Apparently you missed the fact that Obama controls the entire Media, from print to radio to cable, through coordinated message manipulation by his shill underlings at MSNBC and prejudicial-against-Whites journalists at NYTimes and WashPost. Or something. ;-)
Nationally ~54% of voters telling pollsters they'll vote for Obama over McCain, after "Wright" and "Cling" and with HRC still "in the race" and before Obama's even "locked up" the nomination, clearly indicates Obama is a fledgling minority fringe candidate sure to lose a general election.
That's not disturbing delusional. That's scary delusional.
Plus, note to Jerome and Hillary-istas: Down by 80K votes (nice totals choice, btw: No Caucuses, count FL, count MI with Obama at 0 = completely non-partisan ;-) with Kentucky, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana to go ... Means she's not even likely to win her much-touted 36-State total-votes-in-sanctioned-Primaries-and-
Further, I don't believe Wash. State's and Nebraska's non-binding Primaries (possibly others...?) are included in that "80K lead" total. Since Jerome forcefully claims Primary voters from unsanctioned contests are "disenfranchised", down-by-80K is disingenuous on so many levels & in so many ways.
I think you have to pretty much be a Hillary Clinton partisan to not realize the complete disconnect she has created with 1. Democratic activists (MoveOn, netroots, etc.), 2. Democratic youth (see exits), and 3. the most reliable of Democratic voting blocs, African-Americans.
The notion that she is either planning or going to waltz into a Democratic presidential nomination in 4 years -- as the 'front-runner with all advantages who lost' the '08 Primaries -- and despite the fissures with activists, youth & African-Americans...
You have to be pretty deluded.
If she only wants power and prestige and glory, she'll go for Senate Majority Leader.
If she insists to be in the WH and in the executive cabinet, nothing less, then we may have a convention fight for the VP slot on our hands (UGH!).
nzubechukwu: You're reading the tea leaves entirely wrong here.
You can't look at Dem. Primary results and try to extrapolate into a general election against John McCain. Voters in earlier contested Primaries ('68, '72, '80, '88) also said they wouldn't rally behind other candidates: And, for the most part, Democrats will rally behind the Democrat and Republicans behind the Republican, in the end.
Barack has consistently beaten Hillary among Independents, the true 'swing' category, throughout these Primaries and Caucuses in virtually every State, often by large amounts (esp. in Feb.).
Re: Clinton dropping out --
As has been pointed out, I think the fact that Hillary probably wins W. Virginia and wins Kentucky whether she stays in or drops out pretty much means Barack is greatly helped if Hillary stays in for 2 more weeks of 'campaigning,' but doesn't attack him and makes no real attempt to drive up her numbers in either State.
If she wants a graceful exit, that's the most graceful exit option: Wait until after Kentucky/Oregon on May 21, assume loss in Oregon, then call it quits. Slightly less graceful is waiting until June 3 (after her likely lopsided victory in Puerto Rico on June 1 and losses in Montana & S. Dakota on June 3).
It's not the best option for the Party or the involved parties for Hillary to concede this week and then win big in W. Virginia next Tuesday. If she drops out this week and still wants a chance at being BO's VP, she'd have to plan to begin campaigning for Obama in Wheeling this weekend.
You know, overall, the allocations aren't too shabby.
First of all, Jerome counted wrong, because the delegate results he tallies add up to Obama 20 - Clinton 13 (math must not be strong suit) ; The +7 net that was expected.
As far as I'm able to tell, the Pledged Delegate apportionment is only 1% or so different from the Popular Vote tally (all Primaries combined, that is).
Overall, the chances of a Primary popular vote winner ending up losing Democratic Pledged Delegates is far less likely than the popualr vote winner in November losing the Electoral College (see Gore ; Funny enough, if Kerry had won Ohio Bush would have won the popular vote and Kerry would have won the EC).
In all the monotony of discussions about the "problems" with the Democratic nomination delegate system, people have lost the baby with the bathwater, have lost the forest in the trees: The base Democratic pledged delegates being split-up by States proportionally (based on State-wide or District-by-district proportioned totals) are rather accurately reflecting the difference in the popular vote totals across the nation.
The pledged delegates system and proportioning is basically working.
The unpledged delegates are a disaster.
