home

Hillary Wins Texas

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:52:49 PM EST
Tags: Texas '08, Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Hillary Wins Texas says CNN and NBC.

Listen to the whining from NBC.

BTW, you are hearing a lot about Florida and Michigan again. Told you so.

Oh and there is no doubt now that the ticket will be Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama.

Update (TL): Congratulations, Hillary. And I'm not convinced the ticket will be Hillary-Obama or vice-versa.

Comments over 200, this thread is now closed. New ones are up.

< Texas And More on Delegate Counts | Texas Caucus Results Start Coming In >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Wins Texas | 218 comments (218 topical)
    Good thing. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:42 PM EST
    I didn't quit my programming gig.

    Yipeee yia...yeah....!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:53:46 PM EST


    it's not that close (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by bigbay on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:01 PM EST
    4% points in a huge state. If Obama wins the caucus , it will point out how ridicules the system is.

    ridiculous <sp> (none / 0) (#6)
    by bigbay on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:32 PM EST
    it's late

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#175)
    by Fultron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:56:19 AM EST
    People understand a single anonymous ballot in the box. It's harder to justify a much smaller sample voting twice to swing a state for a candidate that lost the primary. It looks, feels, and is funny. This head-to-head comparison puts an exclamation point on why caucus wins are not equal to primary wins, and how calculating popular vote based on caucus results is not obvious.

    I can't wait to hear Obama supporters claim that winning the TX caucuses in the face of 2M+ votes cast in the primary is meaningful...then in the next sentence complain about superdelegates and argue that FL/MI should be disenfranchised.

    Parent

    But caucases represent the will of the people (none / 0) (#180)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:01:52 AM EST
    TX (and WA to a smaller extent) prove the point.

    Parent
    Backwards (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Fultron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:18:40 AM EST
    They represent the people of will.

    Too much snark for this time of the evening...

    Parent

    Poor MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Grey on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:13 PM EST
    Russert looks so sad, it's hilarious.
    and KO (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:32 PM EST
    KO looked absolutely livid...

    I just turned on the TV for the first time tonight.... and it was pretty obvious that they weren't happy.

    Parent

    KO and Tweety (none / 0) (#21)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:00:45 AM EST
    Tweety looks ill every time Clinton wins.  It's priceless.

    Parent
    What has happened to him? (none / 0) (#22)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:00:45 AM EST
    Is there a male version of Stepfordization?

    Parent
    He's your crazy uncle (none / 0) (#202)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:25:03 AM EST
    Or the color commentator in "Best in Show".

    I want Fred Willard to play him in the mockumentary.
    Fred Willard

    Parent

    A well deserved win for HRC (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Prabhata on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:56:12 PM EST
    She has demonstrated steel determination and we need that in the WH.

    My projection wins!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:27 PM EST


    PA will be a really big deal now andgarden. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:59:41 PM EST
    I'm so glad your vote will count. This is just a political junkie's dream as long as it doesn't hurt us in November.

    Parent
    I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:01:38 AM EST
    Look, I am in Europe where the Russian elections was bigger news than in US, comparing our little mess to that MESS, heh, it's good to have the competition.  People should be proud that voters are really thinking and paying attention.  

    Parent
    Two Benefits (none / 0) (#53)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:53 AM EST
    One, as Kos pointed out tonight, it will keep media focus on democrats and that's a good thing.

    Two, it will cause democrats to build organizations in almost every state.  That will be a good thing.

    Parent

    And you made the live blog. good job (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:00:05 AM EST


    Parent
    My predictions were pretty good too (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:02:06 AM EST
    CUT AND PASTE FROM THIS MORNING (for gloating purposes):

    But here's how I see it.

    Obama has had a terrible last few days.  So some of his natural advantages have been undercut.

    Clinton wins OH by at least 10%, but I really won't be surprised if it went higher than that.

    In VT, Obama does that Barbabra Eden thing he does at caucuses and wins by at least 20%

    Clinton takes RI by at least 12%.

    Now Texas.  Polls seemed indicate that Hillary was leading with early voters.  And convention wisdom would suggest Obama would do better with day of voters.

    But I think a strange thing happened.  Finally, Hillary's experience message worked.  The red phone and follow up ad played well in TX.  Exit polls will list "experience" as the top issue on voters' minds.

    Hillary builds on her early vote lead, and wins by between 4-6%.

    Republican mischief voters vote both ways, canceling each other out, and have little or no impact.

    Parent

    To us, (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:06:46 AM EST
    You are SurveyUSA. ;-).

    Parent
    Can I call myself ... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:42 AM EST
    John Philip SUSA?

    It must be late, I'm making bad puns.

    Parent

    Oh my (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:12:10 AM EST
    that has got to've been the worst pun I've seen all season (worst in a good way), LOL.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:14:34 AM EST
    Exactly what I was going for.

    Parent
    You've earned the honor! ;-) (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:13:33 AM EST


    Parent
    well done (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:14:46 AM EST
    And I give you credit for having the courage to call Texas that way.  Hardly no one dared say Clinton would win it here.

    Parent
    Not to be immodest (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:29 AM EST
    But I dared to call it for her +4:

    Clinton +4 TX
    Clinton +15 OH
    Clinton +10 RI
    Obama +20 Vermont

    Granted I didn't believe myself, but it I sat myself down and gave myself a good talking too!

    Parent

    nice! (none / 0) (#110)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:12 AM EST


    Parent
    he shoulda put some $ in Vegas. ;-) (none / 0) (#162)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:45:45 AM EST


    Parent
    Good for you!!!! Keep 'em coming. (none / 0) (#35)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:04:40 AM EST


    Parent
    A piece of crow? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:43 PM EST
    ;)

    I think it's a piece. . . (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:03:13 AM EST
    of my hat.

    Parent
    crow and hat stew (none / 0) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:06:01 AM EST


    Parent
    Hand Timmeh a cuppa that (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:06:51 AM EST
    hat sauce, Lar. But spike it with several drops of Tabasco first, just to see how red-faced Timmeh can get.

    Parent
    How's dat (none / 0) (#66)
    by Fredster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:12:07 AM EST
    How's dat Roux coming?

    Parent
    Heck ya... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:03 PM EST
    I want all those who kept saying she should quit or stop to apologize.  Kerry and company, on your knees...!!!!

    Yes Yes Yes (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:29 PM EST
     you go girl. This race is for the democratic nominee and Hillary is winning the votes of democrats. This is not a race for the independent nominee, and we all know independents are not commmitted to either party (can't trust them). Its time for the democratic party to seat the delegates in Florida and Michigan and make the real demlocrat run for the White House.

    Its like a funeral... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:58:49 PM EST
    Now that Scarborough and Buchanan are gone from the panel I dont know if there is much reason to keep watching.

    A chorus of Democratic theme song (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:59:41 PM EST
    "Happy days are here again...etc..etc."
    Love that song

    Here's my thought. Assuming (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:03:58 AM EST
    HRC gets the nomination and wins the GE, all the TL HRC supporters should meet in DC for the inauguration.  

    Parent
    i like this idea. :) (none / 0) (#58)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:10:46 AM EST
    haven't been to dc in a while.

    Parent
    Weather warning: D.C. can be (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:24:24 AM EST
    really cold on inauguration day.  Why do I know this?  Because we sat on metal bleachers for Nixon inauguration day parade.  

    Parent
    duly noted. (none / 0) (#137)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:32:27 AM EST
    will try not to get ahead of myself just yet, though.  still, it'd be fantastic to get together.

    Parent
    I want to meet in Brattleboro, VT (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:10:47 AM EST
    because, even though the state went for BO, we are forgiving sorts -- and have to applaud a town that has declared itself forever free of Bush and Cheney. They dare not set foot there now, as the town voted two-to-one to arrest the war criminals if they come there. (Btw, if the media had been alert to anything but where Obama sent them to wear their big white Stetson hats and suck tequila, they would have been in Brattleboro for some great interviews today. The quotes in the print coverage are just wonderful.)

    Parent
    oh man this is great news! (none / 0) (#165)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:47:42 AM EST
    if the Congress can't uphold the Constituion we the People have to.

    Think Iwogima

    Parent

    oh man this is great news! (none / 0) (#167)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:48:15 AM EST
    if the Congress can't uphold the Constituion we the People have to.

    Think Iwogima

    Parent

    You can all stay at my house (none / 0) (#99)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:13 AM EST
    Well, maybe not.  But you can all come over for a drink!

    Parent
    April or May, yes. January, no. (none / 0) (#215)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:46:07 AM EST
    Let's meet in Hawaii or Barbados or something and watch it on TV!!

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 12) (#23)
    by BDB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:01:03 AM EST
    All that momentum, all that money, all that good media and Obama loses 3 of 4?  A cynic might thing Senator Obama has problems closing the deal.

    BTD, I'm telling you, it's better to be a media anti-toxin than a media darling because a media darling is still dependent on the media.  Whereas the anti-toxin is immune.  This past week the media turned on Obama a bit (although, really, it was just a taste of what Clinton has gotten) and that hurt the media darling.  Whereas months of pounding haven't been able to kill the media anti-toxin.

    I'm starting to agree with this (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:02:27 AM EST
    The argument for nominating Hillary seems very strong today.

    Parent
    You always make a lot of sense (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    Seriously you should be an A-list blogger.  Consistent fair minded analysis that hit the mark.  My compliments to you.

    Parent
    Plus the caucus states, plus stong in rural d. (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by wprange on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:19:57 AM EST
    Add to that the caucus wins for Obama, which anybody can understand is more problematic for Hillary's supporters to attend (more of a hassle for the elderly, more of a hassle for poorer people who work in shifts or have to work during the caucus).
    Add to that, that Hillary is doing far better in rural districts. McCain's support will mainly come from such districts in the GE, Hillary will be more able to undermine the rural McCain vote. The bigger urban districts will remain strong democratic in the GE, no matter what.

    Parent
    good point there. (none / 0) (#34)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:04:02 AM EST


    Parent
    The only way the media can turn on her (none / 0) (#193)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:18:56 AM EST
    is to turn positive.

    yes, I think you have a great argument here.

    Tell some superdelegates.

    Parent

    Wow! (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM EST
    KO just called Hillary the "presumptive nominee."

    Did they have to carry him away (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:04:49 AM EST
    to the fainting couch?  

    Parent
    Did he (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Fredster on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:15:27 AM EST
    have to change his drawers?


    Parent
    The entire panel (none / 0) (#182)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:07:22 AM EST
    went into total disarry.  Breathtaking.

    Parent
    I think it's clear that Obama needs to drop out (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jerry on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:02:59 AM EST
    I think this was Obama's night to lose, and since he lost it, I think he should do the honorable thing and concede the nomination.  Anything else would be to put the Democratic party at risk of implosion.  Let's let the popular candidate win.... for once.

    so true so true (none / 0) (#42)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:06:41 AM EST


    Parent
    that's right! obama needs to drop out (none / 0) (#48)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:07:52 AM EST
    and think about what's best for the party. of course, he won't. i said it because i was so sick of hearing that said about hillary.

    Parent
    hmm... (none / 0) (#52)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:46 AM EST
    Let's let the popular candidate win.... for once.
    Pretty sure that Obama will still have the lead in popular vote after tonight, as well as the pledged delegate count.  

    So do you really think that the "popular candidate" should win?

    Parent

    I think that was snark (none / 0) (#105)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:21:00 AM EST


    Parent
    How do you compute popular vote (none / 0) (#186)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:09:25 AM EST
    for caucus states?  As TX will demnstrate, there isn't an obvious relationship.  We have seen that in NV and WA to a lesser extent.

    Parent
    Russert (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by NYMARJ on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:02:59 AM EST
    Mentioned to my husband that Russert looked like he wasn't able to speak - his face was so distressed.

    looked to me like he's had work on his face. (none / 0) (#159)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:43:28 AM EST
    His face looks a little pulled back

    Parent
    Good point BTD (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:06:39 AM EST
    I think tonight guarantees that Clinton can get some action on Michigan and Florida AND that she will at the very least broker a VP slot for herself.

    But looking at the numbers in big states, yet again Hillary proves why she should be our nominee.  Strong with women, strong with latinos, RESILIENT, can take a punch, etc, etc.

    VP slot? You're kidding right? She should be (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:15 AM EST
    the NOMINEE for President.

    Parent
    I said at the very LEAST (none / 0) (#90)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:16 AM EST
    I am in a glass half-full type of mood.  Hedging bets, being cautious, etc.

    I want Hillary Clinton to become our next President pretty damn badly.

    Parent

    My gawd (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    I am going to have to write about the Puerto Rico contest.

    I think you should vote again and cancel (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:11:55 AM EST
    yourself out.

    Parent
    Meet you there! (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:11:58 AM EST
    My grandma will get her wish... to vote for Hillary.

    My grandfather just died las week though =(

    Parent

    I offer my condolences :-( (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:15:10 AM EST


    Parent
    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:21:56 AM EST
    He lived a long life though... Probably happier now anyway.

    Parent
    Condolences -- and take care (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:25:09 AM EST
    of yourself. Even if it was, as you say, his time -- it isn't always our time to let go. Loss is loss.

    Parent
    i'm sorry. :( (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:15:44 AM EST


    Parent
    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:23:56 AM EST


    Parent
    I started commenting after DK just drove me out. (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:58:56 AM EST
    from the Obamalovefest. And bashing Penn and Clintons staff, so I'm like a few weeks here but I find everyone nice and while we disagree on some things, its been an oasis for me.

    I believe in Hillary and the Clintons. I don't think they're driven by anything but love for this country. I trust them on the merits of their leadership despite their other personal problems.

    And its nice to be able to say it without bringing up her Iraq vote like she wore it as a scarlet letter. geez.

    Anyway I don't know many around here yet, but my prayers to "diplomatic" in his hour of grief.

    Parent

    I'm so sorry for your loss (none / 0) (#198)
    by sumac on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:24:10 AM EST
    I wish you and your family all the best.

    Parent
    I warned my friends about this. (none / 0) (#68)
    by phat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:12:21 AM EST
    I suppose I should have warned you.

    phat

    Parent

    Ah. (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:14:30 AM EST


    Parent
    You aren't fooling anyone (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:15:45 AM EST
    You'll love doing it.

    Parent
    PR, bargain for statehood -- I mean it (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:15:51 AM EST
    as I am so weary of a country that began as breaking free from colonization now treating territories as colonies. Go for it, PR, it's time to fit another star in the flag!

    Parent
    And time for Bill to take a (none / 0) (#224)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:55:12 AM EST
    trip to Puerto Rico!!

    Hey....let's go there and watch the inauguration on TV !

    Or...maybe New Orleans?

    Hawaii?

    Australia?  (It's summer there in January).

    Parent

    Congrats to Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:09:12 AM EST
    I think all of us need to think about the greater good of the democratic party at this critical juncture. If the race continues to degenerate between now and PA--or between now and August!!--whoever is the nominee is going to enter the general election severely damaged goods.

    Obama and Clinton are extremely similar on the issues and they will both govern in similar ways. It is much less important who the nominee is than that we actually defeat McCain in November and elect a democratic President. The longer this race goes on, the less our party will be unified and the more likely we will lose the general election.

    Now there is still PA to come and nobody is going anywhere before then. But if Obama wins it and the primary is still deadlocked, Clinton should drop out. If Obama does not win it and the primary is still deadlocked, then he should drop out and accept a spot as Clinton's VP. Defeating McCain is the most important thing.

    HRC certainly doesn't appear (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:15:37 AM EST
    to me to be "damaged goods" at present, despite the efforts of the media and Obama's campaign.

    Parent
    She will be soon if the race goes on this way (none / 0) (#112)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:45 AM EST
    Not now, both Obama and Clinton are still well-positioned right now. But it's pretty easy to project the outcome of a protracted nomination fight--we've already seen what's happened in the past few weeks. This is how I fear the campaign is going to play out: Clinton continues to launch 10 negative attacks on Obama every day. Eventually Obama must respond in kind, or even if he doesn't his supporters are going to be really pissed off at Clinton's attacks. The race goes on for four more months until by sheer attrition one of the two manages to eke out victory, most likely through undemocratic superdelegates. Either way, by this point our general election nominee is damaged goods to a wide swath of the democratic base via circular firing squads. Meanwhile John McCain has been busy campaigning with a unified republican party behind him and merrily sniping at our candidates from the sidelines. We lose in November.

    It's also important to keep in mind that Obama and Clinton have different demographic bases among the democratic electorate. Both are equally important, and neither can credibly win the general election without the support of the whole base.

    Parent

    Bill (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:20:20 AM EST
    didn't lock it up until June, and he beat Bush Sr.

    The folks screaming 50 state project have already excluded Florida and Michigan and now they want to exlude the remaining states.

    Parent

    If only it were 1992... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:36:01 AM EST
    If Ross Perot runs again and takes a net 5% of the vote away from John McCain, then sure, we'll win.

    McCain is going to be very tough to beat. It won't be a walk for the nominee whoever it is; and we need a united democratic party to do it. Five months of negative attack ads and increasingly hostility and bitterness on both sides /= united democratic party. In other words, what's happened on the blogs is starting to spread into the real world.  
     

    Parent

    I've seen no evidence of that (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:08:58 AM EST
    Why do you say it's starting to spread into the real world?  From the exit polls, average Dem voters are still blissed out about the idea of either candidate running in the general.

    Several MSM types have pointed out, and I agree, that a prolonged primary fight is a big plus for Dems because it keeps the voters' attention focused on them and McCain is totally marginalized.

    Parent

    The new Pew Poll (none / 0) (#207)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:28:22 AM EST
    Here:

    The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.

    One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

    In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.

    A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

    Contrary to the MSM pundits, I think these numbers will only grow the nastier and protracted the nomination fight becomes.

    Parent

    You've said that at least six times now (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:08:06 AM EST
    so I hope you get the new memo soon to repeat here.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#223)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:54:23 AM EST
    What's happened on blogs is starting to spread into the real world.

    Came as a shock to me too.

    Problem is, now that it has, Clinton stepping down is going to have an opposite effect of what you want.


    Parent

    I asked earlier and still no response (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:12 AM EST
    What on earth is the damage to the party?  A vigorous primary is bad HOW?

    Parent
    well it is bad for the candidate who (none / 0) (#126)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:28:23 AM EST
    doesn't do well being vetted. the one who doesn't shine so brightly when the new wears off.

    damaged goods will happen only if one of the campaigns plays very ugly politics.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#128)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:28:48 AM EST
    It's been fine up to now--exciting, vigorous, etc etc.

    If Clinton and Obama start seriously attacking each other's general election vulnerabilities and get their supporters to believe those attacks, then that is a problem. The Clinton campaign has already starting running TV ads claiming Obama is not prepared to be Commander-in-Chief. What will happen is you get a polarized and a divided democratic party going into a three-month general election, not enough time for fresh wounds to close. That's bad.

    Parent

    by overwhelming majority (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:31:49 AM EST
    Dems will vote for a dem.  Are you seriously concerned that dems will believe b.s. about the other candidate when it comes to the GE?  Not going to happen.

    Parent
    Of course I am (none / 0) (#169)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:51:14 AM EST
    It is already starting to happen. Look at the latest Pew Poll. Very significant numbers--double digits--of of democrats are crossing over to McCain if either Clinton or Obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    Because people are emotional animals. (none / 0) (#130)
    by sweetthings on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:29:50 AM EST
    If a primary gets too heated, then you get a large number of supporters for candidate X that decide they truly can't stand candidate Y, even if candidate X and Y are very similar policy-wise.

    How many people have we seen on this very site claim that they will not vote for Obama if he wins? How many on DK have vowed not to vote for Hillary if she wins?

    These things aren't such a big deal as long as things are wrapped up in a timely fashion...people rarely remember vows made in March come November. But if we're still fighting when the convention rolls around...then yeah, it could get really ugly.

    Parent

    not to burst anyone's bubble (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:34:08 AM EST
    but the people on this site are not representative of the majority voters that call themselves democrats.  By the time November rolls around, democrats aren't going to care about this pissy crap going on right now.  They are going to care about health care, stopping the war, creating jobs.  And that means dems will vote for a dem.

    Parent
    Just where is this majority? Please tell me. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:40:35 AM EST
    Because a lot of the Democrats I know and talk to may not vote for BO.  They may go for McCain or they may sit the election out.  He has turned off a lot of people.  And I mean Democrats who have been voting Democrat for a VERY long time.  He will have to prove himself to lots of people.  By now everyone knows Hillary.  BO is a closed book waiting to be opened and discovered.  So let's not get ahead of ourselves and say that everyone will vote for him if he's the nominee.  It isn't true.

    Parent
    It's a growing problem for Clinton as well (none / 0) (#173)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:53:47 AM EST
    Look at the latest Pew Poll.

    Parent
    pollster.com reports (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:06:10 AM EST
    25% of HRC supporters said that they could vote for McCain in a GE and 10% of BO supporters said the same. So it looks like the safe thing to do, since that's your concern, is to call for Obama to drop out.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#219)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:48:31 AM EST
    I have called for Obama to drop out. At this point our best bet is probably Clinton/Obama.

    Parent
    I'd like to think that is true (none / 0) (#161)
    by sancho on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:43:50 AM EST
    but I fear Hillary won parts of Ohio tonight that Obama cannot get in November. Southeastern Ohio did not vote for Kerry in 04 and it likely will not vote for Obama either. Ditto large numbers of hispanics in Tx. I really doubt Obama can take Ohio--at least not w/o Hillary on the ticket. He may not take Penn. in a GE either.

    Parent
    I Hear What You Are Saying (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by cdalygo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:35:18 AM EST
    But I wished I would have heard more when Obama and his surrogates in media/campaign were slamming Hillary. Think back on the Harry/Louise type ads, the screeds against the Clinton presidency, and the veiled/open attacks of racism leveled at Bill.

    Moreover, despite "hearing it", I disagree with the premise. Part of our problem in Democratic primaries is our rush to end them. We need to fully vet the candidates.

    The Obama campaign has been seeking to end this campaign for weeks. Why? They know that they can't close the deal.

    That's not who I want at the head of my ticket.

    Parent

    I fully agree with you (none / 0) (#155)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:39:47 AM EST
    I think this should go on until there is a clear winner (as much as that is possible).  I'm really disgusted by BO, and often I wonder what the real difference is between him & McCain.  However, my pragmatic side takes over and thinks about things like getting things done in Congress----if we have a dem prez, no matter if it's not my preferred candidate, will we at least get something done?  

    Parent
    See? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:56:15 AM EST
    You yourself are an example of the division that is already being created between Obama and Clinton supporters. Not sure why you're trying to deny otherwise...

    Will you give the same amount of money/volunteering time to Obama if he's the nominee that you would give to Clinton? I would think probably not if you're "disgusted by BO."

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:57:51 AM EST
    If Clinton was in Obama's position she would be trying to end the campaign as well. That's just obvious.

    Obviously, neither of them can close the deal. That is precisely the problem here.

    Parent

    She Can Close the Deal (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by cdalygo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:16:51 AM EST
    She has won the key battleground states that we need in the general election. She did so despite having been outspent 2:1 (or more in certain states) and been vilified by the MSM and most progressive blogs. In contrast, he lost big time to the late deciders who watched his performance over last weekend (e.g. running from press conference).

    Plus you are assuming that each campaign bears equal responsibility for trashing the other candidate. For weeks many of us warned the Obama supporters to back off on their Hillary and Bill trashing. We argued that shutting down dissent on larger blogs made all of us look stupid. But those cries fell on deaf ears because the Obama folks thought they could skate to the nomination.

    Those chickens are returning to their proverbial roost right now. He might have won tonight if he had not gone of his way to tick folks off with his  arrogance. Further those flashes of arrogance probably cost himself a vice-president slot.

    Parent

    You continue to see things in a partisan frame (none / 0) (#211)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:37:46 AM EST
    What I am arguing is that we need to see things from the long-term perspective of our overall chances in the general election. It is simply immaterial who caused what or who bears what responsibility for whatever. As things stand neither Clinton nor Obama will able to seal the nomination for multiple months. If the nomination fight then degenerates into a bitter war--as it very well could, and is in fact starting to--then we're shooting ourselves in the foot whoever the nominee is.

    I understand that people who are deeply invested in the Clinton campaign and deeply invested against an Obama nomination (or vice versa) are not going to see things the way I do. I am and have been a strong Obama supporter, but my number one priority is stopping McCain and making sure a democrat is elected to the Presidency in November. I think either Obama or Clinton would be fine choices, we just need to make sure they are not damaged and our party is united behind them.

    Parent

    Congratulations Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:09:19 AM EST
    What a fighter.  Once again when all the kool kids counted you out, you hung in there and prevailed.

    All Democrats should be happy that we will have at least one more month to take a good, hard look at our candidates and make the right choice.

    Obama has many vulnerabilities which have been made abundantly clear tonight.

    I am just thankful that we did not rush over the cliff just yet.

    In the words of Stephen Colbert (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Shawn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:10:24 AM EST
    I called it! (Ok, the part about McCain/Huckabee still being competitive looks a little bad, but otherwise....pretty good, no?)

    Why isn't this an argument for HRC? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:11:13 AM EST
    If you want this nomination process settled, vote heavily for HRC, because she isn't leaving.

    What a relief! nt. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jpete on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:11:27 AM EST


    Here looking at you Kid! (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Saul on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:11:29 AM EST


    Gloria Borger (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:12:35 AM EST
    said earlier this evening that no body wanted the primary to go to Pennsylvania because that would mean that she (i.e., Gloria) would have to spend time in places like  Scranton or Allentown. She said who wants that. Guess what Gloria? You may not like it but we will now be able to vote for the candidate we like and perhaps make a difference. Also, people in Scranton are not thrilled that you or other talking heads who rarely say anything useful or intelligent will land on their town.

    Gloria can stay home (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:14:00 AM EST
    She is an idiot.

    Parent
    Best comment yet. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:27:30 AM EST
    How in heck did she get that job. Oh. I guess I didn't want to know.

    Parent
    I cannot believe you said that. (none / 0) (#227)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:05:09 AM EST


    Parent
    So, over at Dailykos, it's all about how (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by tigercourse on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:14:03 AM EST
    Clinton has run the dirtiest campaign in history and how the press should really look into charges that she's a lesbian. They're taking it well.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:24 AM EST


    Parent
    And Josh had the correct headline about Texas (none / 0) (#102)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:20:06 AM EST
    being called for Hillary.  But the first sentence of his post said MSNBC and FOX called it for OBAMA.  What a dork.

    Parent
    DK (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Nasarius on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:25:22 AM EST
    What happened over there? There was never much love for Clinton, but around the time Edwards dropped out, something just snapped and it's been a race to the bottom ever since. I get a sense of vertigo when I dare glance at the rec list. It's unrecognizable.

    Parent
    It's amazing, no? (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:32:40 AM EST
    I don't mind the bias, it's the stupid that bugs me.

    They still haven't called TX on the front page, BTW, or even referred to the major networks calling it. I found that amusing. How much basic intellectual honesty does it take to say "According to CNN etc., Clinton wins the TX primary"?

    I'm not particularly a supporter of either of these candidates, but there are a few of the blogs that have just lost their minds IMO way beyond supporting their candidate.

    Parent

    honestly, I think she was run a half descent (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:24:35 AM EST
    campaign,considering all the she's hate rhetoric that swept the blogosphere. And when she had the crew shake up, give her credit for re-grouping to eek out a win.

    How many times have you heard" she's got high neg. numbers. She's not liked,or because she s not liked". Damn, I still haven't figured that out. For years. I bet they don't have any reason or just don't recall a reason.

    You can't deny that Hillary is actually a likeable - electable person and has been around all the attacks against her and she's still standing. Her pedigree is presidential. Hell I want a president with all those qualities. No,correct that, the USA needs a president like her after the disaster we have now.

    Whiners

    Parent

    hahahaha (none / 0) (#89)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:12 AM EST
    sigh, shaking my head right now.

    Parent
    If there were police video of Obama (none / 0) (#98)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:09 AM EST
    supporters locking Clinton supporters out of the caucus, they'd find a way to blame it on her. They are beyond help and making themselves irrelevant to future Democratic candidates.

    Parent
    GF and I tonight decided that we're lesbians (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:24 AM EST
    too, and will wear t-shirts and buttons saying so, if this insanity continues. I told girlfriend about the Obamans last week who, in the face of the crap about his middle name, all started to use Hussein as their middle names. I love that . . . so we can adapt it to the Sisterhood of the Pantsuit, too. Watch for our t-shirts saying "We Are the Lesbians You Have Been Waiting For, Too."

    Parent
    Well You Know (none / 0) (#113)
    by cdalygo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:53 AM EST
    As a lesbian, there's a little bit more to it than a pantsuit. :>

    But my girlfriend and I appreciate your support.

    Parent

    Ssshhh! (none / 0) (#121)
    by spit on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:25:26 AM EST
    You're not supposed to tell them that part until they sign the paperwork!

    Parent
    I know. We need lessons. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:30:42 AM EST
    I'm signing up for LGBT Studies classes tomorrow.

    Parent
    Paperwork? Noooooo . . . (none / 0) (#136)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:31:51 AM EST
    not if it means another usercode and password to remember! (Btw, "the Sisterhood of the Pantsuit" is a nickname for Clinton supporters. Actually, I've never seen any of my lesbian friends in pantsuits. But they have some of the best t-shirts.:-)

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#151)
    by cdalygo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:37:14 AM EST
    But you are going to have work harder for the toaster oven.

    And truthfully, the less said about the pantsuits, the better. That's a generational thing.

    But we do love our t-shirts.

    Parent

    "But you are going to have (none / 0) (#194)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:18:57 AM EST
    ...to work harder for the toaster oven."

    You have to sign up someone else  in order to get the Toaster oven.

    Parent

    We can do this. I'll say (none / 0) (#213)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:43:48 AM EST
    that cdalygo signed me up, so she gets the toaster oven. Then I'll come over and clean out the crumb tray in my pantsuit, and make a mess of it, and I'll finally get to throw out the ugly outfit . . . and replace it with one of those best t-shirts. A Clinton t-shirt, of course.

    Parent
    would have expected no less :-) (none / 0) (#116)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:23:56 AM EST


    Parent
    We should put (none / 0) (#208)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:30:43 AM EST
    Talking Points Memo on a suicide watch as well. They are despondent beyond belief. It was my first visit there in over a month. I do feel for them but I think Obama will unravel over the next month and many of them will come to have buyer's remorse. They will ask how they could have been so wrong. No doubt many won't, they will feel like the election was stolen from them that dirty tactics won. It is actually the inverse, Obama's dirty tactics failed.

    Parent
    John King Can't believe (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:47 AM EST
    Obama didn't win. He shows the map showing she won almost the entire state and he still wants to point out Dallas and Houston.

    Three times he left out San Antonio which she won and he reluctantly agreed.

    El Paso (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:18:36 AM EST
    He was unbelievably had tonight. He usually is good

    Parent
    El Paso is 69-29, that's incredible (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:27:02 AM EST
    but Webb County (Laredo) is 77-21.  Hillary owes the Latino population big time!


    Parent
    And BILL is the one who spent all his time with (none / 0) (#129)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:28:59 AM EST
    the Latinos.  People need to remember that.  He criss-crossed the entire state, from South Texas to El Paso on Monday campaigning one last time for Hillary.  The Hispanic population loves Hillary and they love Bill as much or more.

    Parent
    Was Bill Clinton present during HRC's (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:47:17 AM EST
    speech tonight?

    Parent
    No, she was in Ohio. I was told he spent the day (none / 0) (#170)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:52:17 AM EST
    in Texas.

    Parent
    Will Richardson still declare for Obama? (none / 0) (#196)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:22:11 AM EST


    Parent
    shellshocked he was (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:33:43 AM EST
    The media didn't listen to Chris Matthews after New Hampshire : never underestimate a Clinton again.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:18:03 AM EST
    That was a wasted 10 minutes.

    I tuned in to MSNBC for the first time in a year.

    Popping the Champagne (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:27:20 AM EST
    I am most happy. I am also really thankful that my mother who is 85 was able to do something in her life for the first time. Vote for a woman. She voted in Rhode Island, the bluest of states.

    Very happy camper.

    Is it just me (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:28:37 AM EST
    or did anyone else noticed that one week of bad press and Obama crumbled? Imagine if he was taking attacks from republicans for a few months? We need Hillary(bullet proof), because Obama appears too vulnerable.

    Exactly ... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:33:00 AM EST
    do we want a candidate who wins when she has to?

    Or a candidate who can't win when he has to?

    Parent

    Even my husband, who usually doesn't say too much, (none / 0) (#133)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:30:59 AM EST
    said BO was off his message the past few days.  Just shows that people are noticing and that BO is not used to scrutiny.

    Parent
    Damn! (none / 0) (#5)
    by magnetics on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:54:16 PM EST
    You go, Girl!

    You're kidding me (none / 0) (#7)
    by phat on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:55:23 PM EST
    I don't make predictions. But that's definitely one I would never have made.

    phat

    KO has lost some of his snark. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:57:30 PM EST
    He hasn't mentioned Xerox all night.

    BTD, can you really see HC as VP? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:01:54 AM EST


    oh god, the vp training her boss? (none / 0) (#37)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:05:30 AM EST
    pretty insulting, imho.

    Parent
    I suspect Teresa is snarking. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:06:44 AM EST


    Parent
    No, BTD says that in his updated post. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST
    Either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. I can see the second but not the first. I don't know a single Clinton supporter who wants her as VP. I guess Obama supporters may feel the same way though.

    Parent
    I think she can make a better choice (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:13:44 AM EST
    for VP than Obama.  He is seriously exposed to really bad press due to Rezko trial keeping Obama's long assoc. with Rezko in voters' minds.  

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:19:18 AM EST
    She's too strong to be told who her vp candidate should be. She will pick whoever she wants, and it won't be Obama.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, you speak as if she is going to be the (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:21:26 AM EST
    nominee.  Do you really believe this?  I'm thinking she will after tonight.

    Parent
    Don't know yet (none / 0) (#188)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:12:26 AM EST
    But it's quite possible. Obama is going to be facing tougher questions now that his ffree media pass is over -- and he needs more than his hope meme--

    I wonder what Bill Richardson and John Edwards will do. And if Chris Dodd will retract his thinly disguised call for her drop out.

    Parent

    John Edwards? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:13 AM EST
    I think this is thinking too far ahead anyway.


    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:48:05 AM EST
    John Edwards has less experience than Obama and none of his positives...

    I hope you're not serious.

    Parent

    Maybe Not (none / 0) (#189)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:15:13 AM EST
    I'd just like to see blogging heads explode.


    Parent
    Ted Strickland (nt) (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:33:50 AM EST


    Parent
    I agree and plus I believe that seniority counts (none / 0) (#146)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:35:27 AM EST
    Call me old fashioned, but she was in line before Obama.  Lots of people hate to hear that, but that's how many people feel.

    She has DEFINITELY paid her dues, as they say.

    Parent

    A very sad remark (none / 0) (#168)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:49:30 AM EST
    Everyone who feels that way is completely wrong-headed. We need to pick the person who is most qualified, not the person who has been waiting the longest.

    Unfortunately, I agree, there are a number of people who think that way.

    Parent

    Oh well (none / 0) (#171)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:52:47 AM EST
    Can't be right all the time, eh?  But I was right in that a lot of people do feel this way, which you admit.

    Parent
    Most qualified and waiting the longest (none / 0) (#172)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:53:27 AM EST
    both one in the same in this case.

    Parent
    I think his head is too big for any other office (none / 0) (#206)
    by thereyougo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:27:50 AM EST
    than the oval office.

    Parent
    yeah, as much as i despise (none / 0) (#72)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:13:33 AM EST
    obama's campaigning tactics, i'd be ok with the joint ticket as long as he's vp.  after everything he's done to her this season, he doesn't deserve to head the ticket.  no way for me.

    Parent
    But it just makes more sense... (none / 0) (#88)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:00 AM EST
    ...to have Clinton/Obama.  He can skate through all of his little skeletons/bury them while she trains his arrogant self to run the White House and then he'll end up President anyway if people are still pumped up about him.

    Parent
    What I actually think is that this gives Obama (none / 0) (#33)
    by jerry on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:04:00 AM EST
    Seven weeks to get rid of the Kumbaya and start getting real.

    i don't think obama will change his (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:34:11 AM EST
    tactics. that is just my take on him. unfortunately he appears to have the same stubborn my way or highway type attitude as bush.

    many politicans would retool, rethink, and change their approach. obama is too sure he has it just right. way too much pride!

    Parent

    Remember though. Axelrod is the (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:36:38 AM EST
    puppeteer.

    Parent
    he will lose on policy, though. (none / 0) (#39)
    by kangeroo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:06:02 AM EST
    policy is not his strong suit.

    Parent
    How? (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:06:06 AM EST


    Parent
    By campaigning as a Democrat? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:07:31 AM EST


    Parent
    I hope you don't mean (none / 0) (#65)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:12:03 AM EST
    That you want him to go negative on Clinton. Because that would be a disaster for our party.

    Parent
    No, not go negative on Clinton just really start (none / 0) (#144)
    by jerry on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:34:21 AM EST
    talking issues and policy.

    I still think that Clinton is closer to the "Edwardian Ideal" than Obama.  But I would like to see the process actually have BOTH candidates arguing policy, and discussing health care, poverty, and the many many issues of the two (or three) Americas.

    Right now, I think both (but especially Obama) get away with kumbaya and triangulating.

    I would like to see a Democrat from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party get the nomination, and Obama now has seven weeks to show us he's the guy.

    Edwards/Clark 08!

    Parent

    I think you're badly mistaken (none / 0) (#153)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:38:30 AM EST
    If you think the nomination is going to come to down to "issues," then you are badly mistaken. In fact, Obama and Clinton are two peas in a pod on the issues.

    What it will come down to is a painful war of attrition.

    Parent

    I'm not mistaken on that at all. (none / 0) (#176)
    by jerry on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM EST
    There is absolutely no way the nomination will come down to issues, because sigh, that just wouldn't be politics.

    But a guy can wish....

    Parent

    Negative (none / 0) (#156)
    by NYMARJ on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:40:06 AM EST
    what about questioning her character, the she is too divisive comments, the Harry and Louise mailers, etc has not been negative about his campaign already

    Parent
    What about his slogan? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:43:48 AM EST
    "Change We Can Believe In"

    That was his campaign's snarky way of calling Hillary a liar.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#163)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:46:49 AM EST
    That stuff is small fry. Obama raises $50 million a month, and Clinton has innumerable personal vulnerabilities, scandals, etc. He could do a lot of serious damage if he wanted to. Just remember that he has yet to air a negative attack ad.

    Parent
    Not True (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by cdalygo on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:22:41 AM EST
    Really. You believe Obama has not gone negative.

    What do you call the following? He puts out the Harry/Louise type ad trashing her and Edwards' health plan. He launches an attack on the Clinton presidency that never acknowledges the rise of the far right talk radio or a corrupt Democratic congress. His campaign releases a memo outlining how to maximize the attacks on Bill for being a supposed racist. African-American super delegates who refuse to switch votes for him are threatened with primary challenges and vilified within the community.

    Moreover he tried to go negative with an ad but looked silly. Getting a call at 3:00 a.m. should not lead to one pontificating about a vote a you never actually faced. It made him look weak.

    Parent

    Piffle (none / 0) (#203)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:25:30 AM EST
    Clinton has innumerable personal vulnerabilities, scandals, etc.

    Puhleeese. What personal vulnerabilities, scandals, etc.? This is Hillary, not Bill. You think Obama has dirt on her that someone with more experience, knowledge and money wouldn't already have dredged up?

    You're dreaming.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#217)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:46:58 AM EST
    There's a difference between having dirt and running multi-million dollar ad campaigns featuring said dirt. There is metric tons of stuff on Clinton floating out there.

    Parent
    He can't. (none / 0) (#205)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:27:36 AM EST
    What sort of attack ad could he make that doesn't sound exactly like what a Republican would say?  Do you know how much that would piss off the loyal Democratic base that has been watching Republicans trash her for all these years?

    He can't make attack ads. If there were a way to do it without looking like Rove, he'd have done it by now.

    Parent

    Negative ads work (none / 0) (#214)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:43:56 AM EST
    Now I'm not saying he will do it, and I hope he doesn't do it. But he COULD do it. Frankly I'm not so certain Obama is just going to sit there and let Clinton attack him all day without hitting back.

    If you think Clinton is invulnerable to a $50 million barrage of negative ads in say Pennsylvania, think again.

    Parent

    Seven weeks of Rezko, redux (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:14:16 AM EST
    with a trail that will take months. Opening arguments tomorrow, a Chitown media seriously angry at Obama, and Paddy Fitz as prosecutor. . . .

    Parent
    PA (none / 0) (#46)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:07:16 AM EST
    Goodness...GB insists it's a showdown in PA. I may need to temporarily relocate.

    Does Mark Penn get credit? Heh (none / 0) (#70)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:13:21 AM EST
    Could this be the new meme as we head to Pennsylvania:  Penn for Penn? heeheeee.

    just.kidding.

    Hell no (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:17:46 AM EST
    Harold Ickes.

    Parent
    And Maggie Williams n/t. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:27:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Yep. If Williams had been in charge (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:36:47 AM EST
    sooner, we would not have seen such chaos in the Wisconsin campaign, just days after the switch. (That said, I had to think of Solis tonight and hope that she is enjoying the Latino/a voces being heard!)

    Parent
    and Stephanie Tubbs Jones n/t (none / 0) (#154)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:39:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Wolfson also got much better recently (none / 0) (#148)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:36:37 AM EST
    Now if they can just bring in Carville and sideline Mark Penn (just have him polling or making ads and thats it) then they can go forward to the nomination.

    Parent
    Carville was ambivalent about the 3am ad on MTP (none / 0) (#201)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:24:38 AM EST


    Parent
    What are you drinking again? (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:16:13 AM EST


    Parent
    No, just couldn't resist the pun (none / 0) (#134)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:31:34 AM EST
    Penn for Penn!

    Battle cry... raaaaaaaar.

    Parent

    Popular vote? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:18:48 AM EST
    How much will HRC net?

    Looks like about 200-250K ... is that right?

    300 plus (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:20:38 AM EST
    Counting Florida, it is now a 300k spread.

    Parent
    Barack Obama and Latinos (none / 0) (#114)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:23:49 AM EST
    This is one of the major arguments for a Clinton nomination, it should be pointed out.

    Big Tent Democrat (none / 0) (#118)
    by Coral Gables on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:25:05 AM EST
    Actually it's time to again analyze Florida and Michigan.

    What is being reported about the State of Florida offering to pay for a $10 million primary is false. I expect plans to be made for a closed vote by mail primary. Only those registered prior to January 29th will be eligible to vote. And the tab will be split between the DNC and the Florida Democratic Party.

    Dean has said in the past this has to be done before June 3. I don't think that will change. The plans will begin tomorrow and finalized and set in stone the day after Pennsylvania should both candidates still be in the contest.

    Tuesdays have always been used in Florida but the last Saturday in May for a "by mail" primary probably makes more sense since the last Tuesday in May is the day after Memorial Day.

    I'll leave Michigan for you.

    Just took a peek at DKos ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:29:53 AM EST
    they were surprisingly morose and contrite.

    More blame game stuff, then talk about delegate math.

    Norah and Rachel just bashed Bill C. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:57:20 AM EST
    Embarrassing his wife? Try winning votes in Texas.

    This from Josh (none / 0) (#184)
    by herb the verb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:08:47 AM EST
    Regarding Chuck Todd (who I actually think appears fairly "fair and balanced compared to the rest of the MANBC crew
    The Texas numbers are still up in the air. But he seemed to be suggesting a possible range from a 4 to a 9 delegate pick-up there.

    Put that all together and it seems likely that we're close to no movement at all on the pledged delegate front, conceivably even Obama picking up delegates, not withstanding losing the popular vote

    And Josh apparently calls that democracy in action.

    What about the popular vote? (none / 0) (#204)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:26:50 AM EST
    Wouldn't 10-12 pt wins in FL and MI affect that?

    Possibly (none / 0) (#210)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:36:41 AM EST
    I don't have the numbers in front of me.

    The problem with popular votes, of course, is that from the caucus states, ONLY the number of people that caucus, are counted for a particular state.  So you end up with numbers much much less for a caucus state, than you do for a primary state, for the winner.  (For the loser too, but the point remains, the difference isn't what it would be normally).

    So you would need some formula for the caucus win numbers, times some X amount, to represent the "normal" primary turnout, for a caucus state - and then add that to the total.

    Parent

    Now, that is b.s., extrapolating (none / 0) (#216)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:46:28 AM EST
    the popular vote for caucus states as if they had been primary states. That's the risk Obama took with his caucus strategy. He's stuck with it.

    Parent
    The policy Obama pursued was a DELEGATE strategy (none / 0) (#220)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:50:15 AM EST
    based on caucuses.  

    If you want to go by "that's the risk he took", then you are right back to "those are the rules for FL and MI that Hillary agreed to, and didn't complain about".

    I'm thinking through what is fair.

    Also, again, if there were a revote, Obama would be ahead in popular vote, given a 10-12% margin in FL and MI.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#222)
    by Fultron on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:50:57 AM EST
    Tonight's TX results show that extrapolating is not at all straightforward or indicative of the popular vote.

    Parent
    Here is Real Clear Politics numbers (none / 0) (#218)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:47:51 AM EST
    At this link, for popular vote If there was a "do-over", in the current total INCLUDING the current FL and MI counts(with no campaigning), Hilary is ahead by only around 26K. So, if you figure 10-12% leads, with Obama getting votes, Hillary would be behind in total popular vote. Again, that's not even including a formula for caucus states, which, in fairness, should be included.

    Parent
    the problem with extrapolating (none / 0) (#225)
    by tree on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:57:27 AM EST
    popular vote from the caucus totals is that we have solid proof, from both Texas and Washington State that caucus margins and popular vote totals are not the same and one can't be reliably used to estimate the other.

    Parent
    Good point, but this goes both ways (none / 0) (#226)
    by jcsf on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:02:18 AM EST
    For example, say Wisconsin.  If WI had been a caucus, Obama wouldn't have had a 200,000K ahead number.

    Parent
    Why is WA not on that list? (none / 0) (#228)
    by Manuel on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:12:53 AM EST
    Obama won the caucases and the beauty contest but by very different margins.  I wonder which count they would use.  Clinton's chances of winning the popular vote even with the iffy caucus state projections are very much alive.  I think they both have good cases to take to the superdelegates.

    Parent
    Ho-hum (none / 0) (#229)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:55:18 AM EST
    Over at TPM, Josh has done the sensible thing and looked at delegates.g

    And I think I'm going to be picked to be the running mate. I represent the psychiatric patient voting bloc and can bring a lot of new voters to the polls, and I'm three times as smart as the alternatives.

    Hillary Wins Texas | 218 comments (218 topical)