Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 6, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

OVERTIME....Reuters reports (via email, no link) that the Obama campaign is predicting a dead-even delegate race when primary season is over:

By the time the last primary is held June 7, Obama's advisers project he will have 1,806 delegates to 1,789 for New York Senator Hillary Clinton, according to a document outlining the scenario that was inadvertently attached to a release on delegate counts from yesterday's Super Tuesday primaries.

OK, fine. But if they're going to accidentally attach internal projections to press releases, how about attaching the details too? Inquiring minds want to know which states Obama thinks he can win and which ones he doesn't.

In any case, I guess this means that superdelegates can now expect the Obama folks to start recruiting them like high school football stars. And wouldn't you like to see the memo for that game plan?

Kevin Drum 6:03 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (75)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

link

Posted by: Mark on February 6, 2008 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, now democracy is back where it belongs. In the hands of cigar-smoking suits in the back room.

Posted by: anonymous on February 6, 2008 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Pretty much the worst case scenario is an Obama plurality with Clinton close enough that MI and FL put her over the top.

I see the Democrats losing if this happens.

Posted by: Preston on February 6, 2008 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, now democracy is back where it belongs. In the hands of cigar-smoking suits in the back room.

You mean the Republicans were taking a break for a while?

I didn't know they'd been on vacation. I guess people can start expecting visits from goons again, too.

Posted by: Swan on February 6, 2008 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK


Barack is gonna raise $30 million in February

Time and money are on his side. We'll see after this upcoming caucus on Saturday whether the momentum is still as potent.

Posted by: Boorring on February 6, 2008 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

"Pretty much the worst case scenario is an Obama plurality with Clinton close enough that MI and FL put her over the top."

What say we re-run the MI and FL primaries in that case?

Posted by: Barry on February 6, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Senator Dreamy's Magical Messianic No-Issue Rhetoric Revival Tour Rolls On. He'll change Washington with the force of his personality! Why, the Red Sea of partisanship will part! Republicans: prepare to be healed by his touch.

Posted by: Pat on February 6, 2008 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Better Senator Dreamy than Senator No-Way-in- hell-will-i-ever-vote-for.

Obama's group is asking people NOT to contact superdelegates. Obama supporters DO NOT WANT to look like Hillary supporters.

Posted by: POed Lib on February 6, 2008 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

He'll change Washington with the force of his personality! Why, the Red Sea of partisanship will part!

No, but he might follow the example of past presidents who rode in on nothing more than a wave of optimism and a promise for change -- say, FDR -- and translate a massive win with new constituencies coming into the party into massive new margins in both houses of Congress.

The climate's right for a transformational election in Congress akin to 1932 or 1964. GOP House incumbents are retiring in record numbers now, and it's only going to get worse as more rats flee the ship. The Senate map is highly favorable to the Democrats, and someone with purple-state and red-state appeal like Obama can only help there, and get the party to a filibuster-proof majority.

Your sarcasm and cynicism are impressive. Too bad your ignorance of history and politics is even more so.

Posted by: TR on February 6, 2008 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Whichever one is the nominee, the other one needs to be the running-mate. It will be an unbeatable ticket. And though there's some bad blood between them now, JFK and LBJ did the same thing in 1960.

Posted by: Speed on February 6, 2008 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

There's no way this was leaked accidently. This is the expectations game, and Obama's playing it low.

Posted by: Whiggish on February 6, 2008 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans: prepare to be healed by his touch.

I think it's more like Republicans: prepare to be made irrelevant as he re-writes the political map.

Posted by: Marc on February 6, 2008 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Senator Dreamy's Magical Messianic No-Issue Rhetoric Revival Tour Rolls On.

Seems to be doing a lot better at the polls than the past incarnations of the No-Charisma Policy Wonk Snooze Fest.

Posted by: Jack on February 6, 2008 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum: In any case, I guess this means that superdelegates can now expect the Obama folks to start recruiting them like high school football stars. And wouldn't you like to see the memo for that game plan?

Does it involve blow jobs? There's at least one superdelegate who has a very well known weakness for them.

Posted by: alex on February 6, 2008 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

Pat: Senator Dreamy's Magical Messianic No-Issue Rhetoric Revival Tour

Whatever one thinks of Obama, his candidacy has sure inspired some clever snarks. That even beats "Rorschach Candidate". Why doesn't Hillary get these?

