recommend doing a lot of thing you enjoy this week and staying away from the internet and the television.  It's probably going to be unpleasant for you if you don't.  No snark here.  Just honest advice.


Obama 2008!
by lollydee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent! (none / 0)

Then that's settled--her replacement would be a Democrat.

Hillary for Sec. of HHS!  I really like that idea, she'd be damn good at it.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent! (none / 0)

I actually think she'd be a fantastic AG!


by ktmnyny on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think she'd be a better fit for HHS. (none / 0)

Healthcare seems to be her real passion, not law.  She does have the background for AG, I just don't think she really has the interest.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think she'd be a better fit for HHS. (none / 0)

Agreed...but.  I think healthcare is very important to her and this is the very reason she won't be the one to promote it.  Think of the nasty vitriol that will be attached to "hillary-care".  

Obama recently stated that in his first 100 days, he'll review all executive orders and remove the ones that are unconstitutional.  She'd be perfect for this and would give her more opportunities for positive publicity.

Just thinking......


by ktmnyny on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why (none / 0)

Why would anyone give up a Senate seat for a Cabinet seat?  


by monkeyga on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why (none / 0)

More power and prestige.  Just off the top of my head.

You almost never hear of Senators turning down cabinet positions.


I have that readiness.
by Jess81 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Happens fairly frequently (none / 0)

Clinton had two Senators that moved to his cabinet  -- Lloyd Bentsen of Texas as Secretary of the Treasury (unfortunately- lost his safe Democratic seat, though he was probably ready to retire anyway) and Bill Cohen of Maine (who was a Republican) to Defense.  They wouldn't do it for some minor cabinet position, generally, but HHS is a big department.  Could be a match made in heaven.  


by Headlight on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:54:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (none / 0)

I'm sure yesterday was pissed off emotion and today after a long talk among the HRC campaign, they are gearing up to end it.  I have a feeling there have been more talks than the media knows about and that there is an informal agreement on the table for Her to endorse him and appear with him and him to help her fundraise and to give her some concessions on healthcare and let her lead the charge in congress or as HHS or maybe (but unlikely) VP.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (none / 0)

Yes, but Hillary would make a better President than Obama.  You left that part out.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (none / 0)

so? Obama's going to be the nominee. Clinton might very well have made the better president, but we won't find out unless she wins in 2016.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ickes said it (none / 0)

About half the party agrees with you and half disagrees.  Personally, I think both would do a good job, but I think obama would do better right now.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Its safe to assume Obama gets at least half.  Giving Hillary the extra SD in that 16-15 split (although I think its more likely Obama will get it.) then he needs 31 SDs.  It would be nice to see a mass go on Monday and Tuesday, but my guess is we will see it by weeks end.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

I tend to think he has several Super D's in his pocket right now, and will give them a call on Tuesday to put him over the top during his SD or Montana victory speech.

At least, that's what I'd do.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I demand a recount! (none / 0)


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:57:12 PM EST

The RBC close vote (2.00 / 4)

The RBC close vote could also have award Michigan by 50-50. Obama had the votes to do it. But he didn't press the matter and got a wider majority (not one vote as you say) for the 69-59 compromise.


by elrod on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:58:53 PM EST

Re: The RBC close vote (2.00 / 3)

Yeah, Jerome is lying on purpose to make Hillary's supporters even more outraged.


by JoeW on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (1.00 / 1)

He can't help himself.


by sweet potato pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:11:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

That's uncalled for.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (2.00 / 4)

I'm not quite sure what Jerome thinks he, or the Democrats, gain by comments like this. It's like hearing that Hillary went off about being the "choice of the people" or something similarly delusional.

I know I'm supposed to be magnanimous as an Obama supporter. Unity and all that jazz. But I hear that, and I think well, you know what, if that's what's bleeding through the bitter bile they must be feeling, if that's the crap they're spitting out at me and the rest of the democrats frantically pacing around the pen waiting to chomp and McCain and the rest of the Repubicans who DESERVE our rancor and pent up RAGE...

RAGE we've been holding back as these pitiful primary battles of nothingdom continue with their spitwads of meaninglessness that serve only to aid MC SAME and the MASTERS OF ET CETERA (BY THE POWERS OF BUSHSKULL!!!) well, damnit... whatever. Sure. Whatever. Great. Right back atcha folks. Lookin' great Taylor Marsh. Sure you're a Democratic Author or podcaster or something. Tell me I'm a "boyz" Algere. Go on. I'll just sip my soda and wait for those Montana results to come in. Or something.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In the spirit of 'unity' (2.00 / 2)

Good Lord if Carl Levin a strong Hillary supporter advocated for seating Michigan honoring the uncommitted for Obama, at least Jerome and Armando could acknolwedge that.

The vote was to enfranchise Michigan.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

You don't know what votes Obama had.  

If it was that close, a ridiculous stance like 50-50 would have failed to get the votes needed.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (2.00 / 1)

well, given it's what Jerome is citing, and it's what multiple news outlets have said, then you're basically arguing against Jerome.

which is amusing, since he's on your side.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

Read "what Jerome said" again.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

All the news groups have been reporting it.  So are you saying hey are lying.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

And, you know, it doesn't matter anyway.

Jerome said if that "one vote" would have changed, Hillary would have still needed 65 percent of the remaining delegates.

Not gonna happen.


by Bush Bites on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The RBC close vote (none / 0)

"And if so, Clinton's chances were lost with the closed-door 14-13 (15-14 with the proxy votes included) vote to award Obama half the delegates from Michigan (which led to adopting the MDP resolution instead of the Clinton resolution or going to the credentials committee)."

