home

Is A Funny Thing Happening On the Way To Obama's Coronation?

Suffolk Universtiy's latest polling seems to say so. In Oregon:

Obama 45
Clinton 41
Undecided 8
Refused 6

In Kentucky:

Obama 25
Clinton 51
Edwards 6
Undecided 11
Uncommitted 5
Refused 2

Interesting.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< Look Who's Trashing Hillary Now | The Elite View: Appealing to Working Class Voters Is "Lame" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    In line with what we knew before (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 08:59:01 AM EST
    I think it will be pretty embarrassing if, when he takes the stage tonight, KY has been called against him, and OR is "too close to call."

    a monday (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:00:41 AM EST
    primary?

    Parent
    Tomrrow, duh (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:14:52 AM EST
    *tomorrow* (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:15:04 AM EST
    I honestly (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:16:29 AM EST
    Didn't know.  Actually.  

    There was one primary on a saturday, if I remember correctly.  I just don't watch the news so it's like I wasn't sure.


    Parent

    Louisiana (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:43:12 AM EST
    they tend to do elections on Saturdays.

    Parent
    He's not declaring (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:13:22 AM EST
    Decided against it.

    [Concerned about appearing presumptuous or antagonistic towards Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama will not declare victory in the Democratic nomination fight Tuesday in the event he wins enough pledged delegates to claim a majority.

    Rather, he'll tiptoe right up to the line, without explicitly asserting the race is over.

    While it may sound like an exercise in hair-splitting, the conscious decision not to declare victory is a revealing measure of the sensitivity surrounding overtures that appear to disrespect Clinton and her supporters.]

    Ya think?  

    And for those Obama supporters who keep saying the antipathy towards Obama is only online and that Clinton supporters will come back... I keep seeing articles like Clinton-Obama Grudges Linger For Some Voters....

    ["There's just been an attitude that if you aren't voting for Barack Obama, then you're a racist," said Cowley, 49, a mother of four from Massachusetts who has vowed to never back the senator from Illinois......

    Some women, like Cowley, complain that Clinton has been disrespected and mistreated by the media and the political establishment. Many see Obama as equally condescending, dismissing Clinton's foreign policy role as first lady, pulling out her chair for her at debates and suggesting offhand during one debate that she was "likable enough."]

    Parent

    And yet, no one would seriously dispute (1.00 / 1) (#201)
    by sarissa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:31:09 AM EST
    that he will soon win the nomination.  

    Which is not to say that he is in fact the best general election candidate.

    Parent

    Pretty embarrising for him, yes (none / 0) (#104)
    by angie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:48:48 AM EST
    but absolutely fabulous for me!! From your lips to God's ears. I've got my candle lit.

    Parent
    You clearly don't no the history (none / 0) (#106)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    of Lake County.

    Parent
    "know" not "no" (none / 0) (#108)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:50:10 AM EST
    If Hillary did everything first? (none / 0) (#110)
    by MMW on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:50:59 AM EST
    Then as far as I can see we're agreed that she should be the nominee. Why take second, when you can have first?

    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    it would be awsum if she could pull Oregon out.
    hard to look at the pic of 70,000 Obama worshipers in the park last weekend and believe it would be possible but it would be great.

    how many were bused in? (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    how were the photos really shot? excuse me for being cynical, but this election cycle leaves no alternatives.

    Parent
    How many buses would that take? 75,000 people..n/t (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by minordomo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    About 1500 school buses (none / 0) (#187)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    But presumably some people came on their own.

    Parent
    how many were bused in (none / 0) (#113)
    by delacarpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:51:48 AM EST
    is an answer I hope surfaces. I saw a photo at a differnt angle yesterday and it didn't look like that many and who decides how many is there anyway

    Parent
    Gotta link (none / 0) (#117)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:53:25 AM EST
    To that photo?

    Parent
    why don't you go find it for us. (none / 0) (#141)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    I wasn't the one (none / 0) (#146)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:04:52 AM EST
    Who brought it up.

    Parent
    and that's your reason for not (none / 0) (#165)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:12:26 AM EST
    getting the photo? ok!

    Parent
    any you? (none / 0) (#193)
    by ww on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:25:58 AM EST
    Anyway, go here.

    Parent
    that was never the point. (none / 0) (#197)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    i said how many were bused in.

    Parent
    Obama rally photo (none / 0) (#186)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:22:49 AM EST
    is in the article I linked to above but here it is again.

    Good morning everyone... two new commentors onboard. evilurges, and minordomo.  I haven't looked to see where they fit on the pocket guide, bun evel has 7 comments and gotten a couple of 1s and a 2.  Minordomo has 14 comments and 4 1s.  

    Ha! Ha!  engage at your own risk.  :)

    Parent

    reminds me of the gay pride parades (none / 0) (#177)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    of my youth, where Piedmont Park was absolutely flooded, and the organizers would do a headcount and come up with around 100,000 people, and then you'd turn on the news and the official head count would be around 15,000.

    Though, the OR crowd was huge either way you look at it.  I've just seen too many of those Obama rallies where the participants did not turn into voters.  California is a prime example--his crowds were swelling.  We shall see what happens.

    Parent

    Obama had a huge crowd in Boston (none / 0) (#216)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    shortly before the vote.  There were lines for block and traffic backed up for miles.  He lost the primary by 15%.


    Parent
    It's like Obama's rally (none / 0) (#218)
    by Benjamin3 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:44:07 AM EST
    that he held in the Philly suburbs.  Then, on election day, Hillary carried all those counties.

    Parent
    Smells Like (none / 0) (#181)
    by talex on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:20:55 AM EST
    the photo at Fardus Square as the statue of Saddam came tumbling down.

    A picture taken at certain ANGLES can be very deceiving. And we all know Obama can play all the ANGLES to his benefit even if they are deceiving.

    Parent

    It's the Northwest (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:08:34 AM EST
    when they get a day that is not in the 40's with sunshine, they will go see anything.  

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:09:03 AM EST
    true

    Parent
    Excited (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:10:15 AM EST
    they also get excited when the country notices Oregon and Washington.  They love to be in the news.  

    Parent
    I know I am nitpicking (none / 0) (#123)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM EST
    but judging by the venue arrangements, looks to me that Obama Camp was prepared in advance for this large a turnout.

    Parent
    Funny, I said the same thing to (none / 0) (#128)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:57:54 AM EST
    myself. What would they have done had this event been a say a gym or a smaller venue! Interesting.

    Parent
    The news was (none / 0) (#155)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    that they weren't drawing in huge crowds anymore, then suddenly they were!

    LOL, this is all just getting too funny.

    Parent

    Hey, I'm in the Northwest (none / 0) (#195)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    and I resent (resemble) that remark.   It's true, the sun comes out and the malls fill up.  :)

    Parent
    So very true (none / 0) (#233)
    by americanincanada on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    As an american living on Vancouver Island I can tell you this is true. Yesterday was beautiful from Oregon to Vancouver, 70 degrees and sunny. We were out and so was everyoe else.

    I think we would have gone to the park to watch anything as long as it involved the sunshine and our boat. And there were boaters anchored off the shore near Obama;s event.

    Looking at the pics, to me it screamed a combination of beautiful day and curiosity. Nothing more. I do not expect those numbers to turn into votes.

    Parent

    Supporters, not worshippers (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:09:48 AM EST
    It is to Obama's credit that he can draw such a large crowd.

    The point you should be making is elections are decided by voting, not crowd rallies.

    I am pretty sure Kerry beat Bush in the crowd rally metric in 2004.

    Parent

    sorry, yes. supporters. (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:11:25 AM EST
    the article said that it was bigger than Kerrys crowd but it did say Kerry attracted similar crowds.


    Parent
    He's coming to Tampa Weds (none / 0) (#43)
    by independent voter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:18:26 AM EST
    and online tickets are gone already. I will be curious to see what the turn out is like here. I have seen articles that declare he will not be able to draw big crowds in Florida.

