home

Obama Wins Maine Caucus

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:48:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

CNN declares Obama the winner of the Maine Caucus. He leads by 58-41 with 70% of the precincts reporting. As many of us expected, it appears Barack Obama will win another February contest.

As Jeralyn reported earlier, Maine has 24 delegates. CNN projects that Obama takes 15 to Clinton's 9 for a 6 delegate gain.

Clinton is very likely to lose every contest until March 4, when big states Ohio and Texas have their contests. What effect will this string of losses have on the campaign narrative?

Update(TL): Comments almost at 250, time to close this thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

< Hillary and Obama Ask Edwards for Support | Theories >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Wins Maine Caucus | 248 comments (248 topical)
    CNN just updated -- holding at 57-42 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    with 59% in.  Crowley is saying they don't know which possible strongholds for either candidate have not yet reported.  (Not good coverage, CNN -- that told me no more than the updated numbers on your site.)

    This seems the likely range (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    what we do not know is what the delegate breakdown will be.

    Parent
    If they breakdown proportionally (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:09:33 PM EST
    then it is 14-10 or so. Maybe 13-11.

    Parent
    Thanks -- I was trying to calculate (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:20:25 PM EST
    that and decided I needed more caffeine.

    Parent
    Good Question (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    What effect will this string of losses have on the campaign narrative?

    The Obama campaign will run with the electability and inevitability theme.  I have a hard time thinking about what the Clinton campaign is going to run with.  How do you verbalize "Hey, just wait for Penn and TX" then I'll show you what I've got.  

    Texas and Ohio are in 3 weeks (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:04:55 PM EST
    It will be billed as Hillary's last stand and frankly it will be.

    My own take it this narrative is not that bad for Clinton.

    3 weeks of Obama being the frontrunner Hillary fighting back in states favorable to her.

    Expectations well under control.

    Not that bad for her at all.

    What worried me for Hillary was the money problem but that appears to have been solved.

    A new chapter of the campaign begins after Tuesday.

    Parent

    The more I think about it (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    The more I think you are right that Super Tuesday proved the meaninglessness of momentum.  Obama is building up a great head of steam right now, but so what.  He had amazing momentum going into Super Tuesday (South Carolina, Ted Kennedy, media narrative) and it didn't help him one bit in the big states like CA and MA.

    The reason why Iowa has momentum (and as we saw this year, even that has its limits) is because it's the only data point.  This far into the game, the narrative has been established that it's a close contest.  Public opinion in Texas is not going to wildly swing back and forth based upon what happens in places like Maine and Virginia.

    Parent

    And there are 3 weeks before voting (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    in Texas and Ohio.

    It is a new ballgame there. Indeed, with a more favorable OVERALL terrain for Clinton if you ask me.

    IF EVER the Media was going to turn on Obama the time is now.

    They get to vett him now as the frontrunner.

    Parent

    After thinking about it (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:09:41 PM EST
    I don't think the MSM is really helping Obama here.  For the next three weeks we're going to have the networks just dogging Clinton and raising expectations for Obama and look how that worked out last time (New Hampshire).  Should this happen again, and I'm not saying it will, will Obama get a rep for not being able to put the big one away?  

    Parent
    Hard to say (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    My Obama is a Media Darling theory will REALLY be put to the test these next 3 weeks.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:05:12 PM EST
    is now trading at 68.5 on Intrade.  That's not his all-time high water mark, but it's very close.

    So there can be no doubt that he has now become the front-runner in the public imagination.  He will be at something like 75 or 80 after Tuesday's primaries  (a great money-making opportunity for you, by the way!).  But despite what silly diarists at silly sites may write, the Clinton campaign is going to keep going until March 4!

    Parent

    Intrade (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    is useless. Always has been.

    Parent
    Not at all (none / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM EST
    It is a very accurate measure of conventional wisdom, something that is hard to pick up from reading a bunch of partisans on blogs.

    It is, of course, worthless as a PREDICTIVE measure.  But if Obama is at 95 in Maryland and Virginia (he is), that certainly serves to demonstrate that "almost everyone thinks Obama will win Maryland and Virginia."

    Parent

    Actually not (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:21:08 PM EST
    I do not believe CW has Obama with a 68% chance of winning.

    Parent
    Then there's money on the table (none / 0) (#115)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:22:54 PM EST
    you could make a killing :)

    Parent
    Indeed (none / 0) (#188)
    by seand on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    And that's exactly why prediction markets works, as a measure of CW

    Parent
    I picked up a bunch at 55 (none / 0) (#92)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:08:44 PM EST
    On Saturday. Looking forward to cashing out on 2/20 at the height of everything.

    Parent
    Good thinking (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:10:05 PM EST
    Then you can root for Obama without worrying about your money.

    Parent
    You could be right... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:12:41 PM EST
    I dunno.  For national press I think you are closer to the truth; with local press the problem is that he isn't being portrayed yet as the front-runner per se.  He is being portrayed as a the little engine that could.  "Could" mind you, not shall.  People are still stunned and can't believe that he has gone toe-to-toe with Clinton (who dominated the press during 1st cycle as the inevitable party nominee) and the fact that he may have out-witted her has earned some begrudging respect here.  Folks think it  bodes well for dealing with Republican shennanigans in the GE.  Besides, I am not sure that a few weeks is really long enough for viewers/readers to get bored with the feel-good story that Obama is representing thus far.  

    Overall, my opinion is that Clinton still has the edge here, but I feel it's a diminishing edge, not one that is on the rebound in the interim between statewide primaries, etc., as many seem to hope for.  This is a kooky election, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt, but I think Clinton would do better here in TX if the election was held in a few days, rather than few weeks.

    Parent

    I live in Austin and I think you're right (none / 0) (#118)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:24:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Texas is (none / 0) (#49)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:56 PM EST
    a red state. It always has gone red for the last several elections. How can we argue that Alaska or Idaho don't count because their red states but Texas does?

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Shawn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:31:37 PM EST
    Many actual Democrats live there.

    Like me. :)

    Parent

    There is a Democrat in every Red State. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    May you thrive and multiply.

    Parent
    Last I looked (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:57:18 PM EST
    htey are counting the delegates from Alaska.

    Parent
    I should (none / 0) (#89)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:06:24 PM EST
    have been more clear. I'd read that these caucus' Obama was winning involved very few voters and that the States would eventually go Red in November so they shouldn't carry much weight. Not much solace to the voters but the argument made sense to me. But Maine usually goes Blue and Texas always goes red, so when I hear folks say "don't feel bad about how Hillary is doing this weekend, just wait til Texas, OH and PA, it seems inconsistant since Texas is a red state.

    Parent
    I was talking about the nomination (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:10:52 PM EST
    We Dems ain't winning Alaska OR Texas.

    Parent
    This year. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:32:29 PM EST
    Or next.

    Parent
    Momentum As Long As You Don't Look Behind Curtain (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cdalygo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    It's inevitable momentum only if you buy the meme of caucuses equaling primary votes.

    (I"m not trying to hammer people over the head here. I'm merely pointing out the stance the Clinton people have to take.)

    Besides with the frontrunner comes a certain set of buyers' remorse. Even if the press doesn't want to start questioning Obama, other folks will be taking a closer look.

    The hardest fight in any political race or game or life is not giving up in the third quarter. We are in the third quarter folks and down. Contrary to popular belief, however, we are not in the 4th quarter with two minutes to go.

    But from now on the Clinton folks have to be ahead of the story. It has to be made clear that Wisconsin allows for cross-over voting and that the Republicans are pushing it. (That's what should have happened in Nebraska.)

    The other thing that needs to happen is that she needs to win BIG in the three big states. That will set syllogism/theme going into the convention.

    We may get discouraged in the very short time frame of instant communication. But the amount of money raised this week shows me that view is not shared by other folks. Further there will be two debates and the 60 minute interviews between now and the Big Three.

    aah. A football analogy. I like it. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    We will pretend we are the Giants.

    Parent
    After this weekend (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Coldblue on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    I guess we will find out the depth of Hillary's resolve. Sure, she wasn't supposed to win Nebraska or even Louisiana, but Washington and now what appears to be a significant loss in Maine have to give her cause for concern. Changing the campaign manager is the first step in what I expect will be a different Hillary on the stump.

    And if she needs more money, I'll contribute my 'stimulus' money to her: what better way to help the long term economy?

    Haha! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:34:37 PM EST
    Just realized that for those folks who have Clinton down as Svengali...well, this all plays into her masterful plan!

    (see, we can spin a win, too!)

    Caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Eva on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    are actually really inspiring events. You not only cast a nomination vote, you contribute items to the state party's platform, etc. They're kind of party rallies and, at Dem caucuses at least, there are all kinds of folks from moms and dads with babies to seniors and all kinds of colors and classes. Very cool.

    Oh, and you can, in my home state at least, just walk in, cast a nomination vote, and walk out if you so choose.

    But disenfranchising (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    Because people who have family responsibilities or work, and can't show up (or people stationed in Iraq, say) can't caucus.

    For all the "party atmosphere" it's still an undemocratic travesty.

    Parent

    No-one has to be disenfranchised. (none / 0) (#150)
    by jnicola on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:45:56 PM EST
    Absentee votes are possible in the Maine caucuses.

    http://www.mainedems.org/2008AbsenteeRequestForm.aspx

    Parent

    The problem is more than whether (none / 0) (#248)
    by Lena on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:47:27 PM EST
    you have an absentee ballot opportunity... It's that the system is stacked against:

    mothers with young kids, especially poor ones who can't find babysitters
    introverts
    the poor
    those who work on caucusing day
    the disabled (depending on state)
    those who are easily intimidated
    those who are reluctant to reveal their political affiliations to their friends and neighbors

    I'm sure there's more...

    For example, my brother and spouse went to caucus in WA this Saturday, and one of them had to go home because their kids started acting up after the first 15 minutes or so. One lost vote.

    And what was described as a typical caucus sounds more like a Democratic party committee meeting, which are notoriously badly attended, and feature a few activists making decisions for a much larger community. That may be a way to run the day-to-day business of a party, but not a way to decide on a nominee, essentially doing so on behalf of the regular nonpolitical Democratic voters in the community.