1. Obama had a 14-13 vote for his 50-50 delegate split request.

  1. Instead of getting the 50-50 split, the group decided to go with the more Clinton favorable MDP position of 69-59.
  2. You're attacking Jerome, who is thoroughly in the tank for Clinton.


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One RCB vote changed everything... (2.00 / 1)

Come on Jerome, you know this isn't true.  Even with that vote Hillary would still be about 100 delegates behind, and that's assuming that no uncommitted delegates vote for Obama at Denver.  Even if Hillary got everything she wanted out of Michigan and Florida, she'd still lose.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:59:34 PM EST

Re: One RCB vote changed everything... (2.00 / 2)

The vote didn't change much at all.

Before the vote, Obama had a massive lead and was all-but-assured the nomination.

At the vote, Obama agreed to retroactively turn a glorified poll in Florida into a half-election and essentially gift-wrapped Clinton a few Michigan delegates instead of neutralizing the delegation with a 50-50 split.

After the vote, Obama had a slightly-less-massive lead and was still the all-but-assured nominee.

If you need more proof of how electorally inconsequential the rules meeting was, look at intrade. No reaction.


The primaries are over!
Focus on McCain
by really not a troll on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One RCB vote changed everything... (2.00 / 0)

It's actually true.

But, in reality, that vote took place last year. Without that vote, everything could have changed. But you can't un-ring a bell rung six months ago.


by TCQuad on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That change (none / 0)

would probably have meant Michigan's delegates would have been split 50-50.

If Michigan counted, Clinton would've gotten a hell of a lot less than 55% there IMO...hell, she might have even lost the state.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One RCB vote changed everything... (1.00 / 1)

You are spinning.

You are actually claiming that if Clinton was given the whole thing on Michigan that she would still trail by about 96 delegates?

Where are you getting this information from?

The RBC vote changed everything.  Get with the program.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 7)

Alternatively, Jerome, you might want to consider what the numbers would be if the Rules Committee had taken no action and let the rules that  both candidates signed off on stand. Obama would, of course, have an even larger lead. He made major concessions in the interests of party unity. It's time Clinton did the same.


by Beekeeper on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM EST

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Stop that! Jerome is merely trying to conserve toothpaste by stuffing it back into the tube.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please don't try and be 'fair' (2.00 / 1)

You are obviously a sexist for not wanting to give Hillary the woman's perogative to change her mind. She was for Michigan not counting before she was against it.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:38:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (1.00 / 1)

You are a misogynist,

that comment is sexist.

Please stop.


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

How is Beekeeper's comment sexist??

"Alternatively, Jerome, you might want to consider what the numbers would be if the Rules Committee had taken no action and let the rules that  both candidates signed off on stand. Obama would, of course, have an even larger lead. He made major concessions in the interests of party unity. It's time Clinton did the same."

Pray tell, what here is so offensive?

Or is it snark?  (Serious question)


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

It is sexist because I have said it is sexist and me saying something is sexist means it must be sexist.

:)


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:10:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

Heh, yeah.  I just realized it was snark about 2 minutes after I posted that.  Good job making it ambiguous!


by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Hey I know what I stand for as a Hillary supporter.

My principles don't change unless I decide to change them.  


by HillsMyGirl on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

More Obama "rules are rules" self-serving spin.

1.  NH and SC were granted RULES WAIVERS.  There's your "rules are rules".  Feh.

2.  The solution the RBC settled on, granting Obama all uncommitted AND 4 Clinton delegates has no basis in any "rules".

3.  When the Michigan Senate was trying to decide if they would hold another Election, KNOWING the "Clusterfuck" (tm-firedoglake) the MI Election/beauty contest turned into, Obama's operatives lobbied and got it shut down.

So we end up with this:  Obama gets a magical 59 delegates by the decision of ONE RBC member, and we end up with egg on our face after screwing up the most bitterly contested, bitterly fought, bitterly won, bitterly lost Dem Primary since Kennedy-Carter.

Didn't have to end up like this, and I blame Obama and especially Axelrod.


by dembluestates on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

How was it one RBC member? The vote (which was the Michigan Dem Party position, endorsed by Clinton supporter Carl Levin) was 19-8, with 5 of the 13 Clinton endorsers signing on.

Were those Clinton endorsers traitors?


by skaiserbrown on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Exactly. A good number of Clinton supporters on the Rules committee recognized that Obama was leaning over backwards to accommodate Clinton's (basically nonsensical) argument and voted for the plan that passed.

I'm sorry but you can only turn reality upside down so long before people will stop listening to you.


by Beekeeper on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (none / 0)

Careful there with them "facts".


by Frood on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:34:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Post PR delegate update (2.00 / 1)

The Obama people on the comittee even turned down a result more favorable to Obama because the margin that it would have passed by would have been very narrow.  The Obama campaign took less favorable results to mitigate people like Jerome claiming that the election was stolen by the committee.  

Some, though, will only see this as foul play no matter what the facts are.  I wish it weren't so because claiming that this primary win is illegitimate helps no one but the Republicans.  


by PSockNerd on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:31:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Post PR delegate update (none / 0)


We are so lucky Clinton is out of it within the week. This is a sign of the "incoming" a Clinton camapign would take -- and this is from a liberal glossy!!

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/featu res/2008/07/clinton200807


by NYWoman on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 08:02:01 PM EST

They threw Dee Dee Myers under the bus (none / 0)

the clinton campaign responded to the VF article, in part, by saying it was a hit job, as the author is Dee Dee Myers' husband.

The problem is, every time I've seen Dee Dee this year, she was supporting Clinton, even using their talking points versus Obama.

And as any clinton supporter would s