home

Super Tuesday Predictions Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:14:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Two metrics.

How many states will each candidate (GOP and Dem) win?

And specifically who will win Mass, Cali, NJ, CT, MO, MN, CO and AZ?

I predict on those particular states Obama (MA, CA, CT, MN and CO) and Clinton (NJ, MO and AZ.)

How about you? This is an Open Thread.

< CIA Admits Waterboarding | Tsunami Tuesday: Republican Results >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Super Tuesday Predictions Open Thread | 175 comments (175 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Calif and Colorado (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:21:34 PM EST
    I think will go to Hillary, along with Missouri, NY, NJ, CT, Arkansas, Missouri and Alabama.

    I think Obama will win Georgia and Mass.

    Not sure about Arizona.

    didn't mean to (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:22:00 PM EST
    post missouri twice

    Parent
    That 's OK , We Like The Extra Attention n/t (none / 0) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:32:11 PM EST


    Parent
    That's 'cause Obama has big MO. n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Well Not This Big MO n/t (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:54:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Switch Massachusetts for Colorado and (none / 0) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:29:48 PM EST
    our predictions are pretty much identical.

    If Obama can hold the delegate gap under 5 in MA, I'd be thrilled, considering where he was two weeks ago in that state.

    Parent

    What Jeralyn said (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:09:16 PM EST
    And I hope she's right because I will eat the pepper to remind myself to never be stupid again and easily excuse myself for it ;)

    Parent
    Now... (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST
    ...I know BTD has a little bit of an East coast bias and all, but that's no reason to put Alaska on the map backwards.  

    Just because they are one of the most federally subsidized, over-ran with Ron Paul supporters states is no reason to slight them like that.

    Could Paul's support there..... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    be attributed to federal subsidy guilt?

    My slumber tuesday prediction....we lose.  McCain, Romney, Obama, or Clinton we lose.

    We need you Mike Bloomberg....I think Steve Kubby might come up short with all those votes being wasted on the 4 stiffs above, Bloomberg's got a slightly better chance.

    Parent

    There's no guilt involved... (none / 0) (#33)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:57:06 PM EST
    ...they are proud of their handouts and want more--all the while complaining about welfare mothers, "socialized" medicine and the like.  

    They're also seemingly proud that they lead the nation in corrupt government officials.  

    Parent

    I believe Ron Paul admin.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    would put the kabosh on all the handouts.

    Give the people what they want...if nothing else, we'll be the hell out of Iraq, something no other candidate is willing to promise.  

    Parent

    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    ...but it is hard to get elected when you have 10% of the population (around 20% in AK) behind a candidate--no matter how "vocal" or dedicated they are.  Not even Dibold can help with that.

    Parent
    True that.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    That's why I'm calling it "slumber Tuesday"...apparently we are all asleep at the wheel, any candidate worth a damn gets no support from the slumbering masses.

    Parent
    I made the map (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    and when I first posted it last week I mentioned I had to move some states to make it fit in the space allotted on the front page.

    Parent
    We won't... (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    ...even talk about what you did to poor Idaho!

    Parent
    I don't think Alaska is backwards on the map (none / 0) (#122)
    by rdandrea on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:31:32 PM EST
    I think it's just clipped.

    That's Southeast Alaska, not the Aleutians, jutting down and to the right.

    Parent

    DKOS and ethics (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    Now that things have turned out like this and everyone has picked sides, do you remember Michigan and DKOS telling people to vote for Romney cause it did not matter?  At that time the Democratic party in Michigan was furious.  They wanted people to vote for Hillary or uncommitted.  Thinking about it now I find it unethical and infantile.  As far as I am concerned, all credibility is gone.  Never liked the look and feel of that web site anyway.  


    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:19:01 PM EST
    I was not a bit surprised when they turned vehemently anti-women.

    Parent
    ahh, who turned vehmently anti-woman? (none / 0) (#59)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:33:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Emptywheel, IN Michigan (none / 0) (#93)
    by bordenl on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:41:48 PM EST
    said that it was a fine idea if you were not an activist, but that she was going to vote D herself.

    You would need great powers of prediction to see that the D nomination might come down to whether Michigan and Florida are included. The strategy was successful inasmuch as the McCain triumph was held off until at least today. I am not sure how many people actually followed it as Romney has ties to MI and my husband was interested in him at first blush because of his dad.

    Parent

    More EW (none / 0) (#94)
    by bordenl on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    She also pointed out that the Republicans did it to the Democrats in the open primary, I forget for which candidate. I will admit that this is a flaw of open primaries in general.

    Parent
    Still better than closed primaries.... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    sun god only knows how many votes Ron Paul would get in NY if non-republicans could vote for him in today's primary.  He'd at least have one more.

    Parent
    Haha! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:18:01 PM EST
    I hate to even hear Hannity's voice, but this is hilarious on Taylor Marsh.  A group of Obama supporters are asked to name ONE accomplishment of Obama's.