    I have to admit that although I've never liked caucuses, I also never really thought about it much before this campaign season. It just sounds like a disenfranchising system, which a few people greatly enjoy, but which scares off the rest.

    Parent

    Well, I think he just baited Bill Clinton. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:09:59 PM EST
    CNN just showed his speech and he went into all the losses the Democrats had during his administration. The House, governors, etc. He kind of dissed Florida and Ohio a little too.

    He said she can't get past the politics of the past fifteen years where you start out 47-47 and then "everything else is just Florida and Ohio I guess". He will appeal to Independents and disillusioned Republicans. Yuck.

    I don't know how Bill Clinton will have the self control to not answer that.

    "Just Florida and Ohio" (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST
    Did he REALLY say that?

    Parent
    The article I saw (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    said something like:47 to 47 and 5% undecided who all live in FL or OH I guess.
    I am looking for the exact quote

    Parent
    Yeah, that's it. The other 5%....Thanks. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:28:29 PM EST


    Parent
    So winning 53-47 (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:48:00 PM EST
    not a win now?

    Obama is 60 or bust?

    Interesting. I wonder how serious he is about all that.

    Parent

    Yep, he did say that (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:41:51 PM EST
    See, he gets cocky when he's winning.

    Just watched him on 60 Minutes, too, where he said that his campaign did not run negative, that wasn't the kind of guy he was.

    I wish someone would juxtapose the clips.

    (and I heard elsewhere that he was going to talk about his coke use, but he didn't; however, Katie Couric ticked me off trying to do the, "tell me about it, girlfriend" crap.  Who cares if she gets tired?)

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#165)
    by lilburro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    I only caught the Hillary interview but I thought it was kind of dumb.  "Were you the girl who always raised her hand in class?"  Said like it's a bad thing.  So annoying.

    Parent
    Yes. It's his Alexandria speech I think. He said (none / 0) (#120)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:25:32 PM EST
    Ohio with a kind of snarky laugh. Maybe his arrogance will do him in. He refers to himself as Barack and that bugs me.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM EST
    If someone can lead me to the clip, I would greatly appreciate it.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#130)
    by zyx on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:34:01 PM EST
    reminds me of George Bush.

    I really hate that.  Gives me the willies.

    Parent

    I didn't find the laugh (none / 0) (#134)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:39:30 PM EST
    snarky at all. He was being funny, I guess it's all in how you receive it.

    Parent
    What was funny in that line? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    Maybe I missed something.

    Parent
    funny as in irony (none / 0) (#170)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    acknowledging that the prior elections came down to close votes in Ohio and Florida. 47% of the country in one direction, 47% in another, and 5% undecided, that all live in FL or OH, I guess.


    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#214)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    That is not funny. That is fact. Here is a hint, it is a fact THIS YEAR too.

    Parent
    I'm not arguing that (none / 0) (#230)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    I just felt that Teresa completely mischaracterised what he said. He did not dis FL or OH, he did not say "everything else is just Ohio and Florida, I guess" (her quotation marks, not mine). Let's be honest, BOTH candidates have their faults, and things that turn off certain people. I find the quest to bash him for everything by some posters a little off putting. I realize plenty of Clinton supporters have the same complaints about the Obama supporters.
    How will we come together and elect a candidate in November? Or will we just let the GOP dictate what America looks like?

    Parent
    Isn't this the 50 State strategy though? (none / 0) (#109)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:19:34 PM EST
    If every election comes down to the dems needing to pick up FL and/or OH to win, we are going to keep losing the presidency.

    Which candidate can do that is of course an open question. But I think it's a valid point that the Dems need to play offense and find a way to go after red states; make the Repubs play defense.

    Parent

    Not if we win FL and Ohio (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:43:23 PM EST
    Interestingly WISHING that it was not the elctoral map does not make it so.

    We are not going to win Idaho, Alaska or North Dakota this year. Or Texas.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#183)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:07:24 PM EST
    we did lose the last two elections, because of Ohio and Florida. The last two elections had us playing mostly defense. I'm not saying we have to win Utah or anything, but starting to pick away at borderline Republican strongholds in the Mountain West, Southwest, and maybe a border state or two would be a good start.

    Parent
    Elections happen one at a time (none / 0) (#211)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM EST
    So the first time, we lost the election in Florida.

    The next time, we lost the election in Ohio.

    We don't know where this one's battleground will be -- but I bet that the Republicans are planning it.  And plan to take that state by surprise again.  So expect it to be in yet another region.

    Watch the swing states.  And watch the Midwest along the Mississippi (excluding Illinois.  I fear it will be the closest state last time, my state. . . .

    Parent

    We've ALWAYS had a 50 state strategy (none / 0) (#223)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    for presidential elections...what Dean's 50 state strategy was rolled out to do, was start winning state legislatures, governorships and congressional districts and senate seats that we normally wouldn't do...
    Part 1, rebuild infrastructure
    Part 2, recruit candidates that can win...in many cases candidates that are more like a Republican than a Democrat (think our version of Mike Blumberg).

    But it doesn't mean suspension of disbelief in a presidential election...some states no matter how much $ we pour in, or people we put on the ground, we aren't going to win (think Utah) and some states can go either way...states that are trending purple have a lot less to do with changing minds (which is actually very hard to do) and a lot more to do with economics and job creation, there is often more "science" behind political science than people recognize...it ain't all about wearing a Obama "Che" shirt and getting your friends to do so too...

    Parent

    Its the West they are after (none / 0) (#231)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:55:42 PM EST
    The West, NV, NM, AZ etc many have Dem Governors it is the Hispanic Vote that will move the Party the South is a loss and the NE has turned Blue.  But thats going to take a more professional approach then what we are seeing from Party leadership, they dont seem to have their act together at all.he South is a loss and the NE has turned Blue.  

    Parent
    Well Good (none / 0) (#204)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    ..Luck if he thinks he can win a GE without either but he is correct Ohio will not support and Obama, LOL.  He is not winning any big states and for a reason women and Hispanics are not going to move to him period.  But your are right he is playing the victim against the establishment and he has started laying the ground work to charge his opponents are swift boating him all this along with targeting  the delegate rich caucuses is exactly what Axelrod and Patrick did in Mass.  The vote there shows the same problems Obama would have if he were the Dem nominee, slipping in is different then winning support across demographics. And we already had the victim card once I don't know about any of you but it wont move me inflame the believers maybe but my guess their maxed out.

    Ohio is not that far off..hang in there and dont read Huff Post ..And if you hear any Clintons are being meanies poor little Obama dont play along.


    Parent

    SORE losers (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by northcoaster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:19:46 PM EST
    I don't get it. Obama has obviously pulled out more supporters in almost every state for his rallies than Hillary has at hers. And he has more show up at the cacuses. o why do you all seem to want to diss the system?

     I went to our local caucus in Minnesota and I have never seen so many people show up in past. years.  Obama won 6"1 in our caucus and we elected Keith Ellison  to Congress - so liberal is our middle name.
    Many of them were neighbors that I know have always been republicans - they have had it with the GOP, Bush and the Iraq war. They truly wanted Obama. What part of this is so hard for die hard fans of Hillary to get? She is great in her own right but she just doesn't light the same fire.

    Because Fewer Dems Participate in Caucuses (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:40:59 PM EST
    More democrats vote in primaries than will participate in a caucus.  Caucuses are not designed to bring out large numbers of people and usually don't.  This year they've brought out more but still not as many as primaries have.

    They're great for folks who can go and for folks who like standing up and showing their support.  Not everyone can go because of work and other commitments.  Not everyone likes standing up in a room full of people and talking about their candidate or showing support.  I don't think we totally understand the social dynamics of caucuses and how they might affect various groups.

    And keeping down the number of participants is by design. They  can say party building all they want, but this is about democratic party activists having control of the delegates and other issues and not wanting to give it up.

    I'd also add that winning a primary in a state like California is much more like the kind of organizing and effort a nominee needs to win the GE than winning a caucus.  So it's not terribly telling about a candidates' strengths.

    We're stuck with them this year.  I understand that.  But we shouldn't be stuck with them in 2012.  And, yes, I'm still angry that my vote was worth 1/4 the number of pledged delegates as a Washington caucus participant because so few democrats participate in the Washington caucus system.  

    Parent

    I did not lose (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:42:00 PM EST
    I hate to break it to Obama supporters but I have hated the caucus system FOREVER!!

    The funny thing is I am sure you folks would hate them as much as I do if Obama did not perform well in them.

    My dislike of them is not situational.

    Parent

    Do you ever read before you post? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:49:33 PM EST
    Sorry, but we have been over this again and again. You can find the reasons caucuses are disenfranchising if you really look.

    Rallies aren't debates, and they aren't votes. Caususes are not primaries, they appeal to a certain demographic - the same demographic as Obama - and leave other people out of the process.

    There are more important things in a democracy than "Yay, my guy won!" Things like fairness, equality, everyone's right to vote. Caucuses give extra weight to certain votes and none at all to others.

    Parent

    Not sore, but tender (none / 0) (#149)
    by ROK on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:45:02 PM EST
    Both sides seem to be "sore" losers and I think this is because the Dems have been burnt so badly in the past two elections, that any loss needs to be denied and every win needs to be overplayed.

    Obama has had some huge wins and I think it's sad that Hillary supporters choose to reduce it to something other than that. Both are running very different, but very effective races.

    I've been a TL reader for years and this is the first time I have seen fellow readers act like such children.

    BTD has it right, a win is a win and they both are doing it well...

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#189)
    by dwightkschrute on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:13:16 PM EST
    I think Clinton supporters here feel as if this a haven from unfair treatment by the press and other prominent blogs (a la Kos) and sometimes get caught up venting those frustrations. And I think the Obama supporters on here sometimes feel things veer too much into slanted partisanship in the other direction (a la Taylor Marsh).

    Parent
    Not Sore (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    Hillary will come back in Ohio then Tx..

    Parent
    Are you Hillary folks pounding absinthe... (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    because Kool-aid isn't strong enough to prompt this level of denialism.

