In addition to the Rudy thing, I would throw George Bush losing to Clinton up there. His approval rating was like 70% a year in advance.

My one hope left is that Obama wins more delegates and Hillary gets the nomination because of super-delegates. Clearly Obama is the most inspirational candidate, but I'm a PoliSci major and there are just so many examples of charismatic, inexperienced speakers winning elections - none of which end well. Shucks, we've got a very similar governor here in Deval Patrick, and to put it nicely, he hasn't exactly fulfilled the promise he showed on the campaign trail.

If she loses, it'll be because she's a threatening, manipulative, and scary woman.

Heh, if Obama wins the most regular delegates from the states and Hillary wins because the "insider" superdelegates give her the win, there might be rioting in the streets. Not completely serious, obviously. But nothing like a populist movement derailed by politics as usual to get the outrage flowing.

I think Rudy's collapse would be far greater than Hillary's, at least in terms of expectations. Wasn't Rudy the clear leader in terms of polling as recently as a year ago? And didn't he lead all leading Democratic candidates in head-to-head matchups?

Yet here we are in 2008, and Rudy didn't only not even get nominated, he wasn't ever even close to sniffing 2nd place in any primary, and then he had to quit.

So he went from president to be to hopeful nominee to loser, ex-mayo, quitter, all within 6 months.

At least if Hillary loses the nomination, she put up an inkling of a fight.

I agree this is the most compelling plotline that may be developing. Especially considering the nature of the situation... where quite a lot of people have come from out of the political realm to get involved for Obama, getting genuinely inspired by a politician... and then to have their hopes dashed by the establishment. Could be very rough, both for those particular voters, and definitely for the party.

Agreed with QS. Democratic primaries & caucuses are showing record turnout this year, and I'll bet good money it's inspired by Obama more than Hillary. A lot of these people will be disappointed if she gets the nod over Obama on regular delegates, but if she wins the nomination through the use of what people are going to see as "backroom tactics", I think it could be a detriment, on the balance, for her.

If the Democrats used the winner take all method (like the Republicans), would that swing the balance more decidedly towards Obama?

I think Hillary has little chance of winning the regular election if that happens. I think that would piss off and turn away voters in November who had voted in the primaries for Obama that probably would have otherwise voted for Hillary if she won under normal circumstances.

Dola, I don't think there is anything that could make the Republicans more happy then to see the Democrat presidential primary be decided by super delegates.

And seeing as how the thing that could make the Democrats the most happy by seeing a GOP-outsider and party-reviled candidate sew up the Republican nomination has already come to pass, it makes for a most interesting election.

With Clinton v McCain, we may set a new low in voter turnout.

There were three times the number of people at my caucus this time over the one in 2004. And our precinct went 80%-20% Obama.

I think it's just unfortunate timing more than anything else if she loses. People are frustrated and tired of the uber-partisan shit of the past 16 years.


Edit: That's a little simplistic, but it's early and I don't have the mindset to articulate better right now.

It also plays right into a pretty compelling Republican narrative for the general. "We've always said a liberal government does what it thinks is best for you, rather than enabling you to do what you think is best for you. Now they've gone so far as to pick the candidate they think is best for you..."

Agreed on the rioting or at least, some crazy chaos. The Dems know that and as Obama continues to pick people off, you're going to see massive defections if he manages to get closer. There won't be a backroom deal here, the holdouts are the black leaders and people beholden to the Clintons from the past. Once it seems clear they can leave them behind because the "new guy" wins, they'll defect or start to commit to him, since the superdelegates don't have to vote until that actual day.

They're just going to want a seat at the table with Obama and wants he starts to give them some of that, they'll be okay with him, in the same way McCain has to appease the social conservatives of the GOP.


Other than race, the Obama and Patrick have nothing in common. Deval Patrick had previously never served in elected office before now.

I don't think Obama is just platitudes. He can bore you on tax policy if you want him, it's just not conducive to crowds of 15,000+ to start talking about the intricacies of substantive policy issues. Those folks are coming to hear a rock star talk and they want to be 'inspired' to leave and do his bidding in the streets.

Typical of a movement with disaffected kids who haven't lived much or do much? Sure thing. But it's what's working for him and giving him his momentum, so he can't go against that to make the pundits happy.

Though he is addressing the criticism leveled at him a lot more in speeches now, so clearly someone on his team is listening and is having him address it head on. I don't know if the attack dog mentality will have an appreciable effect on his lasting prospects, but...it's at least evidence that he has the ability to do something more than "inspire hope".

He can fight with the best of them, too.

Pardon my ignorance here, but I know absolutely nothing about super delegates.

Why is it such a certainty that they'll vote for Hillary? Guess I need to read up on it.

DC, thank you for posting that map from 1988. I think that map would be appropriate to post in the Rep thread since a similar scenario is happening there.

I agree. I am a moderate Democrat and if that happened I would vote for McCain.

Super delegates in the words of Donna Brazile, "Don't wear capes and you wouldn't want to see them in spandex."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

I'll say this. Hillary on the stump is a smart strategy, because she understands how the media works. The media only shows Obama singing platitudes and talking about hope a lot. When you see her on the stump, it's all about the issues. She might tell a story or three, but it's all about the issues.

We'll see how he contrasts today when he gives his speech in Alexandria.

Of course, at the end of the day, how important are the issues? Virtually all presidents come to power and instead of implementing a slate of clear-cut changes based on "issues", make incremental steps, if any, towards changes that reflect a general philosophy.

That's not including stuff they just lie about.

Off a quick look, it would almost certainly help Hillary. Obama's winning states by a large margin - winner take all in IL/GA/MN would only give him 99 more delegates. Cali alone would give Hillary 163, and NY would be another 93.Yeah, the race thing probably has a little to do with my impression, but I disagree that's where the similarities end. Having seen Deval give numerous speeches out here the way they speak to the way their people on the ground operate is very similar.

Obama may have won elected office, but his record in the Senate isn't too deep. I don't know how he performed in the Illinois state house, but from what I've read of his time in Washington it's been more about keeping his head down and preparing himself for bigger things than trying to pass policy. He is a freshman senator though, so that's not all on him.

It doesn't help that I'm philosophically opposed to his Iraq strategy, but I just don't even see how he could fully enact it. His economic policies and health care stance also seem fairly untenable. People are going to be massively disappointed with his actual performance once he's in office.

I think this is exactly what would happen as well. If Obama gets the nod, I think he has a chance. If Hilary gets the nod, I think McCain wins because many of those who are voting for Obama are going to vote for McCain instead.

Hillary's campaign manager is stepping down to become a "senior adviser", apparently.

The new rumor is that the Clinton campaign is going to try and get the 366 delegates from Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot) votes at the convention.

Hillarycare contains mandates. It'll never pass Congress. Never. Americans will never settle for health care policy shoved down their throats. And GOP will skewer her on that point.

And all of her "ideas" are nice and dandy (if you're a modern liberal who is into that) but she says nothing about paying for them.

They will have to hold a caucus to do it. Primaries are too expensive and they won't put those votes back in play based on that beauty contest held a few weeks ago. They'll have to seat those people in some manner, but only after a fair fight is staged.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...es-vote-again/

Oh, don't take my pessimism regarding Obama as me supporting Hillary over him in any way. After looking over the candidates, I was going to give Ron Paul a protest vote until I saw the racist stuff come out, so I wrote in Colbert.
Depending on who's on that DNC panel, there is potential for shenanigans.

I didn't. I was just putting it out there. I'm not a fan of any of them either, I was just saying it.

And in other news, John Edwards apparently met with both campaigns about a possible endorsement. The conventional wisdom was clearly for him to back Obama, but...I don't think it'll be that easy, though his stock isn't what it was a few weeks ago in terms of an ability to help.

I could see Hillary wanting it more and promising everything but the moon to him if she backs him and I could see him taking the bait. But I guess we'll find out once he decides.

Veepstakes speculating from the AP

57-42% in Maine for Obama with 44% of the precincts reporting.

Yes, but when the primary season actually began in 1992, Bush did not have what was deemed to be an insurmountable lead. Dewey's collapse against Truman occurred after the start of the presidential campaign in 1948.

Al Gore never had more than a single digit lead over Bush during any polling cycle during the 2000 campaign, and most of his "leads" in the summer were within the margin of error. In fact, Gore trailed Bush in the polls for a majority of the 2000 campaign.

It is interesting to see how Hillary's campaign manager, Pattie Solis Doyle quitting in the middle of a critical time in the campaign will affect things.

She is a hispanic member of Hillary's team and in the most senior or key role. Obviously the campaign has hit a massive hurdle with Obama and they are not doing well. Whether she was sacked or just threw in the towel, it doesn't seem like it will help.

Hillary and Barack are both on 60 minutes tonight.

"Do you like Barack Obama?" Katie Couric is really throwing her some questions that are seemingly aimed at that "womanly touch" or something. The interview isn't as serious as Obama's was for Mike Wallace or whoever it was that was on interviewing him. Asking her about whether she drinks coffee or tea, what sort of hand lotion she uses or some stuff. What the hell?

But, both of them seemingly got what they wanted out of this deal, but she's coming out of this looking strong. I wonder how much this will run on cable news, because as it stands right now, the sound bites she's getting here are making her look human and likable.

That said, Katie Couric is really annoying. "What kind of girl were you in high school?" "Your dad was really mean to you growing up? How did you handle that?"

Are you kidding me?

Katie Couric: The Ryan Leaf of Media.

:D

Frank Rich in the NY Times: Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War

He too, mentions the idea that the Clintons don't care about collateral damage. They're gonna give America what "they need" whether they like it or not.

I think people are starting to see through Hillary, looking at Obama's impressive showing in the last few days.

Some background on Hillary's new campaign manager:

American Spectator

Huffington Post

Washington Post story about her from 1994.

Obama better watch his back. She's going for blood.

I'm not doubting what you're saying but are there any credible sources out there from later than 1994. I mean, Ariana Huffington and a story that leads its second paragraph with the sentence "Yes, there is an ethnic component here, as Maggie is an African American, which makes her, in the inane Democrat worldview, the answer to Obama."

These aren't exactly something I would trust a whole lot. I'm not saying Clinton isn't above a smear manager. I just would like to get my facts filtered from someone a bit less biased.

SI

I know, it's all internet gossip. American Spectator is a useless rag especially. I wanted to post it anyway. At this point, is there anything credible out there?

I do think it's interesting that she was so closely related to the Clintons from back in the day, though. But that's par for the course when you've been in Washington that long.

It just seemed to contrast her drum-beating that she's a big change from the current status quo. Not just that, but even what the pundits are starting to talk about, related to them.

Just makes me think they are licking their chops to start spinning against them.

Dola --

I ran a search of the NY Times from 1994 to 1999 and most of the articles are related to Whitewater. Yeah, that's all come and gone. But the sheer fact that we're going back in time and that she's that intertwined with them. And there are a few stories about Maggie Williams and accepting $50,000 for her legal fees from Johnny Chung, a Democratic fundraiser. Ordinary people don't care about this and the media's already gotten one spin cycle out of it.

I just seems like more of the same related to her past and all of the places where her fingers have been linked doesn't exactly give me the belief that she was only brought in as a loyal Clinton confidante. She is that, but she's also a proven PR spin doctor who is a veteran of Washington.

The Clintons might feel like it's their "duty" to take out Obama now, rather than let the Republicans do it. They might believe that sure, he'll be sullied a bit now, but that it would be better to have it happen now and the sooner people can start to forget and he has a shot after they 'remake America' to run in eight years as they keep imploring him to do.

I can't see why that would be a good idea for him, thinking it would be far wiser for him to give it this go now and be done with it win or lose...but, there is enough evidence out there if one wants to find it coupled with enough punditry from more reputable sources than internet blog trash to indicate that the Clintons are indeed stepping up their game, have pulled out their clubs and D.C. insiders know that if they're not going in for the kill now, that they'll never do it.

That's just what it looks like, but I guess we'll see whether it's true or not when this dust settles.

:)

Seriously, Republicans have been complaining about this shit forever, but of course, for them, it's even worse. At least she will speak with Obama.

Katie Couric: Welcome to today's show! I have two guests, one's Democrat...nice hair...tee-hee, and one's Republican.

Democrat: Hiya, Katie!

Republican: Hi.

Katie Couric: Okay, now let's get to the journalistic part of the show where I ask investigative questions, k?

Democrat: Ok.

Republican: Sure.

Katie Couric: Okay, first a question for the Democrat. What is your favorite TV show?

Democrat: Oh, I just love the West Wing!

Katie Couric: Tee-hee, that's lovely, me too! Well, that's all the time we have for today's show. Bye!

It won't surprise me a bit (about the coming civil war and the Clintons forcing the issue). Through most of tht 1990s, we had endure the charade of a President that "cared" about African-American concerns where he was only using them for his personal political gains.

So far we have had the ghetto card, the Jesse Jackson card and the black mam card. What will we see in Texas?

Did she step down or was she fired? I keep hearing both, depending on what channel you watch.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-wont-endorse/

CNN is reporting that the only Democrat endorsement left that could actually mean something will not happen. Al Gore will support whoever wins the nomination.

Has Jimmy Carter given an endorsement yet?

She stepped down, officially. But c'mon. You don't quit in the middle of political campaign, at this phase of the game unless 1) there is a major family emergency or 2) you're asked to make a change or 3) assess that it's time for you to go.

Given Hillary had a replacement fired up and ready to go after a few hours, it's clear it was a planned move.

Either way, it is not a good situation to have to do this.

They've taken to ignoring black folks again, now that they're voting for Obama in droves. They're focusing hard on trying to maintain their constituency of white men, older white women and Hispanics. Texas and Ohio will be about trying to maintain that grip on those groups.

Texas is going to be a big surprise for her, though. Especially if Obama keeps getting wins. The momentum is going to be a tide for him, if he can keep it up and the snowball effect might be too much for her, if she's essentially trying a Guiliani strategy of focusing on events a few weeks away, rather than trying to find some edge to fight in upcoming places she can win. Naturally, Ohio and Texas would put her back in play and would return the veneer of "the presumptive nominee" back to her camp.

Being the underdog isn't fun or good, but...given he hasn't had much heat, maybe she wants him to enjoy this next week or two in the frontrunner spot, just to see how he handles it. I'm afraid that might be another miscalculation.

I'm waiting for them to break some kneecaps of someone, somewhere though.

He's been quoted as saying Obama's campaign is "extraordinary." He stopped short of endorsing him, though.

Here's the story.

Michelle Obama on Larry King tonight. They're smart to get her out more, because people don't know her.

I am told by an old colleague on the Clinton campaign that Solis Doyle's departure really gets back to her spending strategy, which saw most of the money go out the door on or before Super Tuesday. It didn't work as well as was hoped, so her head rolled.

For the last couple of weeks, the Clinton campaign has been a two-headed monster, with Solis Doyle and Williams as co-equals. As anyone who has been on an intense campaign can tell you, that just won't work. There isn't enough time to consult on all the decisions, and sooner or later both end up pissed at each other. One or the other had to move along, and it ended up being Solis Doyle.

On the topic of superdelegates, don't be so sure that they will go for Hillary if there is still a race going into the convention. Many, if not most, superdelegates are elected officials. If Obama goes into the convention with a plurality of pledged delegates, a lot of superdelegates will be inclined to support the perceived will of the people. Also, Obama has done very well in the urban areas where a huge number of elected Democrats come from. Are they really going to want to buck the expressed sentiments of their own constituents?

I agreee with chesapeake that the Super delegates aren't going to break strictly towards Hilary. In addition to the point he makes, there is also the question Democrats in red states will ask themselves of who they'd rather have on the ticket: Hilary or Barack. That said from what I"ve read Hillary has done a much better job of outreach to the super delegates so that's certainly a big plus in her favor.

From what I am seeing on the nets, Obama's supporters are acting like they have already won.

Not good for a campaign that still has a long way to go and depends on energy and momentum and organizing.

This isn't over by a long shot. Here's one person's (biased) opinion:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/12/9144/59412

I agree it's not over...but that article was horrible. Biased is an understatement of that opinion. It calculates in the Florida/Michigan delegates into the counts, and refers to Obama's campaign as merely being "afloat". The poll at the end seals the deal for me on any validity the article had.

It's far from over. Today isn't even that big of a day. Obama is going to sweep easily. March 4th is where Hillary makes her stand, possibly her last. A Survey USA poll released today has Hillary up 56-39 over Obama in Ohio. We'll see if Obama can close the gap as he continues to gain more and more momentum leading up to the 4th.

http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Obama is up 50-39 in the latest Wisconsin poll.

"Mr. Obama, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?"

"Ooh, a tough question but a fair one. There's no single answer. Some voters respond to my integrity, others are more impressed with my incorruptibility. Still others buy my determination to lower taxes. And the bureaucrats in the state capital can put that in their pipes and smoke it!"

Good Times with Obamacans

After watching them talk about it a bit on CNN and reading a few sites about it, the notion of course is mostly bluster (only 3% of registered GOPers voted in Dem primaries and among those he does have a majority, but..), but I thought it was interesting to see what a liberal blogger thought.

We were talking today and I guess in England they have 30 days to declare and campaign. I'd think that would be a great thing for this country since a lot of money is spent over the span of (I believe) two years to be elected President.

Then again, 30 days isn't long enough to get to know someone. On the other hand, it's not like we really know the candidates now. What would be a good length of time so that so much money wouldn't be "wasted" on a campaign?

A parliamentary system is a whole different ball of wax Raiders.

But couldn't we shorten the length of time campaigning?

Umm ... wouldn't that get into freedom of speech territory? I mean, there's a lot of campaigning done in the run-up that doesn't involved paid advertising (there's fairly little of that until we hit primary season really), so off the top of my head I'm having a hard time seeing where there's any ability to put any meaningful limitations.

Barkeep's point is that you'd have to change the way our government work. The reason why the election in England only lasts 30 days is that the sitting government can call an election at any time (or after 5 years have elapsed) and the election happens a month after they call it.

We don't have a similar mechanism.

But I agree, having lived in both countries, I prefer the 30-day version.

gotcha

No surprise in the sweep tonight by the O-man, but the big news is that he won the Hispanic vote, and he won the female vote by 21%. That has got to hurt.

The only thing Hillary can hope for tonight is that she stays within thirty points in Maryland. Who came up with this post- Super Tuesday strategy of hers, Rudy Giuliani?

Semi-rhetorical question but if Hillary were outspending Obama by a 7-to-1 margin, wouldn't we be hearing some grumbling about how the establishment candidate was buying the nomination away from the underdog?

Clinton says we should raise the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. Yeah, that's gonna work.

I do love watching the 'victory' speeches or whatever, where the people in the back are always awkward and never know when they're supposed to cheer and usually someone next to them admonishes them to hush because it's not time to cheer yet.

Obama up 1078-969 without superdelegates.

Kind of along these lines, but how different is fundraising than in years past? Now it's so easy to just go online and type in your credit card #, check a few boxes that say your not a corporation, and you've made your donation.

Didn't Howard Dean get that rolling a bit back in '04? Obviously didn't help him (yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeooooow! didn't help either), but it could've set a precedent for Obama to take advantage of. Couple that with the relatively speaking new campaign finance rules.

Is Hillary's fund raising machine antiquated? Or did she just spend it too soon? I haven't even looked at any of the numbers. For all I know she's raised tons more money than Obama but blew it too soon.

I for one donated to Obama today when I never would've gotten the motivation to donate in the past. Or perhaps it's Obama who motivated me, not the ease of donating :)

Probably both.

Donna Brazile on CNN really HATES Amy Holmes whenever she starts quoting stuff from past elections, since Donna has been around since Jackson's first campaign and she roasted her against tonight on a so-called factual point that Amy made relating the 1988 election with Dukakis to now (Related to voter turnout) as if that would have ANYTHING to do with this election season or now.

She's really uninformed and it's a mystery -- though not that surprising I guess -- that they have her on there. Maybe JC Watts didn't want to bother.

They have that 21-year old superdelegate from Wisconsin on CNN right now.
(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...4273078&page=1)

I wonder if he tried to see how far Chelsea would go to get his vote for her mom...

So Mrs. Clinton will be down here on the border of south Texas tomorrow. I find it interesting because as I understand the Texas delegate system, this area isn't too important. We had crap for voter turnout the last two major elections, which means the number of delegates that can be won in this area of the state is reduced.

She needs any delegates she can get though I guess, and this area is 90% hispanic which the media says love her. I still haven't seen one of our local democratic leaders who lives down the street from me put up a Clinton '08 sign yet though, so I am hoping she won't win down here.

She almost does have to run up the score in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to even have a chance. Hillary is about 100 delegates behind already, she'll lose Hawaii 3 to 1, and is at risk of losing Wisconsin by a decent margin. The crowd at Obama's speech tonight was huge. It'll be interesting to see some polling numbers from Ohio and Texas in the next couple weeks.

The two are scheduled to debate here at UT a week from Thursday (i'm hoping to possibly snag tickets). Austin will be pretty key, imo, because of the large democratic base here. I have been seeing a lot more Obama signs and stcikers around town. It is nice to have a relevant primary for once.

For the first time, Obama beat her tonight amongst blacks, whites and Hispanics. He won almost all of the exit poll measurables. Hillary kept her base of whites over the age of 45 or 50 or whatever the threshold is, but she's losing air faster than a balloon at a children's party.

I've been telling everyone I know to stay at home that day because I fully my Obama-crazy UT peers to be rioting in the streets or something crazy :P

The only "fresh" poll from those states is a SurveyUSA poll from Ohio released today, where Clinton has a 17 point lead.

I think that Texas also bodes well for Clinton, because even though it is a republican lock in the general election, the Democrat minority tends to be more of the "lunch pail", lower income demographic, where she performs best. Also, the substantial Hispanic electorate in Texas should favor Hillary.

I think she'll win both of those states as they set up well for her, but we're starting to get to the point where she has to win them by a lot to gain enough delegates. Unless the superdelegates step in and go a different way than the popular vote and the elected delegates, but that would be a disaster. Obama has a week now to secure Wisconsin and go 10-0 since Super Tuesday, then he has 2 weeks to appeal to Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island. 55/45 in those states for Hillary may not get it done anymore.

Until today in Virginia where she lost that demographic.

It is looking like Obama is going to win 35 of the 50 states in the end (approx). As for Hillary what is there strategy longterm? Can a Democrat be any kind of threat against the Republicans in the general election caring just NE and a few large states half of which are Red states anyways?

She may just be pissed that Amy Holmes is about 1000 times hotter than Donna Brazile ever was or will be.

Dola, hotter may not be the right word, since I'm not sure Amy Holmes is hot so much as cute. Cuter definitely is.

Keep in mind that Florida and Michigan, both of which Clinton would probably have done well in, will matter in the GE, but not in the primary. Those are big states.

Anyway, winning a Democratic primary /= winning a state in a GE. If the question is who is more electable, you look at states like Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc. It doesn't matter that Obama is more popular among Democrats in Oklahoma than Clinton - neither one is carrying that state in the GE.

Along those same lines, even though Hillary won California and New York, if Obama is the nominee he'll take those in the GE also regardless of what happened in the primaries.

I’m not quite sure what your point is, because so far the only “blue” states that Obama has won are Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. Virtually all of the other states that he’s won in the Democratic primaries aren’t even in play in the general election.

My point is she has become the Dukakis of this election. She has won almost no states other than home state and the states around it and ARK. Obama has won double the number of states. Also, I love the way Pubs all talk about how so called red states aren't in play:rolleyes: Who really knows considering how screwed up this election is looking.

That goes both ways. The republicans won't carry most of the Blue states that they are winning now either.

So if McCain is winning mostly blue states and Obama is winning mostly red states, and their respective parties can't count on carrying those states in the general election...what happens if the nominees are Obama and McCain? :D

Re: Jon's point. I think that the money/outspending issue is not being played in the media because (1) the fact that the Clintons don't have/are choosing not to use superior resources is more of a suprise and therefore more of a story than the fact that they are being outspent, and (2) because so much of Obama's money comes from small donations, he is not "buying" the election as a surrogate for huge corporate bundlers.

On another note, if the two candidates' situations were reversed, Democrats would be calling Obama a traitor right now for not dropping out "for the good of the party."

Finally, Obama will not/may not win a lot of the states that he is carrying right now (i.e. will not win Nebraska, may not win Virginia). But one has to consider the downticket effect. If he gets people to the polls in red, purple, and blue states, then that might end up being a couple of governorships, a couple of House seats, a possible Senate seat, and a handful of state legistative seats that he gives to the Democrats.

Clinton, by bragging about how she didn't even campaign in the smaller states, has indicated that she is going to play the "John Kerry + 40,001 more votes in Ohio" strategy. And I think that will really hurt downticket Dems in the general.