    Click here for Stunned Silence.

    You trust fox? (none / 0) (#52)
    by andreww on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:24:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Not to mention Taylor Marsh. n/t (none / 0) (#54)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:25:35 PM EST


    Parent
    I trust (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:32:04 PM EST
    what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears.

    And, come on--Taylor Marsh makes no qualms about being a Hillary supporter.  At least she is up front about it instead of insisting she's totally neutral.

    Parent

    She claimed for months to be torn (none / 0) (#61)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    between Edwards and Clinton.  Which was complete crap.

    Parent
    After the primaries. . . (none / 0) (#65)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:39:12 PM EST
    maybe we could fix you up with Taylor?  You two seem to have a similar approach to intra-party politics.

    Parent
    Nah, I don't treat Page Six of the NY Post (none / 0) (#67)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    as a legit news source.

    Not biting, btw.  I play nice here, maybe you should as well.

    Parent

    I play the same everywhere. n/t (4.00 / 1) (#76)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:50:29 PM EST
    I find it's a lot easier to remember who I am that way.

    Parent
    I operate within site rules (none / 0) (#77)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:52:55 PM EST
    wherever I go.

    Except when I got banned from Taylor Marsh's site.

    But, again, I must with regret decline your invitation to a duel.  If my honor shalt be thus tarnished, it is the work of providence.

    Parent

    Why bring them into it? (none / 0) (#84)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    it is the work of providence.

    They don't vote until March 4th.

    Parent

    RIght you are.. n/t (none / 0) (#89)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST


    Parent
    either play nice (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    or your comments will be deleted.

    Parent
    I beg your pardon? (none / 0) (#150)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:11:56 PM EST
    If any of my comments are over (or near) the line, please let me know and I'll adjust my outlook accordingly.  I wasn't trying to suggest my behavior is equally bad everywhere -- just the same.

    Seriously, I like this place and appreciate the atmosphere and wouldn't want to do anything to turn it into the swamp that the Daily Kos diary list has become.  It sounds like you think I've crossed the line and if so I'm not aware when or how.

    Parent

    Playing nice is great. . . (none / 0) (#108)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    attacking another blogger as a candidate-oriented hit person (even if the allegation is true) is an invitation for a comment of the kind that I made.  I suspect that if you think about it you might actually agree.

    Parent
    Considering your wood chipper comment (none / 0) (#119)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    was made before I mentioned Marsh, no sale.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#132)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:46:43 PM EST
    That was gratuitous, although true.  Perhaps I was anticipating.

    Parent
    I refrain from criticizing Clinton (none / 0) (#135)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:54:17 PM EST
    here, for the very large part, out of respect to Jeralyn.  

    Parent
    apparently Hillary trusts Fox (none / 0) (#90)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson just said they've accepted a Fox News debate set for February 11.

    Parent
    She's wrong to give them a sliver of credibility (none / 0) (#92)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:36:50 PM EST
    I hope Obama refuses.

    Parent
    After being burned at the stake (none / 0) (#110)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    by the likes of MSNBC, I'd say it was time to give Fox a try.  Not sure how they could be much worse but they all suck.


    Parent
    But how does the candidate (none / 0) (#112)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    who is running on his ability to reach across the aisle, attract and work with Republicans turn this down?  Obama's entire platform is based on a post-partisan dynamic which includes including Republicans.  I think the Clinton team has put Obama in a very awkward position with this move.  

    Parent
    Fox news brand of right wing, neocon politics (none / 0) (#116)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    doesn't play well with anyone who doesn't buy into the kinda Rush Limbaugh, Dobson and Bill Kristol mindset. John McCain is probably viewed as an apostate.
    I think the Clinton team has put Hillary in a awkward position b/c of Rupert Murdoch.


    Parent
    But when I listened to Fox on Sunday, (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    whom did I see as talking heads but two NPR reporters:  Mara Eliason and Juan Williams.  I was quite surprised, since I don't watch TV news shows and had read so much here and at DK about the evil Faux News.  

    Parent
    One more point to consider (none / 0) (#125)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:38:28 PM EST
    Much has been made about the electability issue.  Clinton has asserted she is tried and trusted when it comes to dealing with the right wing smear machine.  What better a way to that to the test than to appear on a Fox debate?  It is risky but I can see a couple of possible angles for them here.  

    Parent
    Oops? (none / 0) (#131)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:46:07 PM EST
    This was supposed to be a reply to byteb?

    Parent
    ok (none / 0) (#165)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:54:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Why 'test' it? (none / 0) (#169)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:02:39 PM EST
    Why help them (Fox) in their attempt to portray themselves as a real news network or a balanced news network?

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#173)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:12:57 PM EST
    agree with that strategy if were the case.  I don't understand why either of them would want to appear or be interviewed by Fox but from what I have read, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns have been granting some interviews.  

    Parent
    NPR has been less than progressive in (none / 0) (#170)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:04:03 PM EST
    some of their coverage lately. And as for Juan Williams..sometimes I see him as "Colmes" to the group "Hannity".