    I want to make sure I've got everything clear:

    1. Caucuses don't count

    2. States with lots of black people don't count

    3. Obama has not won any primaries...except for South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Illinois, Delaware, Connecticut, and Missouri. (How are Maryland, DC and Virginia looking? Whoops, they don't count b/c of #2)

    4. Obama can't win white voters, except in Iowa, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, Washington, and Maine

    5. Obama's having received the most votes as of Feb. 10 doesn't count because Democrats who live in red states have no rightful say in picking their party's nominee

    6. Conversely, plebiscites that don't meet minimal standards of legitimacy have to accepted as valid elections...just because

    7. Hillary planned on campaigning long past Feb. 5, firing her campaign manager, loaning herself $5 million, and trapping Obama in Ohio and Texas. Everything is finally falling into place....

    8. States like Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Colorado are deep red states that will never vote for Democrats under any circumstances, and can't be part of a winning Democratic coalition, so results there are irrelevant

    9. Hillary's big-money donors would like to do nothing more than throw good money after bad; what fundraising problems could she possibly have?

    10. States like OH and PA that have virtually identical demographic breakdowns to MO in terms of race, education levels, and median income, are guaranteed wins for Hillary Clinton. On demographic grounds. Gua-ran-teed.  

    11. An acolyte of Dick Morris and Mark Penn is the greatest champion working people have ever known

    12. A multimillionaire senator is a woebegotten victim

    I look forward to more proof that everything that happens is actually good news for HRC. Meanwhile, maybe she can "loan" herself some more money from central Asian dictators.

    Wait, there's more (none / 0) (#221)
    by dmk47 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:35:41 PM EST
    Almost forgot:

    1. The result in Maine is meaningless even though the Clintons were expecting to win it as recently as this morning

    2. Clinton spending more time in Washington than Obama means she didn't contest it


    Parent
    Look (none / 0) (#224)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    Be civil. And don't gloat.

    BTW, I do not believe you identified even a single theory correctly.

    Parent

    We (none / 0) (#227)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:47:21 PM EST
    but true believers of the collective We are the We we always wanted we to be, are generally irrational in their fervor when confronting factual data.

    Parent
    Grape or Cherry Latte Hmmm? (none / 0) (#234)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:57:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Caucuses: Obama = Romney (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    Romney won almost all the caucuses on the Republican side.  If you have money to burn, you can win these things.

    The only reason Romney had to drop out is because of winner-take-all states.

    Obama is Romney with better hair.

    The Democratic Party cannot nominate a candidate who lost California by 10%.

    The Obamafans are going to be surprised once again, when Hillary wins easily in TX, OH, and PA.  Let them have February.  March will be ours.

    or Mass by 15 (none / 0) (#232)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:56:46 PM EST


    Parent
    I think it's over. (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    I have no good feeling at all left in this. Every well known male is jumping all over himself to stand in Obama's shadow and endorse him. It seems pure pile on to me given the lack of difference in the two. I expect John Edwards to be next and I'll be so disappointed in him because of healthcare.

    If Hillary pulls this out now, she and Bill really do have some kind of magic in winning political races. The momentum and media coverage is just too much to overcome.

    I still have hope (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    that Edwards won't endorse the losing ticket for universal health care...I am hoping he will stand for the working poor etc. and that he is smart enough to see that big states all have gone for her....We will see I guess ....If he endorses Obama, then I have no more respect for his word...it will be a travesty....I bet Krugman would be quite upset too...

    Parent
    Hope ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    Krugman has always supported Edwards  on Health Care (smart man). I'm hoping Krugman's influence will help take Edwards to Clinton's side.

    If Edwards supports Obama?  Well, I won't say it's over, because endorsements don't mean anything, do they, but I will say I'll wonder a bit more.

    Parent

    athyrio, Obama is a movement, a fad right (none / 0) (#7)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    now. Some people I know, don't care or know about policy. All they know is that he is like an American Idol craze and they want to be part of it. I don't think there is a way to stop it after Tuesday unless the media decides they don't want the race over and starts giving more balanced coverage.

    She needs to destroy him in a national debate that is on national TV. She needs to point out his negatives but she can't. She isn't allowed to criticize Obama.

    We just need to hope that he wins big enough in November to get us decent healthcare and out of Iraq.

    Parent

    That's only if he has coattails to take (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:56:08 PM EST
    a lot more Dems into Congress.  And I have to wonder about that -- whether in the states that don't require straight-party voting, all those Indies for him will go Dem farther down the ticket, too.

    Parent
    Wins in November? Look at the white vote? (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    and working class vote?  Remember drivers license for illegals...remember McCain is good for Latinos.

    Don't think for a minute Obama will win in November.
    Not going to happen.  If Obama is the nominee, we will have a disaster.  And wait until you see what they do with partial birth abortion and Obama.

    This will be a nightmare of epic proportions.  McCain is not perceived as radical.  He is perceived as moderate.

    But one can always hope.  The problem is that he has not been vetted. Democrats never learn.  Never.  And progressives always think they know it all.  The arrogance is breathtaking.  Take Frank Rich and his disgusting trash talk.  Compare with what he did to Al Gore.  Why does this man have any credibility?  Bob Somerby of DailyHowler.com is right.  The progressive media destroys electable Democrats.  And the blogs are following merrily along in unison with the MSM.  I really wish someone would explain the psychology of this sickness.

    Parent

    Barak defined the race in 2004 (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Virginian on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:26:43 PM EST
    He positioned himself early as the candidate that is "above it all" well before he declared for the race. Nobody paid attention to his votes in the Senate, or inaction on his subcomitte, etc...Barak was always positioning himself...

    He basically laid groundwork for a campaign that was immune to criticism. Any critique is "more of the same"...you bring up his past and you're anti-hope...you compare your experience to his lack of experience and you are "typical Washington"...you bring up civil rights and you're a racist...you bring up your role as a mother and you're playing the gender card...Obama built his defenses well...the problem is, most of the people that support his campaign have not yet realize there is nothing to defend except the "campaign" itself...no substance, no policy outlines, not "direction" for the "movement"...no nothing...his campaign is purely built on upon just being a campaign...

    I'll vote for Barak in the GE, but over the last 10-12 weeks and investigating each candidate, campaign, goals, etc. more and more, I've come to the conclusion that he would be a disaster as a president...sure he'll keep the rhetoric up...but I just don't think Barak is capable of both tasks that lay before our nominee

    1. changing the path of our Nation

    2. but even more important and daunting; cleaning up and repairing the laws of the land after Bush.

    Barak may be able to do one (I think it would be hard, because Bush has expanded the power of the executive branch so vastly that someone without any national or executive leadership experience may be completely corrupted by the power, the "I can do so much good if I keep this power for myself" sort of thinking that leads to disaster), however, I have no doubt in my mind that he cannot accomplish #2, and to be honest, I don't think he thinks there will be much to clean up...Habeas corpus doesn't seem to be on his radar

    Parent
    I was starting to think I was the only Obama (none / 0) (#241)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    supporter left. And over the last few days, the hyperbole about his candidacy has only gotten more heated. Thank you so much for helping point out the obvious: Democrats like Obama AND Clinton. Something like 70% say they'd happily vote for either. I'm thinking that the 15% who are Hillary only are really well represented here. They flat out don't like him on here. It's too bad.

    Thanks for showing some love, ObamaMama.

    Parent

    yes, my feelings are similar. (none / 0) (#247)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    I am with you on this point.  Most Dems, including myself, would happily vote for either candidate.  I understand a lot of Clinton supporters' frustrations, having seen my own first choice of candidate die a slow death.  But I completely do not understand the anger and hyperbole.  Not to mention, there is still some hope for her.  If she can eke out a win in Ohio and Texas, then she'll have regained a fighting chance.  Without them, I think it will be over.  People are coming to realize this and it is freaking them out.

    Parent
    Let's hope it's not a guy thing. (none / 0) (#117)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:24:39 PM EST
    If he endorses Obama it's probably over...and it may be too late anyway to turn it around for Hillary.

    Just don't know but feeling...depressed and angry at the Dem establishment who drafted Obama to get rid of the Clintons by taking down Hillary.  They could have backed Edwards, but didn't.  He must have figured that out but who knows how genuine his political views of Two Americas and healthcare really are.

    We may be about to find out what John Edwards is really made of.  Frankly, I've never bought the product...I like my corn flakes without sugar coating but that's just me.

    I'd love to be wrong about him and I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.  To me, his professed interests match Hillary's lifetime interests re "It Takes A Village."  Most poor people are women and children and she gets that.  Remember Clinton's 'work hard and play by the rules?'  Hello?  Poverty...two Americas...it's still the economy, stupid!  Not to mention Clinton's Hope Scholarships....biggest program since GI Bill.

    Parent

    Not following your despair frankly (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    For Hillary, she must win on March 4th, Texas and Ohio.

    Obama will win Hawaii, Wisconsin and the Potomac primaries. He'll be up about 75-100 delegates.

    And then you campaign like crazy in Ohio and Texas.

    Then on to Pennsylvania and Indiana and so on.

    Nothing is different today than what was expected on Friday. Maybe a 10 delegate position worse than I would have expected for Clinton but even that is speculation on my part.  

    Parent

    I just don't think she can stop his momentum. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    People go with the winner and I just see it coming.

    Maybe it's just reading Frank Rich's column and realizing how much those people actually hate her. BTD, she isn't even allowed to have a halfway decent analyst on after these primaries. Do you have any doubt that every single one of them supports Obama? Roland Martin is fine but Paul Begala is a partisan hack. She has too much stacked against her.

    With McCain wrapping up the nomination pretty much, there will be even more people crossing over to vote for him now. I think he has it in the bag.

    Parent

    This was NOT a momentum win (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:13:39 PM EST
    This is what people do not understand.

    Momentum had nothing to do with ANY of the results this weekend.

    Caucus state. If New Hampshire was a caucus state, Obama would have won THAT too.
     

    Parent

    Disagree... (none / 0) (#28)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    I think that it will be read as showing momentum in Obama's direction.

    No matter what way you look at it, Obama is going to sweep this weekend, caucuses or not.  And I do not see how the media and the general public will not see that as momentum.  

    Parent

    No voting for 3 weeks (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:17 PM EST
    ends momentum.

    This is no longer a momentum campaign.

    And after Tuesday, it is a new chapter.

    Texas and Ohio become everything.

    Obama can win the nomination on March 4th, that is for sure.

    Parent

    Why won't Wisconsin matter? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:33:52 PM EST
    I also have to ask, as it's my state -- and we're seeing that there will be an ABC debate (if Obama agrees, and if he doesn't, that's interesting).

    We don't have a lot of delegate votes, but enough -- and we are a swing state, the most purple state, with the closest election in 2004.  Won't all this make Wisconsin at least interesting to watch?

    Parent

    yes indeed it will be. What is your take on how (none / 0) (#71)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    it's going to go?

    Parent
    I was confused (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    I thought Wisconsin was Tuesday.

    It will matter more than I thought.

    Great chance for Hillary to turn it around frankly.

    Parent

    And there may be a tv debate (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:41:25 PM EST
    if Obama agrees, and as noted before, if he doesn't, it will be interesting -- and not happy here in Milwaukee, where most of the Dem votes are (although it's an open primary. . . .).

    So far, he has not confirmed for the previously announced speech at the big annual Dem event next weekend; Clinton will be in Milwaukee for that, too.  So far, Obama is only coming to Madison.  

    He will take Madison, second-best in the state for Dem votes -- with many East Coast faculty and many East Coast students as well as many from Illinois and Minnesota.  And with same-day registration.

    But there are far more students in Milwaukee, with so many campuses.  UW-Milwaukee with 30,000 and Marquette (site of the debate) alone combine for more than 40,000, as much as Madison.  Plus 60,000 students (of all ages and many AAs) at Milwaukee Tech, plus a dozen other campuses in Milwaukee and its burbs -- it's one of the major campus hubs in the country.  And many more nearby along Lake Michigan, from Green Bay down through Racine and Kenosha, increasingly with Chicago commuters.

    The major newspaper in the state, in Milwaukee, is doing all it can to help him, too -- although, of course, it likes McCain.  But why isn't Obama confirming that he'll come where most Dems in the state are, where almost all AAs in the entire state are?  Watch this.

    Btw, also watch for the first candidate to speak up for the Great Lakes compact, with our lovely lakes' woes.  Richardson got KILLED in the local press for saying he would drain our water for the Southwest.:-)

    Parent

    She has a week to make it close. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM EST


    Parent
    We know that BTD, but people who don't (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    follow politics as closely as we do just see wins stacking up. They don't see the difference.

    Parent
    Nobody votes for 3 weekis. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:47 PM EST


    Parent
    What about WI? (none / 0) (#40)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:20:32 PM EST
    Wouldn't that make it more like two weeks?

    Parent
    HI, WI (none / 0) (#45)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:12 PM EST
    both vote/caucus on the 19th.  Which will make it one week after the DC area elections.  

    Then two weeks later we have TX, OH, RI, and VT.

    Parent

    Inreresting (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    Maybe Hillary can do better in Wisconsin than I thought.

    Parent
    Isn;t Wisconsin on Tuesday? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    Is it the 19th?

    Interesting. Maybe Hillary can do better in Wisconsin than I thought.

    Parent

    WA (none / 0) (#161)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:52:59 PM EST
    Washington's primary is on the 19th.  If Clinton won there or came very close, that would be very interesting.

    I've said before I want Obama to win the WA primary just so we don't have more messes to decide at the convention, but then I realized the mess won't be at the national democratic convention, it'll be at the state convention and I think Washington democrats deserve some grief after insisting that only the caucus counts and that they'll ignore the primary.

    Parent

    That is the only helpful thing I see at this (none / 0) (#44)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    point. I don't doubt that she'll perform well as an underdog.

    Parent
    exactly. (none / 0) (#39)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:20:28 PM EST
    Sure... there may be a three week lull in voting, which will limit some of the momentum.  

    But people will still know and see that Obama swept February.  Shoot... people will see on Tuesday that Obama swept this weekend, which will probably help Obama win by more than he may have.  

    Parent

    Teresa (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    speaking as another woman (I am assuming you are a woman) I understand your despondency.  With all that has happened with MSNBC, and the piling on by TPM and the such, and the horrible anti-woman rhetoric spinning around, it is very easy to feel defeated.

    Let me tell you this: I can guarantee you that Hillary Clinton is not feeling defeated.

    BTD is right: she is only slightly behind in the delegate count.  She has the money and the support to keep going.

    Further, she will have three weeks of Obama as frontrunner, and we all know how arrogant he gets when he's winning.  There have been cracks in his facade lately, and maybe time will bring more.  The press is going to be rooting for McCain more and more, especially as nutball Huckabee chips at his lead.  The kid reporters embedded in Obama's campaign are going to get tired of hearing him say the same speech day after day, and they're going to look at the crying audience members with derision.  And they are going to write about it.

    So, don't give up.  Don't get despondent.  Don't let them kick you when you're down. This is a marathon, not a sprint.  Women are used to this kind of uphill battle.  We can do it so long as we don't lose faith.  And I, for one, will help you stick together.

    Parent

    Thanks Kathy. I started out an Obama leaner and (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:57:24 PM EST
    now I ask myself why it bothers me so much to see HC lose. It's three things: the media, healthcare and sexism in that order. As I see the endorsements of establishment men line up behind Obama and the media coverage, I think sexism has jumped to number one.

    We've been there haven't we? Not too many years ago, I was one of two Assistant Controllers for a decent sized retail company. The other one was male and a good friend of mine. We were at the copier one day and a male executive outside Finance walked up and asked me to make copies for him. During this same time, we shared a large office together. Every single time a bigwig male from other parts of the company came into the office, I was referred to as his secretary.

    It is still a man's world out there and anyone who doesn't see that hasn't worked around a majority male workforce. My boss once called me into a meeting in his office with other guys and told me he needed to show me something on his computer. I swear to God, it was a very graphic porn site. What a kick they all got out of that!

    So, to sum up? Do I want a women to win just to show them? Yes I do. Plus she's smarter, more qualified and has a better healthcare policy and she know that Republicans won't compromise in anyway that will benefit us.

    Parent

    I started out as an Edwards supporter (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:18:37 PM EST
    but now I'm in the Hillary camp.  I know it's illogical, but for every attack on Hillary, as a woman, it's an attack on me.  I'm only 43 therefore I haven't had it as hard as Hillary but as a 20 year vet of the Navy, I know exactly how hard it can be to work in a mans world.  Everytime I hear the MSM make some kind of snide remark about Hillary I feel like they are making it about me.  They're insulting half of their audience every time they do that.  What a bunch of idiots.

    Parent
    Yes, they are saying it about you (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    and me, you bet.  And you really have braved a male-dominated workforce and deserve better.

    (I certainly have had my experiences in male-dominated fields, but at least the guys didn't have guns.:-)

    Parent

    I feel it, too (none / 0) (#152)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:48:13 PM EST
    Just saw Hillary on 60 Minutes.  

    She's not giving up, and neither am I.

    Parent

    media take (none / 0) (#249)
    by delandjim on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    The media doesn't get why 'older' women vote for Hillary. Well my opinion is older women have experienced more discrimination because they have more time to deal with the real world. So they identify with Hillary more, recognize the arrogance more easily and vote for her.

     I always wonder what the definition of older is.

    Parent

    That was awesome. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:39:13 PM EST
    Thank you, Kathy.

    Parent
    anyone remember Rudy 9ui11lani? (none / 0) (#124)
    by A DC Wonk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:27:34 PM EST
    Frankly, the strategy of "lose everything now until we get to the big states" is awfully reminiscent of Rudy's strategy.  A string of wins, combined with "staff shake-up", is an awfully compelling narrative for the press.

    Parent
    Now is when things will get ugly. (1.00 / 1) (#245)
    by halstoon on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:35:12 PM EST
    Obama will win the Potomac, then the sex v. race narrative will really take hold. Women are emotionally attached to Hillary, and they are going to rally around her. Blacks don't have a significant voice after Tuesday, and the drum beat about his battle for the white vote has kicked in for the last few days, despite his wins in places with almost no black people.

    The interesting thing will be how men react. Do they go with their wives/girlfriends, or do they think about nukes and pms as they step in the booth?

    Sexism vs. Racism. Which is more of a problem in America? We'll find out March 4.

    Coming to Texas... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:04:52 PM EST
    Can't say for Ohio, but here in TX the excitement is palpable re. both campaigns.  I have never seen the local community so abuzz with Dem politics, and thus far the acrimony that really has came to fore after Super Tuesday is just not as evident here.  (Yet...)

    As far as Clinton's losses go, it has had an effect.  Not sure what kind of narrative she will need to push in order to stem the tide.  With every loss, she is seen as vulnerable in a way she just wasn't earlier in the race.  The Molly Ivins styled Dems here are consequently giving Obama a hard second look, a tendency which can be evinced in many local editorials and independent scene-zines.  

    Time is what she needs (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:06:22 PM EST
    and precisely what she has.

    3 weeks from Tuesday until the Texas and Ohio primaries. She now has money again.

    She has to weather this storm but she has a 3 weeks to get to it.

    Parent

    Not so sure... (none / 0) (#14)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:09:14 PM EST
    ... about your assertion that Hillary just needs time.

    Obama has won almost every state where he has had decent time to run a campaign in that state.

    Every place he has campaigned has seen a pretty significant swing in his direction.

    I am not sure that time helps Clinton... especially when considering the context of Obama possibly sweeping through February.

    Parent

    California, Massachusetts, New Jersey (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:11:04 PM EST
    Iowa will NOT be replicated.

    See, Obama won caucuses all over the country. In contested states, he simply has not done as well as Clinton imo.

    I think the story is exactly the opposite of what you say.

    Parent

    All of those states... (none / 0) (#23)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:13:04 PM EST
    ... saw big swings in Obama's direction.

    Obama didn't win, but the gap was significantly closer than the polls showed it to be a week or two before.  

    A couple of weeks before Super Tuesday no one expected CA, MA, or NJ to even be close to being in play, but they were.  And the gap was much smaller than it was expected to be a couple of weeks before those primaries.

    Parent

    Actually all of them swung to Clinton at the end (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:15:34 PM EST
    California Field poll has a 2 point race, Clinton won by 10.

    NJ polls had Obama close, he lost big.

    Massachusetts had Obama at least close, he lost by 15.

    Every contested state Obama lost and wider than the polls expected.

    Parent

    last minute... (none / 0) (#30)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:17:18 PM EST
    ... sure - the states swung last minute.  But again, the results were much closer than they would have been projected to be 2-3 weeks before the Super Tuesday.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:20:04 PM EST
    You seem intent on believing what you want to believe.

    Clinton was up 10 in Cali two weeks before the contest. She won by 10.

    Obama has closed to WITHIN 2. He lost by 10, after heavy campaigning.

    Your theory simply is not supported by the facts.

    Parent

    Also... (none / 0) (#25)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:15:01 PM EST
    ... I still don't quite get the distinction people are making between caucuses and primary states.

    The caucus totals have not been that far off from what the polls have had leading up to the caucuses.  Obama was up anywhere between 10-15% in Washington in the polls.  He would have won a primary election if there was one rather than a caucus.  

    It just so happens that the caucus states are leaning Obama's direction.  

    Parent

    The distinction is simple (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    MORE PEOPLE vote in primaries. ESPECIALLY in big states.

    Parent
    I understand that... (none / 0) (#31)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    ... I just don't necessarily think we would be seeing different results in any of the caucus states.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:14 PM EST
    it is your perogative to believe what you wish.

    Parent
    Do you... (none / 0) (#59)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    ... have any thing to back you that would say that the caucus states would have gone a different way in their results had there been an election rather than a caucus?

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST
    I DO KNOW who participates in more and which candidate has performed better in primaries.

    I think that stands as evidence but I doubt you will accept that.

    Parent

    performance in primaries (none / 0) (#141)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:42:01 PM EST
    Here is the problem with your argument.  It assumes causation instead of correlation.  

    I agree that there may be something to Obama ding better in caucuses than he would do in primaries.  But they is MAY.

    I don't think, without doing sophisticated statistics, that we can determine whether Obama has done so well in caucuses because of the fact that they are caucuses or because Obama just ran a better campaign and was able to build a majority in those states.  

    Parent

    The people who can take two or three hours out of (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    their day (or more) to go caucus are not generally the people who are working, poor, young mothers, the disabled or old, and so on.  Other people might not want to come because of the arcane rules that might be intimidating and the fact that you have to be public about who you want to win.    

    What you see in these caucuses is mostly upper middle class people who closely follow and are involved in politics at the local level, not the average person. At least that's my take on it.

    You also have hardly anyone voting in comparison to a primary. You might have a few thousand instead of say 100 -200,000.  This skews the outcome.

    Parent

    Washington might help (none / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:50:28 PM EST
    with this argument.

    They had a caucus yesterday.  They'll have a "primary" on the 19th.

    Obama won the caucus handily.  If Hillary wins the primary, that will be the most direct comparison we can achieve (with the current state of affairs).

    Parent

    Yup. But if Hillary wins (none / 0) (#177)
    by oldpro on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:05:04 PM EST
    the primary after losing the caucus, the Obama people will just say they didn't vote in the primary so it's not a fair comparison!

    Wait and see...

    Parent

    If Obama wins the primary, Clinton people can (none / 0) (#184)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:07:42 PM EST
    say it's because the voters knew it wouldn't count so they didn't vote for that reason.  There could even be some validity to that argument.  :-)


    Parent
    Apples to oranges. . . (none / 0) (#168)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    Obama was up anywhere between 10-15% in Washington in the polls.  He would have won a primary election if there was one rather than a caucus.

    Those polls almost certainly include a "likely to caucus" screen so they predict the outcome of a caucus but not necessarily the outcome of an election.

    Parent

    New Hampshire? Name a primary state (none / 0) (#20)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:12:26 PM EST
    where he spent plenty of time that isn't South Carolina. Time is the only thing Hillary has left. And debates.

    Parent
    No he hasn't won--these are caucuses not elections (none / 0) (#73)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:54:03 PM EST
    Caucuses don't have secret ballots.  What is so hard to understand?   Obama has won very little. We don't have a caucus general election.  Further, I think these misstatements are purposeful...the point being to lull Democrats into a state of over confidence.  Dukakis was  overconfident.  And he was crushed.  This always happens.  Always.  Democrats are lousy warriors...They can't manage Congress very effectively...why trust their instincts?  Meanwhile, not much has changed for the better.  

     

    Parent

    This is Monday-morning quarterbacking (none / 0) (#10)
    by stillife on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:05:53 PM EST
    but I think that Clinton's campaign got out-gamed by Obama's.  The Obama campaign used all these crappy little caucuses to rack up a bunch of "wins" to get delegates and "momentum" with the minimum amount of voter participation.  I know we've all been saying that we didn't expect Hillary to win anything this weekend, but IMO it was not a good strategy on the part of her campaign people to ignore the caucuses.

    Slap me if I'm being a Chicken Little, but I'm afraid that the popular perception of Obama's "momentum" (especially considering that nothing good is likely to come out of the DC-area primaries) will mess with the results in OH and TX.  

    I actually think that makes for a great excuse (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:07:18 PM EST
    for losing caucuses she was not going to win.

    Parent
    Some scholar is going to have (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:12:37 PM EST
    to figure out why Obama has been so uniformly successful in these small state caucuses. There are multiple possible explanations, but none would seem to cover them all.

    Parent
    Two major factors (none / 0) (#26)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:15:32 PM EST
    1. Demographics. This has been hashed to death, and is undeniably a large factor.

    2. Organizing. Obama's team put in multiple field offices in states that Clinton often had only one or no field offices. They worked he retail politics hard and organized his supporters to turn out for the caucuses. And they did.


    Parent
    Add 3. Gamesmanship (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:22:39 PM EST
    Great strategizing to use the caucuses as never used before, seeing how to exploit the Howard Dean push to caucuses.  I gotta give the Obama camp that one.

    But I do not want a nominee picked by caucuses, and especially since most of them are in red states.

    Parent

    Neither do I! (none / 0) (#52)
    by stillife on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    I'm ashamed to say that I never knew that much about caucuses before this primary season and had no idea how many states held them.  But clearly, the Obama camp did their homework.  

    Did Howard Dean push more states to hold caucuses?  I didn't know that.

    I have a feeling that when this election season is done, I'm going to be extremely angry and bitter.  What else is new? ;)

    Parent

    Enthusiasm? (none / 0) (#193)
    by seand on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:16:32 PM EST
    Surely y'all would admit there's an enthusiasm gap, right?

    Parent
    This is probably true (none / 0) (#22)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    Caucuses, in part, are won by organizing. Obama put in field offices in the caucus states months before anyone from Clinton's camp turned up (and sometimes, like WA, they never even bothered). I suppose they thought the race would be over by now or didn't realize how badly caucuses were going to go against her.

    Now, it must be said that Obama has a real advantage as far as caucuses go (due to the demographics, etc). But if Clinton had matched Obama in organizing from an earlier date, she probably could have kept the margins narrow and maybe even picked off a state or two. That would have probably lead to Obama having been finished off in TX and OH.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by stillife on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:22:28 PM EST
    I agree with you.  I have a friend who caucused for Obama in Iowa and from what she's told me, his campaign was extremely organized there.  As was Edwards' campaign, but apparently the MSM did not deem Edwards to be an acceptable candidate.  

    As a die-hard Clinton supporter, I remain unconvinced that Obama can win the general and I certainly don't buy into his airy-fairy hope/change mantra, but I think Hillary's campaign really missed  the boat on this one.  I don't know if they were overly confident or what, but they were clearly unprepared to deal with a grass-roots organization like the Obama campaign.

    He's creating the perception of mass popular support through victories in small primaries.  And I hope I'm wrong, but I have to disagree with those who say Clinton will weather this.  I hope she does, but 3 weeks is an eternity in a campaign.

    Parent

    Ooop! (none / 0) (#47)
    by stillife on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:29 PM EST
    I meant to say "victories in small caucuses".  There's a world of difference there, as we know.

    Parent
    I think Clinton (none / 0) (#63)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:36:01 PM EST
    has run a great, conventional campaign. Lock up the supers early on, run a tight ship, and dominate among the large democratic donors.

    Obama more or less had to run as he did given his insurgent position. He was never going to be able to get the same support from the large donors she has, so he went grassroots on giving (a tactic Clinton has now obviously picked up). He also used the field offices as an outlet to transfer enthusiasm for his campaign into using political activists, which has turned out to be smart, as a way to counter Clinton's initial lead among big endorsers.

    I think the thing is, Clinton never really asked much of her supporters, the way Obama did (and has relied upon) - small donations, volunteering effort, etc. She's trying now, but she's playing catch-up.

    Parent

    I think the problem for Clinton is also in (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:08:14 PM EST
    large part because of the way the delegates are allocated.
    McCain is winning because most Republican primaries or caucuses (not all) are winner take all or there is a greater number given to the winner than there are in the Democratic ones. The Dems have been doing it proportionally to be more "democratic," but it seems to me it is backfiring.  Now we have a situation where the candidate who is winning large, important generally Dem voting states might lose to a candidate who wins smaller states that will go Republican in the general election.

    The average person doesn't think about this. They just see his "winning" as momentum and want to get on the rock star bandwagon.

    It's very depressing.  I hope Hillary can dig herself out of this hole.

    Parent

    buyers remorse--and the spell wearing off? (none / 0) (#86)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    But I agree with you on strategy...Obama played this better...however, he also had more money...he has been outspending her...

    Again, Texas and Ohio are primaries with secret ballots...Maybe Obama's same old same old rhetoric will start wearing thin.  Because the national polls are going to falsely proclaim Obama's lead.  This is a set up.  National polls are meaningless before we gauge the impact of the Republican attack machine.

    Shouldn't Clinton go negative?  And why Maggie Williams as campaign manager?  Does she have experience as a campaign manager?  She was a chief of staff. Are there no experienced tough actual strategic campaign managers available?  How did this happen?

    Parent

    Having more money (none / 0) (#103)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:15:24 PM EST
    is part of having a more effective campaign. It shouldn't be stated as something no one has any control over.

    Parent
    A chuckle (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:10:02 PM EST
    Did anyone happen to notice that the Mittster is winning Maine in a HUGE way.

    I had to laugh.

    that was a week ago (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:11:51 PM EST
    See this caucus is not that important.