Posted by: alex on February 6, 2008 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

Time to suck it up and begin a real grass roots campaign to get a Clinton/Obama (yes, it has to go that way) ticket going...it's the best way to insure that the WH comes our way and we have a real shot at taking the Supreme Court where it MUST BE. It's becoming the mantra of the REPUGS and don't be fooled into thinking it won't energize their base more than hatred for Hillary...but I'm afraid the Democratic party will be more like this joke...Did you hear about the blond coyote? Got stuck in a trap, chewed off three legs, STILL STUCK!!!!

Posted by: Dancer on February 6, 2008 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

It seems to me that an equitable solution in this highly likely outcome would be for the DNC to sponsor new caucuses in MI and FL to make sure the candidates and voters get a fair shake. Exclude the super-delegates and you have a candidate selected by the membership. Of course that would make perfect sense and actually enfranchise all Democrats.

Whoa. I'm making too much sense here.

Posted by: The Grand Panjandrum on February 6, 2008 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

Senator Dreamy's Magical Messianic No-Issue Rhetoric Revival Tour

Hmmm. Sounds like a new Tom Wolfe novel...

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on February 6, 2008 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, wow, wow, wow. This was no accidental document attached to a press release. This was a document "accidentally" attached to a press release. This is the first salvo in the battle to round up super delegates. Advantage Obama (perhaps).

Posted by: jim on February 6, 2008 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are Washington, Nebraska and Maine = caucus states. Enthusiasm wins caucuses. Figure he takes at least two of those.

D.C. Maryland, VA = Lots of black folk; he definitely wins DC plus at least one of the other two. Maybe both.

Then, Hawaii. Hmmm...

Could he be running the table by then? If so, that'd provide some much-needed mo' for Ohio, PA and Texas, which he'll need.

Oh, did I mention Texas is basically a caucus too?

Posted by: Cazart on February 6, 2008 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Senator Dreamy's Magical Messianic No-Issue Rhetoric Revival Tour

Yeah, the last thing the Democrats need is someone spouting high-flown phrases like "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" or "Ask not what your country can do for you..." Substance-free feel-good crap like that will never go over with the voters.

Posted by: Brian on February 6, 2008 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

I've been really skeptical about the clinton/obama idea.... but after tuesday i'm definitely warming to it.

Can you imagine all the coverage about how they're getting along now? that's the kind of warm-fuzzy softball feel-good reporting that gets a president elected.

Posted by: doug on February 6, 2008 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

POed Lib >"...Obama's group is asking people NOT to contact superdelegates...."

A very, very savvy move on their part at this time.

And, The Grand Panjandrum, I think "We the people..." are ready for some real sense this time around.

A rerun of Florida & Michigan would be very appropriate should the parties have the guts to do so.

"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." - Robert F. Kennedy

Posted by: daCascadian on February 6, 2008 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Why can't they ever "accidentally" attach naked pictures of Elizabeth Kucinich to their releases.

bastards.

Posted by: Tlaloc on February 6, 2008 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

while on the topic of running mate, why not Senator McCaskill or Governor Sebelius?

It gets you the women vote, possibly Kansas/Missouri , without the Clinton negatives.

Posted by: evermore on February 6, 2008 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

I hope Cazart's analysis plays out and Obama isn't compelled to take Clinton as a running mate. Besides, I really don't think she would want it, too much like a humiliating consolation prize for her. Another female as a running mate would be great though, and I still think Richardson would be another good choice--has the resume, a governor, and helps with Hispanics too.

Posted by: Ringo on February 6, 2008 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder why Media Matters doesn't have an analysis of how much time the networks spent on discussing Obama, and on Obama events and speeches, versus time covering Hillary. I wonder if they noticed any disparity. Maybe they think Obama fits in too cool with their progressive image, so they're going to ignore this one. Hey, the media is weird and biased in so many other circumstances, but in this one, why not trust the mega-evil-corporation owned media?

Posted by: Swan on February 6, 2008 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder why Media Matters doesn't have an analysis of how much time the networks spent on discussing Obama, and on Obama events and speeches, versus time covering Hillary.

During the few days prior to February 5th, that is.

Posted by: Swan on February 6, 2008 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ditto jim 7:32 PM. This "accident" is an exercise in expectation setting. (Full disclosure -- I voted for Obama yesterday.)

Posted by: alkali on February 6, 2008 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has achieved some impressive results in energizing politics across the board. All to the good. But a lot of people seem to go far beyond sane enthusiasm. There are a lot of factors that, without denying the successes and assets Obama brings to the campaign, nevertheless mitigate the picture of a TSUNAMI of Obama support.