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#121)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:31:13 PM EST
    that Fox news plays to a certain mindset.  But I also think that most of us posting here and on other blogs are more politically astute than the average person.  

    I personally would prefer they not participate in a Fox sponsored debate.  But I am stepping back from the fray to think of how it could play out with the average voter.  Not sure I am correct, it just crossed my mind as a way this could be spun.  

    Parent

    Obama ought to be for it (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    for the sake of unity in this country, correct?  For starters, unifying us all in front of our tv's, all tuned in to the same channel at the same time, anyway.

    Obama says he's getting crossover Republican voters, so he ought to do just fine on Fox -- especially with that Ronald Reagan line.

    Parent

    Not so fast (none / 0) (#137)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:57:18 PM EST
    Let's see...

    Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, holds fund raisers for Hillary Clinton. He donated $2,300, the maximum allowed for a primary race, into her campaign. He's donated nothing to Obama.

    Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, openly makes jokes about Obama being a terrorist.

    I can see why Hillary would be for it, not so clear on why Obama should be.

    Parent

    Is Fox (none / 0) (#139)
    by hookfan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:04:28 PM EST
    worse than O'Reilly? Sure it's supposed to be post primary but still. . .

    Parent
    Actually. . . (none / 0) (#142)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    Murdoch endorsed Obama here in New York through the Post (they don't make endorsements without at least approval from Murdoch).

    I think it's a calculated risk on Clinton's part.  I think she wants the debates but if they really do one on Fox the questioners are likely to go after he pretty forcefully. Does that hurt her or help her?

    Parent

    I think it'll help her (none / 0) (#153)
    by stillife on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:20:12 PM EST
    Hillary can take the heat.  She rules in debates.

    A few months ago, I would've been against the Dem candidates debating on Faux News, but after the way MSNBC and, to a lesser extent CNN, have been trashing Hillary, I don't see how Faux could be any worse.

    Parent

    Faux news (none / 0) (#157)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    might not be as kind to Obama, either.  I have absolute confidence that Hillary could brush it off easily, but Obama...well, let's just say I think it'd be pretty interesting to see someone other than Hillary (whom he can later have his allies vilify) attack him face-to-face.

    Parent
    Remember Chris Wallace's "Interview" (none / 0) (#171)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:06:33 PM EST
    with Bill Clinton not too long ago? If that's evidence of their mindset, than MSNBC and CNN seem rather tame.

    Parent
    Got it now -- who Obamans want us (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:09:24 PM EST
    to unite with, and who we do not have to unite with -- thankfully, as I really can't get all cozy with Fox viewers.  Good to know it's not just me.

    Parent
    For me, it's about giving any added status or (none / 0) (#168)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:00:00 PM EST
    gravitas to Fox "News". I don't think Democrats should play their game or validate them in any way shape or form.

    Parent
    As for Hsu, Obama asked for $$$ (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    from him -- but didn't get a donation.  So that's the distinction?  

    The Murdoch endorsement, etc., are dealt with below -- all suggesting, too, that you have homework to do.

    Parent

    Obama's presidential campaign (none / 0) (#156)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    did not receive any contributions but his leadership PAC did according to the FEC. They did say the contributions would be given away.    

    Parent
    Christian evangelicals (none / 0) (#154)
    by hookfan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:22:04 PM EST
    Didn't Obama say we should reach out to Evangelicals too? What a good way to get exposure to them. Maybe he and Hillary could debate the merits of the hypostatic union and miracles. . .

    Parent
    heh. say hello to Rev Pat Robertson (none / 0) (#166)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:57:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama gets uglier about (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    health plan mandates, saying that requiring mandates is as bad as trying to solve homelessness by saying that everyone should buy a house....As a person with cancer and no insurance, he is making a huge error and turning off the Edwards supporters as that statement sppeals to Republicans only...

    Link? Article or saw on TV? (none / 0) (#63)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:36:14 PM EST
    I'm still trying to figure out why he's taking the stand, and now hammering at it.

    What is his rationale?

    Parent

    rationale (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    is to scare people into not voting for Hillary.

    I saw him on the noon news (here in Atlanta, GA) saying that Hillary's plan will force people to choose between paying for food and paying for healthcare.

    It's amazing that he is getting away with this, but it also seems to me that his words are a hail Mary to try to clean up delegates. If it works, no one will care what he said today because, tomorrow, he'll be a winner and no one will care how it happened.

    Or, it could just be typical Obama style politicking, where he says one thing to one group of folks in one state, then a completely different thing to another group of folks in another state.

    Reminds me of when my cat hides behind a pile of clothes and doesn't think I can see her bushy tail sticking out.

    Parent

    Obama is talking out both sides of his mouth (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    because he will mandate that parents get insurance for their kids. So shouldn't his criticism should apply to his own plan? I would like to see him answer that question.

    So remind me who it is that is willing to do anything to get elected.

