President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 22, 2008 05:31 PM UTC
129 Comments
Unlike before, there is no evidence of the undecideds breaking en masse for Obama. That could be good for Clinton.
I am taking the ‘over’ on this one.
In states where it’s close, undecideds have been breaking for Clinton. When Obama wins big, it’s not undecideds, it’s voter turnout. (IIRC)
Even if it’s not for our state or for my party. It’s like Monday night football for political junkies.
As such, I’m going to the store to get some Reese’s peanut butter cups and popcorn for the big night.
Beer and peanuts, yelling at the TV. Hope everyone has fun, should be a gas.
We’ve ordered out and have the beer on ice. Do not want this to end.
I love both, and they both give me heartburn.
but for future reference, does anyone know of any good bars in Denver where one can watch primary coverage?
But I know nobody here is that foolish. If you look at the numbers behind the average the variance is enormous:
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-…
And only a small number of pollsters in that sample are worth listening to:
http://indipol.wordpress.com/2…
I expect HRC’s win to be closer and maybe above 10 and if she does that, this race just keeps dragging on and on down the rabbit hole. If BO can by some miracle get inside 5 then she might, maybe, probably not, hopefully, finally drop the hell out.
You say: “…(B)oth are really good. So each time one moves into the lead, we develop buyer’s remorse and shift a bit toward the other.” You seem to be suggesting that because Clinton and Obama are both wearing the label “Democrat” it’s six-of-one, half-dozen of the other.
I would suggest that nothing could be further from the truth!
Clinton’s pitch has been, and continues to be, “thirty-five years experience, ready on day one.” Clinton knows how it was done in the past that led us to the present and she can keep on doing that from the get-go, no need to learn anything new. Many specifics grow from that. To name just one: let’s not negotiate with our foes (Iran, Syria) until they cave in, so that a negotiation is really a capitulation on their part.
Obama is a different candidate. Entirely different. He does not tend to offer Master Solutions to complex problems; he tends to offer to listen to a range of opinions and to generate a consensus. Quite different than holding a secret session on health care (early 90s) or energy policy (2001) and springing it onto the public fully formed and ready to vote for or against!
I won’t go on except to suggest that Clinton and Obama are radically different. They are NOT both “really good” candidates. Clinton represents a failed Democratic party that decided, circa 1987, to go with the Democratic Leadership Council’s Bill Clinton and pretend to be moderate Republicans. She represents the politics of fear and petty diversions from serious consideration of serious issues. Obama represents an entirely fresh approach that is not carrying baggage from the past 35 years of failure.
Maybe Pennsylvania will make a difference in the nomination battle. Maybe it won’t (my prediction, but that also reflects wishful thinking). But it won’t change the essential nature of either candidate, nor will the opinions of Pennsylvania deer hunters generate any buyer’s remorse in me. I might get depressed, but I won’t fantasize that the outcome today will rewrite the past and I hope to God we don’t let it write the future.
Remind me, what type of Dems were elected in 06? Oh that’s right, it was those rabid libs like Jim Webb and Jon Tester. Those liberal lions Heath Shuler and our very own Bill Ritter. Hmmm…nevermind…
Our party didn’t win back congress…and won’t win back the whitehouse…by poking the sensible center in the eye with a stick. I don’t think Obama will do that, but ridiculous supporters of his like you sure seem willing to do it
Of course BHO and HRC are different…but anyone who thinks they are “radically” different needs to peel the Obama stickers off their eyes tone down the rhetoric…
Dabee47, in your limited posts (so far) you strike me as a 24-year-old ignoramus with a vastly inflated opinion of your limited knowledge and with nothing of value to add to this site, or any other site.
ridiculously idealistic and ideologically blinded like yourself? Sheesh, get a clue. Obama has done well so far but he is still way more flash than he is substance. Additionally, he’s gonna have a much harder time winning in November. Personally I prefer to live in the reality where the “ok” candidate who can win and get stuff done is preferable to the unelectability of the naive candidate.
She switches for condescending to combative, and when all else fails, victim. That’s the deal, Hill in a nutshell. She’s like that in the public eye, at fundraisers, and in person (I’ve met her at least half a dozen times in private and have never been impressed).
This is my prediction if HRC is elected – The country had no money to fund any of her ideas, so instead of trying to fix a little of a lot, or listening to other people that are capable of that, she picks whatever people are yelling the loudest about and makes a sweeping change, it won’t work. When the Big Plan fails, the blame gets thrown around, or the tears start falling.
Skimming one of Fidel’s posts, I think he brushed on this, but that’s Bush’s Presidency. What’s really scary is that National Security will probably still be the hot button issue, so oddly enough, I think HRC has the best shot at being Bush-lite. Obama is definitely the most likely to not do something awful, the “ok” candidate.
