Another Kennedy. It'll be a really interesting night for him.

To be a fly on the wall at the California Governor's mansion. :D

If McCain is the republican nominee and Obama is teh democrat nominee I might vote Obama.

Did anyone see McCain on Leno's show the other night? He was freaking equivocating when asked who he thought would win the Super Bowl... Come on!

Suffolk California poll- Obama 40, Clinton 39

Rasmussens California Poll- Obama 45, Clinton 44

One thing that will be interesting is to see how the new Georgia Voter ID law affects Obama's chances. If we get surprise results in GA, then I think that will be the reason.

I thought the law was stricken down as being unconstitutional. Just goes to show how much I'm aware, as I voted last time without a special voting "ID" card and don't have one. I thought they renamed it the anti-Mexican law.

Speaking of which...I forgot they had Oprah this weekend, too. Jesus, talk about piling it on. This is the Shriver endorsement. It feels like it's been a million years since she was on NBC News. Hard to know if any of the hoopla will have a demonstrable effect tomorrow. But it's still interesting.

This thing is definitely tightening up. Clinton and Obama shares are now trading at 54.5 and 47 respectively on Intrade.

On the Republican side, McCain shares are trading at 87.1, while Romney is at 9.3.

Interesting points from my favorite columnist, Roland Martin

Obama would certainly fill a void for Clinton, but I never have understood what Clinton would bring to the ticket as VP for Obama.

Why on earth would Barack Obama risk being associated with Hillary Clinton when he's going to win the primary in 4 or 8 years anyway? It's all downside risk.

+1

Hillary's 60? I knew she was old, but that surprised me for some reason.

Yeah, me too. I read it a bit ago, but...it's still surprising but it's almost been 20 years since they burst onto the scene.

She's held up well for 60.

I haven't followed Tennessee at all, so what happened there and why such a margin?

The latest poll had Hillary +20, so not sure what the surprise is?

I didn't say it was a surprise, I'm asking about the demographics and issues why they would significantly favor Clinton?

I've been wondering the same thing.

-- The state is over 80% white.
-- Obama did not seem to have the appeal to women there that he has shown in other places as of the WSMV poll on 1/22, he trailed Clinton 37-19 with women)
-- Obama also had not shown as strongly with black voters in Tennessee, managing only a 40-22 edge with 36% undecided at that point. By comparison, exit polls in Georgia being quoted locally on radio tonight showed Obama at 90% of black voters, which made up half of the Democratic voters in the state.

Now, fastforward to tonight's exit polling results.
-- Obama ended up with 78% of the black vote, which basically looks like he got all of the undecideds there
-- Hillary killed him with women, 56-35
-- Hillary beat him solidly in the suburbs (56-37) and clobbered him in the small towns & rural areas (as much as 79-15 in towns of 10k-50k pop)
-- She beat him in every income bracket except $100k+
-- She beat him in all five self-identified political categories (very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, very conservative), with at least 50% of the vote in all five.
-- She won voters over 35, he won voters under 35 but by smaller margins.

Truth is, I don't see one thing here, she seems to have beaten him on virtually every measurable stat except race.

Thanks Jon, that is exactly what I was looking for.

TN was so far out of reach when Obama took off that he invested very little in the state. He put his resources into GA and AL where he had a better shot and skipped AK and TN.

He had Georgia locked up for weeks and they both knew it. Almost as certain was Alabama. When you're pulling 80%+ of at least half of one of the two voting demographics, it's pretty tough to lose as long as they show up to vote.

That last bit isn't a gimme in all cases of course, and credit to him/his organization for getting the voters to the polls but for him to have lost in Georgia one of been one of the biggest political surprises of my lifetime.

I agree, but he did make some appearances there and did some advertising. He all but conceded AK and TN weeks ago.

Just FWIW, he didn't just do "some" advertising in Georgia, he went whole hog on radio for more than a week on pretty much every station in every format.
In spite of the obvious "why on earth would he do that", the strategy was reasonably sound since he had plenty of money to do it with & was believed to be trying to lure Clinton into wasting some of her money there.

Or because the Democratic primaries assign their delegates on a proportional basis and dominant wins in Illinois and Georgia can balance out losses in all those small states and even minimalize the impact of a Cali victory.

This is just nuts. Playing off of the story that Hillary loaned her campaign five million dollars, Obama has raise over 5.6 million on line in the last 24 hours. I wouldn't be surprised to see him raise forty or fifty million in February.

edit 5 minutes later: Hit refresh and now it's over 5.7 million.

That is truly phenomenal. Wonder what it'll mean though, if anything.

Good question. I can't be sure it will change things, but especially now that the tempo has slowed it seems that much ad money would have to be an advantage.

If he wins the nomination he'll also have one hell of a donor database to use for general election funds.

I keep seeing that and my thought is that it would be far more preferable for an unknown entity than the known entity of the Clintons, esp. for those that truly remembers all the shit in the 1990s.

He broke 6 mil just before midnight EST. Clinton claiming they beat their 3 mil for thier 24 hours and are now going for 6 mil in 72 hours.

Posting the following for no other reason than I'm a partisan:


Source

Here is one of the many reasons why I love Obama. Its an excerpt from a campaign email I got today. Yes it's an overly simplified and optimistic view of things, but it's things like this that make me excited and want to be involved.