    Parent

    Yeah, Hillary never talks out of both sides of her (none / 0) (#87)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    mouth. Perish the thought.

    Parent
    Doesn't Obama realize everthing he says (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:32:37 PM EST
    can and will be used against him if he is the nominee?

    I don't understand his predilection for ReThug talkingpoints and tactics.

    Parent

    Da**it, he's killing a health care plan (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    of just about any kind, except a useless kind, with this kind of talk.  And why do so already?  See if we can take Congress as well as the White House, then see what we can do.

    Don't give it away now -- as with Obama's long and complex sentences (and/or incomplete sentences), he probably handed any plan's foes the soundbyte they could use for the general campaign . . . and for four more years thereafter.

    I have vowed to vote for the Dem nominee, but if he is the one, it looks like it's going to be very hard to do so by November.  Which other hopes will he have given away so audaciously by then?

    Parent

    So, he's Mean Ol' Obama today (none / 0) (#78)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    instead of Kumbayah Obama today.  Gotcha.

    Parent
    Can you honestly (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    deny that Obama has resorted to using the politics of fear when he sent out the mailer using the same tactics that were used in the Harry and Louise campaign?  

    Parent
    You mean like accusing his opponent (none / 0) (#88)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    of advocating a trillion dollar tax increase?

    Parent
    Here's a tip (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:32:12 PM EST
    The "politics of fear" argument is supposed to be a CONTRAST between Obama and his opponent.

    Pointing out that his opponent does it, too, is not much of an answer.

    Parent

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#97)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:47:41 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Parent
    Considering that every single other (none / 0) (#103)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    commenter here is supporting Clinton, I'm not gonna waste my time trying to win converts.

    Parent
    Lame. (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:45:58 PM EST
    The argument being made is: of course Clinton has played hardball and has flip-flopped too. But Obama is claiming to stand for a new kind of politics.

    But he's doing exactly the same things that every other politician does.

    If he's not setting himself apart in that way, what good are his claims of representing 'change' and a new kind of politics?

    Clinton has never made the purity argument. Obama has. That's the difference.

    I don't mind that Obama has changed his mind on things, or that has campaign plays hardball. What I do mind is that he's claiming to be different, when he's not.


    Parent

    Does it need to be (none / 0) (#115)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM EST
    centered around converting people?  We need to be able to discuss the candidates and their positions on a level of honesty that rises beyond the level of support for one candidate over another.  If we can't objectively examine where each candidate is vulnerable, how can expect to put forth our best arguments in the general or apply pressure to any candidate to do better in the areas of policies we see as important?

    Parent
    To put it another way, my assumption (none / 0) (#129)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
    here is that folks believe Obama is a flip-flopping hypocrite who backstabs Democrats, wants poor people to go without health insurance, and who would be like Lieberman if elected President.  

    I'll correct factual or plain logical errors, but otherwise I really don't waste my time.

    Parent

    In a nut shell!! (none / 0) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:00:52 PM EST


    Parent
    I wish (none / 0) (#159)
    by hookfan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    Obama would get specific and support the democratic base quite a bit more to significantly lessen those fears. MO's statement yesterday, the Harry and louise flier, his unity towards Republicans schtick,his semi voluntarism on healthcare, his willingness to invade Pakistan, parading around anti-gay preachers, statements to reach out to evangelicals, etc., isn't helping much. If he is doing this now what will he do in the general election?
       I know about Hillary. she ain't perfect either. But I don't have the same fear of being jettisoned under the republican bus from her. She does triangulate, I'll be sorely disappointed getting my wages garnished when I have to choose between nutrition and health insurance when I lose my income due to King George's Great Depression, or have some gov't official demand to her satisfaction and priorities that I can't afford it. Still, I know her committment to basic Democratic values. Obama hasn't made that case.

    Parent
    Almost perfect! (none / 0) (#167)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 06:59:46 PM EST
    I do believe Obama is flip-flopper because Obama has flip-flopped.

    I do believe Obama is a hypocrite because Obama is a hypocrite.

    I do believe Obama back-stabs Democrats because Obama has back-stabbed Democrats.

    I do NOT believe Obama wants poor people to go without health insurance;  he just doesn't want to mandate that young, healthy people should be part of the pool.

    I can't say I ever thought about the Lieberman comparision but its not a bad one!

    Parent

    does WJC gets a free pass? (none / 0) (#85)
    by dwightkschrute on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    Bill Clinton said yesterday that Barack Obama believes "affordable quality health care for all Americans" is "not that important."

    Obama may not have as comprehensive a health care plan as Hillary, but is it intellectually honest to say he thinks it's "not that important"?

    Parent

    Here is the link (none / 0) (#66)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    about half way down the page under CNN's American Morning....I happened to catch it this AM on television....

    Parent
    What segment was it in? (none / 0) (#161)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    I found the CNN transcripts page, but they're divided into differenct segments and there wasn't one labeled Obama.

