BTW, did anyone see the SNL skit last night with Obama, Jesse and Sharpton? I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard:

That's about the most critical thing I've ever seen about Obama. SNL must be racists.

Anybody remember when SNL was funny?

I think that's pretty solid humor. Talking in a broom closet with Jesse and sending both Jesse and Al to the 4 corners of the world to avoid a negative impact from them.

IMO, SNL at spots is still pretty funny. It's just not the event it once was because of all the additional stations out there. I probably watch it once a month (used to watch it every week) and I would probably say it's close to as funny as I remember it being in the 80s-90s. The difference now is that there are other shows on/things to do that I just enjoy more on a Saturday night than I did back then.

Well you must have missed this from the AP.

Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080223/D8V053E00.html

How many articles on Obama did you have to read before you found that one? And it blatantly blames Republicans and conservative radio talk show hosts and Fox News for the "grilling" throughtout the entire article. Score one for Obama!

Let's keep this in perspective. :)

You could always look at the inexperience stories or the Rezko stories or the Farrakhan stories or the voted present stories or the internet rumors may hurt him stories. But you are right, if you ignore all critical stories there are only positive stories.

What the deal with Rezko and Farrakhan? Never heard about that.

Rezko is the "Chicago slumlord" that Obama did a real-estate deal with once, Clinton brought him up in one of the debates. You might want to google that to get more in depth.

Farrakhan endorsed (it might not have been a formal endorsement, perhaps "came out in support of" fits better) Obama, Tim Russert asked Obama if he accepted Farrakhan's support. Obama's responce was “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” Obama said. “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan." Shortly after Clinton jumped in and the two wasted time debating whether it was better to reject his support or denounce his support, Obama ended it by saying he rejected and denounced Farrakhan's support.

Man I'm excited for tomorrow night, hopefully the Clintons see the writing on the wall after what should be a decent night for Obama supporters.

http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/arc...-strategy.html




God, I can't wait to see the look of resignation after she realizes tomorrow Obama is going to win the nomination.

I'm already anticipating her "my night-job working voterbase is once again disenfranchised by the caucus system" complaining after the delegates are basically split in Texas. It should be fantastic.

Polls don't mean much especially in Tx where alot of hispanic voters are not polled. ANyways the pop vote doesn't matter a smuch as the delegates and I am sure at the end of the night Obama will have earned more Delegates than her albeit only a few more.

Finishing a little bit ahead of Obama in Texas and Ohio is meaningless. She has to blow him out and pick up signifcant delegate gains. It doesn't look like that will happen in Texas, but if it does then she's back. The last poll from Zogby in Ohio had it tied 44-44. Even if she only wins 55-45, it ain't enough.

From what I can see of the delegate count, she needs more than a 2 point win in Texas. Her handlers keep saying that just one more popular vote in Texas is all they want, but I think she needs a lot more than that. Anything less than a couple of ten point blowouts in Ohio AND Texas tonight puts her in real trouble. If Obama were to lose Texas and Ohio by under 5% each, Hillary doesn't make up enough ground to reverse the last month of defeats.

It would, however, keep her in the race a lot longer. Probably until convention. If that happens, I'm not sure how the dems are going to be able to unify the party and recover in time for the general election.

Picking out a single poll usually isn't very accurate. The cumulative polling over the past three days in Ohio has Clinton up by 7 points.

Which again, isn't enough. I think her only real shot to win the nomination rests on double digit wins in Texas and Ohio.

I don't think it's likely she gets them.

The bottom line is that it's not enough for her to catch Obama in elected delegates. The most recent poll has it tied. Hillary will still probably win Ohio, but not by enough for it to matter. As Troy said, it'll just delay the inevitable. And as I said before, even winning 55-45 in both states just won't get it done.

If she were to win by double digits in Ohio and Texas, it could turn the momentum. She'd have to win something like 60% of the remaining vote to do it, but it'd keep things within the realm of possiblity and I could see her continuing on.