    Parent
    Let me tell you something right now (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    Going to Florida and NOT declaring strongly and forcefully that he will fight to seat the Florida delegation will be a huge mistake.

    No matter how big a rally he has.

    Parent

    Why else would he go? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    If he is not gonna do that

    Parent
    Then there is no point going (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:37:10 AM EST
    If he does not do that (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:37:46 AM EST
    I think we are agreeing right Stellaa?

    Parent
    He Faked Them Out in Michigan Too (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    Yes - agreement - and didn't he just show up in Michigan last week and say that he felt bad he wasn't on the ballot?

    But he had a big ice cream cone for the audience - John Edwards!!

    That was supposed to paper over the fact that Obama never ran for President in that state.

    Of course, the MSM never noticed that fact that he openly dissed Michigan with a big smile on his face.  

    Parent

    Punk'd (none / 0) (#102)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    that is what the kids call it.  

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    really curious why he would go there if he is not ready to settle this issue.  

    Parent
    Don't Count on Edwards (none / 0) (#115)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:52:27 AM EST
    If John Edward was a true leader, he would have gone to Michigan and called for a revote right in front of Obama at the rally.

    But he's not.  

    Parent

    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:09:57 AM EST
    and by not doing so, IN MICHIGAN, he endorsed not only Obama, but the disenfranchisement of voters.

    At least Elizabeth has integrity.

    Parent

    If I were in Florida (none / 0) (#85)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    I go to demand he count my vote.


    Parent
    Florida Residents Are Planning To Travel (4.00 / 1) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:04:30 AM EST
    to D.C. to protest at the DNC on May 30 and 31. Detail on times and place can be obtained at Count Our Votes  If anyone lives in the vicinity, please join them in support. Also, pass the information along to friends and family and post on other sites.

    Information provided by MichaelGale.

    Parent

    I wish I were (none / 0) (#234)
    by americanincanada on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:00:53 AM EST
    back home in Tampa. I would follow him around the state...

    I wonder if there will be protests. Tampa has a large AA community but just as large a hispanic community. I really do wish I could be home tyo go to this out of curiosity.

    Parent

    Welcome back BTD (none / 0) (#47)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    I wondered about the crowd, too. Obama's campaign is reminiscent of GWB's 2000 where only friendly crowds were allowed in. I had heard that the crowd in MI a couple of weeks ago was bused in, so not too far fetched to imagine this happened as well. Of course, it is impressive looking should they all be there because they all wanted to on their own.

    Parent
    People get a grip (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:25:26 AM EST
    it's the Northwest.  Nothing happens there.  There are thousands of young kids and when the weather is good, anything becomes a happening.  

    Parent
    Now Stellaaa (none / 0) (#58)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:27:14 AM EST
    Let us not be guilty of the same sort of regionalism that affects the Appalachia-haters!

    Parent
    No..it's true (none / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:31:05 AM EST
    I lived up there, in Seattle.  They get so excited when the country notices how great they are they go collectively apesh*t.   It's quite a phenomenon.  I am sure this crowd will be the event of the decade.  
    They always feel forgotten, up there in that corner but superior.  

    Parent
    Sun is nice, but we'll even turn out (none / 0) (#175)
    by Lahdee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:18:38 AM EST
    in the rain for Jim McDermott and the venerable RonK.

    Parent
    Stellaa is right about the weather effect. (none / 0) (#79)
    by befuddled on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    I used to live in Portland. After months of rain people go crazy on a lovely spring day and mob all over the place. That said, my sister-in-law in Eugene thought Obama had an edge, she's a Repub and can't vote in the primary, but she's ready for Hillary if she gets the nom.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:02 AM EST
    so not true, Stellaaa.  We're quite a vibrant part of the country.  Lots happens here.

    (being from the Northwest).

    About the crowds, there are quite a number of universities around Portland, so it isn't at all wierd to have a huge audience for Obama.  I've heard he busses them in.

    Parent

    Reason for the crowd: (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    They were all promised latte coupons ;-).

    Parent
    Nope. Obama does not have people (none / 0) (#188)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:23:18 AM EST
    sign loyalty oaths before entering his rallies or town halls.  People wearing Hillary shirts are allowed in. Saw it here in Indiana.  He does not just allow "friendly" crowds in as you claim.  

    Parent
    I was there... (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by JustJennifer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:15:23 AM EST
    it was an usually nice day so I think that had something to do with it.  But yes, the crowd did contain a pretty good amount of young people, some clearly not old enough to vote.  It was hot.  And after listening to him, seeing Hillary when she came to Seattle, and seeing Bill and Chelsea on Saturday I have to say my mind hasn't changed.  LOL  I am not buying the Obama hype.

    Parent
    Color me (none / 0) (#72)
    by Emma on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:36:13 AM EST
    And after listening to him, seeing Hillary when she came to Seattle, and seeing Bill and Chelsea on Saturday

    very jealous.  I've been volunteering for the Clinton campaign since March and have yet to see one Clinton in person.  Lucky you!!

    Parent

    I've met both the Clintons (none / 0) (#194)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:26:20 AM EST
    and I have to say I was much more excited about HRC.  She just gives off this vibe that she totally has her sh*t together, and to hear her speak is just awe-inspiring.

    She looked absolutely radiant.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:17:12 AM EST
    maybe some people came in from Kentucky.  They don't get to see him much down there, I hear...

    Parent
    Not possible. (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:22:43 AM EST
    I was over at Blue Oregon and they were like OMG, look at how unracist we are, and she voted for the war, which are together the crux of her extreme disadvantage in an Oregon primary.

    Parent
    I guess it doesn't bother them (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM EST
    that Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill.  I thought Oregon was big on the environment, but I must have heard wrong.


    Parent
    They are prolly not that familiar. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    But the other two variables are potent.  

    Parent
    They also don't care (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by angie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    that Obama thinks Lake Erie is in Oregon (according to the cut and paste job of the fliers he made out there).

    Parent
    I refuse to look at the video (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:01:45 AM EST
    no sense bumming myself out

    Parent
    Besides, videos of excited kids (none / 0) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:03:46 AM EST
    doesn't mean an awful lot when older people are the most dependable voting bloc EVER.  No worries. Rock bands can command such crowds also.  

    Parent
    That seem difficult to believe (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:10:38 AM EST
    in that Oregon is not very diverse. It is almost all white.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:13:08 AM EST
    even that type of observation seems hard to take seriously. In a crowd of 75,000, judging ages seems like wishful thinking.

    I say we stick to the really impressive number that came to rally for Obama. and it IS impressive.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    You must have missed this comment during your suspension.

    Just because it's a big crowd doesn't mean you can't pick out the Jews!  Look, I think I see one there.

    Parent

    HeHe (none / 0) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:21:38 AM EST
    You are right Steve. I see that one to.

    Parent
    no question (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    it IS impressive

    Parent
    doub it? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    They forgot one thing (none / 0) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:14:02 AM EST
    remember when they called Hillary Tonya Harding?  Well, guess where Tonya is from?  Oregon.

    Parent
    Yes. I'm sure the retirees numbered (none / 0) (#24)
    by rooge04 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:11:25 AM EST
    in the thousands.

    Parent
    I wish I had not looked (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:08:40 AM EST
    WOW, when (none / 0) (#105)
    by delacarpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:48:50 AM EST
    John Kerry in 2004 had a crowd of 50,000 at a rally there. I think that he could draw that many considering the time elaspe. Many of those had already voted and just wanted to come see him.

    Parent
    What Kind Of Track Record Does (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:06:31 AM EST
    Suffolk University have?

    Another poll of interest:

    [T]he public is sending a strong message to journalists and pundits: It is too early to declare, as some already have, that the race is over.

    "Fully 72% of the public - including comparable percentages of Democrats, Republicans and independents -say that journalists should not be anointing Obama as the Democratic nominee at this stage in the race. Just 20% say that journalists should be doing this." PEW Research Center




    As I recall (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:07:33 AM EST
    they were the only ones that got New Hampshire right.  