Huh? Clinton has won that big state, you know, California, as well. If this were a winner take all primary like the Republican one, you wouldn't be really hearing about this Obamamentum, because Clinton would be very far ahead winning the big states like New York and California. Definately not a Dukakis situation.

I think all of this talk about Obama having won Hispanics is rather silly considering what a low % of the electorate Hispanics were yesterday.

At the same time, Hispanics won't make as big of a difference as people have been stating in Texas. Areas that are heavily Hispanic have less delegates than areas that are heavily African American.

I don't think things are looking good for Clinton. Between March 4th and April 22 there are 573 delegates up for grabs. Clinton would have to win approximately 60% of them, or the margin she won in New York, to even things up. She could win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, and still lag Obama.

But that's the problem, she is not accounting for the rules and what she needs to do to win. "Winning" a state 50-49 is not a big deal in the Democrat primary system. Obama has been obliterating her in many states in the Red states. If you look at things objectively, the states Hillary is winning are going Blue no matter what, with the possible exception of California (according to some talking heads, I don't see it though). What Obama does is get those Blue states and he puts some other states into play that otherwise would not be, states like Virginia, Tennessee, Colorado, etc.

The Democrats need to come up with a strategy other than 40,000 more votes in Ohio. They can win more states because McCain loses all his advantages in a campaign against Obama. If Obama's people realize this, he wins this election in a walk. That is the only way I see a Democrat win in November. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way to save the Republican party is for Hillary to be the nominee.

The Dukakis comparison is silly... and so is "saving the Republican party" stuff. Once McCain starts pointing out Obama's positions (something he hasn't really gotten that much into), you'll see Republicans rallying. I mean Obama actually IS a progressive. He's not a triangulator. He's not trying to take the best of the left and best of the right. He can actually be called a far left politician. I don't think that the Republicans are just going to sit back and allow someone like that to be President without a fight.

Just because Obama is winning the Democratic primaries in the Red States doesn't necessarily mean he'll win them or make them competitive in the general election. In every red state there is a Democrat vote. No red state has gone 100% for the Republicans. Winning the Democratic vote tells you nothing by itself.

It is funny you mention Tennessee, btw... because Clinton won big there ;).

Just curious, what happens if they go to the convention with no candidate having enough delagates to win the nomination?

The only way that can happen is if the 3rd place candidates (and the 4th, 5th, etc.) have delegates, too. In that case, the 3rd place candidate usually brokers a deal with one of the front-runners to exchange their delegates for some sort of favor - a position on the ticket, in the cabinet, a case of Schlitz, etc.

It probably won't happen because it would almost certainly be party suicide for two reasons: (1) it would be impossible to have the two candidates fight for that long without going negative (or having their surrogates go negative); (2) without a nominee presumptive, the convention would be an actual convention as opposed to a multi-day infomercial for the Democrats; (3) whoever wins after a fight that goes into August will be dead tired and broke--right before they have to have a ton of money and energy to start a general election campaign.

That said, if it does go to the convention, then they would keep taking votes and lobbying each other like rabid wolves in order to secure enough delegates for someone. Or, in the most radical sceniaro, someone like Al Gore or John Edwards comes in and says "you all vote for me and end this madness." And they do.

Dems aren't going to exactly sit around either. McCain actually has a spotty, flip-flopping record a lot like Romney, despite his media rep. Obama I'm sure will be happy to point this out over the next 8 months.

More importantly, if you read some of the anecdotes circulating about Obama, many of them are uplifting and damn near spiritual-like. Look as far as you want, but there's absolutely nothing of the sort that's similar going around for Hillary and McCain. It's a big reason why barring some unforseen event Obama is going to win.

Also, he may be further ahead among Dems than the polls suggest:

"My wife and I have never voted for anything left of Republican, frequently voting on the Conservative party line when available. Yet today, we both voted for Hillary in the VA primary. Why? Because it seems McCain has it wrapped up, so why waste our vote on the Republican side; she is a lot less scary than Obama in many ways (better the Devil you know), and I think she is more easily beaten with her high negatives and lack of charisma. So we were part of the high Dem turn out today which I am sure you will hear about. And there is no way we will ever vote Dem in November.


We live in a highly conservative precinct (Eric Cantor is our Congressman). I saw many folks today picking up the Democratic ballot also. I think my wife and I were far from alone in our thinking."