Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Has Jimmy Carter given an endorsement yet?

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

Here's the story.

[Young Drachma]

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

[chesapeake]

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?

[Barkeep49]

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.

[albionmoonlight]

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

[yacovfb]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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.

[Jas_lov]

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.

[Jas_lov]

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

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

[Kodos]

"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!"

[Young Drachma]

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.

[Raiders Army]

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?

[Barkeep49]

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

[Raiders Army]

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

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

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.

[Raiders Army]

gotcha

[GrantDawg]

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.

[JPhillips]

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?

[JonInMiddleGA]

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?

[Young Drachma]

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.

[Big Fo]

Obama up 1078-969 without superdelegates.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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?

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.

[Young Drachma]

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.

[Young Drachma]

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...

[Cringer]

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.

[Jas_lov]

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.

[cschex]

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.

[Young Drachma]

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.

[Tyrith]

Originally Posted by cschex

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.

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

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

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 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.

[Jas_lov]

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.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

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.

Until today in Virginia where she lost that demographic.

[Galaril]

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?

[path12]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

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.

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

[path12]

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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?

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.

[path12]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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?

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.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

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 Who really knows considering how screwed up this election is looking.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

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.

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

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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?

[albionmoonlight]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaril

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 Who really knows considering how screwed up this election is looking.

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.

[Barkeep49]

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.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

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 .

[PilotMan]

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

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

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

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.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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 .

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."