Of course you don’t. It’s way easier to just dismiss my point b/c you don’t agree with it.
The reality is you don’t seem to understand electoral politics. You demonstrate it over and over again in your posts and diaries. I might only be 24, but my “limited knowledge” sure as hell beats your complete dearth of it.
Oh, and I love the “ignoramus” comment. Really, I just love it. One of us in this conversation gets paid to understand electoral history and political ideology…the other just seems to do it as a hobby. I wonder which applies to you?…
Anyway, thanks for the insults. I’ll continue to infuse this site with my “vastly inflated opinion” based on my “limited knowledge.”
Damn, I love you ridiculous people…
of the candidates than their positions, which of course are very similar. I don’t like someone who repeatedly lies about being under sniper fire and who is willing to do just about anything to get the nomination, ie. the ends justify the means.
If you said you like the color green Hillary would tell you she’s green in order to get your vote. “Oh wait, I’m green, I’m green !” She talks about shooting guns in Scranton after running a Senate campaign in New York focused on gun control. She’s for NAFTA, except when she’s against it. That’s what killed Romney.
As for JO’s comment about Obama listening to a range of opinions and developing a consensus what the hell is wrong with that ? This administration, if anything, has demonstrated to us how completely disastrous the results of a groupthink presidency is. Surround yourself with people who think and act just like you and the decisionmaking is really easy (i’m sure George W likes that). The irony of people like W oftentimes is they are just as certain as they are wrong.
has brought us an almost steady diet of defeat. After Bill won the first time, thanks only to Ross Perot, Dems began more than a decade of losing ground in congress, state legislatures and Governorships nationwide under the Clintons and their DLC.
The turn-around in 2006 was no thanks to them but happened because the public,and most important, the independents, turned against Bush, his war and his administration’s corruption and incompetence. The DLC derided the 50 state strategy that provided funding that helped capture so many seats in so many western and heartland states.
The Clinton/DLC wing of the Democratic Party believes in going after narrow victories by slicing and dicing the competing interest groups, crossing their fingers and hoping that we can get barely enough if the Rs don’t manage to grab the advantage with wedge issues,swiftboating, voter suppression and general dirty tricks.
Their strategy has NEVER brought us a true governing majority coalition. The best they have done has been to give us brief breaks from total conservative Republican domination.
We Dems will never do any better than that until we get out from under the out-dated, discredited Clinton dominated DLC wing of our party. The DLC has a place, but should not have the dominant place.
When the choice is between DLC “we’re almost just like Republicans” and actual Republicans, Republicans have the natural advantage.
The DLC message has been “we’re almost as tough, patriotic and fiscally conservative as Republicans so give us a chance”. That, of course, makes Republicans the gold standard in those areas and has always begged the question, why not just vote for real Republicans instead?
If you don’t like where we are, why stick with the folks that brought us here? It’s a couple of election cycles past time for a fundamental change in Democratic party leadership.
my point to JO is about ideology…not the DLC specifically. I’m talking about moderates vs. liberals…or at least people who think they are libs.
You’re right, the DLC’s strategy and prominence w/in the party has lead to a lot of failure. Being repub-lite doesn’t work.
The swing districts we won in 06 were won by moderates. To an extent, they still represent the DLC’s ideology…just not their campaign strategy. Hopefully I’m making sense…
You are making sense. But the key here and all over the west and heartland where Dems were elected in 2006 was a combination of Dem candidates seen as relatively moderate in in places where Republicans usually win and taking the Indies back from the R column. Indies are the key.
Indies, especially in the west, mainly can’t strand HRC. Standing in line for Obama’s DU event, most of the people standing near me (we had plenty of time to chat with the long wait time) were independent voters who were making up their mind between Edwards (he dropped out that very day and we all heard about it while we waited) and Obama. Not one of them was even considering HRC.
So far, I have met both Indies and moderate Rs for Obama but, while I’m sure they must be out there somewhere, I have never met a single R or Indie for HRC.
The only way to beat McCain is with the lion’s share of Indies. Obama can compete very well with that demographic. As far as big states in primaries, there is no reason to believe that Dems in those states won’t support the eventual Dem candidate or that a Dem can take all the states where that Dem won the primaries.
One thing IS for sure. The candidate who wins Indies WILL win the election in November, no question. We need to remember that while the talking heads focus on their string of primary horse race gotcha stories.
I was at the Obama DU rally too and heard the same thing about Clinton. No one thought of her as an option.
I also supported Edwards, but c’est la vie…
As a matter of fact, few if any of the Democrats newly elected in 2006 are associated with the DLC. The DLC opposed (and rather viciously so) Dean’s strategy that focused resources on their races. A lot of Democrats elected in 2006 are quite conservative on a number of issues; but there’s a difference between being conservative on some issues and being a DLC Democrat.
Perhaps it’s a tad confusing because both groups have this tendency to talk about overcoming partisanship. But there’s a fundamental and crucial difference in what they mean. The sort of Democrat that won in 2006 is principled and stands for something. The DLC is poll-driven and is non-partisan in response to public opinion. It’s pretty clear to me that we (by which I mean Democrats; not sure where your party affiliation lies) have lost a whole lot of elections not by being too conservative or too liberal, but by not standing for anything. And that, rather than ideological position, is what people are complaining about when they complain about the DLC.
I think most of them would be better characterized as conservative populists–the exact opposite of the DLC moderates who are Conservative on economics and relatively liberal (but silent) on social issues.
Populism has definitely been behind many of the recent gains by Democrats, but it still scares the hell out of the DLC. Of course, you have to give credit to the corruption and the horrific war, too.
Would you provide some examples? In either the Illinois or the national legislatures?
I very well could be wrong, but I mostly see him as taking Big Money, just like HC. I see him as trying to take credit and jump into the media spotlight in the capitol at every opportunity. I see him as voting “Present” much more than other leges, presumably so as to not have a record to dislike.
BO cares far more about himself than America, IMNSHO.
Sorry, I’m still underwhelmed.
So, those examples, please.
Obama Passed Bipartisan Legislation That Expanded Health Care Coverage To 154,000 Residents, Including 70,000 Children. As a state senator, Barack Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expanded and made permanent Illinois’ KidCare program by raising eligibility from 185% to 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation provided coverage for an additional 20,000 children and 65,000 more Illinois adults in the first year, and by 2007 had expanded health care to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In its endorsement for his Senate race, the State Journal–Register wrote, “Obama brings similar common–sense views to improving health care in America — for example, as a state senator he championed the successful KidCare program that assists thousands of children of the working poor.” The bill was sponsored in the state House by Sandra Pihos, a Republican and passed 42–13. [93rd GA, SB 130, 3R P 42–13–2; Signed into law 6/30/03, PA 93–0063; Chicago Daily Herald, 7/2/03
This perfect person you’re looking for can’t win.
Federal Ethics Reform: Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the “gold standard” for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists’ bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.”
Google for Government: Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. That’s why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, “It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It’s a brilliant idea.”
Illinois Reform: In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.
Parsing is obviously so dead set against Obama for reasons that his explanations never quite seem to adequately explain (I have my theories), no number of facts will make a dent. It’s like trying to convince a neocon that attacking a secular country as a way of addressing fundamentalist Islamic terrorists never made any sense. Sense has nothing to do with it.
…I appreciate this information.
I’m still at a loss why this is “concensus building.” We used to just call it “working with the opposition.” I guess it’s like “I get along with everyone, regardless.” Now, we must “embrace diversity.” Same thing, no?
Yes, it’s a great ability to have. All great politicians of every stripe have it.
I’ll keep this info in mind.
That’s not true … unless you reflexively define a great politician as someone who plays well with others and is willing to compromise.
The Karl Rove strategy of 50 percent plus one, also called the politics of division, explicitly rejects consensus-building. The point is to get exactly enough to win because going any further risks alienating your base — big-money donors or socially conservative foot soldiers. Obama’s (and less soaringly, Clinton’s) rhetoric pointedly rejects this approach.
Throw in a dash of the politics of fear, bullying and intimidation, and you’ve got a good share of the great politicians of the last century. (The fact the Bush-Cheney presidency is seen today as a failure doesn’t mean they haven’t been great politicians — they’ve overseen massive tax cuts, a huge shift from the have-a-littles to the have-mores, and skewed the Supreme Court for a generation.)
Politics of consensus starts with the question, what do we agree on and how can we accomplish it? The other kind first asks, what do we disagree on and how can we exploit that to our advantage. They both work, but they’re very different.
is his means for getting that 50 plus 1 percent. Quite clever and almost postmodern, but hypocritical too in its own way.
Rove, of course, was never a politician himself.
I would add there are great leaders, and although the political process put them there, they may not be a great politician.
Rove is a politician through and through, from the dirty tricks elections he ran after college up through his last, failed election. So was Lee Atwater, who taught him a lot about the folly of compromise and the advantages of making your opponent appear weak.
But if you want to parse your definition so narrowly that it only means what you want it to mean, then consider all the politicians who hired Rove and successfully followed his advice.
I agree with you that the best politicians, the ones I admire, start from an inclusive, compromise-seeking position. But, speaking of Democrats, Huey Long and the first Mayor Daley would’ve laughed at the notion that’s what makes a great politician. It’s one approach. There are others, and we ignore them at our peril.
I thought of Huey when I wrote the prior post.
First of all, I don’t know how or why Obama supporters got painted as cult members. This was Clinton’s race to loose from the beginning and Obama has taken a strong lead. Despite that, Clinton supporters are still following her to the grave. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Clinton supporters should be labeled as blind followers or anything like that, I’m just saying that based on the criteria that is being used to label Obama supporters that way, the same could be said for Clinton supporters. So in my opinion, I think we should all cut that crap, but I don’t expect it.
I think their positions on just about everything are pretty similar. So I think it does come down to the person. It’s funny, though, I was talking to a Clinton supporter recently about why he supports her and the reasons he gave are the same reasons I had for supporting Obama. I think Obama will appeal to more people in the general and therefore has a better chance of winning the general. I hear Clinton people say the same thing. Despite the similar reasons for support, I think this is where we find the biggest difference between the two. I think this discussion would be more fruitful if we talked about why we all support different candidates for the same reason.
Lastly, there also continues to be a discussion about whose supporters would be more likely to support the other candidate in the general. And it always seems to be conjecture. I think it’s ridiculous. With that said, I would be interested to here what the people on this site would do. In other words, would you vote for the other candidate in the general if your candidate loses the primary?
If Obama gets the nomination I will actively work for his campaign, give a few $$, whatever. If it is Clinton she will get my vote and that’s it. I have no expectation that the center of gravity in the country will change with her, but McC clearly would be just more of the same train wreck.
After starting out supporting Edwards, I initially favored Clinton for her toughness and experience, but starting just before SuperTues I shifted to slight Obama preference. Over the past 2+ months that preference has solidified to a clear choice, for a combination of reasons, mostly having to do with liking Obama’s policies and attributes better. The other contributing factor is that Hilary (and Bill) have totally disgusted me with their tactics.
So yeah I see a difference between them but it is small compared to the chasm separating them from McCain.
I meant to answer my own question. I would vote for Clinton as well, but I don’t know about helping her. For me, the vote is more important. I think both candidates have a good base of supporters that are willing to work for the general. I guess what I’m really getting at is that I don’t think it’s as bad as people make it out to be. If people really honestly considered this, I think they will at least vote for the opposite candidate and that’s okay with me. It would show that we really don’t have to constantly play this childish game of my candidate is better than yours, which I think lacks substance. Again, I think we should be talking about why we all support different candidates for the same reasons, not talking about gaffes.
it’s going to take some convincing to get my 80-year old life-long Dem mother to vote for Obama if Hilary loses.
Hopefully with enough time plus threatening that she loses all privileges to whine about Repubs, I can talk her down off the ledge before November. ;>))
my smart, youthful 82 year old mom, lifelong liberal Dem, will consider it a no brainer. While she is a strong Obama supporter and can’t stand HRC, she knows the score and will not hesitate to hold her nose and vote HRC to block another another disastrous Republican administration. After all, she has her grandchildren to think about. We both sincerely hope it doesn’t come to that but we’re not idiots.
Looking at Electoral-Vote.com today (April 22) I find that on first brush Sen. Clinton looks better. The polls indicated right now that (theoretically) if the election were held today she’s win over McCain with 289 electoral votes (271 needed to win, 269 to tie). The polls show Sen. Obama with 269 and McCain trailing rather than tied only because the most recent poll in N. Carolina shows them exactly tied at 47% each.
However looking at which states are Strongly, Weakly, or Barely for a candidate a different pictures emerges.
The map for Sen. Clinton
Clinton: 172
Swing: 140
McCain: 226
Advantage: McCain +48
The map for Sen. Obama
Obama: 211
Swing: 149
McCain: 178
Advantage: Obama +33
So who do I think is more electable? I am not sure. I personally think it is Obama due to him having more places where he can fight and fewer electoral votes needed to get to the magic 271. But Clinton and her supporters have a good argument to make. It will be a lot more predictable a race with Clinton vs. McCain. But it could be bad in a predictable way. Also I think some of the polls are ‘funny’. I really doubt Obama will get that close in Texas. And I doubt McCain has a chance in New Jersey, Connecticut, or Massachusetts no matter who is nominated on the Democratic side.
Maybe I should do a longer analysis post.
That’s a great website you linked, though I only had the time to skim it for now. I would love to see a more in-depth diary on this.
I think you are absolutely correct that there are strong arguments on both sides for electability. When someone states their opinion on electability, it really doesn’t mean a whole lot, though pols are not always accurate either.
I think the real issue here is that based on the past 8 years, you would think that electability would be a concern no matter who the candidate turns out to be. It’s unfortunate that it is.
Pennsylvania has always been Clinton’s to lose. If she wins by 10+, she’s done her job; if she wins by less than 5, she’s going to face immense pressure to stop the farce. If she wins within the core range of the final polling (5-10), she’s treading water – and eventually you have to stop doing that.
She needs a 20-point win to really change the race; a 10-point win gets her some media narrative that she needs, and 15 points gets her enough media to significantly affect Indiana (NC is probably too far gone to Obama to swing her way…).
Is it possible that Hillary’s apparent 6-7 point win isn’t enough to keep her afloat?
The media isn’t universally favorable to Clinton tonight, despite her win. Usually they’re interested in extending the race to maintain the story, but it seems like they’re figuring out the numbers finally.
Hillary’s campaign is broke, she’s got a couple of tough races ahead of her that aren’t going to be kind to her narrative, and she’s running out of delegates to win over to her side.
As Obama states, right now it’s like Spring Training – he gets the flack from the Clinton campaign and he gets to deal with it on semi-friendly terms. The Democrats get increased interest in all of these states holding later primaries, and when all is said and done, unless Clinton really goes off the deep end, the party re-unifies and kicks the **** out of McCain in the general election.
I’m sensing a Clinton/Gravel ticket for the spoiler.
Even Mike can’t stand Sen. Clinton’s cackle.
Now she’s threatening nuclear war.
Sorry, I get paid to be a dick. It’ll stop as soon as my contract ends.
but it wasn’t a commitment to nuclear retaliation.
That cackle is pretty damn bad.
I’d rather listen to someone chew bread with their mouth open while dragging their nails down a blackboard.
Do you know why he doesn’t understand the economy or the troubles of the average american?
He’s never had a job outside of the government or lived in the home where the money came from the private sector.
Born to the Naval Elite (his father/grandfather were the first father/son 4 star admirals in history), went to boarding school (no paper hat high school job for McCain, Faher got him into Naval Academy (no bartending gig at the local), Commissioned officer, Marries money, becomes a congressman, becomes a senator.
Mccain’s personal courage is undisputed, but his personal narrative is also completely walled off from the experience of average americans.
He has never worried about losing a job or his parents losing their home. He has never dragged himself out of bed to go to a pointless job he hated. He never worried his boss could fire him on a whim, or replace him with cheaper labor. He and his family have always been covered by government healthcare.
I respect McCain, but I don’t think he knows the first thing about the lives of americans.
and he think’s it’s the free enterprise system – no wonder he says the free market handles everything.
McCain’s world is the world I grew up in…although my father was not quite as exalted….there are drawbacks to that world…the financial security comes at a high emotional price….
The problem with McCain is not only that he has never lived in the civilivan world, but that he wants to recreate the world at war culture which is the only one he really knew…that is frightening.
CNN’s exit polling shows that HRC is carrying gun-owning Dems by 58-42%.
Its over.
Hillary is going to win, but the campaign is bankrupt.
Obama has won through attrition, not the best win, but a win none the less.
The fact that she can’t pull a needed landslide victory in a state that was carved out just for her says a lot. Remember, just a month ago she was up by 20%. If he can cut that lead against the Clinton machine, think of what he’ll do to McCain during the General.
Is outspending her 4-1 and he’s not winning says a lot about how weak Obama can be with the Democratic base.
Come on
Senator Gravel is not running for the Democratic Nomination.
If you want to have a legitimate argument about the two Democratic candidates, I’m happy to do so.
I’m not saying Gravel is viable, I didn’t even mention the Senator. Why did you? Are you too simple minded to keep my day job out of it?
[I have my title in my signature per pols and squarestate policy. sue me.]
4-1? Where did you get that from? It’s been raised from 2-1, to 3-1, to now 4-1? Moving the goal posts, eh?
Listen, Clinton had this state locked up months ago according to her campaign. She needed to win in a landslide, which she hasn’t. She won, and a win is a win, but she’s also broke. He’s also pulling out Super-delegates on a weekly basis, and you know after the crap she pulled in Penn., running ads with Osama bin Laden, bashing the base and talking about nuking Iran…
that’s what my “come on” was about. It has nothing to do with the senator.
So that’s why you mentioned Senator Gravel?
I’m not a Hillary supporter, nor am I an Obama supporter. I AM a democrat, and I value myself as a progressive. If either of those two end up being our President, our relationship is FUCKED with Iran.
Here’s my source for the 4-1 ratio.
I think that Senator Clinton should drop out if she wants the party to start spending against John McCain. Likewise, if Obama were to lose North Carolina [not gonna happen] I think it would be prudent of him to drop out. That said, I respect the right of each to campaign to be President of the United States.
I dislike Obama, I dislike Clinton, but I truly dislike the self-righteousness of Obama supporters.
As sourced by Clinton who said that in early April, which somehow magically changed to 2.3 to 1 just this week. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Regardless, she’s still broke.
You know who I’m sick of? The media and John McCain.
There’s more to campaigning than ad buys, you know.
I dunno if I trust either number, but what you sent me appears to be ad space only. I’d agree on that one.
Apparently, Obama kicked Clinton’s butt as far as fund raising goes.
At least, he’s not going into debt spending all the money that he did in Pennsylvania.
the popular vote, pledged delegate vote and super delegates.
So, what does that leave for Clinton? Oh right McAuliffe claims she won “big states” like Florida, Michigan and Texas…
she does lead among superdelegates so far.
Obama–Blacks, netroots, educated liberals, young
Hillary–white ethnics, seniors, hispanics, women
The reality is they each represent half of the Democrats.
Neither has been able to make inroads into each others base.
Obama could outspend her because he has broad support.
To Win NY, or CA, or maybe PA.
Listen, he’s a great candidate, he’s a great speaker, but he’s equally as bad as Sen. Clinton. The fact that people would vote one over the other perplexes me.
are more likely to be switch hitters come November? McCain will have an easier time prying away the senior, hispanic, and white vote from the Dems than he would with the others; and the polling that reveals the large contingent of Clinton supporters who would rather support McCain over Obama for the general election supports this. Plus the fact that the groups you listed in Obama’s base (particularly the young and netroots) are less likely to turn out on election day then the voters in Clinton’s camp.
I’m not trying to necessarily make a pro-Clinton argument based on the issues or overall quality (I don’t support either candidate), simply just that Obama is less electable than she is.
If Senator Gravel wins the Libertarian nomination, and Obama wins the Democratic one, we expect to receive a large number of both Nader and Clinton supporters.
I question whether Senator Gravel will even win the Libertarian nomination. He may be seen as a carpetbagger; a small “l” libertarian rather than an actual Libertarian.
Frankly, I would like to see him get the nomination. If only because I’d like to see what you’d do with the promotion of his campaign.
But I’m trying to be realistic about that prospect, too.
If Senator Gravel does not win the Libertarian nomination, then the Libertarian party will have sacrificed vote-getting to small tent purist ideology.
It’s either going to be Rep. Bob Barr or Sen. Gravel as the Libertarian nomination. Neither are purists.
If those two don’t win, then the Libertarians aren’t really serious about campaigning, and should never run a candidate for the President ever again.
If Mike doesn’t win the L nod, I personally will go back to working for Ds all across the board. No offense to anyone, but I’m not a libertarian, I’m just loyal to Mike.
I’d rather see Mike Gravel win the Libertarian nomination than Bob Barr.
Bob Barr–talk about a shifty character.
At least Gravel seems like he’s been consistent with his positions over the years — unless I’m misinformed, that is.
“America, I’m sorry that I fucked you up so much when I was in Congress. Please elect me President so I can fix my mistakes.”
Unless I am wrong about the economy, and I hope I am, the republican can not win.
McCain will run a credible race, but the economy is that bad.
Obama may lose some reagan democrats, but he’ll make up the diffence with GOTV and affluent crossovers.
If Hillary wins the nomination–black america stays home. Period.
Not one of any of the three major candidates are really truly qualified to fix the economy.
Obama: No Experience
Clinton: Figurehead Experience
McCain: Admittedly Stupid on that Issue.
Let’s hope that voters are stupid enough to think that whoever the D nominee is will be able to fix the economy.
probably ever, has been “qualified” to fix the economy. Also I would contest the idea that there is someone who can “fix” the economy. Financial systems are subject to booms and busts by their very nature, this was a bust, a painful one at that, but it will self-correct, re-build and eventually bust again. That’s the way that our system works and no candidate is going to change that.
I agree that the nasty economy makes it much harder for an incumbent party, but by that reasoning the same 60 or 70% (I forget the exact percent) of the population who think the economy’s in bad shape and disagree with Bush’s economic policies should be driving people to support either Democratic candidate by similar margins; when in fact both candidates either lose or are within the margin in general-election match-ups.
Clearly something doesn’t add up, the poor economy will not be able to win this for the Democrats, and I still think that Obama is the less electable candidate based on party divisions and electoral college math (as I argued above).
but nationally? I question that.
I’m not even sure what the “Democratic base” is, though, at this point.
it’s everyone who once voted for Reagan.
According to today’s AP story on the election:
Flush with cash, Obama reported spending $11.2 million on television in the state, more than any place else. That compared with $4.8 million for Clinton.
I’m sure you consider a ten point lead a slam dunk when it’s Obama. Blue, that’s a HELL of a blowout, even if her lead was greater a month ago. And spending less than half?
Methinks the election grapes are sour.
I’d prefer that Obama won tonight and we had a finish to this. But Hillary looks to win by 5+ points and that is enough that it’s legit for her to stay in the race.
So we continue on…
According to CNN’s poll analysis, the final results will be quite similar to the numbers the state is currently posting: a 6.5% lead for Clinton. This is enough for her to stay in the game (barely), but it isn’t enough to give her the momentum she really wanted (or the delegates she needs).
Clinton’s internal polls had her at an 11% lead, so she under-performed her own polls tonight. Off to Guam, Indiana, and North Carolina!
there is another candidate running for President, and I’m not talking about Ron Paul.
The Low Road to Victory
There’s more.
I truly appreciate it.
from the NY Times who endorsed Senator Clinton… sure.
Has been passing that out, apparently.
listen, I’ll not defend Sen. Clinton or her tactics. But I truly detest Obama, almost as much as I detest queen bitch herself.
If he runs again in 4 years, I’d definitely support him, though.
so know he’s to blame for what the NY Times write? WTF. Speaking of detesting a self-righteous people, how do you view yourself tonight?
The media doesn’t seem to be doing Clinton many favors tonight; MSNBC, the AP, NYT, LAT are all raising the bar on her campaign back to where she set it. (…above where she needs it to be…)
Go Blue is right – the Times endorsed their home state Senator in the race; this editorial is pretty much an admission that they picked the wrong horse in the race.
Yawn.
Pennsylvania was hers to win: the demographics favored her. She should’ve won by 10-15 at least. She didn’t. It’s a loss.
Even more importantly, what’s the point? She mathematically CAN’T win at this point. She would have to win ALL the remaining primaries INCLUDING Pennsylvania by about 65% AND pick up the superdelegates at about the same pace to win. Not possible.
Obama will have enough delegates to lock the nomination by June 5.
Thanks to Clinton, though, for airing out all the biggest Republican attacks on Obama early on. They’ll be yesterday’s news 6 months from now.
PS: I love Clinton’s talking point that Obama should’ve won because he had more money, and therefore he’s “weak.” What a joke!
Obama is CRUSHING Clinton AND McCain in contributions – and the startling fact is that they’re from small contributors, not fat cats like Clinton’s been courting. Obama has a virtually unprecedented base of committed contributors and volunteers.
Hardly “weak.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
Obama is no cleaner than Clinton or McCain.
and
Yeah, what a dirty politician for going to the voters instead of special interests for campaign funding!
Or Gravel?
Obama is getting cash donations from 500-2300. Are you trying to tell me that those are all individuals?
so individuals can’t max out to a candidate now? And how many individuals does Obama have compared to the other two? Obama is raising money within the rules.
McCain has now created an entirely new system (violating the law he wrote) to have individuals contribute $70,000 each.
Obama is less corrupt than the other two; he’s no saint, though.
He’s no saint. No one is. I have no delusions about that. And as bad as night this was (I hate losing regardless of the spin), I always appreciate the discussion, even more so with those I don’t agree with.
focused more about PAC and Loobyist in his speech tonight than before- my favorite speech by him yet.
“you can’t be the candidate of working people and be funded by lobbyist and special interest” love it- hope he keeps it up. for me that sums up why i stopped supporting Hillary.
When I was campaigning in New Hampshire with Senator Gravel; I asked someone that very question.
“My union makes me do it. If we didn’t endorse her, you wouldn’t find me campaigning for a Clinton.”
I’m an equal opportunity offender.
but i came to my senses before Feb 5th- mostly b/c my b/f kepted saying over and over again to me that she is funded by the special interests and how could i support her. then he emailed me a sat about how much cash she has taken from big pharm and that was it for me
MIA
So it looks like a 10 point difference: 55-45. Suppose that’s what happens in the end, and suppose the delegate allocation is about equivalent to that: 87-71 in Clinton’s favor. Then if you take CNN’s current delegate counts pre-Pennsylvania (and yes, I’m including super-delegates here) and add that projected Pennsylvania number in, here’s what you get:
Clinton needs 58.65% of remaining delegates to win.
Obama needs 41.35% of remaining delegates to win.
In other words, this better be just the tip of the iceberg. Clinton needs to not just continue with more victories like this; she needs to start doing a lot better if she hopes to catch up. Pennsylvania had better look like one of her weak states by a few weeks from now. Otherwise, she doesn’t have a chance.
Of course, in reality, it looks even bleaker. CNN has (I think unintentionally) been consistently underreporting Sen. Obama’s delegate count. Using Obama’s delegate numbers, I get Obama needing 41.1%, and Clinton 58.9%, from here on.
Apparently, CNN doesn’t know how to round numbers. According to the Penn SOS office it’s 54.2 to 45.8
http://www.electionreturns.sta…
or whatever turns out, I read an analysis earlier today that she won’t have as large a margin in delegates (similar to Nevada, which she won handily and came out virtually tied in delegates). She really needed to blow-out statewide to get a significant advantage in Pa. delegates.
In other words, good for a few headlines, not enough to start closing the gap.
But get used to it – President McCain.
The old man who wants 100 years of war
Hate to break it to you, but Barack Obama is not in the business of ending war.
Politico has you identified by your old title.
We’ve been trying to reorganize. I guess this is my new title, who knows?
But I just noticed it. Congratulations.
Odd time for me to bring it up. Derail over.
But he never said 100 years of war, he said we will be there for 100 years. Like we are in Japan, Korea, and Germany. Still.
I am avowedly anti-war, probably a 96% pacifist, and anti-huge military. But after 29 seconds of that video I was ready to wretch.
Let’s discuss facts, not yank on emotions to that extreme. The facts are on our side and such a production will probably never get a viewer to change sides, such as they are.
we’ll be in Iraq a hundred years if nobody is shooting at us; Hell, it could be 10,000 years if that’s the case, he said.
I question whether that sells any better to the American public, at this point.
The video was a parody of another video about Obama; I think it was meant to make people laugh, but if they change their vote because of it, I’m sure the makers will consider that gravy.
“Clinton Captures Crucial Win” in large font is what I see on the Yahoo! home page right now.
“Clinton Claims Victory in PA Primary” on CNN. Just look at a book ‘Campaigns, Media, and Governing in the 21st Century’:
http://dealstudio.com/searchde… , The media just loves a horse race. But I thought that the candidate needed 2,025 electorial votes to win.
Rarely do I get so much satisfaction reading this blog.
It’s an incredible primary. And it serves us Dems well.
and I agree. The more D’s we register and pull into the process the better.
Moving on. Up next, North Carolina!
In fact, you guys are so far ahead, you don’t even need to vote in November!
We cancelled the pizza…feels like 1978 when the Bronocs went to their first Super Bowl and got slammed by the Cowboys…
I did not realize how strongly I wanted Obama to win or put this away and how pissed I am at PA…my home state, at least for the first few years…Now, PR, that I have gotten over my personal projections on the race, some thoughts:
1) Phila has a large Jewish population. Hillary won points in Obama land when she promised massive nuclear retaliation if Iran attacked Israel….Obama’s response was the studied statesman response, but ole Hillary tossed the world into a nuclear war for the sake of political gain…The day after the debate, the student paper at Penn endorsed her. That was significant. To win against rural and western PA, you have to come roaring out of Phila with a huge margin…in the general election, dems have to have at least a 300,000 margin…Obama was at 60-65% and needed to do better in Phila.
2) Obama needs to deal with his race. I think the NY Times was correct that his race was a factor in PA. He got into the “clinging” problem when he tried to rationalize away the fact that people simply would not vote for him because of his race.
3 I kept hearing the voices of my Philadelphia aunts…”You just can’t trust the colored.” Although, to be fair, they hated the Italians more.
4) I do not know why Hillary is the favorite of catholics…she has been the model for pro-choice advocates forever….However, the Pope’s visit may well have had a positive effect on Catholic voter turnout, which benefitted her.
Obama’s race. Sad commentary on America.
However, not that this will matter, but Barack is BOTH and EQUALLY White and Black. I guess we go back to the ole’ slave days when a drop of Black blood made you Black. And even so why is that bad?
White America has a long way to go in fixing your attitude about race. I am glad that so many have moved to support Barack, despite our issues with race. I believe he will prevail and be America’s first Black President (officially). There are six other Presidents who had Black blood – but I will leave that for another post.
But here is the interesting part – White America is appalled at Rev Wright’s words. OK fair enough.
But in the same breath, White America lets Americans of Color know exactly how you feel about us, daily. And somehow we are supposed to feel “proud of our country” all the time. Even when our country that has turned on us historically in so many ways. This appears to be true of Dwyer’s Aunt and many other Americans.
And with this election we are learning that White fear and/or hatred of Blacks is alive and well (getting better, but still not there) – yet you are shocked when a member of the Black race speaks out in a negative manner about our White brothers and sisters about the way you perceive us.
Go figure!
I do have hope that the changes in our attitude are happening. Beginning with my generation and carried to those younger.
Dwyer, why does your aunt feel you can’t trust “Coloreds”?
We nursed and raised your children, worked your farms, built America and brought color and expression to literature, art, music and sports of this great nation. Our genes have made Americans stronger and I would like to think that the integration of people of Color in this nation has been the one single factor that makes America the beacon for HOPE and OPPORTUNITY in the world.
I am always so sad when I hear that parts of America do not like me because of my beautiful mocha skin – especially when that is the only reason of their dislike.
I believe Senator Obama is more white than he his black, as his mother was white.
Not that it matters.
Nor do I in anyway support them. I am bitterly disappointed that Obama did not win. I am only trying to focus on reasons he may not have won. I believe that many people in PA voted against him because of his race and I cited my aunts, my dearly departed aunts’, attitudes. I don’t like it. Very selfishly, I don’t want to go to war with Iran…I hate war…I hate the gd militaristic jingo crap that clinton/bush/mccain spew. I think Obama is the last best chance for this country. His color doesn’t make that much difference to me…except, gd, he may lose because of it…and that scares me…not the prejudice but what we would wind up with instead…
Why do you think Obama lost?