    Thanks for the initial link to Halperin.

    Parent

    Not really, (none / 0) (#148)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    it appeals to lots of people who think that mandates, up front, are a politically dumb way to proceed.

    Parent
    Some Super Tuesday Music (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by royce4142 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:01:01 PM EST
    I ran across a single release from James McMurtry earlier today that he's opened up to free downloads on Super Tuesday.  Check out "Cheney's Toy" at his myspace.com/jamesmcmurtry

    Mcmurtry is the man..... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    I'll be checking that out later....good lookin' out.

    Parent
    Anecdote from MA (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by dk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    Quick anecdote.  I just talked to my 34 year old sister in MA.  She was deciding who to vote for.  She had been leaning Hillary, but was genuinely torn.  She recently had her first baby and hasn't been all that tuned in to the election.  This was her analysis:

    Pro-Hillary:  Better health care plan; talks about actual issues and policy instead of hope hope hope

    Anti-Hillary:  War vote, 2 Clintons in the Whitehouse (not that she dislikes Bill, but it seemed like too many cooks in the kitchen), worried she would be a jaded old person if she didn't vote for Mr. Hope

    My two cents to her:  Hillary isn't talking like she's jaded - she's talking like a fighing dem (as opposed to Obama, who ran to the right on most domestic issues).  Hillary's war vote is bad, but Obama admitted later he might have voted the same way, and no difference in their senate records.

    In the end she voted for Hillary!  Keeping my fingers crossed others are doing the same.

    SpongeDob (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    The Denver Post is reporting that James "SpongeDob" Dobson (of Focus on the Family) is threating to boycott the primary election is John McCain is the chosen one.  

    Tee-hee!  He's such a left-wing radical, that McCain.

    Why? (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:16:10 PM EST
    Because he is gay?

    Parent
    What now? (none / 0) (#155)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:22:34 PM EST
    Who's ghey?

    Parent
    Ah but.. (none / 0) (#1)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    You forgot the most important issue: will Gravel ride a wave of support to victory in his home state of Alaska?
    Wow. (none / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:21:24 PM EST
    You're really going to bat for your candidate there!

    I say Obama wins MN and CO, and possibly MA.

    But really, I have no idea.

    He's predicting a near knockout for (none / 0) (#6)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    Obama.

    I wish.

    Parent

    You didn't fall for the (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    expectations game, at least here, huh?

    No matter.  My prediction is that the msm today, tonight, and tomorrow will use the term "expectations" more than Dickens did.

    It could be the new drinking game -- a swig for every time the term is used.  And a double chug for every time it's not about candidates' or voters' expectations but . . . about media's expectations.


    Parent

    Any Obama supporter who gets giddy (none / 0) (#48)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    because of poll numbers should check into rehab.

    Parent
    Cream... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    It's the new "change!"

    Parent
    Dems only (McCain win is a fait accompli) (none / 0) (#5)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:25:45 PM EST
    Clinton:
    Arizona*
    Arkansas*
    California*
    Connecticut (tossup)
    Massachusetts*
    Missouri
    New Jersey*
    New Mexico*
    New York*
    Oklahoma*
    Tennessee*

    Obama:
    Alabama (tossup)
    Alaska*
    Colorado
    Delaware (tossup)
    Georgia*
    Idaho*
    Illinois*
    Kansas*
    Minnesota
    North Dakota*
    Utah

    * relatively safe bet, and a red flag if it goes the other way.  If Obama loses Georgia, he's in a world of hurt.  Similarly, if Clinton loses MA and CT it'll be a long night for her.

    Key delegate fact to watch:  Will Obama get narrow wins or will he run up the score in the caucus states to offset Clinton's big advantages in NY, NJ, OK, and TN.

    This looks right, actually (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:31:12 PM EST
    But McCain isn't all the way there, yet. Romney again has mo' in CA.

    Parent
    California is proportional. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:35:51 PM EST
    New York is winner take all.

    The Republicans set up Super Tuesday to be the end of the discussion.  If Romney gets a 20 delegate lead in California, it won't help him offset McCain's 100 delegates from NY.

    Parent

    For Republicans. (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:38:13 PM EST
    They're both proportional for Democrats.

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    I was discussing that in the context of the Republican race, and how it's intended to be a Highlander primary--there can be only one.

    Parent
    He may win the nomination (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    but he'll look damaged and be without the support of Rush et al in November.

    I'm waiting for Vigure to find a 3rd party candidate to run.

    Parent

    The Republicans will come around (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:41:07 PM EST
    to respect the authority figure.  They always do--authoritarianism and obeying orders is the soul of that party.

    Parent
    I kinda wish.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    I had applied for Republican party membership to vote for Paul today here in NY.  

    Nah, what am I thinking, even supporting a worthy candidate like Paul isn't worth sullying my good name like that.  

    Parent

    NY, MA, NJ, CT also impact MEDIA momentum (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:24:03 PM EST
    in coverage, with the earliest results.