    Parent
    20%?Wow, we have that many working for (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by BarnBabe on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    MSNBC now? I would love to poll just the Democrats in the whole country in each state that voted already. Wonder if they would change their minds. It is interesting that 75% are now aware of the media's involvement in electing Obama. I bet the media did not realize that there were so many people out there not buying their BS.

    Parent
    MSM Pushing Obama Hard Today (4.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:39:12 AM EST
    MSNBC in full push-Obama mode:

    Just saw an ad for "Super Tuesday" - Kentucky! Oregon!  - then -

    Only one picture shown - Barack Obama - full screen - and the words "Will he declare himself the probable nominee?"\

    Have you seen a primary coverage ad before with ONE candidate?

    We are now in a total blackout of Hillary coverage.  

    We have entered the kind of Obama saturation coverage we used to decry when it was Kim Jung-Il or Mao.

    Parent

    Can't say, but (none / 0) (#136)
    by Lahdee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    I did notice that it was heavily weighted with individuals over 46 years of age:
    18-25 - 3%
    26-35 - 9%
    36-45 - 14%
    46-55 - 23%
    56-65 - 28%
    66-75 - 15%
    75+   - 9%

    I would have liked to seen a spread that included more 36-45.


    Parent

    What about this: Indie run for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:06:44 AM EST
    Rasmussen

    The fact that Senator Clinton drew 22% to John McCain's 32% and Barack Obama's 31% demonstrates that the electorate remains volatile and unpredictable. It also


    So then she would become (none / 0) (#192)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:25:57 AM EST
    like Lieberman?  If my party doesn't nominate me I leave it and become its enemy?  Don't think so.  She is a Democrat and wouldn't do anything to hurt her party or her standing in the party.

    Parent
    I will wait for KUSA (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:09:07 AM EST


    You rang? (none / 0) (#206)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:32:38 AM EST
    KUSA totally disagrees with this poll and, based on past track records of being correctly incorrect, predicts:

    KY:  Obama by 60%
    OR:  Obama by 92%
    MOE: +/- 100%

    Parent

    Kathy, Obama by 60% in (none / 0) (#210)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    Ky???

    Parent
    Well, shut my mouth and call me hushpuppy (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by goldberry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:09:58 AM EST
    Of course, SUSA had NC by 5 for Obama as well so I suggest we take this with a grain of salt.  On the other hand, Oregon has a very low barrier for voting and that should mean a lot more rural, senior and blue collar workers won't have to schedule their time around a polling place.  It could be this close.  

    It is a surprising poolling result (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:11:47 AM EST
    to me, the Oregon result I mean.

    I doubt it is correct myself.

    Parent

    In an interview (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by vigkat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:02:08 AM EST
    A guy who apparently had some inside info regarding Oregon politics said internal polling was showing a 65 to 35 win for Obama.  I wasn't paying close atttention (trying not to look at that huge crowd) and don't recall his name or title.  The interview was carried on MSNBO this morning.

    Parent
    Man oh man... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM EST
    I guess this nomination will have to earned the old fashioned way: votes and hard work.  

    Parent
    more like (none / 0) (#237)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:42:12 AM EST
    how many in Portland actually turn in their ballots.  
    I bet this hits over 70% returns which is more the turnout for a general.  At this point you need to work the phones and post in all of the Oregon media outlet comment sections.  Oregon is a real media blackout generally, including the blogs.  Finding out voting records in Oregon, esp. state voting records, well, often I have to plain call up candidates to find out it's so sad.  Open, honest public discourse, disclosure for such a liberal area is really lacking in my view.

    Parent
    I made phone calls in Oregon (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by JustJennifer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:17:20 AM EST
    all weekend and I was surprised by the number of people who said they had aleady voted for her.  Got some Obama supporters but not that many.  Talked to a lot of people who said "sorry my mom and dad aren't home and I am only 16"  LOL

    Eh (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by nell on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    Don't read too much into the phone calls. As it gets closer to the primary, the campaign ususally targets identified Hillary supporters to GOTV, along with people they identified as being undecided. You should be speaking mostly to Hillary supporters at this point.

    Not to reduce hope, I just think expectations got raised in NC due to phone call results and poll results, like the ones BTD highlighted, and they just ended up being flat wrong. Always better to expect to lost by 20, keep working hard to lose by single digits, and then be surprised by a WIN!

    Parent

    Or (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:24:28 AM EST
    could it be that some wiser heads might have pointed out that declaring victory in the 8th inning, no matter how far ahead you may be, would manage to just enrage a few more people you might need in the GE? And that it also would look like Dubya and his Mission Accomplished sign?

    Whatever the reason, it is a wise decision, IMO.

    I doubt this is accurate (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ajain on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    But I guess this means we double down on our efforts and start making phone calls.
    Maybe we can earn Hillary some votes.

    Article in Tribune Sunday (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:26:36 AM EST
    for those of you who wanted to see the brief media analyis relative to the sexism overtones in this election, here it is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/chi-fempower-0518may18,0,4333714.column

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by stillife on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:26:51 AM EST
    Is this why he's backing off from tomorrow's "victory speech"?

    King Obama's Coronation is Prematureed (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Missblu on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    I believe that another shock is coming tomorrow night. It will be closer that Obama's predictions.

    The thing that is still hurting many Clinton supporters the most is the strategy many believe his campaign had of suspending Florida and Michigan's delegates and votes for her so that the friendly pundits for him could proclaim over and over  the past months that she is behind and can never catch up. The final chapter to this refrain by the chorus is that he will proclaim himself king tomorrow night.

    If it can be fixed today or tomorrow or on the 31st, it could have been fixed long ago and that is one of the primary reasons many will never vote for him.  He didn't believe in the right of all votes to be counted not just for the involved states but for the candidate of many. If it had been South Carolina and Wisconsin in suspension who can doubt it would not have been corrected.

    Do Dems suffer from premature coronation? (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Exeter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:57:19 AM EST
    Let's look at the symptoms:

    Persistent or recurrent coronation with minimal voter stimulation before, on, or shortly after primary elections and before the voters wishes it. The clinician must take into account factors that affect duration of the excitement phase, such as age, novelty of the candidate or situation, and recent frequency of voting activity.

    The disturbance causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

    Spreading and Infectious (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:04:04 AM EST
    I'm also seeing discussions of premature election and electoral dysfunction (ED).

    Whatever it's called, there's a new syndrome emerging.  We need the CDC.

    Parent

    That's very funny! (none / 0) (#167)
    by sander60tx on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    Thanks for the laugh. :-)

    Parent
    And... (none / 0) (#228)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:48:42 AM EST
    If your excitement phase lasts more than four weeks, a condition known as Obamaism, consult with your physician immediately.

    (Sorry, I'm so sick of the ED drug ads that I couldn't resist.)

    Parent

    i think the question here should be (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    why isn't obama out in the boonies with the "bitter voters" and the down trodden like he should be. if you watched the campaigns of both the kennedy brothers, they were out in those areas shaking hands and meeting people to get them to vote for them. sure obama does some of it but even his supporters in the media have noticed how he runs away from them.

    that doesn't bode well for the ge.

    Pew: public to media, don't declare Obama winner (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by fctchekr on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:15:03 AM EST
    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/839/news-media-declare-obama-winner

    "Barack Obama may be building an insurmountable lead in the Democratic primary race, but the public is sending a strong message to journalists and pundits: It is too early to declare, as some already have, that the race is over.

    Fully 72% of the public -- including comparable percentages of Democrats, Republicans and independents -- say that journalists should not be anointing Obama as the Democratic nominee at this stage in the race. Just 20% say that journalists should be doing this."


    Obama goes meta on 5/20 coronation (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:36:27 AM EST
    You know (none / 0) (#224)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:45:55 AM EST
    there is this recurring pattern where the campaign floats trial balloons of this type, and then when the public reaction is negative, all the Obama supporters swarm the blogs to proclaim that "Obama himself never said it, so it never happened!"  You can find a couple such commentors in this very thread.

    I'm trying to think of a couple past examples of this phenomenon.  It deserves a name!

    Parent

    Did you (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:47:00 AM EST
    actually read the comments before slamming TL?  BTD commented several times about the impressive size of the crowd.  Delacarpa also reminded us that 50,000 appeared at a rally for John Kerry in 2004 and several other people commented that Obama's turnout exceeded it.

    We need a sign (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    Please don't feed the trolls.

    Latte drinking liberal in Portland here (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by MisterPleasant on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    and although I find the numbers at the Obama rally to be impressive, it does not budge my support for Hillary.  After beginning my adult life during the Reagan years, I deeply appreciated the change in direction that the Clinton years provided.  The number of Hillary signs in my neighborhood here in NE Portland has blossomed in the last few days.  Mostly middle aged and retired folks here.  In the trendy neighborhoods it is all Obama.  I have no idea how the election will go here, but I felt some hope when my step son - who is a new age hippy college student - announced that he had changed his vote from Obama to Hillary after reading policy statements from both of them.

    For the record, real Cascadians live for the cool, rainy weather.  If I wanted year-round sunshine I'd move to Arizona.

    Is Suffolk a poll that does not push (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:00:41 AM EST
    undecideds very hard? Seems like an awfully high number of them for a race that is supposed to be "over".

    It's fun to consider but... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:08:23 AM EST
    Aren't blacks (1%--a total of 6 AA respondents) way underrepresented in that Oregon poll?

    I'd love to imagine Hillary winning--or even keeping Oregon close--but I find it really hard to get my hopes up. Oregon is Obama's demographics: majority white, true, but largely non-union, "creative class," liberal whites with a sprinkling of granola on their values--not that there's anything wrong with that; just trying to indicate a cultural difference between Oregonians and Kentuckians. :)

    Not really (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    Oregron has almost no A-As.

    Parent
    more like a cultural thing (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Robert Oak on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:00:01 AM EST
    Or should I say cult.  I'm in Oregon and Obama is like he's cool or fashionable or something.  It's astounding just how many don't know where the two stand on policy, but this is a cool thing going on in Oregon.

    That said, when I dropped off my ballot at the polling station, it was filled with all older people quietly filling out there ballots in the lobby.  

    I expect Obama to win due to this, they are just not waking up in time but I believe this mesmerized haze just cannot last.  

    Parent

    and as i have read many of that (none / 0) (#28)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:12:50 AM EST
    demographic are starting to have buyer's remorse. you know it isn't just bitter blue collar workers that are saying "where's the beef?"

    Parent
    don't mean to be rude here, but please (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:47:39 AM EST
    do your own homework

    Parent
    Where is the link? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:08:08 AM EST
    I tried to discuss this "buyer's remorse" myth on another thread here the other day.  I don't want HRC to drop out.  I think the contest is good for Democrats.  I voted for and worked for Obama here in Lake County Indiana and I don't have buyer's remorse at all.

    Just because people want the campaign to continue does not mean that they are unhappy with the way they voted.   It has been an exciting and energizing campgain and people in many ignored states (like mine) get to actual matter. It's almost over -- let's let it continue through the last few primaries.  

    Again, not "buyer's remorse."

    Parent

    you really don't want to see or hear (none / 0) (#190)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:24:16 AM EST
    there is buyer's remorse out there. all you have to do is google it.

    monical crowley fox
    neil macdonald cbc
    morning joe
    savage politics

    gee, i am so sorry your investigative skills are lacking.

    Parent

    Morning Joe? (1.00 / 2) (#199)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:29:38 AM EST
    Come on, I don't get my talking points from Republicans like you do.  And, regarding those links, they referenced discussions of IF there was buyer's remorse - not that there WAS.

    Of course we could also find evidence of HRC trying to knee-cap Obama's campaign so that she can run again in 4 years.  Is that true?  I don't believe so, but I can find discussion of it.

    Parent

    It is neither a fact nor a myth. There is (none / 0) (#226)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST
    no polling that I'm aware of gauging satisfaction with votes cast in previous primaries. Indiana was fairly recent compared to voting as far back as January. It's just conjecture whether there is buyer's remorse or there isn't.

    Parent
    And it sure looks like you (none / 0) (#157)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:08:59 AM EST
    meant to be rude.

    Parent
    really! in the mind of the beholder! (none / 0) (#169)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:14:59 AM EST
    I think OR (none / 0) (#97)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:47:24 AM EST
    really is quite unusual in its culture and voting patterns.

    Even many, many years ago when I was living in CA Oregon seemed to attract the countercultural element who loved the outdoorsy quality of OR, who often moved there.

    My take on it is that it served in CA as VT served in the East as the haven of this element. VT was more overwhelmed by that element, no doubt because it was smaller in underlying population. But I think the voting patters have been similarly skewed, if not so profoundly.

    Obviously, this would predispose things very much in Obama's favor in OR.

    What I want to see is how Obama fares in MT and SD at this stage of the game. I wonder how his now urban-elitist image is going to serve him in those states.

    Parent

    you know if you look back at past (none / 0) (#22)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:10:52 AM EST
    coventions many were not decided till then. what is the daxx hurry with giving the crown to obama? oh, yeah that's right some people want to riot if told no. well excuse me the welfare of my country is at stake, so color me not impressed with that. from the reading i've done, i think they'll be trouble at tne convention in any event.

    i say hold the presses. let the people speak. let the media do their job for once. most of them haven't so far. if i want cheer leaders i'll go to a football game.

    They are tenacious (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    The only thing they'll understand is counter-riot.


    Parent
    Well, it seems (none / 0) (#42)
    by sander60tx on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    Obama is not going to declare victory on Tues. after all.  But, he will declare he has a "majority" of the pledged delegates:

    In e-mail updates to reporters titled "Countdown to the Nomination," the Obama campaign lays out its math, which adheres to Democratic National Committee rules: 3,253 in total pledged delegates, 1,627 needed for a majority of pledged delegates, and 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination.

    Okay, I thought he'd had a "majority" (as in more pledged delegates) for quite some time, but I guess they are talking about a majority being one more than half of 3,253.

    Maybe the polling in Oregon is one reason they have decided not to "declare victory."  I can't believe it took them this long to realize that declaring victory would be a "slap in the face" to Clinton and her supporters, not to mention the states that have not yet voted and FL/MI.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:22:47 AM EST
    Both sides have invented their fair share of numbers.

    But you wouldn't think the Obama campaign would have to invent a new number if they were confident of victory under the old one.  1627 huh?  Okay.

    Parent

    another Obama flip flop! (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:27:55 AM EST
    This was mentioned by Lee Cowan (NBC?) last night - Obama is walking back on crowning himself nominee tomorrow night.
    I suspect it has nothing to do with numbers, but rather because it reinforces his "arrogance and elitism." And like Bush, Obama couldn't foresee it was inappropriate and had to be told.


    Parent
    Proof of your comment (none / 0) (#161)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:10:29 AM EST
    "Obama couldn't forsee it was inappropriate and had to be told."  Or is this just another one of your smears against Obama.

    Parent
    No proof needed (none / 0) (#179)
    by angie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    some things are self-evident.

    Parent
    this is the obama supporter format (none / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:25:40 AM EST
    it seems. argue and want to make you prove it  and then argue again it isn't proof.

    Parent
    As opposed to the HRC supporter format (1.50 / 2) (#211)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    which deals in negative rumor and innuendo about Obama and spends hours here spreading negative rumors.  Then they claim the rumors are fact because they heard it from another poster here.

    I must add that it most of the people I have dealt with here are polite, informed and fair.  Biased, to be sure, but fair.

    Parent

    you are really quite rude yourself! (none / 0) (#215)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:39:32 AM EST
    people on here are not biased and fair. they are fair. they have their opinions based on facts and research. many of them have wanted to be obama supporters but can't find it in themselves to do so. part of it has to do with the rudeness, meaness and lack of substance pereceived by many of us in a number of obama supporters. what you do is run off potential supporters. what do you gain? nothing!

    Parent
    Here is what he said (none / 0) (#202)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    That will be an important day," Obama told NBC's Brian Williams when asked if he would declare victory after the May 20 Kentucky and North Carolina primaries. "If at that point we have the majority of pledged delegates, which is possible, then I think we can make a pretty strong claim that we've got the most runs and it's the ninth inning and we've won."

    A bit different that how it has been described.  Also notice the IF AT THAT POINT part.

    Parent

    Well, that's good. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    Declaring victory based on a "majority" of pledged delegates will look particularly stupid especially if on that night Hillary receives more of the popular vote.

    Parent
    With a 185 delegate handicap... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by goldberry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:31:25 AM EST
    ...and MI and FL still not settled, and him being behind in the popular vote, I would think that declaring victory is not a good thing.  
    That could generate a fairly strong backlash.  He will overnight become the most unpopular preumptuous nominee in DNC history.  

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:34:12 AM EST
    No frontrunner at this late in the game has ever lost a primary by 41 points.  That is an important milestone, but oddly, all I heard was Obama changing the subject....

    </snark>

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:37:49 AM EST
    Is this the standard routine, where the Obama campaign floats a trial balloon, and when it doesn't work out his supporters all proclaim, "The words never came directly out of Obama's mouth, so it never happened!"  The folks at Correntewire are falling asleep on the job if they haven't given this phenomenon a name yet.

    Parent
    The difference is (none / 0) (#111)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    I don't go around pretending that "Hillary never said!!!!" the various things her campaign said.

    Parent
    or the trial baloon (none / 0) (#139)
    by Serene1 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    which said Indiana will be the tie breaker.

    Parent
    It was the tie-breaker (none / 0) (#162)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:11:35 AM EST
    He was declared the presumptive nominee after she barely pulled off a win in Indiana and he won big in NC.  

    Parent
    So, when you lose the tie-breaker (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:18:00 AM EST
    you win? Umm, ok.

    Parent
    No! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Josey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    Obama told Brian Williams he would "nominate" himself May 20.
    Unfortunately, Obama is much like Bush - so eager to promote himself that he's totally unaware and insensitive to the rage he creates.


    Parent
    It is rage you know. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by MMW on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    He and Bush are the only two people I can't watch on TV.

    Parent
    Amen !! (5.00 / 0) (#125)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    Really cannot turn on TV in case Bush or Obama are on.  

    Parent
    Once again (none / 0) (#132)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    I see Asperger's Syndrome at work here.  Not a problem for a president if he has good handlers.

    Parent
    evil urges? (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:55:15 AM EST
    Interesting handle.  I'm just wondering, are you one of the people Obama has sent to be "nice" to Clinton supporters?

    Parent
    Nah. he or she is one of the 400. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by leis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:22:20 AM EST
    I ask again, why didn't he do this sooner? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    It's just spin, so why not spin it sooner?  What is so significant about half of the delegates?  Why wasn't there a rally when he reached, say, a fourth of the delegates?  And/or a third of the delegates?  I see no evidence in history to support Obama's argument that half is meaningful.

    Let's play where-will-the-rally-be when he reaches three-fourths of the pledged delegates?  Or, heck, he bores easily, so will there be an interim rally when he reaches five-eighths of the delegates?

    Possibilities are endless for this ploy -- and as he is problematic with rural voters, will we see "I got to another fractional if fast-moving goalpost" rallies in cornfields everywhere?  Of course, this one will be in one of the few urban areas in Iowa -- but he'll talk about rural values, I bet.  We can script it by now, too -- and suggest he have a calculator in his hand to talk about digital wins and decimal points.:-)


    Parent

    The campaign has made this point since February. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jimotto on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    The campaigns goal was to win a majority of pledged delegates, and since the blowouts of February the probability that Obama would win this majority has gone from likely to assured.  You'll recall statements that Clinton would need to win 60% of delegates to catch up before OH and MI, then 70% before PA?  

    The spin has been from the Clinton campaign that "popular vote, as we choose to count it" is more relevant than delegate counts.  

    Parent

    Psychological warfare. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:22:55 AM EST
    He'll get the pledged delegate majority Tues. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimotto on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    Certainly he'll hit 1627, just with the delegates he'll get from Kentucky.

    If he gets 49 delegates from Oregon and Kentucky, he'll also have a pledged delegate majority if FL and MI are included under the most favorable possible outcome for Clinton (ie...69 from FL, 55 from MI

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:35:06 AM EST
    The most favorable outcome for Clinton in Michigan is 73 - you know, the delegates she actually won

    Parent
    But you forget cmugirl that this is Obama (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    math.  He gets delegates he did not win and takes away delegate Clinton actually won.  

    Parent
    {smacks forhead} (none / 0) (#126)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:57:31 AM EST
    Stupid me!  It's almost lunchtime - you think I'd be more awake!  :)

    Parent
    You'll recall MI submitted a slate of 59 for Obama (none / 0) (#168)
    by jimotto on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:13:44 AM EST
    The slate MI submitted had 59 delegates for Obama and 69 for Clinton...she refused that and has countered with the 73-55 slate, cut in half.  The scenario I laid out was the worst one possible.  Both of these proposals are actually better for Obama.  

    With 59 delegates instead of 55, he'd need 45 tomorrow.

    Clinton's proposal of 27.5 for Obama out of 64 actually means he'll only need 43 delegates tomorrow to hit 50%+1 (cutting MI in half means he'd need 1752.5, and he'd have 1708).

    So any way you cut it, it ranges from possible (49 delegates) to highly probable (43 delegates) to assured (16 delegates) that Obama will hit a majority of pledged delegates tomorrow.  

    Parent

    Well, if the SD"s start voting in line with (none / 0) (#172)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM EST
    their constituencies, I will give half a fig about the pledged delegate count.
    So you think Obama's about to hit 2210 total?  Hm?

    Parent
    He'll need about 30% of the remaining SD for 2210 (none / 0) (#222)
    by jimotto on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:45:12 AM EST
    Again, assuming Obama only gets 69+55 out of FL/MI (likely he'll get more), and he gets 49 out of KY/OR, 24 out of PR and 16 out of SD and MT, that will put him at 1824.5 PD.  Add in his superdelegates (demconwatch has it as 308.5, including those from FL/MI) and he's at 2133.  So he would need 77 more superdelegates to put him over the top...with 251, so that is only 31% of the remaining supers.  

    By the way, this doesn't include 20 of Edwards pledged delegates from FL/IA/SC/NH.  Each one of those that commits to Obama drops his % needed even further.

    Parent

    I'm talking about the tally for Obama. (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimotto on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:03:04 AM EST
    Obama will get at least 55 from MI and 69 from FL (he'll likely more than that from FL, as he will also get at least a few of Edwards delegates).

    That will give him at minimum of 1611.5 + 124 = 1635.5 pledged delegates (if the full delegate slates are seated).  Meaning to hit the 1784.5 number of pledged delegates needed for a 50%+1 majority (the maximum number, according to a full seating of FL and MI), he'll need 49 more.  A number which is possible, if he takes 30/52 from Oregon and 19 from Kentucky.  

    So, like I said, even under the most favorable situation for Clinton (full seating of MI and FL according to the primary), he has a good shot of winning the pledged delegate county tomorrow and at worst will be a couple delegates away.  

    And, of course, as the rules stand now, Kentucky will give him the 16 delegates he needs to hit the majority of pledged delegates in the sanctioned contests.

    Parent

    He'll get the number of pledged delegate (none / 0) (#217)
    by delacarpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    but there could be a problem in Oregon rural areas Fox is reporting. Maybe that boats to one poll out of Oregon this morning say a 5% point difference.

    Parent
    I love the 6% in OR refusing (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:26:51 AM EST
    to participate in the poll. cranky much?

    that is the lumberjack contingent (none / 0) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:27:55 AM EST
    We call 'em loggers in Oregon. (none / 0) (#83)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:03 AM EST
    I don't know what to make of this poll. We are just so excited that anyone is campaigning here. It hasn't happened since RFK in 1968. Yesterday was a very nice day after a very crummy spring. It has been so cold and rainy here I just got the tomatoes in yesterday. I would guess people were at the rally for a few reasons:

    • they support Obama
    • as noted above, it was a really nice day
    • he's an historic candidate and folks want to be able to say they                saw him

    Portland is a very process oriented town. And my sense is that Obama's campaign is all about the process. And we do love our hipster image. On the other hand, there are quite a few retirees in Oregon.

    That said, I have no idea what will happen here. Guess we'll know tomorrow night.

    Parent

    that's my thinking also. (none / 0) (#121)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:55:23 AM EST
    many wanted to say they were there. in the polling booth? i say trust the pollsters who have been more accurate. with the demographics obama should be much higher in the poll numbers there.

    Parent
    In the Midwest, we call 'em (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    Norwegian bachelor farmers.  Very curmudgeonly.  Same for Irish spinster aunts, also numerous -- the ones who, in each family, stayed unmarried to care for the elderly parents to the end.  

    Lots of our loggers -- lots of Scandinavians, Irish, French Canadians, etc. -- went from the upper Midwest west to Oregon and Washington a century or so ago, after creating the "great cutover" (devastating the North Woods) here -- and creating potential farmland, after pulling a few thousand tree stumps.  Makes for crankiness.

    Seriously, a factor to keep in mind is that many in the logging areas of the Northwest migrated from the Midwest -- just as we discussed here the Appalachian migration to Michigan, for example, that means analyses may miss Appalachian voting as not all in Appalachian areas.  In the Northwest, I have lots of relatives, some raised in the Midwest, as the lumberland migration continued into the 1920s and '30s.

    So there are distinctly different cultural values and origins between older logging areas and urban areas (Californian migrants, etc.) in the Northwest.  Then layer in the generational differences and class differences that I can see in my family alone, as some went to college and moved from the working class into the professions.  But many did not and still live in the mountain areas and smaller towns as they did decades ago, in many ways.  The vote may split widely on cultural values there, I suspect.

    Parent

    thanks Casey (none / 0) (#196)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:27:12 AM EST
    I was saying that and started to feel like I was being a regionalist.  

    Parent
    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#219)
    by caseyOR on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:44:11 AM EST
    I've read many of your comments. I wouldn't call you regionalist. You are right, many Californians, much to our dismay, have moved to Oregon, but not to Portland so much. Californians have tended to settle in southern Oregon (Ashland, Medford, Gold Beach) and central Oregon (Bend, Sisters). Those are fairly conservative areas.

    Portland has attracted more of the hipster class. They appear drawn by our sometimes overblown image as a progressive place to be. Good public transportation, lots of bike riders and an infrastructure to support bike commuting. Also, that whole "quality of life thing."I don't think the latte thing is all that telling. You can go to little out-of-the-way places where the gas station is also the grocery store for the town and find espresso. We love our coffee in the NW.

    Parent

    darnit (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:26:59 AM EST
    sorry i don't know what i did wrong posting that link

    BTD: Can you provide any (none / 0) (#63)
    by delacarpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:30:13 AM EST
    info on the news conference on May 22 about Obama's radical ties, and may I also say that it is possible from what I have seen the race is tightening and why is that when there was a huge crowd yesterday in Oregon.

    I could if (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:47:11 AM EST
    I had a time machine. Today is May 19. How can I possible know about a May 22 press conference today?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#107)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:49:49 AM EST
    My anniversary is June 1.  How could I possibly know about that today?

    Parent
    Different point (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST
    I can say, if I knew this to be true, there will be a May 22 press conference, but I can not possibly say what is going to be said at it.

    I now know that your anniversary is June 1. I have no idea how your dinner will go, if you will buy an appropriate present etc. Heck, I have no idea what you and your wife plan to do on your anniversary. See my point?

    Parent

    We have a 1-year old (none / 0) (#158)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:09:01 AM EST
    Actually not a lot of unpredictability in our schedule ;)

    Parent
    Different Point and (none / 0) (#207)
    by delacarpa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    yes, yes I see your point but, it is on the internet and people are talking about it and only hoping you may know something as to why May 22 or any info? Guess we will see come May 22

    Parent
    I understand the electoral map (none / 0) (#76)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    that we have always gone by in past elections looks better for Clinton.

    But I have to say, the 75,000 people who turned out to see Obama in Oregon, can't be matched by Hillary. There is an excitement, an energy about the Obama campaign and I admit that is scary because feelings are precarious, but it is so exciting to see people interested in the election process, feeling like there is hope and that things can change for the better.

    Obama supporters like me can't help but get swept up in the good feelings and hope and that is why 75,000 people come out to hear him. We want to take the risk that he can get a whole new group of voters, REP voters, to cross over. I admit that idealism is more potent a force than pragmatic coalition building, and in the end, it might fail.

    It is a risk but it has a high return!

    If Hillary takes the VP spot and they campaign together they are unstoppable!

    Crowd rally size (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:45:37 AM EST
    is not a reasonable way to judge what type of election we will have.

    It simply is not.

    Parent

    Crowd rally size, as journalists know (none / 0) (#227)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    is always all over the map, anyway.  This is the number claimed by the Obama camp.  Newsroom rule of thumb is to cut it in half, to also cite police estimates (often less than half the public relations number), etc. -- but that's another journalistic rule that has gone by the wayside this campaign season.

    I live in a town with an annual event whose organizers always claimed more than a million in attendance.  A smart editor once mapped out the route into a grid, assigned a reporter to each square on the grid, and had them count heads.  Actual number was less than a fourth of the public relations number.  That was a lesson learned -- and taught in every journalism class locally for years.  Probably not so now.  So it goes.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM EST
    Hillary energizes a lot of people too, of course, but I would agree that Obama's base is deeper in terms of enthusiasm.  That's one of the reasons he does well in events like caucuses, which require supporters to be more committed than regular primary elections.

    What concerns me is when Obama supporters get so excited over the depth of the base that they fail to understand the need to BROADEN the base as well, at some point before November.  A relatively small number of enthusiastic supporters can score a conclusive win in a caucus, but November will not be a caucus.  The assumption seems to be that everyone who voted for John Kerry is already in the bag, which isn't how it works.

    I'm not numbering you among the people who fail to realize this, mind you.  You seem very level-headed about the whole thing.  I happen to agree that they would combine to make a formidable ticket.

    Parent

    hillary supporters like myself (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:58:12 AM EST
    can't help but feel amazed and gratified that so many WOMEN and men support her. it is so historic and so many people standing up for her against the ones who keep trying to bring her down. the numbers i tell you the numbers.

    why if that nice senator obama would just get the message and come on board as veep why that would be ever so nice.

    (this is snark for the commercials)

    Parent

    If McCain and Limbaugh would get on board as well (none / 0) (#140)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    It would be even better if McCain and his pal would see the light

    Parent
    if you mean for hillary i agree, otherwise no. (none / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:04:19 AM EST
    You would rather see McCain as president (none / 0) (#198)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    Are you saying that you would rather see McCain as president?

    Parent
    actually what i would druther is none of (none / 0) (#209)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    your daxx business. got it!

    Parent
    Can you please tell me,Helen K (none / 0) (#80)
    by zfran on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:41:26 AM EST
    what is Sen. Obama's position on nominating judges for the supreme court, and where I might read whatever you will tell me. So many say that a vote for John McCain is a vote to end Roe v. Wade on the supreme court. I have asked this same question over and over and as yet, no one has answered it.

    Parent
    Obama's Stands on Judicial Appointments (none / 0) (#230)
    by daring grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    Different Demographics (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:41:28 AM EST
    Obama supporters have more time on their hands.

    They do better in the caucus/movement activism department, that's for sure.

    75k will show up for a football game.

    It's a good thing to see folks equally interested in Politics.


    Parent

    I'm an idealist (none / 0) (#96)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    and a pragmatist, and it's Hillary all the way.  

    Parent
    Hillary as VP (none / 0) (#122)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton would have been a good choice for VP up until the whole gas tax holiday fiasco.  Her comment about not listening to economist made her seem pretty hard headed and unqualified.

    I don't doubt that she would listen to advisors but that comment would be too much fodder for Republican operatives coupled with her comments regarding Iran and she starts to seem like agood running mate for McCain not Obama.

    Parent

    Taxes on Gas (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    Are regressive.


    Parent
    oh you mean until repub operatives (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    get hold of obama. it isn't like he hasn't given them a lot to work with!

    Parent
    Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:05:26 AM EST
    Yeah, Republican operatives would sure be able to depict Hillary as unqualified to be Vice-President based on supporting the same gas tax holiday that their own Presidential candidate supports.  Awesome comment.

    Also, the fact that she said we would obliterate Iran if they nuked Israel, the Republicans would make so much hay out of that!  I can't imagine anything more out of step with the American people than saying we'd obliterate Iran if they nuked Israel.

    Parent

    And you are willing to risk (none / 0) (#208)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    the future of the country on
    We want to take the risk that he can get a whole new group of voters, REP voters, to cross over

    Thanks, but no thanks. Obama is entirely too much of a risk. His unstated policies, his waffling on issues to please the latest audience, his inability to stand up to an attack without whining..etc. etc. No, this man is NOT ready to be President of the United States. And any one who votes because they

    get swept up in the good feelings and hope
    should step back and look hard at the issues. Feelings are great, but they shouldn't be what chooses a President. Why can't the Obama supporters talk about things that people think about rather than what they feel?? Because Obama's platform isn't about anything substantiative? If he can't get votes with "feelings" he won't win. And in the GE, most people vote with their heads, not their goosepimples.

    Parent
    Two Interesting Cross Tabs (none / 0) (#87)
    by BDB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:42:48 AM EST
    59% believe Obama will be next president, yet that many did not indicate they were voting for him.

    Only 3% were between 18-25, which seems low.

    I expect Obama to comfortably win Oregon.  The only way he might not is if his supporters don't bother to return their ballots because they think he's already won.  As I've said that would be hilarious.  

    It would also go against the trend, since the bigger the turnout, the more likely Clinton wins.

    Obama I must say is smart (none / 0) (#94)
    by Saul on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:45:50 AM EST
    A little to smart for my taste.  I think when he knows that the nomination is guaranteed mathematically  then he will ask MI and Fl to be seated as voted.  IMO that is a ploy that many voters will see through when going to the GE especially those in MI and FL.  They will not forget he categorically objected to any type of re vote.

    It's not actually (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:47:55 AM EST
    That smart.  It's really dumb actually.  

    Parent
    Obama thinks he's smart, sure.. and so does (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    W.

    Parent
    and you 3 are? (1.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    Why is it ok to call Obama not smart? I think that based on your posts you 3 have the collective smarts of an amoeba. Seems silly for me to make that statement but based on your posts I guess I can make the same argument.

    Parent
    Obama is above average smart for a pol, but (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    he is no genius. The real point of my comment is that Obama's arrogance is quite off-putting.
    Everyone knows that Hillary is smart, but she doesn't put on airs.

    Parent
    And the point is (3.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:23:53 AM EST
    that your posts are not genius either yet you feel strongly enough that you are smart enough to comment on another's intellect. How about talking about a substantive matter like comparing the platforms of the candidates and why one will work while the other won't. I would love to see a debate between Edgar and Obama or you and Obama to see who the real intellect is...

    Parent
    Smart i (none / 0) (#214)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    Smart in itself is not a virtue.  It's how you use your "smarts".  Not noticing Wright's comments for 20 years, not noticing that Rezko was basically destroying affordable housing--something Obama should be protecting as a community organizer--makes me question his smarts.  Using smarts for political expediency and not using your judgement to test the "smart" move against a personal thermometer of ethics, is not smart.  That is why, even though Obama may impress others with his book smarts, why I reject his "smarts" .  

    Parent
    There is a difference between (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:45:40 AM EST
    book smart and street smart. Obama is book smart, he has degrees from two of the best universities in the country. He is not, however, street smart. He has no "people instincts", he can't look at a speech or think about what he is about to say and realize it's going to piss off a lot of people. In that sense, which is the most important one for a politician, he is dumb as a rock. He gives a written speech well. He does not speak well off the cuff. He has few people smarts, he has book smarts. The one you need to connect with people in politics is people smarts, not book smarts. Ask Kerry, he knows. Obama is great at rallies where he gives a speech and everyone gets all excited. He is not so good when on his own answering questions, or speaking to a small group off the cuff. His SF remarks are a classic example. Obama is all about Obama, not the people he purports to represent or policies that will help them. Once the voters figure that out, he is toast. I just hope they figure it out before the nomination is set. Because he will lose the GE massively. And the Dems will be left to clean up the mess. And take the heat for foisting such a flawed candidate on the country. And they will pay for it for a very long time.

    Parent
    If... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Petey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:50:27 AM EST
    If Clinton somehow wins OR, it's gonna shake up the world.

    It won't happen. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:01:08 AM EST
    The demographics just are not there. I'd say it's a lot like VT.  If she can keep under 20 point margin, she'll have done well.

    Parent
    I agree Oregon is made (none / 0) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:05:31 AM EST
    for Obama.  Ex pat Californians, liberal, but they quite did not like the changing demographics of California, you know the schools, the crime...the growth, it's safer to be a liberal in homogeneous state, your politics don't have to be tested.  

    (Ok...Ok...I have my regional issues)

    Parent

    Inevitability (none / 0) (#118)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:54:30 AM EST
    comes to play again.

    Parent
    It certainly would shake me up (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:57:32 AM EST
    Man it would make (none / 0) (#134)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:01:00 AM EST
    for great political theater.  WOW.  I think if it's below 10% for Obama, in my mind he lost.  

    Parent
    If Clinton can bring Oregon close (none / 0) (#114)
    by Faust on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    that will be very troubling for Obama imo.

    i don't think they are paying that much (none / 0) (#137)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:01:28 AM EST
    attention. the obama campaign and supporters appear to have tunnel vision in my view. the red flags are there but all we hear is yes but.

    Parent
    Close won't help. Winning will. (none / 0) (#152)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM EST
    This is interesting, too. (none / 0) (#153)
    by halstoon on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM EST
    When was the last time 75,000 people showed up to any other pol's rally?

    But of course TL can't be bothered to mention anything positive about Obama.

    But, unlike you, I do not put much stock in it in terms of winning in November.

    You want me to be in raptures for that rally? I have NEVER EVER been in raptures over a politcal rally, much less the number of people at a rally, EVER.

    You want me to be a fanboy for Obama. It will NOT be.

    You remind me of those people who demand I too worship at the altar of your God (metaphorically speaking.) Do you think there was not enough raptures about it in the normal haunts?

    Isn't it nice for you to have a place where you can come get a reality check?

    Parent

    Ahem (none / 0) (#184)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    "reality check" no longer describes this place, I fear. Demconwatch, on the other hand...

    Seriously, I don't like political rallies. Never have. Many people like myself want the process to run its course and I completely disapprove of Obama calling himself the winner at this stage.

    (Though I feel the current probabilities do favor him.)

    I'm ready to fight and vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee, and I'll add, no matter how he or she gets there, as long as he or she is the official nominee.

    Parent

    don't blame TL for being objective (1.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    blame the appropriate posters for being silly. As an Obama supporter, I find the objectivity about Obama refreshing and some of the Hillary supporters here nauseating. BTD's fair hand here make the garbage I read from some of the posters digestible. Obama has tons a of work to do, his debating is weak, he needs to lead with regard to MI and FL, he needs to communicate like Bill C did to the lower middle class and more importantly the seniors. He needs to campaign harder and more often. He needs to promote his platform and move away from the rhetoric. Americans are slowly festering toward anger over the economy and jobs and he needs to address that. Nothing wrong with pointing out the weaknesses of our candidate, in fact we are obligated to.