The problem is, we literally have a system that takes 3,000 base pledged delegates and apportions them out to States;
And 2,025 delegates is required to win the nomination (!). In essence, to win the nomination with base pledged delegates in Democratic Primaries & Caucuses alone, one would need 67.5% of total Democratic base pledged delegates to win the nomination outright. (Note -- number is potentially marginally less, because of misc. 'pledged' "add-on" and "PLEO" delegates elected at State Conventions)
Freemansfarm: I understand Hillary supporters have become anti-Caucus, since she has lost every single one (save Nevada, sort-of, it would seem).
Caucuses generally tally "strong support" only; They also cost virtually nothing, where state Primaries can cost millions. Further, Caucuses are a boon for local Party business (in the case of Iowa, proposed Party Platform additions are the heart of the Caucus after the Presidential Preference portion is over) and getting people involved in the Party.
Iowa and New Hampshire understand how to hold their Nominating contests.
After seeing this debacle in Nevada, are you not asking yourself whether we want the first nominating contests to be in States showing this type of incompetence?
Because insert Indiana and Nevada for Iowa and New Hampshire, and that's exactly what you'd have.
The fact that Iowa and N.H. have performed flawlessly every single time has been totally forgotten in this anti-Caucus anti-First-States claptrap that has come to dominate Democratic nomination discussions.
I live in New York City (Brooklyn), and I am the first to say I would never want the machine-driven, corruption-riddled New York Democratic Party to be in control of tallying the first votes cast for the Democratic nomination. Never.
Barack destroyed her in Minnesota and Illinois (and won Iowa). He has huge momentum coming into Wisconsin. His volunteers from Chicago will be blanketing Milwaukee, U.W. Madison will help blanket Madison, Minnesota supporters will help with phones and canvassing. Hard to see the logistics of a NYer beating an evenly-matched Chicago contender in a Wisconsin primary; When Hillary was the front-runner she had a real chance, in an even matchup she's close to screwed.
If she wins VA tonight (miracles do happen), I will revisit.
People like Krugman et al. have no connection to the people that the "mandate" would adversely affect, and they choose to ignore them.
If you are in your late 20s, you probably know several people - bartenders, waitresses, aspiring artists & musicians & writers - who do not have health insurance.
Call it what she will, Hillary Clinton is going to force these people to pay a monthly bill that they cannot afford.
Sure, it will save the country money in the long-run. But they have to buy food, wash clothes and pay rent in the short-term.
And no, giving them money back on their Taxes is not a solution. They can't pay the monthly Fee up front; They don't file itemized; Much of their income is off-the-books to start with. They don't make 6 figures like Krugman (whom I otherwise love, but not on this issue).
Furthermore, unless we pick up 10 seats in the Senate (potentially 11 or 12 with Liebercrat, Landrieu, Nelson, etc. as unknowns), a universal adult mandate is Dead On Arrival anyway.
The politically appropriate fight is a children's mandate -- And it is far more affordable if the Treasury winds up having to "eat" much of the cost (it will). Don't kid yourselves, even a children's mandate will be a furious battle with the "Socialist Medicine" crowd.
gort256 "will lose a significant number of Reagan Democrats in the Midwest,"
Gort, Hillary didn't win Iowa (IA, btw) or Missouri. She didn't win among women in Iowa or Missouri either.
Furthermore, we'll see next week, but she's about to lose Wisconsin by double-digits. Barack can saturate Milwaukee with his Chicago volunteers, the two cities are quite closely connected (culturally & historically & ethnically), and Barack is also likely to win in Madison which is extremely liberal.
And sure, Caucuses only mean what they mean -- who has really enthusiastic support. So we know there are a whole lot more very enthusiastic Obama supporters in Minnesota than very enthusiastic Hillary supporters.
1. Arizona is John McCain's home state. The snickers should be enveloping the site.
2. New Mexico's votes are still being counted. Assuming she does win, Hillary Clinton could barely beat Barack Obama in the Dem. Primary in N. Mexico; Now you have her down as beating John McCain in the general without difficulty? Who's drinking Kool-Aid?
3. Hillary Clinton did not win Women in Missouri -- Barack did. In our nation's pre-eminent swing State she couldn't win amongst Women. Putrid data for your core argument (she'll win women everywhere in the country!! Or something)
4. You can't "give" Florida to any candidate at this point in the cycle. Too much time, too difficult a State to predict.
5. You forgot Arkansas, the only actual State where Hillary can legitimately switch Kerry's numbers. More snickers should envelop the site.
Obama is leading the woman who shares a name with Bill Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President, in votes and delegates. Obama is killing Clinton among Independents, and attracting more GOP cross-over voters. And your question is how he can be viable in November? You're clearly not being serious.