    What happens in California won't even begin to affect the media narrative until most of the country is in bed.  Except us political junkies.

    And as it's so much about perceptions, not reality, in both media and politics, this distinction about formulating the media narrative could matter as much as what really happens . . . especially if we don't really have results for the largest state by far until even after the overnight news digests hit the newsrooms and frame much of the shows and front pages tomorrow.

    Parent

    The media (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by stillife on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:06:11 PM EST
    will find a way to spin the narrative pro-Obama unless Hillary scores a knockout in those four states, which is unlikely.  Obviously she'll get NY and most likely NJ, but CT and MA are more dubious.    Thank you, Joe Lieberman and Ted Kennedy.  

    It's gonna be a long night.

    Parent

    "Too close to call" (none / 0) (#8)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:30:40 PM EST
    I think Clinton will squeek by in California.  I think Obama will get into bonus delegates in Illinois and Georgia.

    Evidence that Obama may win CA: (none / 0) (#16)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    ARG has Clinton winning.

    Parent
    The only prediction I will make (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:31:21 PM EST
    My latigo chili is going to be awesome !!! Gave up my Cassandra persona decades ago.

    Obama Peaked (none / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST
    And on the way down. The road show is not working. All the give him time and he will be king is fantasy or no fairy tale. The reasoned people are finding all the clinks in the armor. I have even seen signs come down from windows.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    If Clinton only wins 100 more delegates than he does tonight, I'll consider that a good result.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    You feel that Obama's peaked and is on his way down?  That doesn't bode well, even if he finishes close tonight.

    And let's be honest -- for you to consider it a "good result" a wood chipper and Hillary Clinton would need to be involved.

    Parent

    I do think his momentum has stalled (none / 0) (#36)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    in CA and a few other places.

    But, the rest of the month will favor him.  Nice combo of caucuses, heavily Af-Am states, and even his home state.

    Clinton will run up the score on him in NY, NJ (polls in NJ ALWAYS understate the margin of victory), OK, TN and a few other places.  There are only two states--IL and GA--where Obama can really run up the score on Clinton.  

    Parent

    I believe the Edwards wind (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:12:43 PM EST
    is blowing toward Clinton, on the healthcare issue alone.

    That may change things.

    Parent

    I suspect you are (none / 0) (#134)
    by hookfan on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    mostly right on here. I doubt there will be a decisive result today, feb 15 looks +Obama, and I suspect it means we may be looking towards a mean convention. This could get ugly, much uglier than the stuff we quibble about now. I'll hate to see the democratic Party tear itself apart over charges of voter disenfranchisement.

    Parent
    Gallup's national tracking (none / 0) (#95)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    poll supports this.  The last three days have Hillary at 46, 47 and 47 while Obama seems to have peaked at 43 and dropping back to 42 today.  

    Link to Gallup

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    I will give Clinton AZ, AR, CA, CT, MA, MN, MO, NJ, NM, NY, OK, and TN.

    Obama gets AL, AK, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, ND, and UT.

    I would not (none / 0) (#30)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM EST
    count on Alabama or Utah for Obama.

    Gut instinct, though.  I'm as accurate as Zogby, I'm afraid.

    Parent

    Re: (none / 0) (#35)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:58:59 PM EST
    Well, I have to pick one way or the other!  I actually think Alabama is a very interesting case, although Missouri is the true bellwether.

    Parent
    Alabama (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:35:34 PM EST
    is going to be very interesting.  The demographics have to be taken into account, but I think there are also some heavy, core democratic pockets there that have been sleeping for a while and today will emerge from their caves and roar like mighty bears!

    (sorry, I had some hot chocolate earlier and it's still got me buzzed)

    Parent

    NO WAY (none / 0) (#22)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST
    California is solidly for Hillary!

    By at least 10 (none / 0) (#26)
    by koshembos on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:51:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#28)
    by SoCalDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    Polls are open in California, just got back from voting. Where is the youth vote?? I didn't see anyone under 40 at the polls. Must have better things to do!! I believe Hillary will take California. She wasn't my first choice, Edwards was my candidate since 2003.

    youth vote (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    I'm sure will come later.  Or maybe not.  They might be moving on to the next big thing.  Those who think they will show up again in November have obviously never met the typical college student.

    Parent
    I have met quite a few republicans that will (none / 0) (#32)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:56:27 PM EST
    cross over and vote for Obama...as they want him to the their opponent in the fall...

    well, that's unique since most (none / 0) (#68)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    Republicans think Hillary will heal the wounds of a McCain candidacy in no time flat.

    Parent
    The Snow (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    We had a big snowstorm last night and this morning. Are any other states having weather issues? Will it affect the turnout?

    Re: (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    It seems to be rainy in a lot of places.  Little drizzly here in NYC and through the Northeast, I gather.

    Parent
    New Mexico-big snows in northern areas (none / 0) (#40)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    News said many Latinos in that area and heavy snow may make getting to polls very difficult.

    Anyone know how the Navajo areas are doing? And which way they lean?

    Analyst said it was not good for Hillary.

    Parent

    Georgia (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    kind of muggy, highs in the low 70s, expected rain later.

    (warning: meteorologists are as accurate as pollsters)

    Parent

    So CAL: Sunny, highs in the 60s. (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    But you knew that.  Huge % of CA voters (less than half) have already voted absentee.  

    Parent
    Missouri (none / 0) (#72)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:47:11 PM EST
    is having a nasty gray, rainy day but don't see that it should really dampen the turnout.  

    Parent
    Minnesota (none / 0) (#41)
    by eric on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    For what it's worth, in Minnesota, they are using a Presidential preference ballot at the beginning of the caucus to measure votes, rather than count the final number of delegates.  They are actually telling people that they can show up, vote, and then leave if they want to.

    Sounds like this would be good for Obama inasmuch as independents and others new to the process are either intimidated or don't care about resolutions, county delegates, and other party business that is normally dealt with at caucuses.

    My wife and I are voting for Hillary and we are staying for the caucus.

    Willard just lost WV to Gomer Pyle. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:24:35 PM EST
    Willard led after the first round with 49%.  McCain then threw all of his support to Huck.

    And Romney is saying, but that isn't fair. (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:56:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Questions (none / 0) (#55)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:29:39 PM EST
    If Obama makes a big deal that Hilary made a bad judgment on voting for the Iraq resolution and Hilary will not apologize ( the apology did not help Edwards by the way) for her vote (maybe because she want to show she is capable of being a commander in chief and apologizing would be a sign of weakness) and that he was against the war before becoming a U.S. senator and yet he voted for the funding to continue the war once in office as a U.S. sentor then does that not just wash any argument  he has on Hilary moreover making his big deal that he opposed the war almost hypocritical?  

    Also how many senators who originally did not vote for the Iraq resolution have stayed consistent in they vote not to fund the war.  Any.  Maybe Feingold?  Some one please enlighten me.

    Kerry's vote (none / 0) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    Kerry's vote for the war was ok with Obama.
    This is what Obama said about her vote, then it changed during the campaign to the : He was right , she war wrong, judgement shpeel.  
    But this is Obama, in his words.  

    "So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test." [The New Yorker, 10/30/06]

    "Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." ["Audacity of Hope," 2006, p. 294]



    Parent
    Just in from holding my Obama sign (none / 0) (#57)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    outside the polling station in my small, proper,Republican Westchester, New York town, Gotta say, I was surprised at the ppl (mostly women) who came over to tell me they voted or will be voting for Obama. Someone even honked their car horn and flashed me a peace sign...you have to know my town to appreciate how radical such a display is considered.
    I had a Guiliani supporter tell me she's planning to vote for Obama if he makes the general and took a flyer so she could volunteer at the local Westchester 'Bama headquarters.
    The only slightly negative reaction was from two elderly woman who wouldn't even look my way as they walked in and out from voting. Reminded my of my early Catholic school days and the disapproving nuns. Ahh, the memories.

    I hope you were (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:37:27 PM EST
    outside the 150' zone.

    Parent
    I had to squint to see the polling sign. :) (none / 0) (#71)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    actually, I think I was passed the required line. The first ones arriving at a polling place were instructed to check in with polling ppl and make sure wherre to stand.

    Parent
    and Main Street is small (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:48:23 PM EST
    it's hard to avoid anyone once in town.

    Parent
    where in Westchester? (none / 0) (#145)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:07:29 PM EST
    I grew up there.

    Parent
    Hope Not (none / 0) (#70)
    by Salt on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:45:03 PM EST
    I say if you are correct a Republican will the next President.

    Hillary on Letterman (none / 0) (#80)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    CLIP here.

    Kathy, this one's for you. (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:02:52 PM EST
    Michelle Obama on her relationship w/her husband:

    MICHELLE OBAMA INTERVIEW

    Parent

    oculus (none / 0) (#113)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:11:01 PM EST
    are you trying to kill me?

    Here I was all chilled from my Happy Meal buzz and you throw this on me.

    I picked the wrong day to give up valium.

    Parent

    Just want to keep you on your game. (none / 0) (#114)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    Long day and night ahead.  

    Parent
    no kidding-VERY long night (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:25:12 PM EST
    Of course, I was somewhat cheered to see around 20 folks standing on the corner down the street from me all cheering and waving Hillary signs despite the pouring rain.  Horns were honking, people were waving, and I rolled down my window and contributed my own, "GO, HILLARY!" to the cause.

    Based on this anecdotal evidence, I will now predict Clinton to win Georgia by 20%.  Oh, wait, my grandmother voted for her today, too, so let me bump that up to 21%.

    Parent

    The Grandmother Vote Makes All The Difference n/t (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:08:36 PM EST


    Parent
    you mean (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    "I'm mad as heck and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

    Go, granny, go!