Anything less than the ten point blowouts and she doesn't make up nearly enough delegates for it to matter. At that point she's in the race not to win it, but to finish as close of a second as she can. I think she is going to win Ohio by 6-8 points today and Texas will be a coin flip. That makes it likely she stays in and turns this thing into a real bloodbath (even with little shot of winning) as we head toward the convention.

Since when have either of the Clintons cared about anything other than themselves?

It might change the momentum going into Pennsylvania where she also has to win big, but is it enough for Hillary to defeat Obama in states like North Carolina, Montana, Oregon, Indiana, South Dakota, and all of these states that Obama has been winning?

Between tonight and Pennsylvania, there are 2 contests- Mississippi and Wyoming both of which Obama will win. She's behind by over 100 elected delegates. She needs to pick up big chunks because she ain't gonna beat him in the majority of remaining states. We'll see how many delegates she picks up tonight. If it's not enough to close the gap considerably, it's over.

Momentum can turn quickly, so if Hillary were to at least win by double digits in Ohio and Texas tongiht, she could at least make a plausable case that it is worth continuing the fight. The problem is this is all moot. I don't see her winning Texas and Ohio by double digits. The only way she leaves the race is if she gets destroyed in both places tonight.

In other words, I'm you 100% on this. I think tonight means nothing in the long run. Obama still will win, Hillary will still stay in and continue to bash Obama sensless. Then it's going to be up to the dems to find a way to unite and hit the ground running come August. McCain has to be loving every bit of this right now.

Keep in mind, Florida and Michigan are considering redoing their primaries, and it remains to be seen how that will affect the overall delegate count.

Why would McCain love this? Obama/Clinton is getting 90% of the press right now (at least up here in Canada), and will continue to do so until it's over. During this, despite Hillary's attempts, I don't think Obama has lost a step. Meanwhile McCain sits there waiting and forgotten.

It wouldn't be enough Vegas. The math is pretty astronomical here. Let's give Hillary a +70 delegate count tonight. That'd be a huge win for her. of the 370 available tonight, she'd get 220, Obama 150. That puts Obama at 1334 and her with 1181. She's now down 153 total delegates with 611 left to fight over. (more if you add MI and FL of course, to that in a bit)

If that's the case, she needs to get 383 of the remaining 611 delegates to win the war. That's over 62% of the remaining votes. Do you understand how improbable that is? Go ahead and revote MI and FL. She still needs betweent 58 to 60% of all the remaining votes to go to her.

FWIW, if she takes Texas and Ohio by 5 points tonight, she'd make up 38 total delegates, not counting the 36 left over in Vermont and Rhode Island.

You can say what you want about the Super Delegates, but if they end up going against the true delegate count, I think you can stick a fork in the dems this year. There will be so many disenfranchised voters, McCain wouldn't have to do a thing.

Wrong. There won't be any happy, happy fun time for the dems until their nominee is picked. Hillary is going all out after Obama now. She's going to attack the living daylights out of him. We aren't talking positive press here, the two candidates are going to bloody each other.

Study some history and tell me how well it's went for either side when they've had bloody battles in the primary season. It has rarely translated well to the general election. Obama and Hillary will spend upwards of 30 million dollars in PA if Hillary stays in it. You honestly think that money wouldn't be more helpful to store up now and spend on McCain in October?

Double Dola: For Hillary to get that +70 win tonight? That'd mean she takes Texas 60/40. She takes Ohio 60/40. She splits both Rhode Island and Vermont.

You see how astronomical the odds are for her even if she does it. If she scrapes out under 10 point wins in both states? This is over and done with. I don't care about FL and MI.

But for all of Hillary's efforts, where is it getting her? And what will McCain have left to say that Hillary didn't already try? And doesn't momentum count for something?

I'm not a student of U.S. politics so I'll trust that you are correct historically, and I'm certainly open to being wrong on all of this. It just seems, from what I see up here anyways, that everyone is talking about Obama, almost always in a positive light.

That's the problem, you can't build up momentum at this point. Look at the likely result tonight. Hillary wins Ohio. She maybe scrapes out a tie or a one point win in Texas. Where is the Obama momentum now? Now we have another 30 million or so being blown in PA, maybe more.

What will McCain say that Hillary hasn't? Well, he'll have examples of what worked, what didn't and how well. (these guys have pollsters all over the country, this is more than just Texas and Ohio tonight. McCain may follow up on Hillary's attacks. He'll certainly try to get the Hillary voters to move to his side. Ohio is an important state, let's say Hillary takes it by 7 points tonight and then Obama still gets the nomination. (both VERY likely to happen) Now McCain uses the same message Hillary had with the Ohio.

I'm not saying McCain is going to breeze through the election. He's going to have it tough. But he's happy as pie if the dems turn this into a bloodbath to the convention. They'll be spending resources, giving him valuable information about what attacks work and what attacks don't, and he'll have his organization on the ground running 2 months before the dems have thiers going. If you think money and intrastructure don't matter here, you are kidding yourself.

The Republicans are presently setting their money aside and starting to store the coffers. Hillary and Obama are raising a ton of money and spending it as quick as they get it. You tell me who has the advantage the longer this continues?

Rush Limbaugh is asking his listeners to vote for Hillary in the primary so as to extend the Democratic nomination process. That indicates to me that it is a bad thing for the Democrats.

Those are all excellent points TroyF. I will bow to your knowledge on this one :)

The money isn't that big of a deal. Right now both Dems are spending money allotted to the primaries. All of those donors can max out again after the convention. Either Dem candidate will have plenty of money come September and probably more than McCain.

As for a tough primary hurting the candidate, I'm not sure. A long primary also poses problems for the opposition candidate. Who do they run against? How do they get their message out when the other side's campaign is far more interesting? I think it also toughens up the eventual winner provided nothing happens that splits the party. If this goes until the convention I think it's a problem, but if it lasts through May I don't think that in itself is a big deal.

They are RAISING money and spending it as quickly as they get it. It isn't lock, set and match that they'll get maxed out again before the election. It's also a little optomistic to think they'll have more cash than McCain. The Reps can raise an amazing amount of money quickly. I'd be surprised if they didn't raise more cash at than the dems this year.

Yeah, this extend Dem fight has really fucked the Democrats. Hilary should quit tomorrow unless she wins by agregate percent differnce of 10%.

After 8 years of Bush Jr., do you really think it's going to be hard for the Democrats to fund raise for the General Election?

Uhhhh, no.

In January McCain raised 12 mil. Hillary was over 20 and Obama was over 30. February showed the same kind of discrepency. The Reps are having a fair amount of trouble raising money this cycle. The RCCC is in the red as of now and the combined totals of the different candidates show a significant advantage for the Dems. The only place the Republicans are doing well is at the national committee level. There's no reason to think that the Dem candidate won't be equal or ahead in funds this cycle.

Of course all donors won't max out again, but they'll also have two sets of donors to work from. The important thing is to remember that the 2000 dollar cap applies to both the primary and general. All of the primary donors for these candidates can give again for the general and a lot of them will. It's two separate funds and both the Dem candidate and McCain can't start over until after they are officially nominated. Money won't be an issue.

Actually. . . yes.

Bush was as hated four years ago as he is now. The dems felt the first election was stolen from them and they were out in force. It failed.

Blind hatred won't work. It's going to take a unified belief that their candidate can win. Obama has a great chance to be that candidate. But where do the Hillary supporters go when she dies off? Worse, what happens to the Obama faction if Hillary stages a miracle come back?

McCain has an (R) next to his name, but he was a guy rumored to be flipping to a (D) just a few years ago. The uglier this campaign gets for the dems, the more likely it is that a good portion of the losing dems supporters either:

a) cross party lines and vote for McCain

or

b) stay home, don't give money or time to the dem candidate.

or

c) vote green or write in Daffy Duck or whatever

The Dems should win this election. They hold all the cards. But I wouldn't count on money continuing to be raised at these levels throughout the election process. And I would not underestimate the Reps ability to raise funds when they need it.

Troy is right, just 3 failed Reps (Guiliani, Thompson and Romney) had raised almost $200 million themselves. And despite perceptions to the contrary, the polls between the D-R still show a toss-up.

No, Troy isn't right. McCain may wind up winning the elction, but money and infrastructure won't be the reason. The Republicans will at best be at even money this cycle. In 2004 the money was pretty even if you include 527s and party funds as well as candidate money, and there's no reason to see the Republicans changing that this cycle especially when they have been significantly outraised by the Dem candidates, the DCCC and the RSC. The only reported money that shows a Republican advantage is at the National Committee level. Look at the numbers so far for 2008 and there's no way you can rationally argue that the Republicans will have a funding advantage.

As for infrastructure, your points a little better, but contested primaries tend to turn out voters. These primaries have done far more for the Dem brand and email/donor lists than a clear path for Hillary would have. Only if the nomination drags until the convention will there be a significant backlash against one of the candidates. If this is determined by the summer McCain gets no "process" advantage whatsoever.

None of this adds up to a guaranteed victory as I still think McCain is the best candidate for the general, but arguing that the Republicans have the advantage is silly. There isn't any data at this point to suggest that's true. If you were running would you rather have more money so far, much higher turnout so far, the opposition president at 30% approval, likely indictments against the opposition Congressional committee, or not?

Exit polls suggest Obama won by a landslide in Vermont. 13 in a row now...

Barack Obama has defeated Hillary Clinton in the great state of Vermont.

10% of Ohio Primary voters are Republicans. Are they Obamacans or Rush Limbaugh listeners? Stay tuned.

Ohio is too close to call. Too close to call.

I know Texas is a big state, but WTF? 1% of the precincts = 800,000+ votes? :eek:

Maybe they include early voting in that 1%. Still no solid numbers from Ohio as they extended some precincts poll closing times. Texas should come in quicker than Ohio.

Texas is too close to call. Obama is ahead with almost 1 million votes in. Rhode Island is too close to call with no numbers in.

Hillary Clinton has won the great state of Rhode Island.

Texas and Ohio still haven't been called. Obama is up in Texas and Hillary is up in Ohio.

Just got back from my district caucus. Obama got the alloted delegates for our district.

The only way I was going to vote for the democratic side of things today was if my local elections mattered. Since all the democrats I want out of office and would have voted against are not in my district, I took the Republican choice so I could vote for Ron Paul. Nobody else got my vote, which didn't matter since they didn't have any competition.

Voting Republican was fun, except for having to wait around for the wife. It was an long wait for the democratic party, while I just walked up to the table and voting booth with no wait. :D

BTW, anyone know of a site that has the Texas districts? My wife and I were highly confused when we drove down the road to our polling location and find out that a couple races we thought we would be able to vote in were not in our district. Kind of weird when one of the races involves a guy who lives a street over from me and his brother lives 4 houses down from me. Not being in that district would have put me in another district with a race I would have voted in, but nope. I want to see where the hell I am because the map I looked at must have been wrong....

Hillary is up by 16% with 35% reporting in Ohio. Obama is up by 2% with 15% reporting in Texas.

Go here:

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/

and click on State House Districts. It'll open up a new window that will allow you to zoom in. Hidalgo County looks to be split up pretty good, with a couple of streets I see belonging to three different districts!

Something thing to keep in mind for Texas is that even in the primary, delegates aren't assigned by statewide popular vote. Each of the state Senate districts has delegates assigned to them by the Democrats based on how many people in those districts voted for Kerry in the 2004 election and Chris Bell in the 2006 Governor's race. Some districts have as few as 2 delegates while a couple of others have 8 assigned to them.

Thanks, that cleared it up some. It annoys me because my district makes no sense, but then again they clearly want that I guess. I am in district 41, about 100 yards from district 40. My neighbor's brother is running in 40, so his other brother must be the one who lives on the street next to me. I don't like my district, the good people to hate are in 39.

My caucus was pretty subdued. We had about 40 people show up, and since I live in a rural area, I think that might have been every Democrat in the area. :) We signed in, counted up the preferences, and passed a couple of motions to bring to the next level of convention, one regarding the current investigation into our electrical co-op, and another about lack of oversight of the Tx DOT regarding several large projects in our county. It was all over and done in about 45 minutes.

Contrast that to near chaos in some precincts in Austin. The local paper is reporting that cops even had to be called to one.

http://www.statesman.com/

Hillary Clinton has defeated Barack Obama in the great state of Ohio.

So Hilary wins by 10+ in OH and looks like she might get a 3-5% win in Texas. IMO, she's still got a good shot.

Well crap. I really don't want Hillary to be President as of right now, even though the wife voted for her. I was hoping the door would be shut on her tonight. Oh well, I won't be real happy with anyone in the two major parties.

Hillary Clinton is winning my region of Texas 3-1 over Obama. Expected I guess.

Did I just hear that no candidate, democrat or republican, has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio in their party's primary. If so, that must bode well for John McCain.

My wife and I just realized that we screwed ourselves.

We voted in the primaries, so we are no longer aloud to sign the petition to get Nader on the ballot. Texas blows. I should have known that so I kick myself for it though.

I think it's going to come down to an grudge oil-wrestling match between Hillary and Obama at the convention.

We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how many delegates she picked up. Obama was already up by more than 100. She may have only picked up about 30 depending on how things finish up. Obama can pick some of those back up with wins in Wyoming and Mississippi. It sounds like Hillary is going to go on through Pennsylvania at least. I still don't think she has a good shot, but we'll have a clearer picture when we find out her delegate gain.

Wow I am really actually am shocked that Clinton won Ohio and TX. I will officially be voting for the Republican candidate though I have been a lifelong Democrat and a fairly strong supporter of both his message and way Obama has run his campaign. I won't be giving the Clinton mafia my vote in November being now I suspect they will eventually take the dem nom. Clinton only won today because of using the fear bomb, muslim bomb, and race bombs (indirectly) as well as a bunch of dirty policitcs that the Clinton's only a month ago accused Bush and the republicans of resorting to time and again. All Hilary did was give the election to the Reps for the next twenty years as many of the younger Obama supporters will be turned jaded by this whole mudslinging of there candidate by the Cintons. The republicans who voted today just to get the "weaker" opponent might be assholes but they are clever assholes know the less.

No way she picks up 30. At most it'll be half of that. It should shake out pretty close to this:

Ohio: Hillary +10
Rhode Island: Hillary +3
Texas: Hillary +1
Vermont: Obama +3

So that is a net gain of 11.

Clinton has not won Texas. Metropolitan Dallas and Houston have less than 30% of their vote tallied, and Obama is beating Clinton 3 to 2 in those areas.

Good work on the math. 11 or anything close to that obviously isn't enough. Momentum schmomentum. Hillary isn't going to win enough delegates from Obama in states like N.C., S.D., Mississippi, Wyoming, Oregon, and so on. This probably just delays the inevitable as we said earlier today and the night gets even better for John McCain.

And like I mentioned in the post at the top of this page, statewide vote isn't what determines delegate allocation. Certain areas get more delegates based on how they voted for the Democratic candidates in the 2004 Presidential and 2006 Gubernatorial elections. Two-thirds of the available delegates are assigned this way, and the other one-third are assigned from the results of tonight's caucuses. So yes, in effect, you can vote twice in one day for a candidate.

I think the Republicans voting for Clinton were not doing so to ensure Clinton's nomination, since I think its not at all clear that Obama is a stronger GE candidate, but instead were hoping to ensure a nomination fight, including possibly a bloody convention fight.

Of course, the Clinton camp will undoubtedly try to get the votes counted in the states she won that were disallowed delegates because they held their primaries early without approval from the Democratic Party.

After all the flap about "votes not being counted" during the past two presidential elections, I don't see how the Dems can ultimately deny those states their delegates.

By the way, could the Texas Democratic Primary BE any more complicated????

Yep... if Clinton was up by just 100, they'd be voting for Obama in droves.

Those states will redo their primaries before the democratic convention. Shutting out Michigan and Florida would be political suicide for the democratic party in the general election.

There were scattered reports from today that many people that did this were surprised when they were told after voting for Hillary that they couldn't also vote for the non-Presidential candidates in the Republican primary. I also don't see these cross-over voters coming back to caucus tonight.

Hmm, I have heard that there are various reasons why this won't be possible.

Not sure if this will make things any clearer. It spells out in detail how the process works.

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/interim/int80-3.pdf

:D

Here's the part on how they apportion the delegates:

Don't know about Michigan, but I know Florida is trying to get it done.

And I think Vic is right, if the Dems snub Florida and Michigan, the can kiss any shot at the Presidency goodbye in the GE.

I didn't know about it before, but figured it out pretty quickly when I got there. I don't like it because the Valley here is pretty much democratic, so the local/state races pretty much come down to the democratic primaries.

Still, the big kicker is I screwed up and voted at all, since I can't sign for any third party candidates to get on the November ballot. Again, Texas blows.

Here's an official link showing the discrepancy between statewide vote and number of delegates assigned. It is from the Texas Sec. of State's office. Hillary is up by about 3 percentage points, but Obama has two more delegates.

http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm (continually updated as more votes come in)

If they redo them, Clinton would be favored in both, although certainly not a shoe-in. She is up by double digits in recent Pennsylvania polling (a state similar to Ohio demographically). If she holds on to win Texas, then the only large state (150+ delegates) that Obama will have won will be his home state of Illinois.

This thing is going all the way to the convention, and it's going to be a blood bath.

It will be interesting to watch...that's for sure.

If Obama loses by 10+ in PA and fades in the remaining significant states, it will be very interesting to see how many of those superdelegates that are making noises about him end up realising that they really want to vote for a Clinton. Do not underestimate the old boys network at work, no matter how much people got caught up in the 11 straight Obama hype.

It's going to get messy, that is for sure. And that's even before you consider potential pressure/controversy/legal wrangling over Michigan and Florida. McCain has got to be laughing right now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...imary-240.html

Actually in the most recent Pennsylvania poll, Hillary was only up by 4%. The poll before that she was up by 6%. RCP average has her up 9% so I'm not sure where you got these misleading numbers from. The rcp average is even misleading as 2 of the 4 polls go back to before Obama's sweep on February 19th. Here is a list of the remaining states:

Wyoming
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Guam
North Carolina
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Kentucky
Montana
South Dakota
Puerto Rico

There's just not enough left for Hillary to win, even with a 10% win in Pennsylvania. Obama will win Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and who knows about the rest. A 150 delegate deficit is too much to overcome. Hillary Clinton is hanging on with no real shot of winning. She is the new Mike Huckabee.

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

How many McCain supporters say they would seriously consider voting for Obama or Hillary?

Seriously? Not many.

I have found that most Republicans I know stick to their party lines through thick and thin.

But then again, why would McCain supporters consider voting for anyone but McCain? :)

It's a different comparison.

25% of Clinton's supporters would seriously consider voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and 10% of Obama's supporters would seriously consider voting for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

He should have made it more clear or just posted the damn source to his numbers. The Democrats certainly don't benefit by having this drag out for 3 more months. But to say that the Democrats are in serious trouble or that they don't have the advantage in this election is just silly. I think someone earlier today gave a bunch of reasons why. If the Democrats manage to lose this election, they might as well quit all together.

Those numbers were discussed on CNN's election coverage tonight, and the accuracy could certainly be questionable.

As for me, I don't have a dog in the fight. I've voted in every election since 1988, and this is the first time in my life I'll be voting for a republican presidential candidate. I would have voted for Richardson or Biden, but once it came down to Clinton, Obama and McCain, it was a fairly easy choice for me.

Obama? :D

I find it amazing that if Hillary becomes the President, the US will have been under a Clinton or a Bush administration for 6 terms since 1988.

As it is, the US Presidency has been under either clan for the past 20 years!

Wait 'til Jeb runs. :eek:

Dude, just stop. You're like the Mizzou B-Ball Fan of this thread.

Actually, he's right. This is going to end in a bloodbath. Pretty much what I expected to happen, did happen last night. Hillary got Ohio, she edged Texas in a coin flip. She made up about 35 delegates or so depending on how the final numbers turn out.

See my analysis above of how tough it'd have been for Hillary to win if she had taken a +70 delegate advantage. +35? Brutal. But, she's won the big states.

She needs to take 62 to 63% of the remaining vote for the dems now. Yet she's going to spin this off as a victory and bash Obama sensless ahead of PA. She'll probably win PA too. But she has virtually no chance of getting the delegate lead. Neither candidate will have enough delegates to lock the nomination so now it's going to go to the super delegates.

If Obama wins the overall popular vote and delegates (both almost assured) and the super delegates side with Hillary in a back room deal? We don't even have to bother with a GE. McCain will win going away. The dems will spend the next decade rebuilding the damage caused by the disenfranchised voters, especially the african american vote. If Obama gets it at that point? They have a chance, but the Hillary supporters are rabid and it is no slam dunk that they go to Obama. A large percentage of them will defect. Look at Hillary's own message and quotes which have been said about twenty times the last two weeks "If the phone rings at 3AM and I answer it, we're good. If McCain answers it, wer're good. If Obama answers it, I dunno."

If Hillary gets the message through that Obama isn't experienced enough to these people and says that McCain is, what do you think is going to happen in the GE? McCain isn't your typical Bible thumping Republican. The dems bitter "their" candidate lost aren't looking at turning to Bush 3. They are looking at a guy many Reps. dislike because he's so centrist and has went against the party line countless times. If you honestly think there won't be mass defections if this thing gets as bloody as I think it will, you are crazy.

Hillary isn't taking the next 16 states (or MI or FL) at 60-62%. It's simply not going to happen. She has no shot of catching Oboma in the delegate count at this point. She's going to try to rely on back room dealings and the super delegates. As I said above, if she wins, she ensures the dems lose the GE yet again. (just my opinion, I could be wrong)

That makes sense -- I'd imagine that most primaries aren't very interesting by this time of year, anyway.

I have been getting that over the past 2 weeks in reading many of the strident comments made by Clinton supporters to the news blogs. The common theme was that Sexism is trumping Racism in America and they were pissed about that. Despite the still high negatives for the Clintons, there are a statistically siginificant percentage of Clinton supporters (particularly middle/older white women) that will not vote for a black man. Also included would a segment of the Latino population and good percentage of the Asian population. They will tend to stay home instead.

With what you have seen with the Obama surge/coverage, do you believe that there is a great deal of sexist attitudes involved?

Looks like I was way off in Texas and Ohio. She's +16 in Ohio and +4 in Texas (primary only, no caucus). So net gain of 20.

I'm a Clinton supporter and if Obama gets the nod, I'd seriously consider voting McCain (forget seriously consider, I'll most likely do it).

That'd be complete disaster. Move up the percentages by another one or two now. She has to win at a 64 to 66% clip. Does anyone in their ever lovin minds think Hillary is going to win 16 consecutive states 64 to 36?

If she went +20, it goes from improbable of getting the lead to impossible. It's not happening. The only way she can win now is by back room dealings with the super delegates. If she had any humility at all, she'd get out now. She won't.

Why not hold out for a deal in a brokered convention (such as giving her Senate Majority Leader) rather than just back out now?

maybe President of the Senate?

President Pro Tem has usually very little power and is given to the most senior member of the Majority Party.