First, as Chris Matthews (ugh!) noted about McCain, Obama (as well as McCain) made most of his gains in states that typically go Republican. Apart from the good feeling of seeing a movement grow, just from the perspective of winning the presidential election of 2008, how important is it that Obama carried Idaho, Kansas and Alaska? About the same importance of McCain's victories in New York, California and Illinois, right? Clinton won the states that form the backbone of a Democratic victory in November.

2. Not to deny the significance of Obama's ability to draw in and fire up young people, ages 18-30. This is a tremendous accomplishment in building a Democratic consensus, but there's another cohort as large or larger that seems to matter to no one in the netroots. Working women, especially single mothers, have flocked to the Clinton campaign. It's a similar phenomenon, first-time voters joining the Democratic consensus, only the age range covers thirty years, not ten, so the cohort is potentially larger and likely to be more influential, since their interests are more uniform. I have read a zillion or so blogs exulting over Obama's hold on young, educated "creative class" voters, but I have to dig hard to learn more about working class women of all ethnic persuasions coming out in strength for Clinton.

3. Finally, we should not have to be reminded that the labor unions, environmentalists, feminists, senior citizens, Latinos and old-line yellow dog Democrats are not chopped liver.

Obama and his partisans should work for and enjoy the successes that are rightfully theirs - without using this success as a cover for Clinton Derangement Syndrome, formerly known as old-fashioned sexism.

Posted by: Brownell on February 6, 2008 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

preston: "Pretty much the worst case scenario is an Obama plurality with Clinton close enough that MI and FL put her over the top. I see the Democrats losing if this happens."

You're seeing stars. Take a couple aspirin and call us in the morning.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 6, 2008 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Brownell: "Apart from the good feeling of seeing a movement grow, just from the perspective of winning the presidential election of 2008, how important is it that Obama carried Idaho, Kansas and Alaska?"

We might also consider that the total turnout at the Idaho Democratic caucuses was about 25,000 persons. The Alaska Democratic Party estimated its turnout to be about 2,000.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on February 6, 2008 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

First, as Chris Matthews (ugh!) noted about McCain, Obama (as well as McCain) made most of his gains in states that typically go Republican. Apart from the good feeling of seeing a movement grow, just from the perspective of winning the presidential election of 2008, how important is it that Obama carried Idaho, Kansas and Alaska? About the same importance of McCain's victories in New York, California and Illinois, right? Clinton won the states that form the backbone of a Democratic victory in November.

Good point, but there's a real difference between Obama winning red states and McCain winning blue. The conservative base (centered in the red states) has real qualms about McCain; the liberal base (in the blues) has no such reservations about Obama.

Yes, Clinton won the Democratic core in the primary states, but either candidate would take them in the general election. Obama, meanwhile, has the added advantage of appealing to red-state and purple-state voters.

Does this mean he'll take Idaho in the general election? No, of course not. But he has a much better chance of taking moderate voters in swing states and coming away with a victory there.

Posted by: TR on February 6, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

Brownell: "Apart from the good feeling of seeing a movement grow, just from the perspective of winning the presidential election of 2008, how important is it that Obama carried Idaho, Kansas and Alaska? About the same importance of McCain's victories in New York, California and Illinois, right? Clinton won the states that form the backbone of a Democratic victory in November."

I'm not sure I get your point.

Are you suggesting that New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. will go Republican if Obama gets the nomination?

It seems to me, in terms of a two-party national race, you should prefer the guy who plays the away game well.

Posted by: Michael Robinson on February 6, 2008 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

how important is it that Obama carried Idaho, Kansas and Alaska?

Not that important. The fact that he carried two key swing states like Missouri and Colorado sure is.

Posted by: Marc on February 6, 2008 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

And carried Colorado by a 2-to-1 margin.

Keep the Kerry states that either Obama or Clinton would take again, and add that, and he wins. Period.

Posted by: Marc on February 6, 2008 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Who is paying for a re run of the Florida and Michigan primaries? The Florida Dem Party is broke and any changes must go through the state legislature which is controlled by the Republicans in Florida and one branch in Michigan. I don't see them do any favors in helping the Democrats out of this mess. The DNC should have stripped half their delegates like in other states. This is a mess the DNC created in trying to protect Iowa.