    Parent
    Jlvngstn Site Rules Prohibit Us From (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:44:43 AM EST
    responding in kind, but I will say that SOME Obama supporters find it hard to post a comment that doesn't include personally insulting Hillary or her supporters.  

    some of the Hillary supporters here nauseating


    Parent
    All these weaknesses concern me (none / 0) (#205)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    I'm not an Obama supporter, so take with the appropriate grain of salt.  But I've seen no evidence that Obama can or will do all these things he needs to do in order to win in November. The one possible exception: his debating skills improved over the course of the campaign, and the quality of the debater he will face in McCain is much lower than in Clinton. So maybe he can overcome his weakness in that area.

    But as for the rest of it, in my judgment he has shown no inclination to lead on MI and FL; he has a tin ear when it comes to appealing to the lower middle class, women, and older voters; he's campaigned as hard as he probably can and looks utterly exhausted; he doesn't seem steeped in the policy detail that would allow him to move away from the broad-brush rhetoric.

    He seems to me to be a weak general election candidate. He may win anyway because the odds are stacked against the GOP this year, but I think he's weak in ways that will make him at best only an adequate president if he does win. These aren't just campaigning flaws that will no longer matter once he is elected. (I thought Kerry and Gore were poor campaigners who would have made excellent Presidents.)  At least some of the flaws that I see in him will continue to cause him trouble if he is elected.

    Parent

    I'm in agreement (none / 0) (#220)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    As a former Deaniac (who later fought bravely for Kerry) and then Edwards supporter earlier this year, I'm inclined to agree with your analysis.

    Honestly, when it comes to elections, I don't get it. As I posted on DKos four months ago my fear is that if elected, Obama will turn into a Jimmy Carter presidency (although I do like Carter a lot), somewhat weak and ineffectual, though well-meaning.

    But then I don't feel the enthusiasm that people feel here for Clinton either. So it's not as if there is a clear-cut winner, in my mind.

    One thing I am absolutely sure of: we, the country, cannot afford a McCain presidency.

    Parent

    It ain't Over til it's Over (none / 0) (#159)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:09:10 AM EST
    I would love to see Hillary take Oregon...  Her support runs a lot deeper that the Democrat party seems to think....  IMO, there will be a very successful write in campaign even though it will not be run by the Clintons....

    No other rational choice (none / 0) (#164)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:12:20 AM EST
    I look forward to supporting Hillary if she is the Democratic nominee.

    Frankly, I don't even care how she gets there if she gets there.

    I have every confidence she'll be a better president than McCain.

    When you're aboard the TITANIC and a rescue boat shows up, the sex, color, personal habits or past relationships of her Captain matters not at all.

    This is the only rational choice; ditto if Obama gets there first.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#174)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:18:19 AM EST
    One thing I have noticed is folks who think I am the EVILEST PERSON EVER have decided to grace my blog.

    Yes, I am referring to you.

    Your comment is strange in its reference to the Titanic. can you explain what you mean there?

    Parent

    Who are you???? (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Lupin on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM EST
    I don't think we've ever crossed swords before, have we? I have no idea who you are or what you stand/stood for.

    My reference to the TITANIC is an analogy to the state of the country, ie: catastrophic.

    I feel a McCain Presidency will sink us, all of us.

    That is why I welcome either President Clinton or President Obama, as the "captain" of the "rescue ship".

    Neither were my first choice. That was Edwards (personality wise) or Kucinich (platform-wise). Obama and Clinton ran far behind.

    But I have no doubt either one will be a much much better president than McCain.

    For the record, last February on Dkos, I dismissed Obama's charm, calling him a Werner Ehrard-type, long before some of the lunatic members of this forum started having hissy fits.  I don't recall you coming to my defense then, though you might have done so.

    Parent

    Come on, you're #2. Bob Johnson is the (none / 0) (#180)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:20:52 AM EST
    evilest person ever.

    Parent
    While it's the votes that count... (none / 0) (#204)
    by barryluda on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST
    it is really impressive that Obama drew a crowd of 75,000.  If Obama's our nominee, I hope his ability to draw a crowd, raise money, put together an effective campaign strategy to exploit the rules, and motivate young people and AAs to vote, turns into a victory.  It won't help unless he can bring in votes that -- at least versus Clinton -- he's not been able to secure.

    While this race isn't yet over, everything changes when Clinton or Obama are alone in facing McCain.  It'll be interesting to see which of them can draw the crowds, raise the money, and put together the stronger campaign strategy.  I sure hope it's not McCain and I hope it all translates to a Democratic victory in November.  Ideally it'll be Clinton and Obama on the same ticket.


    It's not impressive.... (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    ... if they were all going to vote for him anyhow.

    Parent
    Big crowd, no tent, some Democrats (none / 0) (#229)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:49:43 AM EST
    From Wikipedia:

    The Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), the 23rd largest in the United States,[citation needed] has a population of 2,137,565 (2006 estimate).

    A crowd of 75,000 would be 3.5 percent of the total population.

    The Oregonian (link) offered a smaller, but still humongous number.

    The Portland Fire Bureau estimated the crowd at 72,000. About 60,000 squeezed inside the gates, and 12,000 watched from outside.

    It appears to be a record crowd for an Oregon political event. In 2004, 50,000 turned out to see Democratic Sen. John Kerry, who brought along movie idol Leonardo DiCaprio and rocker Jon Bon Jovi.

    Obama was the biggest star at Sunday's gathering -- though a popular Portland band, The Decemberists, provided the warmup act. With blue skies and temperatures in the 80s, many in the crowd said Waterfront Park was simply the place to be.



    6 percent for Edwards in KY? (none / 0) (#231)
    by mike in dc on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    This follows him getting 5+ percent in WV.  A little disturbing, this late in the race, to see a significant number of Appalachian voters unwilling to vote for either remaining candidate.
    Projection:
    +57 pledged for Clinton tomorrow, +46 for Obama, putting him about 30 over 1627, and about 57 shy of 1783.  Spot him about 40 pledged from the remaining 3 contests, and he just needs to pick up 17 more pledged delegates from the 55 uncommitteds and 20 Edwards delegates to have won a majority of pledged delegates.  (He's already headed towards a majority of superdelegates.)

    And apart from this......... (none / 0) (#232)
    by camellia on Mon May 19, 2008 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    Obama has tons a of work to do, his debating is weak, he needs to lead with regard to MI and FL, he needs to communicate like Bill C did to the lower middle class and more importantly the seniors. He needs to campaign harder and more often. He needs to promote his platform and move away from the rhetoric. Americans are slowly festering toward anger over the economy and jobs and he needs to address that. .......

    he's an excellent candidate.

    Ad I do NOT think that an Oama/Clinton ticket would be a dream ticket -- I would HATE to see her relegated to the Vice Presidency for four years.  Anyway, I think she would HATE it too and it is very unlikely to happen (I hope).

    I would love to think (none / 0) (#236)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    that at least a tiny, tiny part of Obama's backpedaling on the coronation is because of all the blowback NARAL got on their ill-timed endorsement.

    But then the bitter, low-information part of me also wishes he'd go ahead with calling the race early so he'll suffer the consequences of hubris.  Hopefully that would wake up some SDs.

    There will be Write-Ins (none / 0) (#239)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:23 PM EST
    IMO there will be more write-in vote this time than ever before....   The Democrats are tired of having a canidate crammed down our throats (thanks Bob Shrum) that we will do anything to get away from it this time...   John McCain is unacceptable and Barack Obama is unacceptable... I think there will be a lot of write-ins for John Edwards and a lot for Hillary Clinton...  No telling how this will turn out but things are a long way from settled....