    Parent
    I just think to take Caucuses (none / 0) (#42)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    seriously is a  mistake...It just means you will lose in the fall...We have to look hard at the primary wins...that is what matters...that is the honest heart of the voter...except for the "cross over" republicans that are bragging that they are doing this in order to have Obama as he is the easiest one to beat....but if Obama manages to pull off the nomination and then loses the GE, I submit he is toast with the party in the future...I cannot believe he is willing to take this big a gamble when running as Hillarys VP would assure him of a great run in 8 yrs....but if he is the nominee now and loses the race in this climate...Wow...there are many that would never forgive that...

    Parent
    right... (none / 0) (#50)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    ... lets just throw out half the states, because they had caucuses instead of primaries.  

    As for assuring a great run in 8 years, I am not so sure.

    VP's haven't exactly been overly successful in recent decades in their attempts to run for president.  

    Parent

    Certainly they ,must be considered (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    But that is bad on us Dems. Caucuses are TERRIBLE ways to choose our nominees.

    I said this long before Iowa.

    Parent

    So the caucuses are a Dean contribution? (none / 0) (#119)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:25:03 PM EST
    What has Dean done that is effective or positive?

    He was behind the Florida and Michigan fiascos?

    Parent

    Reagrding this nomination system (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    NOTHING good.

    But I think otherwise he has been a terrific DNC chair.

    I strongly supported him.

    Parent

    If you're talking about Gore, (none / 0) (#173)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:00:16 PM EST
    I think he lost because he ran against, rather than with, Bill Clinton's legacy.  Hmmm, I wonder if that was Donna Brazile's doing.

    Parent
    Mostly us, I fear. (none / 0) (#101)
    by derridog on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    Those who are for him now will rationalize it that it was all Hillary's fault.

    Parent
    What ever happened to (none / 0) (#32)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    a win is a win? No excuses?  Anybody remember that?  

    It is a win (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM EST
    ALL OF THEM ARE wins.

    NO excuses for Hillary.

    these are the rules.

    TO be honest, I expected Obama to win PRIMARIES on Super Tuesday.

    I was prpepared to call for Hillary to bow out.

    The results in Mass, NJ and Cali still toruble me greatly about Obama.

    Parent

    she held her own or slightly (none / 0) (#33)
    by english teacher on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:18:08 PM EST
    overperformed in louisiana. if she does the same in virginia, it will be a wash.  

    TX and OH newspapers... (none / 0) (#55)
    by mike in dc on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:30:27 PM EST
    ...already lining up behind Obama.  If he can pick up some key unions and ethnic orgs, along with the media bounce, he's got a shot in at least one of those two states.  Wisconsin will probably line up for him, and Hawaii's a given.  

    I don't think the assumptions about how Texas demographics break for Clinton are necessarily solid.  Very different state from Cali or Florida.  She'll undoubtedly still have an advantage in her fave demos, but my suspicion is that it will be a smaller advantage than BTD assumes. Even dropping those edges to 3:2 among white women and latinos would probably deliver the state for him.  Not an impossible task given the time available.

    Yes, the papers... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:51:38 PM EST
    Dallas Morning News, yes, for Obama; and likewise for Austin Am. Statesman. Houston Chronicle? I haven't noticed Houston's endorsement yet.  Again, I think Molly Ivins did great harm to Clinton here esp. with erstwhile Edwards supporters.  If this race in TX were limited only to registered Dems...  I think she'd have it locked up by 10.  But that's just not the way it's working out.

    Unless I've misunderstood, TX voters may get a chance to vote twice on March 4, once in the primary and once in caucus.  Is that a crazy system or what?

    Parent

    Our system in TX is almost as bad as WA (none / 0) (#87)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:01:33 PM EST
    but I don't think the precinct meetings are actually caucuses, are they?  The rules are downright weird but I thought those precinct meetings were to apportion delegates based on the primary outcome, at least for the 126 delegates at stake in the primary.

    Parent
    126? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:08:01 PM EST
    I thought Texas had 193 delegates?

    Parent
    We do but only 126 are going (none / 0) (#102)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST
    to be based on the primary vote itself.  Then another 25 pledged and 35 un-pledged delegates, along with the super-delegates will be picked at the state convention in Austin on June 6-7.

    I need to read up on it but it could be worse than WA.  It's so flaky I'm not even sure of the number picked when.


    Parent

    Picked HOW? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:18:01 PM EST


    Parent
    By the people attendees at the State Convention (none / 0) (#122)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:26:41 PM EST


    Parent
    And who attends them? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM EST


    Parent
    This verbage is from Texas Monthly (none / 0) (#106)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:17:35 PM EST
    The Democratic party system is even more cumbersome than the Republicans'. The party allocates its delegates by state senatorial districts rather than by congressional districts, and the number of delegates available varies according to how well the senatorial district supported the most recent Democratic gubernatorial and presidential candidates. Each senatorial district will receive no fewer than two and no more than seven delegates.

    --126 of 228 delegates are determined by the results in each of the senatorial districts. The number of delegates is determined by a candidate's proportion of the vote, provided that a candidate must receive at least 15% of the vote before he can be awarded delegates at the senatorial district level.

    --The remaining 102 delegates are chosen at the state convention, based on the presidential preferences of the convention delegates. These consist of 42 at-large delegates and 25 pledged PLEOs (party leaders and elected officials). The remaining 35 delegates are unpledged PLEOs.

    Primary voters determine all but three of the 140 Republican delegates (the second largest bloc of delegates in the Republican nominating process, next to California's), but only 126 of the 228 delegates in the Democratic nominating process.


    Parent

    Better explanation from Ft Worth Star-Telegram (none / 0) (#113)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:21:15 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    He picked up (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    most of the major newspapers in California, many of the huge political endorsements -- and lost.

    Parent
    Aren't Texas Democrats a mess? (none / 0) (#125)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:28:26 PM EST
    They were a disaster in the general election for governor?  They couldn't even find a competitive candidate.  They were overconfident when George Bush ambushed them.  Can't say I have confidence in Texas Democrats.  

    Parent
    You don't know the half of it (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:42:33 PM EST
    Texas primary is completely open since we don't care about party registration.  Just ask for the ballot you want and sabotage the other side.  Republicans have done it before.

    And the primary rules are positively bizarre.  Only part of the delegates are picked by primary.  Some more during precinct conventions and the last number during the state convention in June.

    Here's a story about those primary rules.

    link

    Parent

    They've been making great strides (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:42:33 PM EST
    Dallas elected a Dem mayor last year and they've closed much of the gap in the state legislature.  I think that they are on the upswing.  I usually go to Burnt Orange Report when I want to see what's going on down there.

    Parent
    Not just TX (none / 0) (#179)
    by Hypatias Father on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    but all of the Democratic nominating system is a mess, and I blame the short tempers flaring on this fact.  And with due respect, the question of your having confidence in TX Democrats is quite irrelevant.  More to the point is the question: do Texas Democrats have any confidence in Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    Caucus vs. Primary (none / 0) (#64)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:36:02 PM EST
    What primaries has Obama won?  This caucus system and Howard Dean's leadership will go down as one of the biggest disasters for the Democratic Party.  Again, this looks like a set up...Big states like Michigan and Florida, discounted?  This is just nuts.  And when I hear Dean suggesting that Michigan and Florida hold a caucus now?  It is pretty obvious that caucuses are not representative of anything other than activists...and the media keeps forgetting to mention that Obama's wins are small caucuses...he doesn't win in primaries so far...But of course, they are doing everything they can to get momentum into the big states with primaries. Brainwashing.

    Clinton is a much better candidate but has run a poor campaign.  The sad thing...Democrats actually believe these number are indicative of a general election. Many low information voters think Obama has actually won these little states.  And we must not forget the money gap.

    money gap? (none / 0) (#68)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:40:22 PM EST
    This caucus system and Howard Dean's leadership will go down as one of the biggest disasters for the Democratic Party.
    It is Hillary and her campaign's fault for not organizing as well as Obama's campaign has.  He understood the system, and has been able to get what he needed to get done within the system.  
    Many low information voters think Obama has actually won these little states.
    Umm... he DID win these little states.  Whether you like the way these states ran their process or not, Barack Obama ABSOLUTELY has won these states.  You simply cannot deny that.
    And we must not forget the money gap.
    Umm... what?  What money gap?  

    Parent
    And yet Obama's (none / 0) (#99)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:12:32 PM EST
    supporters and everyone else keeps talking about the big, bad Clinton machine. LOL

    Parent
    Won in the sense of an election with secret (none / 0) (#174)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:02:39 PM EST
    ballots.  Or thinking that win in the primary translates into win in the general election. Low information voters have no idea.  I had no idea what the caucus system was like.  This is an eye opener for me.  But the caucus system is inexpensive compared to a primary..is that a factor?  But it is a lousy way to select a competitive candidate.

    Parent
    Is 9 enough? (none / 0) (#201)
    by seand on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:21:59 PM EST
    I don't get it: were you sleeping when Obama won SC, MO, LA, DE, CT, AL, GA, UT, & IL? Or are these states just too black for you? Will that go for DC, MD, and VI, when they come in strong for Obama on Tuesday?

    Parent
    So many of those you listed are RED STATES (none / 0) (#207)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:25:38 PM EST


    Parent
    And? (none / 0) (#213)
    by seand on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:27:19 PM EST
    Democrats in red states don't deserve a say?

    Parent
    Sure, they get delegates, so (none / 0) (#225)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:42:15 PM EST
    they get a say.  But do you want states we can't win to pick the nominee we need to win?

    Parent
    This is a completely fallacious argument (none / 0) (#238)
    by seand on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:13:36 PM EST
    This whole line of thinking rests on two huge mistakes:

    First, which contested states has Clinton actually won that Obama has any real chance of losing in November? MA? NY? NJ? CA? He loses any of those, and I'll eat my hat.

    Second, since when did winning a Dem Primary in a state correlate with winning that state in the general? Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry won all kinds of primaries, and tragically came up short come November.

    Parent

    You're switching the argument (none / 0) (#239)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:22:08 PM EST
    and I don't have time to go down your new direction.

    Parent
    Caucuses vs. Primaries, Low information voters (none / 0) (#240)
    by Eva on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:22:21 PM EST
    Obama has won 9 primaries:
    South Carolina, Alabama, CT, IL, MO, UT, LA, DE, GA.

    Clinton has also won 9 primaries:
    NH, AZ, CA, MA, NJ, NY, OK (LAHOMA), TN, ARK

    Parent

    a snow storm in Maine? (none / 0) (#65)
    by lily15 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM EST
    Did it suppress voter turnout by women?

    Bias (none / 0) (#242)
    by hvs on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:28:16 PM EST
    God has a well known anti-HRC bias!

    Parent
    The Big Mo (none / 0) (#66)
    by bob5540 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:38:05 PM EST
    Predictions:

    Dems are getting tired of the bickering (to use a mild word). The big states will jump on the Mo-bama train.

    It isn't that hard to get Obama to think about the poor. Instead, Edwards will convince Obama to re-think his health care strategy and in return will endorse him. No-brainer.

    Perhaps Edwards would even get the VP slot. Why not? Working together, it could be a powerhouse campaign team.

    PS, Hillary doesn't have a VP slot to offer. Like, who in their right mind would want to be her Deputy VP reporting to Bill?

    Positively delusional (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:56:57 PM EST


    Parent
    If there had been no caucus (none / 0) (#114)
    by Saul on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:22:09 PM EST
    and only primaries what do you think the delegate count would be today between Hilary and Obama?

    No freaking clue (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:40:43 PM EST
    Obama would have less delegates and clinton would have more.

    Other than that, could not tell you.

    Parent

    GLOAT! (none / 0) (#123)
    by pontificator on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:27:18 PM EST
    Until the primaries are over, I am going to limit my participation on this site to drive-by gloating.  :-)

    Typical poor winner (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    I observed poor winner-ship from the Bush's and find it's just the same with the Obamas.

    Yet another reason why I think Obama would be disastrous for the Democrats as president and why I won't vote for him.  He IS our Bush.

    Won't. vote. for. a. Bush.

    Parent

    Naw (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:39:17 PM EST
    Pontificator is cool.

    He is having good natured fun with you Hillary supporters and with me, because I am tough on Obama.

    Parent

    So will you vote for (none / 0) (#144)
    by independent voter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    100 years more in Iraq? Not that it is any of my business, but just curious. I find plenty to dislike in Hillary and her supporters, but there is no way I will not vote for her should she be the nominee.

    Parent
    Realistically (none / 0) (#182)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:06:48 PM EST
    We'll be in Iraq for another 4 years regardless of who wins...at least another 4 years.  I actually want us to stay there, because the good old USA is responsible for destroying their country, the good old USA needs to work at fixing it.  Like it or not, we have a responsibility there.  If a Dem is in the White House, the war will be pinned on the Dems.

    And who knows?  McCain says he doesn't plan on running for a second term, so maybe he'll actually do something morally correct (a big change for a politician, I know).

    And the other issue is the Supreme Court, I know.  However, taking away choice rights takes away a Republican GOTV motivator and STRONGLY enhances Democratic GOTV abilities --with women, the strongest Demographic.  That's why I don't think they'll ever change choice. I know that the SC is supposed to be above the fray, but they are partisans and don't want to hurt their party.

    And of course, if we have a strong Democratic Congress, McCain won't be able to appoint anyone stupid anyway.

    But honestly, I don't know what it is, is it the fluffy speeches that say nothing? Is it the dodging of the debates? Is it the arrogance? Is it the petulance? The poor winnership? Whatever it is, Obama gives me flash-backs of Bush.  And I have a sneaking suspicion, this will be a pretty common opinion before long.

    And in the end, Obama REALLY doesn't do well in true elections, that's a hard-core FACT.  He only does well in activist caucuses so I think his electoral support is highly over-rated.  In other words, he isn't going to win the GE anyway.

    But he certainly wouldn't win if it took my vote to get there.  To me, he is GWB reincarnated.  Not going to play a part in electing a GWB.  Nothing will change my mind about that.

    Parent

    A little over the top here (none / 0) (#190)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:14:49 PM EST
    But he certainly wouldn't win if it took my vote to get there.  To me, he is GWB reincarnated.  Not going to play a part in electing a GWB.  Nothing will change my mind about that.

    Obama is one of the most liberal senators in the Senate, even slightly moreso than Clinton. His control over executive agencies would provide lots and lots of great benefits to progressives, regardless of how much you think he is able to pass his main agenda items. He's also very liberal on foreign policy.

    I don't get why you think he's some kind of crypto-Republican. Everything he's ever done in his life (i.e. his actions) have shown solid progressive roots. Voting records in the Senate, IL Senate, leadership at Harvard Law Journal, civil rights activism as a lawyer, and community organizer.

    I can accept and understand criticisms that he's inexperienced or naive. But it's indisputable that we've got two strong progressives running on our side. Let's not be over-dramatic here.

    Parent

    andrewwm (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:21:15 PM EST
    I think you underestimate how GWBs arrogance grates for women.  When we see the same kind of snark repeated, it gives us great pause.

    Parent
    The way he runs his campaign (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    Maybe that's what sends me.

    There's no reason to argue with me.  You're not going to change my mind.  He ran his campaign the wrong way if he wanted my vote. I run away from evangelicals, especially arrogant ones.


    Parent

    I'm not trying to change your mind (none / 0) (#210)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:26:56 PM EST
    I'm just saying if you think he's GWB, then be prepared to be pleasantly surprised on Jan 20th if he's elected.

    Parent
    Oh and I forgot (none / 0) (#192)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:16:11 PM EST
    The eery glow that comes off his recently won states in his web site graphic.  Can anyone handle 4 years of that?  Seriously, now, think ahead.  State of the union speeches complete with church choir and spotlight enhanced man-glow?  Reminds me of "Mr. President" on Death Race 2000.  (okay, I'm dating myself ;-)

    I can't wait for SNL to come back because I think the parodies of his "I am God" campaign strategy will be hillarious...

    See the man-glow at Obama 2008

    If he'd run a normal campaign, who knows, maybe he'd get my vote.  But the man terrifies me.  Really, really does.  I honestly don't think McCain is worse.

    Parent

    You know a lot of that soft glow (none / 0) (#196)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    is because he's a black man and can't afford to have bold, bright colors like red. Ever notice how he only wears blue ties, while most politicians wear red? It's because red is a masculine, angry color. He can't appear to be the angry black man or he's done.

    I'm sort of surprised that people are somehow unaware of how carefully he's had to walk the race line. He hasn't faced much direct racism, but he's also had to be very very careful about how he acts so he doesn't play into racial stereotypes of black people.

    Parent

    That explains (none / 0) (#202)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    why the states he won also have that glow?  

    Parent
    andrewwm (none / 0) (#203)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:22:45 PM EST
    in what universe it that acceptable?  Please stop.  You do yourself no favors to debase yourself this way.

    Parent
    I really don't pay (none / 0) (#220)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:35:13 PM EST
    much attention to andrew.  Don't worry.

    Parent
    It's really frustrating (none / 0) (#229)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    to see people (and I'm not saying you are) that are obviously very sensitized to the subtitles of sexism miss all of the minor, casual racism and how that shapes everything that people of color do when in the larger white world.

    I studied comparative race and ethnicity in college and I'm very aware of how those of color have to be incredibly careful if they start rising in the white hierarchy. Every thing they do is scrutinized to see if it fits into stereotypes about the person's race. So you better believe his choice of even color of his ties is dictated by the color of his skin.

    I'm sure it's the same way with sexism too; I've seen plenty of sexism to know that it likely does - being a women in a man's world is very very hard. But it's just as hard (probably in different ways) being black.

    We, as progressives, need to realize that this internalization of behavior to survive in a white man's world is two sides of the same coin - hierarchies of oppression.
     

    Parent

    lol, I'll gloat back when DKos goes in (none / 0) (#127)
    by Teresa on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    meltdown with his unity (gag) administration.

    Parent
    Not bloody likely (5.00 / 7) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:40:03 PM EST
    D Kos will be running "Social Security Is TOO In Crisis" Top recommended diaries then.

    Parent
    They'll be shaving their heads (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:18:32 PM EST
    and selling flowers.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:38:29 PM EST
    I do not know why you would not want to participate here.

    We ask the tough questions of Obama.

    Afraid that you do not have any answers?

    Parent

    BTD any comments on the Texas Primary rules? (none / 0) (#147)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST


    They sound HORRENDOUS (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:51:03 PM EST
    We Democrats are simply idiots.

    Parent
    Just finding my precinct meeting location (none / 0) (#178)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    may not be easy.  I really hate this mess.


    Parent
    I Tend to Agree with Your Comments BTD (none / 0) (#153)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:48:47 PM EST
    Three weeks is a long time and Clinton has shown she can organize big states.  She out-organized Obama here in California, particularly in the asian and hispanic communities.  I do worry about the string of losses affecting the narrative and I'm sure Obama will try to build this into pressure on her to step aside, but that isn't going to happen and there are three weeks to change that narrative.

    I don't think Clinton has to be ahead in pledged delegates to win the nomination.  But I do think she has to win Ohio and Texas, which isn't going to be easy, but is possible.  If Obama keeps losing the big states, that's a problem for him - both in perception and super delegates.

    I suspect Edwards will endorse Obama, but if Clinton could somehow get his endorsement it would be huge.  Not in terms of voters it would sway, but in terms of changing the media narrative to a more positive one for her.  

    The real question is what will the media do in the next three weeks.  Will they get harder on Obama?  It does seem like he's due for a backlash.  I think the Rezko trial starts at the end of February, which could remind folks of everything they don't know about Obama.  

    I suspect that Edwards will not endorse (none / 0) (#172)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:58:40 PM EST
    I think that he's like Al Gore in that he'll let us decide who the nominee should be.  

    Parent
    Hillary is in big trouble... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Meurs on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:51:40 PM EST
    I was holding out judgment until tonight, but I'm convinced now that she will lose every contest until March 4. It also seems the losses and the "crisis" narrative that will spring up after Tuesday will eat into her soft support in Ohio and Texas. She has the Latino firewall in Texas, so she can probably win that one.

    I look at the debates as her last shot, and I expect they'll do some creative things to try keep the O-mentum from running her over.

    Ohio lines are drawn they wont change. (none / 0) (#226)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:43:15 PM EST


    Parent
    no one hardly mentions this but (none / 0) (#158)
    by thereyougo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:52:05 PM EST
    what do you all think about BO's middle name being Hussein? Am I missing something here?

    Or that his name has been confused with Osama, you know the one.Its happened often.

    I see this area as rich for swiftboating, should the Rs begin to tear him down.The way he's winning he could be the one, but afaic, they're psychological victories, and I think Hillary is tougher than that.

    I heard him speak, but I was not impressed, or heard the same things that others did. I guess because I remember GWBs promises. He doesn't move me, yet the MSM calls it rock star qualities. Please.Instead of being the stronger candidate he is the weakest for the reasons I mentioned.

    Hillary is having a tougher time, its true, but I can't help that the MSM is helping the process along. There are negatives but it seems surreal that this guy out of nowhere is getting this far against a brand name. Edwards was better or equal yet the MSM didn't prop him up. I don't trust it.Its not supposed to be this way,only maybe by a miracle?  

    Middle Name (none / 0) (#167)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:56:56 PM EST
    If people vote for McCain because of Obama's middle name, then this country deserves to collapse.  That's just ridiculous.

    To me, the Muslim smears, the middle name, all that crap is standard GOP tactics and we can't allow that - or the threat of that - decide our nominee.

    I'm a Clinton supporter, but not because of any of that.  Yuck.

    Parent

    I agree. (none / 0) (#200)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:21:47 PM EST


    Parent
    CNN has a new poll (none / 0) (#162)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:53:16 PM EST
    that shows Clinton doing better against McCain than Obama would in the ge.

    Yet again, Obama mentioned the earlier poll during his 60 Minute interview, wherein he said that the superdelegates needed to look at who was more likely to win against McCain.

    I wonder what he's going to say about this latest poll?  Probably ignore it.  If it keeps being duplicated (as it very well might the more Obama looks like the frontrunner) then should the superdelegates follow the same logic?  heh heh

    (oh, and a note: it seemed that Steve Kroft was very even-handed in the Obama interview, which was a pleasant surprise.  Nice to see someone in the msm look objectively; he had both positive and negative things to say)

    Well Hillary (none / 0) (#169)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:57:57 PM EST
    has to find a way to counter this onslaught by Obama.

    Parent
    Do you have, by any chance, a link to (none / 0) (#191)
    by tigercourse on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:14:53 PM EST
    that poll?

    Parent
    Add 10 (none / 0) (#222)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    Hillary supporters dont poll well.  

    Parent
    I sadly think that (none / 0) (#163)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:53:58 PM EST
    social security is in big trouble as a mandated benefit if Obama wins this election...it is the crown jewel of our democratic system and the right wing has been trying to take it down forever....Obama just might do it....

    I have an uneasy feeling in my gut (none / 0) (#206)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM EST
    that if Obama does win the nomination, will sell us down the river on Social Security.

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#171)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:58:02 PM EST
    It seems that there are a lot more caucuses this election than in the past, perhaps because they break so heavily for one candidate over the other. Does anyone know how many caucuses there were in 2000 and 2004 versus this year?

    If there are more, is it because they are cheaper to hold than full primaries?

    Usually states pay for primaries while (none / 0) (#176)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:04:09 PM EST
    the parties pay for caususes.  I think state legislatures would love to not pay for anything and that be responsible for the proliferation.

    At least that's what I've read.  :-)


    Parent

    Not sure (none / 0) (#218)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:34:14 PM EST
    but look how many have been disfranchised what could they have been thinking frankly you expect this from the other major Party.

    Parent
    How Will an Edwards Endorsement of Obama (none / 0) (#175)
    by xjt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:04:03 PM EST
    influence the narrative? I think Clinton is much more likely to get universal health care to us, and you'd think with a wife with terminal cancer, Edwards would see the value of that above all else. But, you know, he has a young daughter at Harvard  who probably called him up and said "Daddy! Obama's the coolest!" and things went from there. I'm not holding out any hope for an Obama endorsement. It's all about Texas and Ohio.

    Ya know (none / 0) (#180)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:05:31 PM EST
    I have been thinking about something Couric brought up in the 60 Minutes interview.  She was talking to Clinton about how Clinton mentored Obama when he first got to the senate, and how Clinton still has a pic on her office wall that was taken with her and the Obama family...and, maybe this ties back into that whole thing I was talking with Teresa and the other ladies about, because, as a woman, I was listening to that exchange and thinking,  "Jeesh, did he stab her in the back or what."

    Really upsetting.

    I hope y'all are still calling the MSNBC hotline about the pimp remark.  They have had to clear out the mailbox almost fifty times now: 201-583-4090

    Yeah. Funny thing is, (none / 0) (#208)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    when he first entered the Senate, he said he wanted to be like Hillary.

    Parent
    The more that blogs like TL (none / 0) (#185)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:09:03 PM EST
    counter the MSM bias, the more Hillary will be able to go on the offensive.  To date, it would only have worked against her, and it has.  The MSM environment controls a lot of what is possible in our elections.

    Uh (none / 0) (#186)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:10:55 PM EST
    real gracious there. You're giving the rest of us Obama supporters a bad name. If we want to unite the party after this thing is all over, we have to get everyone behind us on the D side, meaning being nice to the loser's supporters.

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#194)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:30 PM EST
    mod, delete this thread? The obnoxious original post is gone so my reply doesn't make sense...

    Parent
    It was definitely classy (none / 0) (#212)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:27:16 PM EST
    all right   :-)

    Parent
    Not to worry (none / 0) (#216)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:30:08 PM EST
    Hillary is a Pro, but I dont belive she should put him on the ticket for any reason.

    Parent
    60 minutes was a joke (none / 0) (#187)
    by Danielle on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:10:57 PM EST
    Lets only ask Obama the Messiah  soft ball questions.  I am so sick of liberal white elitist democrats and their guilt vote for obama. Give me a brake!  Do they honestly believe Obama the Messiah is going to get this free ride from the Republicans--of course not!  Unfortunately, all of us working class will have to pay the price for these idiots and their Messiah Obama.  There is no doubt he will be slaughtered in a general election!

    guilt? (none / 0) (#198)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:21:22 PM EST
    right... us Obama supporters are only doing it out of guilt.  how did you know me so well.

    and what was that earlier this week?  that there are not any obnoxious Clinton supporters?

    Parent

    sadly I agree :-( (none / 0) (#205)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:23:32 PM EST


    Parent
    He will I agree (none / 0) (#215)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:27:41 PM EST
    .....but I dont believe he will be the nominee, the big States will shut him down he is trying to play the poor little Obama the outsider theme their being mean again, ignore it, really.

    Parent
    He won't be the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:57:45 PM EST
    The MSM keeps trying to coronate him, and just when they think they have, the voters decide different.

    Parent
    Don't Get Depressed (none / 0) (#235)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:03:27 PM EST
    Huckabee won big this weekend as well.  And he won't get the nomination either.

    http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/10/surviving-the-k (none / 0) (#236)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:07:28 PM EST
    check the Hillary photo out and the 10 things she can do.

    url (none / 0) (#237)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    http://thepage.time.com/2008/02/10/surviving-the-killing-fields-of-february/

    Parent
    Comments at 241, Now Closing (none / 0) (#243)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    This thread is closing, comments almost 250, thanks for your thoughts.

    Swiftboating? (none / 0) (#244)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:34:40 PM EST
    The 60 min link is at The Page

    look someone needs to interview Thomas Reilly.. of Mass Patrick's competition in 06 another Axelrod hit job  he was also unfairly................accused of Swiftboating Patrick which was also bull   ......................lots of crying wolf in the Axelrod play book ....its already gotten old

    BY MARK BROWN markbrown@suntimes.com wrote this............

    ...Here's the thing: A lot of people want to believe in Barack Obama. Heck, I want to believe in him, and to an extent, I do.

    Obama is different. He does have that quality to inspire.

    But he's not so very different. He plays the political game. He does what he has to do to raise money, without being particularly careful about who is donating it. He makes nice with fellow officeholders when maybe a braver, less ambitious politician would have taken them to task for their failings.

    In short, he's a politician, not a messiah.

    It doesn't strike me as incompatible for a person to believe that -- based on what they know so far -- Obama is their preferred candidate for president, but still admit to themselves that his experience is thin, that this Tony Rezko business needs further investigation, and that if he can't stand the Clinton heat he doesn't belong in the White House kitchen.

    Believe in him, if you will, just spare me the true believers.

    I do not see how the Obama train can be stopped (none / 0) (#246)
    by kenosharick on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:40:52 PM EST
    and that means a mccain presidency. I keep hearing that mccain is "too nice" to run a dirty campaign. It will be done by surrogates, including the "swift-boaters" who will have 200 million to turn obama into some kind of drug-addicted terrorist loving fiend in the mind of sorely misinformed voters.

    I won't vote for a candidate who (none / 0) (#250)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:35:03 AM EST
    attracts racist supporters. Hillary's campaign has been shameful in trying to pit whites against blacks, latinos against blacks, etc. Ted Kennedy even alluded to this in his speech endorsing Obama. Sen. Kennedy didn't just make that up and certainly wouldn't make the charge lightly. Seems many of Hillary's supporters are just as bigoted as her campaign. Hillary's husband used the black vote to win the presidency twice. But now that Obama is getting the black vote, some of you have a hissy fit. I suppose you think the black vote is the sole preserve of white candidates. You cannot countenance a black candidate getting the black vote and white vote simultaneously. Ironically, this is precisely how every white candidate wins national office.

    The Count in Maine (none / 0) (#251)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:43:37 AM EST
    So the bragging rights to winning in the Maine Caucuses goes to Barak Obama based on 3493 voters? (That was with 99% of the vote counted this morning. The numbers may change slightly when the counting is complete.)

    He gets 59% with 2,079 votes and she comes in at 40% with 1,396 voters.  How is this in any way representative of the people of the State of Maine? Is not the population of Maine 1,274,923?  And about 3500 voters get to decide. This is why I dislike, and have always disliked Caucuses. If Wisconsin had Caucuses instead of a primary this year would be the first year I would be able to participate because I am now retired. How is that Democracy in action? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine

    Obama Wins Maine Caucus | 248 comments (248 topical)