Posted by: harry s/ mdana on February 6, 2008 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

I still think Clinton has the upper hand, but the following makes a good case for believing otherwise.

Link

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 6, 2008 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has raised $5 mil in less than 24 hours.

Posted by: Nate on February 6, 2008 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton raised $20m less than Obama in the last reporting period and is now strapped for cash. Several of her campaign aides are going February without pay, and she just loaned herself $5m to keep afloat.

Obama just raised $5m. Online from small donors. In the last 24 hours alone.

Seriously, which candidate do you think has the momentum?

Posted by: TR on February 6, 2008 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Obama has won the momentum, media coverage, and the magic.

By the convention he'll have a billion dollars, 230% of Americans supporting him, and . . . . oh I give up.

Posted by: B on February 6, 2008 at 9:59 PM | PERMALINK

Obama hasn't gained the support of my mama...

Posted by: elmo on February 6, 2008 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Are you sure? Have you asked her recently?

Posted by: Biff on February 6, 2008 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

The odds are against it heppening. Obama's good stretch is coming up; with the media's oft-demonstrated penchant for hyping anything Obama-related to the moon, they'll start acting as if he's an unstoppable force just as soon as he has a couple of clear wins in a row (they were hyping his "momentum" after he won SC for about a week, even after she'd thumped him in FL), and the whole thing will be over. Unless the media have decided to stop that shit, Hillary will need to find a way to break it up before it gets out of control, and that means another surpise win like the one she had in NH.

As a complete side note, and something you, Drum, should think about posting on since you're complaining about a lack of material, why is no one talking about the effects an economic downturn would have on the election? People are talking about "electability" all the time, but if we head into a recession, even a very mild one, the Dems could run Donald Duck, and still win against an already battered Republican Party.

Posted by: Martin Gale on February 6, 2008 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

After the fantastic voter turnout on Super Tuesday, which gave me hope that Americans have actually begun to care about the future of their country again, it would be a shame to alienate people over a hosed up nomination process...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on February 6, 2008 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

they were hyping his "momentum" after he won SC for about a week, even after she'd thumped him in FL

Yes. She "thumped" him in a primary where all the candidates agreed not to campaign and where the delegates would not count in the overall race.

I hear she also won a landslide of registered voters in the Clinton household, too.

Posted by: TR on February 6, 2008 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Are you sure? Have you asked her recently?

I would, but she died at my birth...

Posted by: elmo on February 6, 2008 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

I just saw headlines about Clinton's inability to raise funds. I'm seriously thinking this is a result of the weakening economy. Perhaps this is a sign that this general election will be powered by less money, which hopefully translates to less money for swiftboating.

Hope springs eternal...

Posted by: rational on February 6, 2008 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Hey ....did you hear....the Bill-Hillary Clinton team had pumped 5 million of their own money into the campaign for super-tuesday because Obama had out-raised them with a 20$ donor like me.

Posted by: soms on February 6, 2008 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Note to rational:I'm 26 and I have a 40000$ a year job and I am an Indian-American. I don't own a home or a car. I am donating $20 to the Obama campaign, because I think he 'll bring the voices of the poor to the table just as he has in the past as I have read and seen and heard, since I also studied in the south-side of Chicago.

Posted by: soms on February 6, 2008 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

"Better Senator Dreamy than Senator No-Way-in- hell-will-i-ever-vote-for."

If she wins, and you refuse to vote for her in the GE, then you, sir, are no liberal and no progressive. I cant stand that kind of BS. This isnt a freacking cult of personality, or is it? The Supreme Court is up for grabs, dont you understand that? Sheesh. Why is it that so many of the supporters of the candidate of hope and change are such belligerent and hateful people? Someone wrote here that they are falling into their own Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and I think thats right.

I am proud to stand against this mob.

Posted by: Jammer on February 6, 2008 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Thumbs up, soms.

Posted by: Biff on February 6, 2008 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

I am proud to stand against this mob.

Lighten up, Francis.

And look in the mirror -- you're displaying the same petulant attitudes you're decrying in others. We'll rally around the nominee whoever it is. In the meantime, all sides could use a little lightening of the rhetoric.

The GOP is already engaged in a circular firing squad, and we don't need to follow suit.

Posted by: Marc on February 6, 2008 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Obama seems to be wildly popular and growing more support every day. The small donors are a tidal wave. Indeed, I am throwing in some cash myself now. Hillary is imploding. Her entire campaign was vested in Super Tuesday and inevitability. She was a week away from winning it all, and the greatly accelerated pace of the primaries favored her immensely. Then came the draw, and the true cost of her all or nothing strategy last night has her reeling. Stalingrad has fallen, even as she threatened Moscow. Most Democrats have already moved to Obama if you follow the money.

Posted by: Sparko on February 6, 2008 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK
"Time to suck it up and begin a real grass roots campaign to get a Clinton/Obama (yes, it has to go that way) ticket going." - Dancer

So say you. If it comes down to it, I would heavily advise Barack Obama to steer faaar away from a Clinton administration. Although the events of last nights primary favor him in the coming primaries, should he have the option to run with Clinton, an unequivocal NO should be his answer.

Why? She will compromise him and his appeal, Bill will block his influence, and he'll have to spend his next Presidential campaign trying to explain hers. Along with that, who has a technocrat leading a "visionary"? I don't want to exaggerate the analogy, but why have Steve Jobs as a mid-manager, leaving Steve Ballmer to be CEO? What sort of dynamic is that in an administrative context? It goes the opposite way. So no, no, a thousand times no. Better an Obama nomination loss, and he spends time in the Senate gathering his "experience" to appease those that weren't looking for it anyway, before running again renewed after Clinton's unsuccessful second term bid. His performance last night proved he wasn't a "Jesse Jackson candidate" or a "fairy tale", but his ability to already begin redrawing the political map in the Democrats favor.

That being said, after last nights events, I know his campaign is pumped to duke it out, and whether or not the news of financial problems with the Clinton campaign are to be believed, it's time to take this dog out to the shed and put it out of its misery. Hillary cut herself a personal check of $5 million, Barack raised that much and more since the polls closed. This is a candidate funded by people like me or soms, who might not have much between us, but all in all we're an iceberg gunning for the Titanic, and we aren't backing someone to be VP.

Posted by: Boorring on February 6, 2008 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Brownell,

Huh? Part of the rationale for an Obama candidacy is that he polls well in the tossup states that Democrats sometimes struggle to win. New York and California and New Jersey and Massachusetts sure as hell aren't going to vote Republican this year. They are slam dunks for the Democrats-- therefore what we need is a candidate who can bring in some of the close ones, like Missouri.

Posted by: vinnie's cousin on February 6, 2008 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Note to rational:I'm 26 and I have ...

Way to go. You know I'm talking about the entire country in aggregate, not specific individuals.

BTW, friendly advice, don't post all those details about yourself. The internet is a public place where stuff lives forever. Some of the stuff I posted on Usenet, almost 20 years ago, is *still* around.

For those who don't know Usenet, it was the precursor to the internet.

Posted by: rational on February 6, 2008 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

alkali: First, as Chris Matthews (ugh!) noted about McCain, Obama (as well as McCain) made most of his gains in states that typically go Republican. Apart from the good feeling of seeing a movement grow, just from the perspective of winning the presidential election of 2008, how important is it that Obama carried Idaho, Kansas and Alaska?

The point is not that Dems will carry Idaho in the general, it's that Obama's appeal in those states suggests an ability to engage a broad range of voters, some of whom might be for McCain if it's Hillary on our side. We don't need to worry about the white women for Clinton; they're going to vote Obama if he's the nominee no matter what.

Posted by: Bouncing_B on February 6, 2008 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

If it comes down to it, I would heavily advise Barack Obama to steer faaar away from a Clinton administration.

Oh please, that's not how the game works, even for Obama. Look, if Reagan didn't pick Bush as vice president in 1980, there would have been no "Reagan Revolution".

Posted by: elmo on February 6, 2008 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary is a uniter, not a divider.
She is truthful and ethical.
She has very little baggage.
She appeals to Independents and some Republicans.
She has 35 years of experience doing things.
Ann Coulter sees her as a better option than McCain.

Posted by: LeBrain on February 6, 2008 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary 2008 = Kerry 2004.

Hillary is mostly winning the same states Kerry won against G.W. Bush in 2004. Kerry had the same urban, big state strategy (winning New England, Great Lakes and the West Coast). Bush won 31 states in the center of the nation, and as we all know, won the election.

The voting patterns in the primaries so far mirror these results. Hillary has only proven she can win the same states that Kerry did, and will therefore suffer the same fate against McCain. Obama, in the general, would win the NY's and Calif's just as Clinton did. Plus, he has shown he can at least pick off some of the "purple" states like Colorado and maybe a deep south state like Georgia.

Obama has a much better chance against McCain than Hillary.

Posted by: Elliott on February 6, 2008 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

elmo, it's painfully obvious you didn't read my post, as I suggested that it simply would not be in Barack's benefit to be a part of a Clinton/Obama ticket, but as an Obama/Clinton ticket, if that had to be.

Implicitly, however, you proved my point.

Posted by: Boorring on February 6, 2008 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Implicitly, however, you proved my point.

Just stirring the soup, Boorring...

Posted by: elmo on February 6, 2008 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

Obama's campaign just broke the $6 Million mark...$6,040,074 since polls closed on Super Tuesday.

Posted by: Dismayed Liberal on February 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

My dick just broke the zipper mark! I wanna cookie...

Posted by: elmo on February 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK
Just stirring the soup, Boorring...

If you could please, stir the soup on the other camp, it'll bring them a long-forgotten sensation.

(I apologize in advance, it was too hard to resist).

Posted by: Boorring on February 7, 2008 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

Don't apologize? That's how you're supposed to respond!

Posted by: elmo on February 7, 2008 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

A word from Convention Colorado here - the Obama turnout machine was unbelievable, and we desperately need it in the general.

Republicans have a 125,000 vote advantage in this state.

Nearly 120,000 Democrats showed up for the caucus.

Republican turnout was only 65,000 - and in one traditionally Republican county, the turnout for Obama alone exceeded the entire Republican turnout.

Bottom line: the Obama organizing machine puts this state in play in 2008. Hillary's people put no effort into what they consider flyover country.

I'll be damned if I'll concede the interior West to the Republicans before this thing has even started.

Posted by: Bobster on February 7, 2008 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

"Hillary 2008 = Kerry 2004.

Hillary is mostly winning the same states Kerry won against G.W. Bush in 2004. Kerry had the same urban, big state strategy (winning New England, Great Lakes and the West Coast). Bush won 31 states in the center of the nation, and as we all know, won the election.

The voting patterns in the primaries so far mirror these results. Hillary has only proven she can win the same states that Kerry did, and will therefore suffer the same fate against McCain. Obama, in the general, would win the NY's and Calif's just as Clinton did. Plus, he has shown he can at least pick off some of the "purple" states like Colorado and maybe a deep south state like Georgia.

Obama has a much better chance against McCain than Hillary." Posted by: Elliott on February 6, 2008 at 11:35 PM

Wow, I didn't know Kerry had won Florida, Tennessee and Arkansas like HRC did, but those States would not have been enough along with the usual Dem States to give Kerry (or HRC) the Presidency at all would it? (Heavy sarcasm)

In other words your argument is nonsense and premised on what is now shown by the voters in the primaries to be a false/bad/wrong assumption that she can not win any more States than Kerry did in 2004 unlike Obama as shown by what States he has won. This despite her doing very well in Florida (which does count since none got to campaign yet by the time of the vote Obama had become quite well known, especially after the SC win and Kennedy endorsements immediately thereafter preceeding the vote, that is unless you think Floridian Dems are too uninformed to watch TV, read papers, use the internet for researching candidate positons and watching speeches online from each, etc) given the massive Dem turnout despite that lack of campaigning from the Dem candidates wih all of their names on the ballot and showing the same demographic profile in her voting base as she has shown since, which is wider and deeper than Obama's. Incidentally, it is Florida which I believe shows that the increased turnout is not so much because of any of the candidates but the desire to get rid of the GOP from the Executive after the total catastrophe Bushco has been. If it truly is candidate driven then the lack of campaigning should have shown a dropoff in turnout compared to the other States, yet it didn't.

If you are going to argue Clinton is unelectable in Red States and Obama is electable you might want to come up with something that actually is backed up by hard reality/facts instead of this tripe you wrote, as by your own logic which shows Obama can also shows she can and possibly even more than he can since she is racking up primary wins which are more reflective of how a Statewide vote would look like as opposed to a caucus result. Indeed, I believe Clinton won a few traditionally Red States, how come you didn't notice this? Is this a case of wearing blinders or unwilling to acknowledge publicly what you know is factual/reality? I don't know but either way your argument is so full of holes it deserves to be in the Vatican because of its holiness.

You are also assuming that the results in the caucuses that he has won would be reflective of a Statewide vote, a dangerous assumption to be making. Not to mention assuming that the independents would stay with him and not consider McCain (remember, we are talking about Red State independents) despite McCain’s long standing popularity with independents. So his victories in these Red States is not inherently indicative of his greater viability to take these States, and as for the assumption that Obama can hold Clinton's votes a few weeks back I would have agreed, but given the degree of trashing and smearing of Clinton by Obama and his camp since then I would not be so confident in this. They may not vote for the GOPer, but they could choose to not vote for President at all because they would rather see McCain (who is far less deranged than most in his party despite his aggressive foreign policy thinking) for one term than someone they see as having won the nomination by trashing the most competent woman to run for the Presidency to date.

Can you also explain why it is ok to talk about worrying about how negatively the AA community will react if their candidate is perceived to have been robbed of the nomination versus the feelings of women that might have the same perception if Clinton loses this nomination instead of Obama? I find the double standard of the Obama campaign and far too many of his supporters to be one of the best arguments AGAINST his candidacy and fitness for the Office of President, and I strongly suspect that would be a feeling shared by many of Clinton's new supporters (and she is clearly bringing in a lot of women that didn't vote before, indeed there has yet to be any metric I have seen which proves Obama is the one bringing in the most new voters, which of course is also true for Clinton although they both are clearly bringing some in, so stating such is a matter of faith/belief and not fact whenever the Obama camp/supporters advance this argument), yet it isn't important enough for consideration it would seem.

Too much of the core Obama support is rooted in the premise that he is bringing in massive amounts of new voters, that he is inherently far more electable than Clinton because of the assumption/belief that the more she is seen by the voters the more she will turn them away from her (something the actual votes to date do *NOT* back up, if anything the reverse is what the results tend to argue is true), and that because he said he was against the AUMF in 2002 that means his judgment is inherently superior to hers despite one data point no matter how significant does not a pattern make. He has no record of accomplishments when it comes to economic policy and managing economic crises, and given the apparent impending serious economic times coming thanks to the stupidity of the GOP and Bushco in particular over the last seven years that is a major factor/strike against his candidacy and one for Clinton in terms of the electability argument (which I still maintain should not be a primary basis to decide one's vote, that is what got you Kerry in 2004 and we saw how that worked out) to which I have yet to see any Obama supporter provide a defence against.

So perhaps you might want to try again in your quest to create straw man arguments against Clinton, although I will give you this, at least while bogus your comments weren't sexist at all, that's something.

Posted by: Scotian on February 7, 2008 at 4:23 AM | PERMALINK

The climate's right for a transformational election in Congress akin to 1932 or 1964.

This commenter forgot 1994. THAT could also happen.

Posted by: daveinboca on February 7, 2008 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

I tend to agree with the Obama camp on this one. I was watching CNN's John King last night and his hypothetical breakdown gave credence to the theory that basically it's going to be impossible for either candidate to get the required number of delegates to win the nomination outright. I think this is a bad thing.

Posted by: Nobcentral on February 7, 2008 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

This commenter forgot 1994. THAT could also happen.

No, it couldn't. Unless there's a large number of white southern Democrats who are going to be defeated by insurgent Republican candidates because voters are unhappy with the current president.

You might want to read Brownstein and Balz's Storming the Gates and learn something about that election.

Posted by: TR on February 7, 2008 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't see this in the comments, Kevin wanted to see which states he thought he could win, etc., this purports to have the sheet:

http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/index.cfm/category/BarackObama

Posted by: Doosh on February 7, 2008 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK
First, as Chris Matthews (ugh!) noted about McCain, Obama (as well as McCain) made most of his gains in states that typically go Republican. Apart from the good feeling of seeing a movement grow, just from the perspective of winning the presidential election of 2008, how important is it that Obama carried Idaho, Kansas and Alaska?

I dunno. How important is it to have a candidate that can force the Republican nominee to spend money and time shoring up support in some traditionally red states and who stands a real chance of winning some red-leaning purple states and holding the blue-leaning purple states, instead of a candidate that wins the brightest blue states with a slightly bigger margin than the worst conceivable Democratic candidate and has trouble in the swing states and can't force the Republican candidate to put any effort in any traditionally red states?

Posted by: cmdicely on February 7, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

CM: word. Hillary's negatives are over 40% in CO. Republicans have been bleeding support here for the last two or three cycles, and all it would take for them to get energized again would be an HRC nomination.

She splits Dems and unites Republicans. You can kiss the purple states goodbye if she gets the nomination.

Posted by: Bobster on February 7, 2008 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly