History repeats itself. Atrocities (of all kinds) in the recent past (since WW2) committed against peoples domestic and foreign were commonplace, whether open or covert. It certainly does not make recent actions less intolerable but not exceptional. I wonder if they use Tiger Cages nowadays?

:confused:

I think you're referring to vote stuffing? Or something? He's up 75-25 there and it looks like if the margins hold that he'll end up winning Indiana. He's within 20k of her now and it seems like the steam engine isn't going to be stopped. But they're saying those are just Gary numbers...so maybe it'll thin out and she'll squeak by.

Clinton's lead has dwindled to less than 1% and the talk of Hillary as VP is beginning on TV. They are hand counting all of the early voting ballots right now in Lake County. CNN is trying to implicate that it's shady business, of course, and that it's Gary's fault. But the county is doing the counting.

Hillary has canceled her morning appearances.

Watching that CNN guy that stands in front of the big screen ask the Mayor of Gary questions is gold... pure gold.

The mayor of Lake County sounds like a complete moron on CNN. Watching this crap is painful.

Of course, Union County hasn't reported any votes at all. No one lives there, but...I love how CNN is trying to spin it, while MSNBC is trying to change the conversation in a different manner.

CNN needs to get over it, because no one was asking what the questions were in New Mexico, Texas or other places. But I love how they're trying to spin it. So I'm done with them. It's too late to listen to this.

MAYOR FIGHT ON CNN! FUCK YEA!

DOLA-

"But its a computer."


god this is awesome.

MSNBC's Chuck Todd is saying the real story is..that you have the Mayor of Hammond who is a Clinton supporter and the Mayor of Gary who is an Obama supporter who are duking it out to wait to see who'll release their remaining numbers first, to put their person over the top in the end.

That makes what's playing out on CNN make a lot more sense. MSNBC is calling Indiana for Clinton, but saying she's the "apparent winner".

Yeah, on CNN the Mayor of Hammond admitted that he was a Clinton supporter and the Mayor of Gary is an Obama supporter.

But damn, the Mayor of Hammond made the Mayor of Gary look like an absolute fucking moron.

Fox News has called Indiana for Clinton.

Perhaps I didn't watch enough of the coverage, i probably watched about 1/2 hour, but my perception was that they weren't trying to spin anything, but that hey, you have the mayor of the biggest city in the county on the air with you, they seem like they're holding up or unnecessarily delaying releasing their voting results, he's giving a bullshit answer and stonewalling you when you ask what seems to me a fair question, so you press him on it. i never got the impression there was any intent to accuse of wrongdoing. Perhaps I didn't watch long enough, or perhaps i was so blown away by the stupidity of the mayor of Gary that I missed everything else though(I'm not being sarcastic here, I got so annoyed listening to him that I just turned the TV off for a few minutes and then turned it back on and continued watching).

When I was at the gym earlier, they had CNN's coverage on, and during the roundtable discussions, there was all kinds of spin coming from the moderator. I don't think any of it was really NEW - most of it was the lines the Clinton campaign has been trotting out there for a while, such as "she won the states Democrats have to win in November" - but it was evident they favored Senator Clinton.

Oh, perhaps I completely misunderstood. I thought the thinking was that CNN was trying to create a corruption story, that something funny was going on in the county, not that they are having any sort of favorite here as far as the race goes.

I'm having a hard time believing this might actually be over. Hope springs eternal...

From the Lake County paper last night.

"Lake County Republican Chairman John Curley stood by his Democratic counterpart Rudy Clay as the nation waited for vote totals from Lake County. "There's no hanky panky going on," Curley said after members of the national media wondered why Lake County's votes were taking so much longer to count than the rest of the state. "We have more than 11,000 absentee ballots, far more than we've ever had before," Curley said, insisting it simply takes time to get through that many tallies.

The two party chairmen planned to meet at the government center at about 11 p.m., and Curley promised the vote totals would soon be released."

As far as it being over, some privately want it to go on past West Virginia, knowing that Hillary will win there, letting Obama go to Oregon to claim victory in a few weeks.

It's been over for a couple of months. It's just that Hillary hasn't realized it.

For those who want Hillary to win, here is her roadmap:

Win every state left 75/25. Then have 58% of the remaining superdelegates vote for you.

If Obama simply splits the rest of the states up 50/50, Hillary would need 78% of the superdelegates to go her way. And if that happens, the dems will get their asses handed to them in the general election.

Nothing has changed. It's over. It's been over. it's just a matter of one candidate admitting it's over so the other one can start to focus on the general election as quickly as possible.

I think she's in this until June 3rd, at least. She's got WV and KY coming up (OR she doesn't care about), both of which she is doing well in, and I bet she's holding out hope that she wins both and something miraculous/fishy occurs during the May 31st meeting to decide what to do with Florida and Michigan. At that point, even if things go badly, she might as well stick around for the last primary the following Tuesday.

The latest polls I can find on RCP for OR, KY, and WV show the following:

5/4 - OR - Obama 51, Clinton 39 (52 delegates) - Rasmussen
5/5 - WV - Clinton 56, Obama 27 (28 delegates) - Rasmussen
5/6 - KY - Clinton 62, Obama 28 (51 delegates) - Survey USA


I believe what's she counting on is the "shock and awe" of huge victories in KY and WV, some shenanigans involving FL and MI, and that all of that, coupled with the wins in IN and PA, as well as OH, etc., are what she is going to base her claim to being "more electable" on to the SuperDelegates. That's the only rationale I can see for her staying in it at this point.

The Supers have been her only hope for a long, long time.

The problem is that if the supers decide this when she's lost the popular vote, the state delegate vote and number of states. . . it'll be riot time in Denver, CO.

You are correct though. She's in this thing through June 3rd and probably through the convention. She's going to use a scorched earth campaign to do it too.

At this point, nobody needs to kid themselves. It's over. Obama will be the nominee. Obama's worst case scenario happened and he had a highly publicized scandal. And Hillary still can't make up any ground. He's not going to have another major slip up. Hillary is done. Now it's just a matter of her admitting her fate and moving on.

Just judging by the demeanor of the Clinton advisors on the cable channels, I think what's going on now is the start of the behind-the-scene negotiations to find a way to end this while giving Clinton and her supporters a way to save face. I don't think that will be through a veep nomination, but could well include a way to include Fla and Mich.

Good luck waiting on that :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter to me in the least. I want her to stay in. I'm finding the entire process fascinating. I'm also eager to see how this plays out in the GE in November.

The best thing Hillary can do for the dems is to walk away. Of course that was also the best thing she could have done over a month ago.

Something tells me she doesn't have someone well versed in math on her staff. She really, really needs QS about now.

I don't think this is over, I still expect Clinton to actually win. Florida and Michigan, remember?

It's now to a point where you can include FL and MI as is and she'll still be unable to win popular vote or delegates.

Clinton email from today:

McGovern Urges Clinton to Drop Out

Audio for this story will be available at approx. 3:00 p.m. ET

Day to Day, May 7, 2008 · Former senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern is calling for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the Democratic presidential race. McGovern has decided to endorse Barack Obama. In doing so, McGovern becomes the first prominent Clinton supporter to call for Sen. Clinton to withdraw from the race.

Except, Florida and Michigan did not have normal turnout, so including them "as is" is not exactly legitimate, either. Clinton has a good case to make for the superdelegates.

Michigan shouldn't be included in any argument for her at all. Obama wasn't even on the ballot, makes it a much different situation than Florida.

They won't seat them as is. she'll win a portion of delegates there, not all of them. The math still stands. She needs over 75% of the remaining delegates and then close to 60% of the supers to win. She's not going to get it. She'll win WV, KY and PR. She'll get her ass kicked hard in OR. She'll lose in SC. She'll have a tough time in Montana. Odds are, that's a 50/50 split in those six states. Let's say we revote in MI and FL and Hillary sweeps with 60% of the vote in both states. She gains 67 delegates. She would still need to win over 70% of the supers at that point.

The math is very, very easy here. It's over. It's all about when Hillary is going to accept/admit it's over.

All of the reasons why Hillary can't win the nomination are just that... reasons, not rules. You can argue that Obama has better reasons why the delegates should ultimately nominate him on the first unpledged ballot, but there's absolutely no obligation for them to do so.

Ted Kennedy was down by more than 700 delegates, yet he went to the 1980convention vowing to fight on. Hillary will be a helluva lot closer than that.

I think she'll continue the race at least until at the DNC Rules Committee meets May 31st. That meeting should help determine what happens to the MI and FL delegates, and that should determine her course from June to August.

I thoroughly agree that to the extent this is about math, it's over.

I still believe that were there a concerted effort by the party leadership to coordinate voting of superdelegates, it would certainly be possible to send things in another direction. If Senator Obama were struck by raving madness and institutionalized tomorrow morning for electroshock therapy... we clearly wouldn't be talking about math any more. The system is designed to have a variety of latitudes involved... mostly to account for extraordinary circumstances, but there remains some opportunity for someone to make that case.

Please don't get me wrong... I think it's over too, I'm just saying that this process is (deliberately) not as simple as an election, where you just count the ballots and it's over.

Please don't misinterpret my remarks here. Hillary can run as long as she wants. She also has a slim, slim shot of catching Obama. And while I think that could damage the dem prospects in November, most think I'm an idiot. I'm ok with that.

I'm just looking at reality Cam. She can fight as long as she wants. The race is over. No matter what the Hillary supporters want to think, she is not winning this battle. It's going to be Obama vs. McCain in November. (With the potential of a third party guy to jump in)

Barring Obama getting caught wiping his ass with an American Flag on a stolen web cam clip, she's not winning 75% of the remaining delegates at stake. It's not happening. The math was tough before Texas and PA. It's far worse than that now. There is no more race for the dem nomination.

PS: Watch all of the supers that switch this week. They may try to speed up the process.

Don't disagree with you at all here QS. A disaster striking the Obama campaign has really been Hillary's only real hope for two months now. The Wright thing came and went and had little impact on the numbers. Lightning isn't going to strike twice here IMHO. If I end up wrong, I'll take the flak and eat the crow. :)

I'm honestly baffled why the party is letting the Clintons run the show here. Part of Howard Dean's job should be to step in and put an end to this. Instead, a couple of weeks ago he comes out and essentially legitimizes Hillary's chances by saying "we'll see who comes out on top by June 3rd." My only thought is that so many people owe the Clintons so much for how far they've come since the 90s that they are letting them do whatever they want until the Clintons realize they can't go any further, and then they're going to pray the damage doesn't hurt their chances in November. Considering politics is all about stabbing people in the back, I'm still shocked that more people haven't pulled a Bill Richardson on them by now...even if the tide begins to turn that way within the next week.

This seems oddly appropriate:

TroyF is correct, and he was correct on his prior points.

The Democratic primary is over, and the general election is over. Fumbling the ball on two of the largest states in the country have ruined any chance the democrats had to take the White House in November. McCain has a substantial lead over Obama in Florida polling, and amazingly, Michigan is actually in play.

For the last couple of months, Obama has essentially been the nominee -- barring a complete meltdown. Well, for about 5 weeks, that meltdown was happening. As unbelieveable as it seemed, Obama, because he completely misplayed the Rev. Wright controversy, looked like he could blow this thing. But, last week, he finally cut the cord with the good reverend, and I think the fact that he almost won IN shows that he has found his footing again.

HRC has come too far to just quit less than a month from the finish line. So she'll run for another month and hope Obama hits the wall again and leaves the nomination to her.

Obama's zen really hurt him recently. But he has the ball back in his hands and he can run out the clock, so that same zen turns back into an asset.

Where the fcck are you getting this from???

Electoral-vote.com has Obama up 2 on McCain in Michigan for a May 6 poll, and McCain up 1 in Florida from April 29.

Real Clear Politics has McCain up 9 on Obama in Florida, but they're using the April 29 poll, and an April 10 and March 15 poll as an average.

Crazy talk. It's May. John Kerry was the unquestioned next president of the United Staes in May. As was Al Gore.

Barring another Obama implosion, they'll come to an agreement before the convention to seat FL and MI delegates in some reasonable combination of HRC and Obama delegates. By the end of June, there will be no reason not to.

MI will be fine in the general election and FL will be competitive, even if it slightly favors the GOP as it has in recent years.

I think you are seriously underestimating several factors, among the most significant of which is money. The GOP and McCain are both seriously struggling to raise money. Both Obama and Clinton are burying McCain in fundraising, and I believe that Obama is millions ahead of McCain as it is in general election contributions. A lot of his supporters maxed out their contributions to him for both cycles.

Democratic Congressional candidates also will substantially outspend their Republican opponents this year, and that will play a role in voter turnout. Heck, in Virginia alone Mark Warner is going to spend about 4 million more than his opponent, even if he doesn't raise another dollar. That adds up.

McCain will lose this badly. The country is tired of the Bush policies on the war, the economy and the Constitution, and I don't beleive that voters will be as easily mislead by swift boats as they were in 2004. Obama is more vulnerable to those kinds of tactics than is Clinton, but I don't think that McCain will be as willing of an accomplice in these endeavors as was Bush.

Yes, and you can actually go back farther than that. The one constant is that the Democrat's polling numbers peak in the spring. Obama and Clinton should be at least 15 points ahead of McCain in the national polls right now.

Was that true when Clinton was in office?

I'm not sure about the 96 numbers against Dole, and whether or not Perot had definitively announced for a 2nd run at this time in the election cycle.

Electoral-vote.com is a joke, and I don't know how anyone who has seriously followed presidential elections over the years can take them seriously.

As for Florida, McCain has a good lead right now, but it's nothing compared to what he will enjoy after their delegates have been formally shut out of the nominating process. Michigan is probably a win for Obama in November, but the fact that he'll have to spend a lot of resources defending the state isn't a good thing for his campaign.

And where the fcck are you getting THIS from?

The unseated delegates won't be an issue. As I said above they can be seated as is now and it won't make a difference. If Hillary concedes in early June nobody is going to be thinking about unseated delegates come November. The only way this is an issue is if Hillary takes the nomination to the convention and if that happens the problems will be a whole lot bigger than FL and MI delegates.

Vic likes that one historical trend, but is so tied to seeing the Dems lose that he's unwilling to deal with the other historical trends working against McCain.

If she is really dead-set on trying to win this any way possible, she may very well do that, just in case something else comes up to bite Obama in the ass. The convention is 2.5 months after the last primary, right? That's a lot of time to sit around, and any point of weakness or, say, polls that show her running better against McCain than he is, will give her an argument to take to the convention.

Keep in mind, I was a wide eyed liberal when I was younger, just like most of you guys are right now. Actually, until 2006, I'd never voted for a republican candidate in my life.

You didn't answer the question(s) ;)

*golf clap*

I think those saying McCain are going to get destroyed are being waaay too optimistic. Makes me remember when people said Kerry was going to wipe the floor with Dubya in 2004 because of how unpopular Dubya was. This is going to be a close race.

McCain does have a number of things in common with Bob Dole, which is a negative indicator. On the other hand, it was pretty impressive the way he routed the Republican field.

I agree, I just think it's equally silly to say that McCain has already won at this point.

Except for one very key factor - McCain will not run a campaign as poorly as Dole did. McCain has already shown that he willing to say the right things at the right time (like his recent blue-state tour). Dole never could do that, as much as they tried.

I am agreeing with the conversation regarding Clinton and her chances. As far as the general, there are way too much narrowmindedness to take what anyone says seriously. Imran was the only one who got it right.

VV: You are correct on the peak polling but because of extenduating circumstances in the Dems primaries, their peak will come later in the cycle.

Other than age, they don't have that much in common. Dole was always perceived as being mean spirited, even by members of his own party. Additionally, the public never warmed up to the guy on the campaign trail. In that particular trait, Dole probably has more in common with Al Gore and John Kerry than he does with John McCain.

Since it is likely that this would be Hil's only shot at the presidency, I think she stays in it 'til the bitter end.

I hope she does. That will make for one hell of an entertaining convention. :)

But nothing controversal is going to happen at the convention. They got all summer to get everyone in line and on the same page.

They've got disgruntled voters in Florida and Michigan. Hillary wins here, and I imagine its close in Michigan. We're talking whole different ballgame if those two states count.

Lots of bad blood between Clinton and Obama and their supporters. I'm not sure either would consent to be a second fiddle on the "dream ticket" some are having orgasms thinking about (Obama-Clinton or vice-versa).

I think if Clinton doesn't drop out prior to the convention, things will be very interesting -- and no one will be happy if the Super Delegates select the nominee.

Well, it won't be close in Michigan, because Obama was not even on the ballot.

Fair enough. If anyone could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it would be the modern incarnation of the party of Messrs. Jefferson and Jackson.

But there are a number of things that aren't parallel. 4 more years of the same war, for one. A deeply struggling economy for another. And let's not discount the accumulated fatigue of 4 more years of Bush's autocratic rule.

I have to assume that McCain will do his best to divert the country's attention away from these basic issues, but I don't think it will work this time. For one, he won't have the money that Bush did in 2004 to get his message out.

And Vic, I don't think that Obama will have to devote that many resources to MI to firm it up. His own particular skills as a candidate lend themselves to maximizing his bounce out of the convention, and I think that will go a long way toward firming up his support in most traditionally Democratic states.

I don't discount anything but I also don't assume things will remain the same. When Bush2 came into office in 2001, everyone was wrong as to what the first 4 years would bring. However, I still contend that no matter who becomes President, there will be many things that will remain the same and other things that will be cyclical. US History has never shown linearity in any significant length of time. You could not even imagine what the world would have been like (or how different from today) if what most people had said in the 70s came true.

How do you guys think Congress will shape out? Do you think people will vote in a certain way in relation to how they vote for the President?

Curiously, it appears those who ridiculously predicted Obama's demise a month ago, now standby a prediction that McCain will win the general election.

Obama became the next President of the United States in March 2008. McCain and the Republicans running for Congress are going to get creamed. The war, the economy, enough said.

Now Pelosi legitimizes Clinton's chances. Dean and Pelosi have both come out essentially supporting the idea that Clinton has a realistic opportunity to win the nomination. Amazing.

I want to agree with you (not because I want him to win, but because I think you are right), but on the morning of election day 2004, I probably would have bet my house that Bush would lose, and he didn't. Anything's possible 6 months from now.

Everyone keeps saying this, but it's just wrong. Because of the dems way of doing things in proportional numbers, Hillary isn't going to gain a lot by Florida and Michigan. Even with a double digit win in both Michigan and Florida, Hillary picks up a whopping 33 delegates. If she wins by a 20 point spread (60-40) in both states, she picks up 67 delegates.

Assuming the rest of the states play out even, Hillary would still need well over 60-70% of the supers to go her way.

The FL and MI are just posturing at this point. Hillary has only two outs to win this battle now:

1) Total disaster for Obama. He dies of a heart attack. He gets caught screwing a 10 year old boy. He's caught on tape saying Israel should be bombed. I'm talking something HUGE.

2) The supers go into the back room and agree that Hillary is the candidate.

That's it. Hillary has no chance any other way. If 2 happens, she and the dems can forget about winning in November.

Now if the dems had a Republican style system? Florida and Michigan would be game changers. Now? Those states are irrelevant to the big picture.

It's like Obama's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. When the Wright stuff first came out, people wondered "what does he really think about race?" So Obama goes on national television and gives a thoughtful explanation of race in America, his views on the question, and an idea of where he'd take the subject if elected President.

When Wright takes his 15 minutes of fame and runs with it, getting more and more histrionic, Obama clearly and completely breaks with Wright and his message.

Obama's been clear to people that he was drawn to Wright because of the quality of his pastoral care. We've now watched as Obama's had to come to terms that a man who he respected on a personal level has indulged in a form a political grandstanding that has only served to alienate the two from each other.

Frankly, I think the whole episode has been an excellent opportunity to learn about the character and views of Obama. Some people just don't seem to want to take this evidence at face value.

Obama could have done the politically expedient thing and threw Wright under the bus as soon as possible. He didn't, because he valued that personal relationship. He tried to explain this as best he could. When Wright gave him no choice, he made the correct decision and threw him under the bus.

Now let's contrast this to McCain. McCain once called Falwell and Robertson "Agents of Intolerance". And rightly so. However, once he started running for president in this election cycle he changed his mind. Suddenly he was speaking at Falwell's University. Suddenly, when asked, he no longer felt they were "Agents of Intolerance".

Last Sunday, McCain said that he was "Proud" to have Hagee's endorsement, but that he didn't agree with his views.

What does this say of the McCain we "know"? It says that once he decided to run for President this time around, he was willing to sacrifice any principles necessary to get the right endorsements and the right contributions.

There's your dichotomy.

If you're not willing to believe Obama because you think he's being two-faced about Wright, then you damn well better be not willing to believe McCain on anything as he's been two-faced about almost every position he's held during the course of this campaign.


Where have you been for the entire Bush Administration?


Electoral-vote.com is quite clear that until the polls really start rolling, his algorithms result in nothing more than guesses. He's said as much about the current totals on the site. In the past few election cycles the site has been a good predictor starting about 3 months out from the elections.

If it was Obama who was proud to have Hagee's endorsement but noted that he disagreed with his views, we'd be hearing all about how great of a uniter Obama was because he brought people into the fold who he didn't necessarily agree with, but wanted to work with to 'unite' this country. Welcome to politics.

This isn't meant as a slam, it's a legitimate question -- have you seriously followed presidential politics over the years and seen what it takes to assemble an electoral college to get to 270 votes?

If you seriously think that McCain is going to get "creamed", then I assume you're talking about an electoral college landslide, and perhaps you'd like to rattle off the list of states that Bush won in 2004 that Obama is going to win in 2008.

Well, as it has been said, it takes far longer to change someone's public perception than to build one up. McCain is not seen as being a "Bush Republican". Of all the Republican candidates, the Reps actually did the smart thing and picked the guy seen as most not-Bush. I'm not sure that Bush is going to necessarily decide this thing. After all, even the most ardent anti-McCain people are going to admit that McCain has, many times, worked with his political opponents across the aisle. He's worked closely with Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and Ted Kennedy among others. He is far more willing to listen to others than to simply shut his ears and go with his gut.

That counts for something when you are distancing yourself from W. And remember, even after the Nixon impeachment, Gerald Ford almost won in 1976. People don't automatically impart the sins of the previous President on the candidate of the same party.

hxxp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/pelosi-the-race-is-not-over/

I think Pelosi is being much more circumspect than you are giving her credit for.

"The people should all have the opportunity to speak as long as two candidates wish to compete in those primaries and caucuses. In a few weeks we will be on our way to nominating the next President of the United States," she said.

When asked whether she could see any path to victory for Senator Clinton, Pelosi said "You never know in elections."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of HRC's chances to pull this one out; but it recognizes that if Obama implodes in the next month or two, HRC could back into this thing.

You have identified one of the primary goals for Obama in this election. His campaign SHOULD be focused on making sure that, when voters think of McCain, they think of 100 more years of Bush policy on Iraq and 4 more years of Bush's untax-and-spend economic policies -- both of which he championed in the Senate.

McCain has a little bit of a problem responding. The two current issues that he can point to being a GOP maverick on -- immigration and anti-torture -- are core beliefs of the base he needs to turn out in the fall. Torture he can probably work out a message on, but immigration gets him into deep doo-doo. If the anti-immigrant GOP base doesn't turn out for him in Ohio, he's hosed. And this group will abandon you on that one issue.

The states you'd have to look at are Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. I don't know that he will win all of these, but he could win a bunch of them.

Voters are angry right now. Really angry.

Retirements are always a good indicator for which way the wind is blowing.

Retiring House Members (25): 22R 3D
Retiring Senators (5): 5R 0D

Democrats have already picked up 3 House seats from Republicans that have either died or resigned.

Of the top 10 House races that could lead to a seat changing hands, the National Journal has 9R and 1D. The same numbers apply to the Senate.

A couple of the big Senate races are in states that are very competitive in the Presidential race. VA is as close to a lock as you get in May to change from John Warner (R) to Mark Warner (D). New Mexico is right behind. In both cases, the Democrat has a big financial advantage, which will help the entire ticket.

I see.

He couldn't make Ohio (which went republican in 2000 & 2004) competitive in a primary vs. Clinton, but somehow he's going to beat McCain there in November?

He won the democratic primary in North Carolina with a coalition of African-Americans (who made up 40% of the primary vote) and college students, but somehow he's going to be the first democrat to carry the state in 32 years. Hillary Clinton got 60% of the democratic white vote. What do you think is going to happen when you throw in a few million republican voters in November.

He got destroyed by Clinton in the Tennessee primary, but he's going to be the first democrat to carry the state in 32 years.

New Mexico will almost definitely go with McCain in the GE, likely Nevada too, although I don't know their demographics as well.

Anything less than "give it up and quit putting yourself before the party" out of her and Dean's mouths is demonstrating a serious lack of leadership. If Obama is caught in bed with a 10 year old boy, then obviously Clinton is going to jump right to the top, suspended campaign or not. The only chance of winning she has is to turn the process on its ear and have the superdelegates overturn the popular vote, and if the Dems allowed that - coming on the heels of the "stolen election(s)" - they're even stupider than I already think they are.

I sincerely doubt he's going to win Missouri, and we've been a bellweather state over the past 100 years. We rarely pick the loser. His location won't affect the votes either. Chicago, Illinois may be only 3 hours from our state border, but it's a world away as far as culture goes.

IMO the states that could switch from 2004 will be IA, CO, NV, NM(especially if Richardson is VP), OH and VA. I'm not on the NC or TN bandwagon.

As for OH, it's far more receptive to the Democrats than it was four years ago. There is a resurgent Democratic party, a popular Democratic Governor, and a few competitive House races. The Republican brand is also still tarred by the numerous scandals of the state Republican party.

I think its just a fact that Clinton puts a lot more states in play than Obama. Obama would have to run a perfect campaign to win the GE, Clinton would have a lot more room for error. I don't think this is contested by anybody, and its why Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination. That Obama has the lead he has and is NOT being declared the presumptive nominee I think reveals that the Democratic leadership knows the score, and is hoping to find a way for Clinton to win.

Ksyrup: I don't think either Dean or Pelosi have any right to force someone out of the primaries before they're done. After June 3 they should force a choice by the supers, but candidates shouldn't be pushed by party bosses to quit before the elections are over.

Did you switch Clinton and Obama's names here by accident?

There are only two ways st. cronin. I posted them up top. Obama in bed with a 10 year old boy would do it. Or the supers overriding the voters. The first isn't going to happen. If the second happens, it'd be the end of the democratic party as we know it.

Can we get off the 10 year old boy?

Wait, that didn't come out right...........

I'm more than happy to see them allow her to continue. And I don't agree with people dropping out early, like the Republican race developed (or didn't, more precisely). But since she can't win, I think it's incumbent upon somebody to stand up and bitch slap her back into reality. Actually, this should have happened after she, in fact, lost Texas - when both she and Bill acknowledged that if they didn't win both Texas and Ohio, her campaign was over.

If she was just running a Huckabee-type race, not focusing on attacking the other guy but playing up her strengths, then I could understand giving her some leeway. But the number of "Hillary is doing things that would make Karl Rove blush" comments I read from Democrats who are angry with her makes me think she's doing more harm than good, and that this is all about her desperately trying to win a race she thinks she is owed, but that Obama has unjustly taken from her.

This is like if someone came in and swept the Repubs up in 1996 and screwed Dole out of his "lifetime achievement award" nomination, and he went Terminator on that person trying to reclaim what was rightfully his.

I already did this the last time you asked; it's somewhere in this thread if you care to search for it.

The question you should be asking is since McCain is starting 10 points behind, how exactly is he supposed to win? Newt was asking this same question earlier in the week.

Not only do I follow elections, I bet heavily on them. I don't make a habit of being spectacularly wrong very often.

Of course you don't. If there's one thing we need more of on the internet, it's anonymous message board posters who are rarely wrong.

I have searched the thread and can't find the answer.

Oh I'm wrong a lot.

Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? - Page 15 - Front Office Football Central

Probably wrong regarding TN.

Speaking of that interplay, have you decided if you want to make the 315 Electoral votes margin bet yet? ;)

Colorado seems like a state where Obama may do better than Clinton or McCain, that I can buy, although I don't think its a slam dunk. The others, not so much. You think Obama can win Idaho?

Depends upon what the role of the party leadership is.

Is it to put forth the best candidate possible for a win in November? (I would think that's the most obvious role) If so, then they're doing exactly what they should be doing, keeping their best chance at winning in November in play as long as possible, in spite of a process (of their own making) that doesn't seem to be producing that result. And as far as I can tell, there's really been no significant manipulation of the rules or anything, they're largely just letting their process run to a conclusion.

Honestly, I don't get all the angst about how this is playing out. I think it's probably one of the healthiest things I've seen in American politics in years, and I guess you'll just have to take me at my word (or not) that I'd say the same thing if it were happening in the other party. I just don't get the whole "pulling out before mathematical certainty" thing, regardless of the party. And in this particular scenario, I don't see much damage being done to the party's chances November. At that point people are either going to "vote the party" or "vote the candidate" and I really don't think there's much going to be changed about which they decide to do by whatever infighting remains.
The differences -- whether they're policy, personal, social, whatever -- are real, the process is just exposing them, and I think that's a healthy thing (and really wish the same had taken place with the GOP). And letting it play itself out is probably the most respectable thing I've seen from the Dems, or either party for that matter, in a long time.

Wow. I totally agree with Jon on a political matter. I think they have to do it this way also, you have to allow the Clinton supporters to be able to come back to the fold with their heads held high -- so playing it out (at least until you can come to a compromise on FL and MI) allows you to devise a scenario where that can happen.

Forcing the matter right now just reinforces the bad blood between the two camps.

These are the states that I believe will go blue if its Obama vs. McCain:

Edit: added in the electors, also fixed a couple of obvious errors like leaving out New Jersey.

Hawaii - 4
California -55 (although watch out)
Washington - 11
Oregon - 7
Minnesota - 10
Wisconsin - 10
Iowa - 7
Illinois - 21
Michigan - 17
Pennsylvania - 21
Maryland - 10
Delaware - 3
DC - 3
New York - 31
Connecticut - 7
New Hampshire - 4
Vermont - 3
Maine - 12
Rhode Island - 4
New Jersey - 15

That makes 255, not enough.

New Mexico - 5
Ohio - 25
Florida - 27

That makes 312.

Why do people think California is going red? Are you on meth?