For the few states that article addresses, Flere, maybe there's something there. But it doesn't apply very well outside of the mountain west and west coast. The NYT has a facinating interactive map that breaks down each state's votes to the county level. In the southern states, even in ones he won, Obama's lead in urban areas beat Clinton's dominance in rural counties. Heck, in MO, Obama won only 5 counties. But dominating in St. Loius was enough to score a narrow win.

I think his success in Idaho and other western states is just as much attributable to the fact that he ran campaigns there and made appearances to anything else. Which gets to a point that I think may enable him to come from behind and win. If he and Hillary spend an equal amount of time campaigning in a state, he usually comes out ahead. Voters respond better to him personally. Now that the remaining primaries are spread out a little, I think he will be able to press that advantage.

Basically, it is impossible in the remaining races for either candidate to gain enough pledged delegates without the kind of scandal/collapse on the part of the other candidate that would effectively end the race anyway.

This ends with one candidate being able to swing the superdelegates--either through getting enough of a lead to tip the balance or through whatever back channels each campaign is no doubt furiously working right now.

I don't think that this goes until August, though. The superdelegates will make up their minds by then in order to avoid an embarassing convention.

I have actually changed my mind about which of Hillary/Obama is the more electable candidate. I formerly thought Obama would have a better chance, but now I think it is Hillary. Hillary vs. McCain: Hillary can neutralize some of McCain's strengths (she's one of the most hawkish Dems, for example). Obama vs. McCain: McCain can effectively paint Obama as a Howard Dean type liberal.

That's how I see it right now.

Hillary = mobilizes the GOP base to vote against her

Obama = the GOP base stays home and lets McCain get trounced

Obama is more electable.

I hope it comes down to the superdelegates and someone gets screwed. Another Mondale over Hart 1984 type scenario would be interesting. The upcoming schedule favors Obama, but the day Hillary could cement herself is March 4th. Texas and Ohio are the big states on that day and with Hillary's advantage among latinos and blue collar workers, she may win them both. Rhode Island and Vermont are also on that day so it could be the turning point. Until then she should put a lot into Wisconsin, Virginia and Maine. The rest leading up to March 4th probably go to Obama easy. She just needs to keep some momentum going into March 4th.

I know that's the CW. But I think the reality is that in a GE, Obama will seriously, seriously motivate conservatives to vote against him. The dislike for Hillary is all personality/name. I think a campaign against Obama would be more effective.

Just my uneducated opinion.

I think the reality is that Obama will win independents over McCain, so no matter how many "conservatives" come out to vote they will not be able to beat him. If it is Hillary, McCain would take those independents.

I could be wrong too though. The GE is a long way off.

Time poll says that Obama is much more electable vs McCain.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...xid=rss-nation

Of course, things can certainly change once McCain is starting the negative campaigning up full scale.

Exactly what I'm talking about. I think negative campaigning by the GOP will have tremendous impact on Obama's electability. So far they've basically said nothing about him.

True dat. Obama is pretty progressive on a lot of issues. I wonder how he'll get "unity" with the Republicans when he pushes some of his ideals like national health care and expanded federal programs.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/ca...s_on_obama.php

"Looking further out, I think it's probably the case that Obama is, in fact, the candidate that Republicans least want to run against. In fact, I think that it's actually the case that where Obama is concerned, conservatives lack much of the gut-level animus that drives them to really hate HRC, Kerry and Gore. All of these Dems represented what conservatives most hate about liberals--they all represent a liberal style (as apart from substance) that looks down on and dismisses conservatives. Obama, by contrast, comes from a generation of folks who, while certainly not conservative, have actually engaged seriously with them. Obama taught at U. of Chicago law school, and so he knows that conservatives are driven by a respectable set of ideas. He disagrees with those ideas, but I sense that he knows at least some conservatives who he believes are respectable interlocutors. And I think conservatives know this."

Now read the anecdote on the link below and tell me if you could ever, EVER, imagine this happening regarding Hillary.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ght-and-o.html

Like we are pointing out, it's very, very early and Obama hasn't been hit by the right yet. He will be. I realize his worshippers think that he has this mythical power to bridge the divide, but let's get honest here. He'll be slammed for his liberal policies not because he "looks down on conservatives" (like Bill Clinton ever really did that).

Not sure if anyone posted this already or not, so just in case, here's a brief explanation of the caucus-or-primary confusion we had here about New Mexico.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8UMA0Q01.html
New Mexico Democrats call their contest a caucus, but it's not like Iowa's caucuses where voters gather in gyms, churches or meeting rooms, divide into groups for each candidate, try to attract more support from other groups, and then count each group. Rather it more closely resembles a "firehall primary" - a primary with shorter voting hours and fewer voting sites than would be found in traditional state primaries.

And the point I'm making is that:

1) There's no R hatred for Obama like there was/is for Gore, Hillary and Kerry. I hope that's obvious.
2) R's are indifferent toward McCain anyway. I hope that's obvious too.

As a sidenote, of course Bill Clinton looked down upon conservatives! Are you f'ing kidding? Every time he talked about some Republican leader you could practically feel the comtempt through the television.

His health care plan doesn't have mandates. Some columnist in the NY Times, saying that if you're really a progressive, you have to force people to take government health care. Obama is smart enough to realize that's not going to win him any fans on the right.

Hillarycare has mandates.

I personally cannot think of one instance that Obama has flat-out insulted conservatives. Both Clinton's do it as a matter of course, if for nothing else than fund-raising.

BTW, Michigan is considering a new caucus as a 'do-over.' For the Dems.