    Parent

    Yep, experienced voters matter (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 05:59:38 PM EST
    as much as experienced candidates.

    Tell your Grandma she's great. :-)

    Parent

    Won't Obama take (none / 0) (#81)
    by ding7777 on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:10:15 PM EST
    MA with both the Kennedy and Kerry machines working for him?

    He was down (none / 0) (#82)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:13:53 PM EST
    by 37% three weeks ago... endorsements won't make that up.

    Parent
    In MA (none / 0) (#86)
    by dk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    Almost all of the local and state reps in MA are for Hillary (i.e. the local political machine).  This is against Kerry, Kennedy, and the Harvard types.

    I think, given that braekdown, it will be close, but I still think Hillary has a good chance of eeking out the win.

    Parent

    Prediction (none / 0) (#98)
    by bordenl on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:49:53 PM EST
    Obama: AL, AK, DE, IL, KS, GA, MA, MN, ND, UT, ID
    Clinton: AR, AZ, CA, CT, MO, NY, NJ, NM, OK, TN

    Obama gets MN because of the caucus factor.

     

    Forgot CO (none / 0) (#101)
    by bordenl on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:53:48 PM EST
    I will give CO to Obama also.

    Parent
    Pretty good (none / 0) (#102)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:54:08 PM EST
    move MA and AK to Clinton and I think you'd have something I'd put money on.

    Parent
    Minnesota (none / 0) (#106)
    by eric on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    Interestingly, Obama isn't really getting the caucus factor in MN.  He IS taking advantage of the format, however.

    As posted above, the caucuses this year are using a Presidential preference ballot first thing once the caucus starts.  Then, you can just leave without taking part in the caucus.  It is kind of a mini-primary but it is set a a particular time.

    Anyway, Obama is sending out emails to supporters telling them that they can just go and vote and then leave.  It kind of makes me sore because I have suffered through many-a-caucuses the hard way.

    Obama is definitely reaching out to non-democrats who don't really want to be part of the long caucus process.

    In conclusion, I don't see Obama benefitting from the caucus system in Minnesota because it is odd this year.  He still is likely to get lots of people to just show up and leave, though.  That part is good for him.

    Parent

    It is over folks. Paris Hilton and 50 cent (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    endorse HRC.  

    Paris Hilton (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    Great, another vote for Nader.  Unless...hey!  Do you think that little lap dog she carries around might help explain the voting machines?

    Parent
    is it just me (none / 0) (#126)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    or they never talk about the Asian and GLBT vote in CA--in terms of the demographics of the polls?  Asians are 12%, more than the AA vote, but I don't know the GLBT stats for CA. I'm curious how that will effect the SF area.  

    Man, I am nervous, but it's nice to have such a civilized blog to come to :)

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by dk on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:43:26 PM EST
    for quite some time the GLBT vote was pretty overwhelmingly for Hillary (yes, there are exceptions)

    I definitely agree with you as far as the Asian vote is concerned.  I think it's kind of an east coast media bias to paint everything in a black-white (and sometimes latino) frame, and to forget that Asians make up a very large and not insignificant political force.  

    Parent

    Hillary didn't forget the Asian-Americans... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    she had that Hsu guy shaking 'em down for cash.

    Parent
    so it would be fair (none / 0) (#140)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:04:30 PM EST
    to being up Rezko's ethnicity, who had a much more personal relationship with the candidate?  Of course not.  Let keep it civil--it's going to be a long night!

    If Obama takes CO AND CA (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 04:06:21 PM EST
    I'll eat a Habanero BTD!  I don't believe it!  Only one though and the smallest one I can find. I get extra time to find an extra small one.

    Thanks, Chief Wilma Mankiller -- (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:09:31 PM EST
    as Oklahoma is called for Clinton, 2-1.

    (Several tribes removed there had a heritage of matrilinealism and shared gender power -- at least until Europeans came and messed up Native culture.)

    CNN (none / 0) (#174)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:34:24 PM EST
    Both     Arkansas  and  Tennessee   called  for  Clinton,  per  Wolf.

    CNN (none / 0) (#175)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:37:39 PM EST
    So  far,  Oklahoma, Arkansas,  Tennessee/Clinton.
    Only   Georgia and Illinois  called  for  Obama  (and  both  of  those  were givens).

    CNN (none / 0) (#176)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:38:06 PM EST
    So  far,  Oklahoma, Arkansas,  Tennessee/Clinton.
    Only   Georgia and Illinois  called  for  Obama  (and  both  of  those  were givens).

    CNN (none / 0) (#177)
    by auntmo on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    So  far,  Oklahoma, Arkansas,  Tennessee/Clinton.
    Only   Georgia and Illinois  called  for  Obama  (and  both  of  those  were givens).

    Deleware (none / 0) (#178)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:07:35 PM EST
    goes to Obama.

    Hey, Jeralyn has a live blog from her caucus.

    Is it voter tampering to give her results?

    Super Tuesday Predictions Open Thread | 175 comments (175 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment