Steve asks, "Do superdelegates care?" I'd answer, "How could they not?"

It's a reasonable conclusion, if and only if your supposition - that superdelegates are more interested in ensuring electoral success for the party than ensuring people in their own (ruling) class get the jobs they deserve - is valid.

I'm not confident that's the case.

Yeah, I'm ready for this thing to be over too. Looks like the wingnuts tipped their hand today in terms of the big guns they plan to bring out against Obama. If that's all they have, he shouldn't have much trouble.

Come on Supers!

And let's not forget that President Dukakis, whose poll numbers were 17 points higher than his opponent's in July, likewise had great coattails downticket in his day.

Democrats across the nation still feel thankful for the extra boost he gave them in their own candidacies.

Not so fast... I am not convinced Obama's luster will last till November. Before they are done with him, he'll be a muslim drug-dealer in the 'hood, and that is unlikely to bring a lot of people in. Better a workhorse (worn but dependable) than a mercurial showhorse. We are heading towards a biracial McGovern...

"In these Southern states he's bringing out more people, young people, African-Americans. They're being energized by him."

I think you're right here Kevin. Obama's landslide victories in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia through the African-American vote makes it a real possibility he could win any or all of the Southern states of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia in the General Election resulting in even more Democrats winning in the downticket Congressional districts. Hillary would not put even put Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia in play unlike Barack. Quite a feat, really.

Test for Dementia

Below are four (4) questions and a bonus question. You have to answer them instantly. You can’t take your time, answer all of them immediately. OK?
Let ' s find out just how clever you really are....
Ready? GO!!! (scroll down)

First Question:
You are participating in a race. You overtake the second person. What position are you in?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answer: If you answered that you are first, then you are absolutely wrong! If you overtake the second person and you take his place, you are second!

Try not to screw up next time. Now answer the second question, but don't take as much time as you took for the first question, OK?

Second Question:
If you overtake the last person, then you are...? (scroll down)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answer: If you answered that you are second to last, then you are wrong again. Tell me, how can you overtake the LAST person?

You ' re not very good at this, are you?

Third Question:
Very tricky arithmetic! Note: This must be done in your head only. Do NOT use paper and pencil or a calculator. Try it.

Take 1000 and add 40 to it. Now add another 1000 . Now add 30. Add another 1000 Now add 20 . Now add another 1000. Now add 10 What is the total?

Scroll down for answer.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you get 5000 ?

The correct answer is actually 4100.
If you don't believe it, check it with a calculator! Today is definitely not your day, is it? Maybe you'll get the last question right... Maybe.

Fourth Question:
Mary's father has five daughters: 1. Nana, 2. Nene, 3. Nini, 4. Nono. What is the name of the fifth daughter?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you Answer Nunu? NO! Of course it isn't.
Her name is Mary. Read the question again!
Okay, now the bonus round:

A mute person goes into a shop and wants to buy a toothbrush. By imitating the action of brushing his teeth he successfully expresses himself to the shopkeeper and the purchase is done. Next, a blind man comes into the shop who wants to buy a pair of sunglasses; how does HE indicate what he wants?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He just has to open his mouth and ask... It's really very simple.

PASS THIS ON TO FRUSTRATE THE
SMART PEOPLE IN YOUR LIFE!

Have a nice day everyone

I would not bet on this. Because he attracts people outside the party, they are a lot more likely to split their ticket. To assume that they will become Democrats is a jump.
Many polls show Clinton is more popular with Democrats than Barack is so her coattails may well be longer than his.

I think Kevin is correct.

One thing Clinton on the top of the ticket do is kill Dems in swing districts. Republicans and independents who can't stand Clinton (roughly 50% of the electorate) will want to make sure that Republicans are elected to Congress to minimize her impact. Additionally, she will get a smaller portion of the Dem base to come out.

People like my representative, who became the first Dem elected from this district in 30 yrs in 2004 will have a difficult time winning.

It's sure good to know that Rep. Jim Clyburn, an Obama supporter, thinks Sen. Obama would be a better general election candidate. Can we look forward to future posts about how Michelle Obama will be voting for the Senator as well?

If Obama did have longer coattails than Clinton, how much difference would this make down the ticket, particularly in Congressional races?

The answer would have to do with how successful DNC Chairman Howard Dean's efforts to organize Democratic Party efforts in all 50 states have been. If there are a lot of Democratic challengers to incumbent GOP Congressmen and Senators able to run this fall, with money and some name ID, then a Presidential candidate's coattails could help a lot. If most of the seats now held by Republicans do not attract this kind of challenger, coattails won't help that much.

There just aren't as many marginal seats in the House as there used to be, and even Senators tend to be reelected by really big margins. For what it's worth, I think Obama would carry more Democrats into Congress with him than Clinton would. How many more wouldn't just depend on him.

Clyburn, who has stayed neutral in the primary

I'll agree with the sentiment but I won't agree with this.

Surely many of the superdelegates are, you know, elected Democrats who might be helped by Obama's coattails. One would imagine that not only the party's interests as a whole, but their own personal political interests are better served by Obama as nominee.

I actually think he could lose and have long coat tails in a lot of states where democratic participation is traditionally pathetic.

There is another possibility that you should not ignore. There is the possibility that endless repetition does not make a proposition true. Although "many" Democratic lawmakers may accept the proposition that Obama can draw more votes in swing states, "many" others may not. The establishment media and the blogging left have adopted as their credo that only Obama is bringing in new voters, and that Obama stands for "change." That this dogma has caught on with the voters only partially is, according to them, caused by the ignorance of those voters. And, since polling information is available only in the most conventional categories of "demographics," it really is impossible to know, prior to the election, what kinds of voters are influenced by what forces.

If the conventional memes succeed, and Obama is elected, it may never be known what "might have been." But you should consider that some number of women and workers and regular voters, mostly but not passionately Democrats, are excited and energized by the Clinton campaign - of all ethnic categories and in all states. They/we probably don't care if the experts ignore us and lump us into a mass of "white," "women," "liberal" etc. categories. Until the election is over, though, there is the possibility that some super delegates do not accept as given truth that Obama is better for the Democratic Party, and they do not put their loyalty to the "elite class" above the good of the Democratic Party. They might just have a better grasp of American politics.

I am not an Obama supporter who has "talked to quite a few" superdelegates and now shows conclusively that Obama is best for the party, as you cite. But I am holding out the hope that some superdelegates are very well in touch with the sources of Democratic Party strength in their areas, who have clear ideas of what qualities are needed in the President to be elected in 2008, and - based on their own knowledge and judgment - can conclude that Senator Clinton is a better candidate to nominate this year.

Thanks, Weenie. I needed the laugh.
But there aren't any smart people in my life! Some of them used to be, but now they just bicker constantly over minor political differences while on the other side, scary white men are gearing up for endless war.

In Georgia in 2004, African Americans made up 27% of all registered voters and 25% of all general election voters. Kerry lost the state by 18 points. We had huge turnout in the Democratic primary, but only about 7% of voters were newly registered, compared to about 4% in the Republican primary. So, lets say most of those new registered voted for Obama - he increased turnout by about 3% relative to McCain/Romney/Huckabee.

Mostly what happened though is that African American voters who normally vote in general elections are turning out in big numbers to vote in primaries. There is little evidence to support a theory that all of these "new voters" are showing up.

48% of registered African Americans voted in one primary or the other in Georgia (mostly Democratic). 44% of other voters voted. IF that ratio were to hold up, instead of making up 25% of the overall electorate (as in 2004) they would make up 28.7% of the overall electorate. Instead of getting 40%, Kerry would have gotten...43% with this breakdown. So instead of losing by 18 he'd lose by 12. Considering that there are no Congressional seats we could possibly win in Georgia that we already don't have (and yes, those guys did fine in 2004 under Kerry) I just don't see the evidence that Obama will be some sort of game changer here.

But will they still feel this way when the whole world is attacking Obama instead of Clinton? The free ride is over once he is the nominee and Clinton is no longer available as a punching bag. I am an Obama fan, but people have simply gone off the deep end on this shit; come end of the summer it will not be the same. As much as I support Obama, the way he is viewed vis a vis Clinton has really been skewed by some kind of cult/lemming crazed phenomenon.

Okay, first of all, Clyburn has his own agenda.

1) What races down ticket do Dems have a chance on in Mississippi or South Carolina? Answer: None

2) What about Obama's coattails in the states where Dems have the best chances to pick up seats in the House? I'm talking about Ohio, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan.

That's what is important. I'm not questioning if Obama has coattails, I just think that Clyburn's statements are kind of ridiculous. The Rust Belt , Florida, and the Upper Midwest are where the Dems will increase their majority in the House. The Rust Belt/Upper Midwest area is becoming as Democratic as New England, not the West (with its sparse number of House seats) or the South.

So Thersites, did you pass?

I flunked royally.

May I also add that according to the SUSA 50 state polling and an analysis of Congressional district by Congressional district head to heads posted on mydd, Obama's advantage compared to Clinton is huge in metro Atlanta (where we have no competitive districts) and Clinton was actually favored in rural Georgia, where we had two of the closest Congressional races (our D's both won by less than 2% in 2006) in the country.

In other words, it won't do us much good if our Atlanta Democratic Congressmen win by 80% instead of 70% this year and our rural Congressmen lose by 48% instead of winning by 51%, even if it does mean an overall "tighter" statewide margin for Obama.

I don't dismiss Obama's appeal to young, new voters. Certainly, my students have all drunk the koolaid. And I don't mean that to be as dismissive as it sounds.

It would help for the Democratic candidate to have a fighting chance in some of the southern states. Florida, certainly. Maybe Virginia? Tennessee? Kentucky? There are some prospects. But before we buy the anecdotal evidence that Obama can get the job done, can we go out and do some real research? If we are going to boil all this down to electability, a standard I often find troubling because I also want to believe in my candidate and his/her ideas, than let's be damned sure he (or she) is electable.

Because if we aren't sure, then as a voter I'd just prefer to pick the candidate whom I believe has the best ideas.

One out of four right. But I did get the bonus round, probably by default because my lips move when I read.

That the superdelegates haven't come out en masse to endorse Obama after Hillary coddled Ferraro's dog whistle racist comments is shameful. If that isn't a reason to stop this madness before Hillary does real harm (if she hasn't already), I don't know what is.

As for coattails, I can tell you that my DFA group is counting on the increased Democratic turnout Obama will inspire to help carry the local candidates we've working for over the top in November. I'm sure we're not alone.

So far Obama has employed a 50 state strategy. Hillary has employed the traditional Democratic 15 state strategy. This doesn't look like a 15 state year. The Republicans are very, very week. If their brand was dog food the grocer would be pulling it off the shelves. If you are a down ballot Democrat who doesn't live in one of Hillary's 15 blue or dark purple states a 50 state strategy looks pretty darn good. Obama is a very inspirational speaker and he has a strong "we are all in this together" message.

If Hillary wins the nomination and you are not a citizen of one of her 15 states, you are not going to get much love this fall. That is bad for the Democratic party in 35 states.

This is really a no brainer. Of the two Obama is better for all those down ballot candidates who live outside Hillary's more equal states. The only way that it isn't, is if you think Obama is a significantly weaker candidate than Hillary. So far all the polls indicate otherwise.

Has anyone polled the superdelagates?

"weak" not "week." Hillary does claim there aren't enough weeks to employ a 50 state strategy, but as Obama has proved, if you are well organized, there are.

But what about the survey in Texas you posted a few days ago? The one that found that there was a big drop off in voters from the headline to the down-ticket races in the counties that went for Obama?

Hang on... here it is:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_03/013292.php

There may be more people coming out to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, but will that actually turn in to more votes for downticket races? The Dallas Morning News analysis casts some doubt on that.

"Hillary coddled Ferraro's dog whistle"

What an unmitigated pile of crap. By even making that unsupportable statement, you are doing the very thing you falsely accuse Clinton of doing. Absolute delusional bullshit.

Interesting. Yet I've seen polling data that suggests that Obama at the top of the ticket will have SHORTER coattails than Clinton.

In primary contests with other races on the ballot, a significant number of Obama voters voted ONLY at the top of the ticket and ignored the lower races. Clinton voters were more likely to fill out the entire ballot. link

You can look at this one of two ways - 1.) Obama supporters are new to the process and unfamiliar with the down-ticket races, while Clinton voters have been around longer and have opinions on who should be senator, governor, representative and whatnot or 2.) Obama voters are more likely to be ONLY interested in voting for Obama and heck with the rest of the party.

I suspect it's a little bit of both.

Ok, I give up. Just give the nomination to Clinton already. Clearly Clinton is the default position in a lot of Democrat's minds, so as long as questions remain about Obama, all roads lead to her clinching it. This is really pointless.

I'm a Caucasian Muslim with a Latino wife and mixed race child. Maybe I can run for President in 2012.

Shitheads.

Steve asks, "Do superdelegates care?" I'd answer, "How could they not?"

phleabo nails it in the first post. It depends on the superdelegate and how tied her or his own power is to the Clintons' continued power.

The answer would have to do with how successful DNC Chairman Howard Dean's efforts to organize Democratic Party efforts in all 50 states have been.

It's worth noting that Obama has a solid organization in all 50 states, while Clinton, to put it mildly, does not. Combined with the DNC's own efforts in the 50-state strategy, Obama's organization represents a formidable infrastructure for reaching voters.

I would not bet on this. Because he attracts people outside the party, they are a lot more likely to split their ticket. To assume that they will become Democrats is a jump.

Some will split their tickets and others will not. It's a fact that Obama is attracting many, many more new voters (note that first-time young voters should be considered new Dems, not "people outside the party") and independents than Clinton is, and some of them will help downticket.

I know this statement will rile some of our Clinton supporters here, but it's been noted many times that Clinton mobilizes Republican and some independent voters against her. No one who comes out to vote against Clinton will be voting for downticket Dems. Inspiring enthusiasm for our candidate (and converting some of that to votes) beyond the hardcore Dem base is a good thing, guys.

But before we buy the anecdotal evidence that Obama can get the job done, can we go out and do some real research?

Take a look at the SUSA polls state by state. Unsurprisingly, neither candidate takes the South (although Clinton gets Arkansas and Florida), but Obama grabs many more states in the Midwest, Southwest, Northwest and even Northeast. All of these polls--which will change as we get closer, no doubt--have implications for downticket races.

The problem with the way things are going in this campaign is that in order to continue a campaign that has almost zero chance of winning the most delegates or votes, Hillary has to convince all her supporters that her opponent is not just wholly incapable of being president but that he is trying to steal the nomination (by winning caucuses and "insignificant" states, as well as obeying DNC decisions re: Mi and Fl). In the process she's poisoning the Democratic well, making it much more difficult for the eventual nominee to unify the party. It amazes me how much the two sides supporters hate the other. Hillary is running a general election campaign during a primary, which is a bad way to win the presidency.

I meant to add, Stacy, that while SUSA has Clinton taking Florida and Arkansas, Obama gets Virginia. I personally don't believe any other Southern state beyond those three is possible for us this year, although Texas may be close.

This race is going to take place nationwide--in a lot of purple states as well as the traditional big blues--but the South is not great territory for either Dem. However, if you're looking only at downticket races, it makes sense to run the person who gets a lot more Southern Dems out to vote.

I'm not convinced that Obama'a mystique will hold but I do think it is time for this to be over. For a while I bought the view that having center stage would help but not if we are going to debate who's surrogate made the most obnoxious comment this week. It is time for a group of high visibility party leaders who aren't explicitly linked to either Obama or Clinton to approach Hillary and say it is time to get out. What do you want in return for your endorsement? Then they go to Obama and say this is what you need do. I don't think she wants the VP so I don't really know what she would say but this kind of negotiation does have to be behind the scenes. The rest of us can read about it in someone's book. Maybe Gore, Edwards, Richardson, Reid, Pelosi and Boxer could pull this off.

Maybe Texas is different

Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

I repeat what I e-mailed Kevin a week ago.

In the primary in Texas (both a Southern and a Western state), Obama's coattails were far shorter than Clinton's, as The Dallas Morning News showed. There was a lot more down-ballot dropoff from Obama supporters than Clinton ones.

Evidence is a large part of the flood of new voters in Democratic primaries are Obama voters and not Democratic ticket voters.

Could that change in November? Yes. No guarantees it will, though.

Note: I'm a left-liberal independent, not a Clinton supporter. I'm just repeating the facts of the matter, not crowd psychology.

Except that if you add in Florida and Michigan, Clinton is pretty much in a dead heat with Obama, especially on popular vote, assuming she wins as expected in Pennsylvania. who the hell are any of you to force a credible candidate out of the race? since when is it unheard of for a nomination battle to go to a second ballot on the floor? You guys are deranged. And, again, this is coming from an Obama supporter.

You know, there's so much animus coming from both sides of this race, I have to wonder if the party wouldn't be better off convening the convention, holding the obligatory first vote that reaches no consensus, and then throwing out a compromise name to vote on, not one of the losing candidates to prevent the outrage of voting for someone already rejected by voters.

President Gore, maybe?

Even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania and re-dos in Florida and Michigan, she will almost certainly still trail Obama by 100+ pledged delegates going into the convention. Right now Obama leads her by 161 pledged delegates, and even the best case scenarios for her have Hillary picking up no more than 13-15 delegates in Pennsylvania.

For all the hoopla over her victories in the Ohio and Texas primaries, Hillary actually lost ground overall last week. When you add up all the results from Texas, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Mississippi, Obama actually got one more delegate than her, 208-207.

Arachnae - That would be fine by me. In fact, that would be my dream come true. But that can't happen if we just have to give up and concede because a guy has a hundred delegate lead well before the finish line is even in sight. In fact, your suggestion is one reason that I hope Clinton stays in the race.

ding and Gadfly, Texas is different. The truth that the Dallas Morning News didn't tell you was the name of the person running in the down ballot race that pulled so well in the same counties Hillary won. A popular Hispanic who crushed his three non-Hispanic opponents. It is entirely possible if neither Hillary or Obama was on the ballot that the down ballot candidate would have pulled the same in predominately Hispanic counties.

Bottom line, Hillary turns out the Democratic base. In addition to the base Obama also turns out new voters. Coattails are the product of turning out new voters. That is the way it is and that is the way it has been since elections began.

Does anyone think that Clinton could have beat McCain in 2000, had they faced each other in the general election? Has anything happened between now and then that makes her more likely to beat him? Seriously, I hear a lot of logical arguments thrown out around here, which is good, but I don't understand how you get around the gut feeling that he is far more popular than she is. The 2004 election was a popularity contest, and even a fucked up war wasn't enough to make people change their minds about Bush's likability. If she, like Kerry, can't distinguish herself from McCain on foreign policy, how is 2008 any less of a popularity contest than 2000 and 2004?

I just don't get it.

From the comment @ 2:39 pm:
"Even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania and re-dos in Florida and Michigan, she will almost certainly still trail Obama by 100+ pledged delegates going into the convention."

Well, I don't think that is right in the first place; my understanding is that Obama would still have the lead in pledged delegates, but it would be closer to 50-60. But the thing is, Clinton could possibly have the higher popular vote. So how is the artifice of taking "pledged delegates" over popular vote any better than the thought of Clinton taking the lead by superdelgates that Obamatons scream so shrilly about??? This meme that it's over and Clinton must concede is pure crap.

Clyburn wields his "neutrality" like a sword and shield in the Obama vanguard. In reality he's about as neutral as David Axelrod.

Well, I don't think that is right in the first place; my understanding is that Obama would still have the lead in pledged delegates, but it would be closer to 50-60.

That's if Florida and Michigan are seated as is. That isn't going to happen. The DNC is quite correctly not budging in its refusal to change the rules midstream and count the previous FL and MI elections.

There will be revotes in both; Florida will be closer than it was and Michigan will pretty much be a tie.

Extremely unlikely that she'll take the popular vote either.

enozinho @ 2:45 pm - Yes, I think that if Clinton has the standing she has now from the Senatorial and election experience, she could have beaten McCain in 2000. I think she can beat McCain now. McCain is NOT the fucking great saint he is made out to be. I think any Democratic candidate can beat him if they run a good campaign. He is not what you make him out to be. I know John McCain, I live in Arizona and have a real good idea just how weak he really is below the surface you see; you are in left field.

When you say you don't get it; I believe you. Pretty clear that is true about many things.

On come the Hillbots.

There is an assumption floating around that Obama would lose Michigan big. Maybe, but remember that Hillary won against none of the above and the race was reasonably close.

Well, why don't we just declare Obama the nominee right now because we don't want to offend the fucking manifest destiny of the Obamatrons? What a total bunch of crap. Personally I will let all the votes be counted and then support the candidate that emerges from the nominating process. Sure is heartwarming that you all want to take the vote out of people's hans before they even have a chance to exercise their suffrage. Again, I support Obama; I just cannot believe this unadulterated crap coming out of the mouths of Democrats. It is insane. Let the race play itself out and support the nominee. Jeebus.

Tell you what. I won't call you an Obamatron if you don't call me a Hillbot. 'K?

And here's another deal - I won't call Obama The Shiny New Boy King if you don't call Clinton sHillary. How's that?

Like I said, I think it's time for the Obama (or more likely Anti-Hillary) people to throw in the towel. McCain needs to be redefined in the eyes of the electorate, and that isn't going to happen if the democrats are still fighting in August.

The Hill is wrong because they have no idea how Obama playing the race card has alienated people. Hillary's supports being characterized as racist, uninformed, uneducated does not help either. Don't count on many democrates who either support Hillary or are incensed by the race card. We are not necessarily one and the same.
This WSJ Opinion about summed up the race card problem very nicely:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536677319031953.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

bmaz, I am with you. Let the votes play out. If Hillary can figure out a way to defeat Obama without destroying the Democratic party, she will deserve our support. In the meantime find a good Democrat down there in Arizona to support. He or she needs your time.

Arachnae, agreed.

enozinho, I am assuming your comment is snark. Obama is leading by every measure. Why should he throw in the towel?

what Arachnae on March 13, 2008 at 2:35 PM said.

Apparently we're not mature enough to have non-White Male candidates competing without it turning ugly. We've chosen a bad year in which to try and make history.

Draft Gore. Please. Not because either Obama or H. Clinton are unqualified to hold the office of President, but because so many of their followers are unqualified to participate in a mature democracy.

And that is just sad.

Fucking morons.

Ditto to Thersites

enozinho, I am assuming your comment is snark.

Unfortunately, it's not snark. Someone has to back down or there is no chance to McCain's image before the general. The press certainly isn't going to do it.

Obama's support is transient. Clinton's is entrenched. It's not going anywhere. I'd almost rather the party elders step in now and end it before PA, because if the next six weeks look anything like the past two, it's going to be a bumpy ride for whoever is the nomination.

Thersites

I think you are both wrong. The passion displayed supporters of both sides is great. I don't think I would want Democrats to be like disinterested spectators at the Super Bowl. I much prefer Yankee and Red Sox fans.

I have to admit that I really find all the profanity over the top. Somebody once told me that if you have to resort to profanity to make your point, you don't have much of a point.

good point, shithead.

Wh is Kevin so eager for it to end? As far as I can tell, both candidates are having phenomenal success at both raising money and getting votes. As long as that dynamic continues, I see no reason for superdelegates to attempt to short-circuit the process. Let people vote in meaningful primaries for a change, whydoncha?

Ron Byers,
I do hope that you're right and I'm wrong, because I suspect that "Draft Gore" is just wishful thinking. But I see a healthy passion (even if you discount the profanity which is by now verging on self-parody) turning to acrimony, and I hear people that don't read political blogs saying "If x gets nominated I'm staying home because y did this."

BTW Red Sox fans are okay, but Yankees fans? expletive deleted

Oops. By dittoing Thersites i did not mean to say end it now; i think the race should play itself out. But if we get to a second ballot at an open convention, I would be tickled pink to have Gore come out as the nominee. Democracy is messy. So what. There is plenty of time to tar and feather McCain, and there is an over abundance of material to do it with. Most people have no clue who John McCain really is and what he stands for; I do, and it is not very pretty. Attacking McCain is nowhere near as hard as most here are making it out to be. Tack onto that the fact that the country really doesn't want any more of what we have had the last seven plus years, and the general election is just not the problem you all are making it out to be.

I outlined why think Obama is better for the Democrats up above. I don't think he should back down. He is running a 50 state campaign that dovetails neatly with Dean's 50 state strategy.

Hillary has been very clear. She is going to run a 15 state campaign. That is what she is talking about when she says some states are more important than others. A 15 state strategy is grand when the Republicans are ascendant. If Bush had been a modestly successful Republican President, or the Republicans had been even remotely successful at running the Government, Hillary's strategy would be sound. A regional strategy is standard operating procedure if you are willing to concede the rest of the country to the Republicans.

This year the Republicans are in eclipse. This is the year to move beyond the 15 state strategy. This is the year for Democrats to become a true National Party again. Obama can help us with that. Hillary, dependent as she is on the old thinking of the old thinkers in the DLC, wont. When Obam talks about "the fierce necessity of now" I don't think about his personal glory. I think about the need for the Democratic party to seize the opportunity to change the balance of power for a generation.

There is nothing personal in my opposition to Hillary. She just doesn't understand the real opportunity that is right now within the grasp of the Democratic party. Call me a revolutionary, but I have been waiting for this chance since Reagan was elected. The time is now.

"Don't count on many democrates who either support Hillary or are incensed by the race card. We are not necessarily one and the same.
This WSJ Opinion about summed up the race card problem very nicely"

You know, for all the talk about the Obama "cult", it's a certain strain of Hillary supporter than has something wrong with them. How can can any Democrat or liberal reference the FREAKIN' WALL STREET JOURNAL as an authority! For pete's sake, if you go over to Taylor Marsh's Jonestown...you'll find people praising PAT FREAKIN' BUCHANAN! What the hell?!?!

Mike

I say let all the people in all the different states vote.

Most of the "late" states haven't had a chance in quite some time to play an important role in selecting the democratic nominee. I suspect many folks in these states are feeling good about being important to the process. This helps the win 50 state strategy much more than _bots forcing their preferred candidate down everyone's throats, which essentially distresses 50% other _bots.

And yah Thersites I know, there I go again.

Nor did I mean to imply that it should end now. Ending it now by fiat would just make the things I worry about even worse.

You know, for all the talk about the Obama "cult", it's a certain strain of Hillary supporter than has something wrong with them. How can can any Democrat or liberal reference the FREAKIN' WALL STREET JOURNAL as an authority! For pete's sake, if you go over to Taylor Marsh's Jonestown...you'll find people praising PAT FREAKIN' BUCHANAN! What the hell?!?!

And if you go over to some of the Obama-centric sites, you will discover some people have decided that, millions of dollars of GOP-led investigation turning up nothing notwithstanding, the Clintons MUST have done something illegal vis Whitewater.

Some of them are no doubt shooting watermelons in their backyards to try to reopen the Vince Foster investigation.

Slightly OT question: Why do some states have their primaries as late as May or June?

Before anyone goes into fits suggesting that I'm trying to disenfranchise Americans by even asking this question, this is a purely process-related query--I don't understand what the advantage is to the states in doing it so late. Are some of them scheduling primaries to coincide with/be near county or state conventions, for example?

"And if you go over to some of the Obama-centric sites, you will discover some people have decided that, millions of dollars of GOP-led investigation turning up nothing notwithstanding, the Clintons MUST have done something illegal vis Whitewater."

Can you provide even one example of an Obama supporter specifically referring to someone like Pat Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh in a positive light, just because they say something negative about Hillary? Or one specifically highlighting an anti-Hillary essay from National Review or the Weekly Standard?

There's quite a big difference between mentioning or harping on an established scandal and deliberating embracing folks who stand in opposition to just about every thing Democrats and/or liberals stand for. It's the same difference that exists between some of the negative things Obama has said about Hillary and Hillary saying that the John McCain has the experience to deal with America's problems and Obama does not. It's not a hard distinction to see.

Mike

There is plenty of time to tar and feather McCain

There really isn't, if we don't seriously get started until less than three months before the general election. enozinho's right that we should be concentrating on redefining McCain now, not starting in August when the convention will thankgodfully be over.

So my advice (worth every cent paid for it) to any Democratic presidential candidate who intends to be on the ballot in November is to continue running against McCain/the GOP if that candidate is already doing so, and to actually start running against McCain/the GOP if that person is not now doing so.

If the Florida mail-in + in-person re-vote occurs, Florida might put Hillary over the top. Of course this is extremely unfair to all the other voters in other states who did not get such an option nor the focus of attention. Somehow, Florida always seems to be able to pull something like this off, rules be damned.

Anyway, my point is that there still is a chance that Hillary can lead in the popular vote. That may be the fear in the superdelegates glazed over eyes that keeps them from doing what seems obvious.

Also, I see that Frankly-Hussein-O is still rooting for Obama's middle name.

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem seating Florida as is; all the candidates' names were on the ballot, and no one campaigned there. It was a fair fight. Michigan, however, is a real problem; there is no way it could be seated as is because there was only one name on the ballot and that is not fair. All that said, if you have to redo Michigan, I do not have a problem redoing Florida too.

Quite frankly, I don't have a problem seating Florida as is; all the candidates' names were on the ballot, and no one campaigned there. It was a fair fight.

Not quite. Told that their votes wouldn't count, some Floridians didn't come out to vote--impossible to say how many or for whom they would have voted had they believed their votes would count. However, it was certainly a far fairer fight than Michigan was.

Ron Byars, disagree with you. The Dallas Morning News also showed the top counties where Hillary outpaced downticket races, and by percentage. Her percentage of overvotes was significantly less than Obama, who had a 42 percent overvote in Collin County.

Plus, we have 254 counties, Ron and the News had info from all of them.

You're implying the Snooze cherry-picked, or so I'm inferring, and it didn't.

Other analysis I've read suggests that Obama may just be turning out for the primary Democratic voters who would likely vote in the general, anyway, but haven't voted in primaries in the past.

Otherwise, beyond mouthing the word "change," how much of the "real opportunity" will Obama grasp, Ron?

For example, considering that he, too, has no plan to get all troops out of Iraq, I suggest you're giving him too much credit.

The funny thing is that Hillary and her supporters are too blinded by their passion to realize that she is in a lose/lose situation. The sad thing is that this blindness could split the Democratic party and hand the election to McCain.

Scenario A:

Obama continues to hold on to his delegate lead, is nominated, and due to his ability to pull in independents and moderate Republicans, defeats McCain in the fall. Hillary is left out in the wilderness for the next eight years, likely putting an end to her political ambitions.

Scenario B:

Obama goes into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates, but Hillary manages to persuade enough superdelegates to support her to give her the nomination. However, Obama supporters are so incensed by this that many of them refuse to support her. In the fall they either do not vote, vote for Nader, or vote for the Unity08 candidate (bet you forgot about Nader and Unity08, didn't you?). The independents and Republicans who were prepared to support Obama instead vote for McCain due to their dislike of Hillary. McCain wins the general election in the fall, putting an end to Hillary's political ambitions.

Either way, Hillary's presidential ambitions are over.

The unfortunate part is that she and her supporters don't realize how widely and deeply she is disliked by many people. Even if she does manage to win the nomination, it will stink so strongly of dirty politics that she will have no chance in the general election.

mfw13 - Oh look, another concern troll who has it all figured out and doesn't want to let the voters vote. And has the unmitigated gall to call it "dirty politics" if they do and the nomination goes to the convention. The delusion is palpable. Again, this statement is coming from an Obama supporter; but one who believes in the system. Let it work and save your preaching.

Hard as this may be for devotees of His Wonderfulness to understand, not everyone in this country is bowled over. If Obama is the nominee, he won't win a single southern state, with the possible exception of VA.

He'll also have trouble in the big industrial states. Where's he gonna win? KS? ID?

Ah, to see the Red Sox and Yankees in a Super Bowl. A-Rod as a wide out.

However, as this has become a Civil War within the Democratic Party, my concern is whether, when the dust settles, the Obamaites will allow us to keep our mules for spring plantin'?

Mr. Anonymous....actually, you've got it all wrong. I'm perfectly happy to let the voters vote....I'm just saying that when they do, Hillary is going to be left out in the cold.

She is simply too widely disliked, especially when compared to McCain & Obama, to win the general election.

And the for the record, I'm an indepedent, not a Democrat. I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat, but would vote for McCain long before I'd ever think about voting for a Clinton....

Gadfly,

I know you are invested in the Dallas Morning News story, but seriously the conclusion reached is not supported by the data.

I have no way of knowing if the reporter at the Dallas Morning News cherry picked information. I hope she doesn't. It doesn't matter. The DMN reporter is comparing apples and oranges when she examines primary numbers and jumps to a conclusion about coattails in the general.

Let me see if I can get this across. Hillary has a very narrow but very intense base. That base is almost entirely drawn from the traditional Democrats. Those are the people who vote for down ticket candidates in primaries.

Obama has the same traditional democratic appeal. He also draws from first time and occasional voters. Come the general, Obama should do very well with those base Democrats. When you add the traditional Democrats to the new voters, his turnout will be much higher than the base voters alone. Some of those new Obama voters who would otherwise stay home will vote down ballot. Maybe some wont.

There is no way you can reach the conclusion that in the general Hillary will have longer coattails based on primary turnout. The only reasonable conclusion from the Dallas Morning News data is that Hillary is more attractive to base Democrats than Obama. That isn't news. That is conventional wisdom.

It doesn't follow that the Democratic base is going to stay home or vote for McCain.

Base Democratic voters plus zero equals base Democratic voters. That equal's Hillary's coattail potential.

Base Democratic voters plus new or occasional voters equals base Democratic voters and new or occasional voters. That is a larger number than Base Demcoratic voters plus zero. That larger number is Obama's coattail potential.

Democrats don't grow the party unless we reach out to new and occasional voters. The larger Democratic vote means the possibility for more down ballot victories.

Let me see if I can get this across. Hillary has a very narrow but very intense base.

I am getting sick and tired of Obama supporters telling me how narrow Clinton's base is. I suppose it goes along with the theory that if you say something long enough it becomes true? This race is so contentious because it's so close.

Please look at this gallup tracking poll and then STFU about how wide Obama's appeal is and how narrow Clinton's is, okay?

doh, last post got eaten by the moderation bot.

http://pollingreport.com/gallery2.htm#FAV

Take a look at these favorable/unfavorable numbers and explain to me how we turn this around starting in August.

"Please look at this gallup tracking poll and then STFU about how wide Obama's appeal is and how narrow Clinton's is, okay?"

WTF does that poll have to do with "wide" or "narrow" bases of support? Hillary's base is older, white, Democratic women + Hispanics. That's pretty much it. You can argue that Obama's base is just as narrow (African-Americans + high education/high income liberals). The difference is that Obama has shown a far greater ability to expand beyond that base.

For example, there's a chance Obama might do very well with white male voters in the November. He may not, but there's a chance. Everything we've seen in this election points to Hillary getting destroyed in the white male vote. Every single poll has also shown Obama having a far greater appeal to independent voters.

Mike

"Everything we've seen in this election points to Hillary getting destroyed in the white male vote." - Mike Bunge

Yah, and then everything you will see in future elections points to the democratic party getting destroyed because the white females won't vote for them.

mfw13 has it exactly right. The Dems do this to themselves all the time it's like the Party has some sort of death wish or something.

Hillary won't be President in 2008. Period. The only way she can get the nomination is to have a backroom deal from Super Delegates overturning the pledged delegates. If that happens everyone should just save their time, $$$ and energy because she'll never be able to beat a "moderate" like Mccain after that.

The conservatives will be energized like nothing we've ever seen if she's the nominee, meanwhile the Dems' base (African Americans) are going to stay home. Everyone takes them for granted but if Clinton backrooms this nomination from Obama you can kiss the black vote goodbye. There is no way on God's green earth that, if Hillary is the nominee, we aren't going to see catastrophically depressed turnout from Af. Americans.

Hillary's chance in 2008 is already over. If the Dems want to win in November they need to just accept that and start getting ready for the Fall.

A vote for Hillary is as good as a vote for Mccain at this point.

CJ, I'm not "invested" in the story. I am "invested" in refuting what I think could be unsupportable claims about Obama's coattails.

And, I believe the DMN article legitimately questions just how long Obama's coattails are, at least in one state that, per Kevin's linked story, is a Southern and a Western state.

If Obama is the nominee, to take your line, it doesn't follow that November Obama voters will necessarily be Democratic Party voters.

As I said, I'm a left-liberal, and I'm not a registered Democrat. Arguably, that makes what I say on threads like this more objective than comments from either Clinton or Obama supporters.

To repeat, I'm not supporting Clinton, I'm not invested in Clinton, and I'm not invested in the Morning News. I am invested in challenging what I think are unsupported claims, whether by Democrats, Greens, Republicans, or whomever, or on subjects outside of politics entirely.

For example, if Kevin said the Lakers were going to win the NBA title, I'd say he may well be right. If he said either the Dodgers or the Angels were going to win the World Series, I'd smack him upside the empirical head.

Apparently Arachne (SP) doesn't like the WSJ -I dare say more people read it that read his comments (too bad)
It is a very grave thing to accuse people of being racist when they are not.
If you want more evidence as to why many will check out on an Obama campaign, I invite you to read this from Tom Watson's blog..

Obama blogger Al Giordano gloated that "at the moment when NY Governor Spitzer resigns, Clinton’s
delegate tally will drop by one." One of his regular commenters, Mary in Seattle, pushed her belief in the audacity of hope a bit further: "The only good thing about the Spitzer deal is that some of the MSM will be rehashing the pecadillos of former politicians. ABC already is, and the last of the group is Hillary’s Bill. I don’t think this hurts, though don’t know if it helps either."

Add to that the statements by Rev Wright.... Obama's spiritual mentor of two decades and you are coming up on empty for many supporting an Obama bid.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788&page=1

Goodness, we do seem to have ourselves a problem. According to the very certain predictions of people in this thread, African Americans and everyone under, say, 35 or 40 will bolt the Democratic party for a generation if Clinton gets the nomination. If Obama gets it, older white women will bolt the party until...well, until they're not around to vote any more, I guess.

We are in a pickle. No, really, no sarcasm--we are.

And Madam Speaker says fugeddabouda dream ticket: ""I think that ticket either way is impossible," [Pelosi] said. "I think that the Clinton administration has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better commander-in-Chief than Obama."

What to do? We can't bring in some deus ex machina like Gore less than three months before the election, that's for sure. One way or another, something's gotta give.

CJ, that DMN story had a map (in a PDF online) that has much more information than the story itself. Since I live here, I saw the map in hardcopy, and I didn’t think about posting that link, too.

It lists the top counties in terms of drop-off percentage for both candidates. It’s why I say that people who tout Obama’s longer coattails ought to, perhaps, be somewhat less boisterous in their claims.

As for “invested,� as I blogged in more detail in my blog than at Watching Those we choose, I’m actually more invested in seeing if map Jack Kevorkian can get elected to Congress. And, no, I’m not joking, either about his running or, totally, about my interest in the race.

Holy crap, shortstop! I clicked the link because I couldn't believe Pelosi said "the Clinton administration" but that's what she said all right.

I know, some kind of slip, huh?

Shortstop, you're right this campaign threatens to tear the Party apart and the problem is that Clinton is holding the Party hostage. She's lost, I think, 14 of the last 17 contests and Obama has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead. Why Pelosi and Gore and Edwards don't come forward and put an end to this charade is beyond me.

You can be sure that if this was going on with the Republicans, the adults would get together and force the losing candidate out of the race. The problem with Dems (and why we lose so often when we could/should win) is we are too concerned with making sure noone's feathers get ruffled and that everyone feels loved. The Republicans, for the sake of the Party, would have shut this thing down after Wisconsin.

Not the Dems though. A year from now we're all going to be wondering how we let this happen. The liberal blogesphere will be full of post-mortems about what losers we are. Meanwhile, the prospect of endless war in Iraq and maybe a fresh one with Iran will be very real.

We'll be crying and asking, how did we let Mccain beat us when everything was in our favor? And we'll be cursing Rove and whatever other villian we've found but as usual the problem will be us. Democrats hate to win.

This campaign has gotten really ugly and unpleasant and I hate to say it but the ugliness in this campaign is clearly coming from Hillary's side. Not suprising, candidates who are losing ususally go negative, or in this case throw the kitchen sink.

The Clintons are not more important than the Democratic Party. If we want any chance of getting back the WH we better wise up to this real soon before it's too late.

shortstop: According to the very certain predictions of people in this thread, African Americans and everyone under, say, 35 or 40 will bolt the Democratic party for a generation if Clinton gets the nomination.

Maybe something to that. We saw it in the late 60's and in '04. Newbies who, when things didn't go the way they hoped and expected, turned apathetic or cynical.

Hillary is going to ruin the Dems chance for 2008. It's becoming a "I will be President or noboby else will be," that is getting uglier by the minute.

Does she really think African Americans will be so forgiving, if she steals their votes? Because I certainly don't think so.

She's got a scorched earth policy going on now that leaves no survivors. If the Dem party is smart, they ask Hillary to quit the race, the sooner, the better.

I've engaged my share of blaming Clinton for the direction this campaign has headed, but it's not black and white. If you look at the spreadsheet that was leaked from the Obama campaign, you can see that they intended to fight for every vote up until June. Looks like they counted on a long primary fight as their only chance to win.

Obama had a chance to put Clinton away in Texas, and he came up short. It's not Clinton's fault that the race is so close. It's not her fault that the only way to beat Obama is to increase his negatives. It sucks balls, but it's certainly understandable.

If Obama's coattails are so long why is he unable to beat Clinton in a large states when he is outspending her by millions of dollars? And while he may energize the African American community, what about the Hispanic community? How many will peel off and vote for McCain? That said, if I wwere a superdelegate I would vote for Obama. He ran a superior campaign

Ron Byers @ 3:47 PM "Hillary has been very clear. She is going to run a 15 state campaign. That is what she is talking about when she says some states are more important than others."
Could you please cite the news release where Sen. Clinton states that she will only be campaigning in 15 states once she is nominated, as I must have missed it! I understood that the reference about some states "mattering" more than others was about her primary campaign and not her strategy for the general election. That would be a bit presumptious of her, wouldn't it? (semi-snark)
Concentrating on certain states during a primary is generally a sensible strategy; to get X number of delegates, I need to win any combination of states that equals that X. The bigger the state, the more delegates; I don't think anyone would argue with that. If you want to take Sen. Clinton and her campaign to task for seemingly not having a fall-back strategy thought out should any problems develop with the original strategy, go ahead. I find it strange myself.
It appears to me that the Clinton campaign was fully expecting the primaries to take one of the following courses: either Sen. Clinton would quickly clobber her opponents and get the necessary delegates for the nomination quickly OR there would be at least three major contenders heading into the convention, with Sen. Clinton leading the pack.
I really don't think one can necessarily extrapolate a candidate's general election campaign strategy from their primary campaign strategy. There ARE some states that may be important during a primary that aren't going to be in play during the general election (especially one as closely contested as this has turned out to be). No candidate wants to expend all their energy and/or funds in getting the nomination and then not be able to properly contest the general election.
I don't see any need for the superdelegates to throw the nomination to either candidate at this time. And if they were to choose one now that is exactly what it would have happened. All sorts of things may happen between now and the last primary in June, the very least we as Democrats/liberals/progressives can do, is let the people be heard.
There will still be lots to bitch about after June 15 no matter who the nominee is.

Oh yeah, no nastiness coming from the Obama camp - I was for Edwards - I have not been swept up in the Obama groundswell - However, I am considered racist by his some of his supporters, backward and ill educated even with 25 years of education, and being told that the over 40 years of voting for Democrats means nothing and to step aside.

Oh yeah, lots of lots of spirit of "bringing us together" - The Obama campaign has come down to the Committee of Safety - Only the purest of the pure can remain - What a Civil War - What a purge. Enjoy your bloodletting - Many are becoming as despicable as the Repugs. To hell with Zealots in any form.

This may be uncouth in Liberal/Progressive circles, but I feel perfectly comfortable ditching the rest of the primary calendar if it helps the eventual nominee against McCain.

How long did it take Kerry to wrap up the nomination in 04, 30 seconds? I'm in CA, and didn't even show up because it was a done deal. We've heard enough from the people. It's time for one the campaigns to blink for the good of the country. Or is there another way out of this mess before August?

Kevin: "Perhaps a few more of them ought to get off the fence and try to bring this thing to an end."

Absolutely. Screw the people of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, Florida and Puerto Rico. Who asked them their opinion, anyway?

Further, Illinois Democrats in general are looking just great, thanks to the federal corruption trial of Tony Rezko, which may well linger into June. Sen. Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is now affixed in the mainstream media's crosshairs at the behest of its own right-wing punditry, as the now-retired minister's former church comes under IRS scrutiny for his delivery of blatantly political remarks from the pulpit last December.

You're right, Kevin. What in the world could they possibly be waiting for?

And finally, a special comment concerning the IRS and Rev. Wright:

Earth to IRS: Throughout American history, both clergymen and their faithful have participated enthusiastically in this country's temporal politics. History also shows that they've so acted on behalf of all political factions, at one time or another.

Without a doubt, there are certain persons in positions of influence and / or authority who might take exception to the Rev. Wright's personal politics. That is still no grounds for this extraordinarily selective persecution of the man's flock -- particularly when it's undertaken against the backdrop of a spirited and contested election campaign.

Therefore, either drop your double standard, and enforce across the board -- without exception and without prejudice -- the standing law governing the political activities of 501(c)(3) non-profits, or "terminate with extreme prejudice" this politically-motivated inquiry and investigation of the Rev. Wright's former congregation.

Ugh, I heard some of the Rev. Wright's ranting today, and it is sickening. I have to wonder about a presidential candidate whose longterm pastor has such a record of hateful rhetoric.

Mollycoddle, it does make it hard for Obama to play the "repudiate/deny/disown/disavow" card against McCain, since Obama's known Wright longer.

And, the fact that Wright, like Hagee or Ron Parsley, won't STFU now that Obama is in the spotlight... all peas in a pod.

Gadfly:

I guess at least one of the many unknowns about Obama has finally been answered.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MTP-Kurtz-Gwen-B.mov

Uh.... Has anybody noticed that Obama can't seem to win big states? That's a big concern to me because big states matter in a general election. Is this why Obama supporters don't seem to want Florida and Michigan voters to have any say in the primaries? Are they afraid of the outcomes, or do they just not like the state's residents?

mollycoddle: "Ugh, I heard some of the Rev. Wright's ranting today, and it is sickening."

Because he took it upon himself last December to dive head-first into the political fray on behalf of Sen. Obama -- which, I might add, he has every right to -- Rev. Wright's sometimes-noxious comments are certainly fair game. His former congregation, however, is not.

The reason I take great pains to separate the two is that as a general concept, I adamantly oppose the arbitrary political imposition of legal double standards, and the attendant selective prosecutions which undoubtedly follow.

Following that slippery slope to its logical conclusion, that's exactly how former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman ended up behind bars.

Dresden: "This campaign has gotten really ugly and unpleasant and I hate to say it but the ugliness in this campaign is clearly coming from Hillary's side. Not suprising, candidates who are losing ususally go negative, or in this case throw the kitchen sink."

"Spoken like a man who's just been hit on the head by a piece of porcelain."
-- Howard Fineman, Newsweek (March 5, 2008)