home

Kentucky Results Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It seems clear Clinton will win a huge victory in Kentucky.

Results here. On TV, they have it 149-17 for Clinton. That's 86-10. I expect Obama to close the gap from there.

Wolfson on CNN. Talking Michigan and Florida.

The Ky Sec. of State is ahead of the AP on the results. KY Sec of State has it Clinton 74k to Obama's 65k. Now 78k-66k Clinton. 8.2% lead. Most of Louisville is in. Now 82k-68k, Clinton by 9. again, most of Louisville is in.

John Edwards getting 1.5% of the vote.

< How Not To Win Over Voters | Clinton Wins Kentucky By At Least 30 >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Kentucky Results Thread | 170 comments (170 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I guess KY is failing DHinMI's test. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:26:07 PM EST
    How can they be punished for this?

    Make them go last in line (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:28:15 PM EST
    so that they are the 58th of Obama's states.

    Parent
    They have to sleep (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:28:56 PM EST
    in the little tent

    Parent
    Isn't is strange (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:40:33 PM EST
    That the number of Hillary supporters who say they won't support Obama in the fall continues to grow with each election? According to CBS "According to CBS News early exit polling, in Kentucky, eight in ten Clinton voters said they would be dissatisfied if Obama was the Democratic nominee." That's 80% for those of you keeping score at home.  Now, I know Obama supporters will say stupid stuff, like "well, we won't win Kentucky or WV anyway" or "Sure, they say that now, but they'll come around in the fall."

    I don't think they understand.  I think they sorely underestimate how angry they've made people.  Don't rely on the comments here - go to local papers online and read blog comments or letters to the Editor.

    It's mind boggling.

    I completely agree (5.00 / 13) (#29)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    (yes, I know--shocking)

    They really have no idea how furious we are--and not just at Obama and the media, but Howard Dean and the DNC, who have let the sexism run like blood from a wound.  And then they insult us again by not only dismissing our anger, but assuming we'll come around "when we have time to cool off."

    There ain't enough air conditioning in the world.

    Parent

    I don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:57:27 PM EST
    How can you be angry when your candidate is winning 304% of the vote?

    Next you'll want equal pay or something.  Sheesh!

    Parent

    OT remark about DNC (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    Rec'd survey from DNC wanting me to 'represent' my hometown.  Whee!  A chance to say my piece.  Which I did, about FL/MI and also that I this day end my association with the party.  Funny thing:  I got to begin my rant with "Another DNC goof?"  The survey pages were blank!

    Oh, nice letter from Hillary included asking me to send contribution to DNC.  Sorry, Hillary, all my contributions go to you.

    Parent

    I just got a DNC (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:23:31 PM EST
    survey in the mail and used the opportunity to write a long letter to Howard Dean expressing my disappointment in their handling of the primary, neglect of two key states and their rush to crown Obama.  Also to say I was not contributing to the DNC as all my money was going to the Clinton campaign (plus Ms. Brazile doesn't want my vote anyway as I'm the wrong demographic). It was very satisfying!!  I highly recommend it if one of their surveys comes your way.  

    Parent
    I just get a Sharpie (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    and write "COUNT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN" across the entire page, then send it back and make them pay for the stamp.

    Parent
    And that helps elect Democrats how exactly? (none / 0) (#151)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:34:56 PM EST


    Parent
    It helps by letting the DNC know our (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    opinions and what is important to us.

    Parent
    By making them spend money you intentionally (none / 0) (#159)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    left off an envelope?

    Karl Rove wouldn't be able to "help" Democrats any more than that.

    Sure, a postage stamp is nothing....until you multiply it by how ever many times.

    It just seems kind of childish, that's all.  Biting off your nose to spite your face.

    I understand your anguish and think you should be able to express that.  I'd just prefer you did it in a manner that doesn't take away from electing more "good" Democrats to office, that's all.

    Parent

    What you are forgetting is that just because (none / 0) (#172)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:47:00 PM EST
    we don't give to the DNC doesn't mean we don't support our local candidates. We do, by donating directly to the campaign rather than giving to the DNC so they can give it to whomever they please. And since the funding deal, it seems to be whomever Obama pleases. I do not give money so that a candidate that I DO NOT support can have the say over how my money is spent and to whom it is given. So, until the DNC decides that my voice, and others like me, has some validity in the political process, they aren't getting a damn dime. I do support my local Dems, I do not support the DNC. One of my contributions locally was to the candidate for sheriff. I like to support my local sheriff. Heh. So should you. The DNC doesn't give a rat's patoot if my local candidates, or state candidates get funded. They only care about Obama. So let them fund him themselves. With help from his groupies, who are getting fewer and fewer. At least the ones with money to give are. The effect of Kool-Aid only lasts for a while, then most people wake up and smell the coffee.

    Parent
    It's not just about electing Democrats. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:47:31 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but gender equality is a much more important issue to me than electing Democrats - especially if the Democrat being lauded as the second coming of our lord and savior jesus christ is a sexist.  

    I will be switching my registration to Indy in Sept.  Take that, DNC.  

    Hell hath no fury.

    Parent

    But isn't this.... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:32:22 PM EST
    ...the exact same attitude that Clinton supporters have about Obama's constituency?  Particularly African-Americans?  The attitude seems to essentially be, "Where else can they go?"

    I'm certainly not saying every single Clinton supporter feels this way.  But the attitude seems to be that women Clinton voters have more options than African-American Obama voters, so women Clinton voters should have greater consideration when it comes to picking the nominee.  I haven't spoken to or read from one single African-American who says they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is nominated.  Not one.  But there certainly seem to be a lot of McCain fans here.

    Parent

    It is really strange too (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:11 PM EST
    that KY (8 ec votes) & WV (5 ec votes) are written off as not important when Bill Clinton carried both of them, and the focus tonight by the msm is the "crucial" vote in Oregon (7 ec votes) that went blue for Clinton, Gore & Kerry.

    Parent
    Dollats, Dinero, Euros (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    Fundraising.

    Anymore, when I go What The ???, I just think money, donations, campaign cash, PACs, lobbyists...

    And it all becomes so much easier to understand.

    Why schmooze the elites when you could get more votes schmoozing the common men and women?  Money.  

    Parent

    Lovely..... (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by April on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:22 PM EST
    thought!

    What is better than a group of angry women, angry black men?


    Parent

    That's the unity spirit! (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:08:34 PM EST
    Raising the specter of "angry black men" holds no weight with me -- I'm from NOLA, so Obama is not the first well-educated, smart black man I've ever seen -- NOLA is full of such men -- I've lived next door to them, worked with them, voted for them, argued cases before them -- and I know for a fact that the stereotype you are trying to use here to instill fear is simply that -- a stereotype, and one of the lowest sort, I might add.

    Parent
    Angry white women don't hold (none / 0) (#174)
    by April on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:19:17 PM EST
    weight with me.

    Parent
    angry, black, female swans? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:06:20 PM EST
    they look nice, but they know how to nibble.

    Parent
    iT is indeed mind-boggling (none / 0) (#28)
    by Curious on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    ..that anyone should prefer McCain to either of the two Democratic candidates

    Parent
    You see, it's not really that (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:16 PM EST
    surprising, if you note that experience voters choose Hillary by massive margins. These people are not convinced Obama is qualified or experienced enough for the job.

    Parent
    I should have finished my thought (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
    It's mind boggling that the DNC and supers aren't looking at this trend and taking it seriously.

    Obama can't win with 1/2 the Democratic party voters alone.

    And what does it say (or what SHOULD it say) to the powers that be that half of the party they claim to represent won't vote for the presumptuous nominee, and half of that number would be perfectly comfortable voting for a Republican after the 8 horrid years under Bush.

    Parent

    OH yes, I agree with you there. (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:50:05 PM EST
    McCain is a very formidable candidate, and innovative enough to interest even me---for example with his proposal to institute the practice of the "PM's taking questions" here.

    Parent
    Re: I should have finished my thought (none / 0) (#141)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:19:13 PM EST
    Obama can't win with 1/2 the Democratic party voters alone.

    I definitely agree.  Neither, of course, can Clinton.  That's why acrimonious accusations and declarations that unless the candidate of choice is nominated, one will vote for McCain or stay home, help no one but the Republican thugs who have had their way with this country since 2001 and who need to be taught a lesson.

    Of course, my saying this will only earn me denunciations of being a sexist, or accusations that I drink latte, which is apparently some kind of grave insult around here.

    I just wish people on both sides (repeat: both sides) would calm down and stop making threats that if they don't get their way they'll help keep the war criminals in power.  The notion that John McCain would be preferably to either Clinton or Obama is delusional.

    Parent

    I guess you don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM EST
    These are not "idle threats" (at least with respect to Clinton supporters).

    I can only speak for myself -

    I.will.never.vote.for.Obama.

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#169)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:19:28 PM EST
    Please explain how John McCain, who wants to attack Iran, occupy Iraq forever, give corporations even more tax breaks while the deficit is staggeringly high, wants to nominate pro-life judges, and has no interest in increasing access to health care, would make a better president than Barack Obama, who hews to roughly 95% of Hillary Clinton's positions.  And don't tell me his resume is thin, don't tell me they were her positions first, don't tell me you find his perceived sexism insulting.  I'm talking side-by-side, issue-by-issue, McCain vs. Obama's stated positions, assuming Obama is the nominee.  How is McCain better?  This is a common sentiment I've heard here and I can't see any basis for it except anger over not getting your candidate.  I'm not trying to be a jerk here.  This is a sincere question.  How can you pick a Republican warmonger, after eight years of Republican warmongering, over a Democrat?  That's insane to me.

    Parent
    What does that mean? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:59 PM EST
    The experience voters.....Are you talking about Jimi Hendrix's old band?

    Parent
    Voters who think that (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:56:26 PM EST
    someone running for President of the United States of America should know that they don't speak Arabic in Afghanistan, for example, are "experienced voters." Voters who can see that someone who votes for the Bush/Cheney energy bill is not the green candidate that he pretends to be now in another example of an "experienced voter." Someone who sees that a guy who blames his "staff" for major clusterf***s (such as NAFTA talks, missing papers from his time in the IL senate and questionnaires) is not responsible enough to be President is an example of an "experienced voter." As a final example, a person who recognizes that a guy who doesn't bother actually going to states where he has little chance of winning isn't courageous enough to be President is an "experienced voter."

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:57 PM EST

    Precisely.  And Obama mocked McCain for not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni.  Obama's a hypocrite.  Bigtime!

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:23:47 PM EST
    While it is helpful to know that the dominant languages of Afghanistan are Dari and Pashto, it isn't really an essential fact as far as establishing foreign policy is concerned.  On the other hand, not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni Iraqis, or not even knowing that there is different sects within Islam as Bush didn't know, is a major problem.

    Parent
    Obama had responsibility for a Foreign Affairs (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:30:56 PM EST
    subcommittee which covered NATO involvement in Afghanistan. Surely, if he had held committee hearings, he might have known the language situation in Afghanistat?

    I know the language of Afghanistan is not Arabic.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    No, he does not. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    The Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs does not have primary jurisdiction over the war in Afghanistan.  As far as I know, it's the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, and then this subcommittee in a distant third.

    Parent
    Please forgive me for being snark. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:05:53 PM EST
    I was kind of having fun.

    I like Hillary.  I'll vote for her if she wins.  

    But to suggest that John McCain as President is better than Obama.....That just doesn't seem plausible.

    I kind of like women being able to control their own childbearing.  I kind of like quaint notions like the Bill of Rights.  I am scared to death of a Supreme Court packed with Roberts & Aliotos.

    That means more to me than the differences between Hillary and Barack.

    Parent

    Except for the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    Roe is already dead if any state challenges it with the court we already have. Furthermore, I don't trust Obama on that issue, because he said that pro-choicers just don't "understand the wrenching moral issue" that abortion is. (Yeah, I'm never letting that one go). Plus, he had to be talked out of voting for Roberts for godssake. I'm not saying I'm voting for McCain, but I am saying scare tactics are not going to "make" me vote for Obama.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#146)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:26:09 PM EST
    ...that Obama needs to have his feet held to the fire to keep him firmly pro-choice, particularly when it comes to judicial nominations.  Clinton is pretty obviously a stronger pro-choice candidate.  I don't think Obama is secretly pro-life, though.

    Parent
    And how to you plan to do that? (none / 0) (#154)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:39:41 PM EST
    "hold his feet to the fire" I mean? Especially with a Dem. majority Congress. No, I'd rather put my money on the one with the strong record.

    Parent
    How you hold any politicians feet to the fire? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    I don't understand this question.  Are you saying that Clinton, if elected, would never ever deviate from what you personally want her to do, and if she does, well, there's nothing to be done?  All politicians have to be pressured to do the right thing.

    Parent
    Obama supporting Roberts (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:12:45 PM EST
    until someone told him not to, must have been really upsetting for you.

    Parent
    Then the Dem congress (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by hookfan on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:15:12 PM EST
    needs to do its job. The evidence on Obama protecting any of those values is ambiguous at best.

    Parent
    Sadly, Obama's courting anti-choice RW support (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:17:29 PM EST
    Obama is on the record of praising an anti-choice right wing ringer on the SCOTUS. He's bluntly asked his supporters to stop funding independent groups that protect women's right to choose.

    Obama has made it clear that he will not liberalize the courts.

    A strong congress is what will matter here. In that respect, a McCain presidency is no different than an Obama one.

    Team Obama's attempt to guilt and blame Clinton supporters for the damage Obama has done to women's constitutional protection and will continue to do in his -- I hope brief -- political career is one reason I will not support these sleazy and sexist ploys.

    Parent

    Obama is going the same way as JFK. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by AX10 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    Kennedy put his friend Byron White on the USSC.  Even though he leaned to the right, he did it.
    The USSC argument does not hold up well with an Obama v. McCain contest.

    Parent
    Roe v. Wade (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Nike on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:17:39 PM EST
    seems to me like a red herring. If this were important, then Obama would have put some effort into understanding the values or just securing the respect of women voters. Frankly, I do not trust him to safeguard Roe v. Wade, particularly since I understand his probable first SCJ pick is a so-called liberal "strict-constructionist" who seems perhaps to feel that that decision was an improper one. Ferraro is right to say that caring about the concerns of women and families cannot be a single issue. Obama certainly does not have a good track record on accountability on any issue, political or personal, so I would have a hard time supporting with any confidence that he ever means what he says especially with respect to women.

    Parent
    a sense of betrayal and attemtps to (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:43 PM EST
    oust many voters has resulted in this feeling. i am surprised that you are surprised. the shame of it is the dnc won't be surprised and doesn't seem to care.

    Parent
    I'm shocked! (none / 0) (#48)
    by kindness on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:34 PM EST
    I agree with you, but I'm still shocked to see this post.

    Parent
    Ideology.... (none / 0) (#77)
    by solon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    Focusing on political ideology would help to explain this result. In some states, Democrats may be more politically and socially conservative than Democrats in traditional "blue states."

    If you believe that Senator Clinton moved slightly to Senator Obama's right on certain issues (e.g. Gas Tax) since the beginning of March, this would help to explain why she is appealing to these voters and soundly beating him in these states. The consequence of this move will be a loss in Oregon.

    Parent

    Huckabee (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    is running neck and neck with uncommitted. ;-)

    I noticed that... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:14 PM EST
    and that Ron Paul is getting more votes than Hackabee!

    LOL!

    Parent

    Wolf BLitzer just called Donna Brazile (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:43:54 PM EST
    a neutral SD!  yuck

    Brazile herself says that she is (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:58 PM EST
    "undeclared" but decided, IIRC.
    She is given credit for a neutrality she would blush to proclaim herself.

    Parent
    Argh (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    Wolf just identified Donna Brazile as a neutral commenter who is also a SD.

    and I am a dancing monkey (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    What did he say about FL and MI?  Is the tone shifting about how important they are now that Clinton is raging back, or are they all about the O?

    Parent
    they are all about Kennedy right (none / 0) (#38)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    now

    Parent
    Not to be crass (none / 0) (#64)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:51:36 PM EST
    But do you think this might take some of the shine off Obama's proclamation tonight?

    Parent
    Banana anyone? (none / 0) (#47)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:18 PM EST
    Hee!  Nothing yet on tonight's events or MI/FL from the panel.  Just some lovely comments about Ted Kennedy from one and all.  And I mean that sincerely.  Even that Republican strategist was quite complimentary.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#39)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:53 PM EST
    she did just say some lovely things about the Kennedys and her experience working with the Senator on making MLKJr Day a holiday.  So I must give her some credit tonight.

    Parent
    The holiday (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:09 PM EST
    that McCain voted against, lest we forget.

    Parent
    I saw McCain grovel to an AA audience (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:03:02 PM EST
    a month or so ago for that, and I mean really an abject apology, admission of wrongdoing, etc. -- and saying he tried to make up for it even a little bit by pushing the holiday in his state.

    I give him credit for that, going in front of an AA audience to say how much he had learned from his mistake, unquote.  And they appreciated it.

    Parent

    James Carville was trashed nonstop by certain (none / 0) (#103)
    by bridget on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    bloggers for years now ... oh, the complaints ...

    Donna Brazile must do the right thing!

    Parent

    Fox hasn't called the race (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:39 PM EST
    but is predicting Hillary will win KY by 30%.

    Bill Kristol just pointed out that it's unheard of for a presumptive nominee to get walloped in late primaries as Obama did in WV and probably will in KY.  He said the Dems can shrug it off if they want to, but he thinks it's significant.

    Why is it that conservative pundits make more sense than liberal ones these days?

    Polls close at 7 (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:06 PM EST
    Chill. It will be called EXACTLY at 7.

    Parent
    cuz' you aren't REALLY a Democrat :P (none / 0) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:49:36 PM EST
    Just kidding,don't hit me. ;)

    Parent
    Hey, I may not be (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST
    after this primary season.  =)

    Parent
    Historic race (none / 0) (#107)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:03:35 PM EST
    But I think it would be a bit presumptuous for someone to be called the "presumptive nominee" while someone else is still in the race.

     Similar issues with respect to Huckabee and Paul winning nearly 30% of the Pennsylvania primary.  I don't recall that happening in a Republican race in recent memory, not to a nominee facing no challengers.

     

    Parent

    Bill Kristol (none / 0) (#150)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:34:34 PM EST
    ...has nothing but the best of intentions for the Democratic Party, of course.  He's really just trying to help us find our best candidate.

    Parent
    Would they vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    Fox:

    Just 33% of Clinton voters said they would vote for Obama.  (I would like to know what Clinton voters say in OR, but I suppose they don't ask those questions in their phone polls?)

    Clinton v McCain:  77% would vote Clinton 16% M, 5% stay home.

    Obama v McCain: 50% would vote Obama, 32% for M, 15% stay home.

    51/45 right now with 7% in.

    Discussion: never has a pres nom lost a state by 40 pts, nor what is happening in KY.

    I think Olberman laid waste to the (none / 0) (#57)
    by lorelynn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    "never has a presidential candidate" meme last night - he pointed out that McCain lost several races by that much.

    Parent
    after he was the nom? (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:51:27 PM EST


    Parent
    after he was the nominee? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:53:18 PM EST
    What races has McCain lost by that much this late in the game?

    Parent
    Kind of a meaningless distinction (none / 0) (#152)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:36:08 PM EST
    ...since Obama has gone out of his way to repeat that whatever lead he feels he has, he does not consider himself the nominee yet.

    The Tim Russerts of the world are a different story.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    Olbermann must have read Greenwald or something.  Pointing out that Romney won 90% of the vote in Utah after the other candidates decided not to contest it is rather off-point, frankly.

    Parent
    When did McCain lose by 40 (none / 0) (#65)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Not sure KO correct, after McCain presumptive nom (none / 0) (#113)
    by jawbone on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:06:09 PM EST
    Link to NYTimes primary/caucus results, with percentages.

    Parent
    GO HILLARY! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by snucky on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    my guess hillary will win 65% to 29% in kentucky.  

    I'm hoping for 40% again. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM EST
    That would certainly send a message.


    Parent
    Clinton needs to win KY by triple digits or fold (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:49:53 PM EST
    WOW! Kentucky's more of stubbornly and typically problematic chick state than even I anticipated!

    I demand that its name be changed to Barbietucky.

    triple digits??? LOL (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:51:12 PM EST
    Well, in terms of absolute numbers I think she will manage that.

    Parent
    Chick State (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:59 PM EST
    Oh, that is priceless.  My first hearty laugh all day.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Beats Skippertucky! (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    I love your comment, but now I never will be able to say Kentucky again without giggling.  You're bad.:-)

    Parent
    Toobin, says Hillary is exactly right that (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Teresa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    there has been sexism in this campaign. Gloria doesn't know what she's talking about.

    Senior Cackologist Borger fomented it ... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    ... when expertly slamming women who respond to gratuitous sexist attacks and cascading criticisms about her cackle, cleavage and nutcracking ways as "playing the gender card."

    Hey, she stepped into the ring, won't take a dive and worst of all: punches back. (Plays the Punch Card?)

    We can trust Borger's view on this. She's a woman, tethered to Chick Brain: She Who Must Be Obeyed and who scrambles breathlessly back to the mainstream media to report.

    Oh, and Obama booster Donna Brazile assures everyone that the media is neither RACIST nor sexist.

    Racist? Good grief they've thrown a force field around Sen. Obama and attack anyone who's not supporting him as racist, as if he's entitled to 100% support -- or there's something 'wrong' with the voters! That's somewhat different than up front sexism in their coverage of Sen. Clinton.

    Parent

    Gloria Borger (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:55:15 PM EST
    feels that a woman knows sexism when she sees it but feels this 'isn't the right time' for Hillary to bring it up because she's the Iron Lady and can't talk about how she's been a victim.

    Donna Brazile tries to bring the unity pony in for a ride by discussing the historic nature of the campaign and downplaying the animosity.

    Jeffrey Toobin thinks Hillary Clinton is DEAD RIGHT. Cites a cartoon using the b-word to refer to Hillary.  Have my babies, Jeff.

    Alex the Republican Strategist Extraordinaire talks about Hillary being DEAD WRONG since she is abrasive and has perfected victimhood until you get close enough so that she can knife you in the ribs. The minute that Hillary is trapped in a corner, she plays the victim.

    Gloria jumps in to battle Alex.  Every woman in America understands Hillary's point that women are treated differently.

    This panel discussion is surreal.

    Good for Jeff (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:56:14 PM EST
    I always liked him, but I've given up on CNN lately.

    Parent
    I watch it (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    so you won't have to.  Although I may bail for Fox soon because I can deal with their issues much better since they dislike the candidates equally.

    Parent
    I had to leave CNN when Russert (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:05:20 PM EST
    came on and clicked right past MSNBlahSee to Fox -- and it actually is refreshing.  I know they have their Republican reasons, but they're really excited about this underdog campaign of Clinton's!

    Parent
    That was funny. Gloria said she didn't see it (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Teresa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    until that guy gave her a perfect example of it! Then, she came to her senses a bit.

    Parent
    Toobin said something nice about Hillary? (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    I'm stunned....

    Parent
    Of course not. Toobin was talking (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    about all those other people in the media.

    They all always talk about "teh media" as if they get their paychecks by working at WalMart or something.

    Parent

    isn't that the same thing (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Kathy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:01:52 PM EST
    KO said when the "monster" slur came out--that people really felt that way, so what could you do about it?

    I am glad Toobin is speaking the truth about the sexism.  I loved his OJ book, and the SCOTUS one was very interesting, but he's disappointed me a lot of election nights lately.

    Parent

    Gloria is right (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:08:01 PM EST
    HRC couldn't bring it up. If she says anything, she gets accused of "playing the victim."

    This was Obama's job. He should have defended her -- for the sake of justice, for the sake of unity, for the sake of truth.

    Now is too late.

    Parent

    why is it ok for Obama to play the victim? (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by nellre on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    It seems the Obama campaign has been the one to try to win sympathy because of racism in America.


    Parent
    "The whiness factor" is being noticed (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM EST
    as Howard Kurtz today quotes Hot Air about Obama putting his spouse out on the campaign trail but then calling for her to not be treated as a public figure -- how dare they videotape her!

    Hot Air's Ed Morrissey:

    "If Obama doesn't want his wife to receive criticism, then he shouldn't use her as a surrogate on the campaign trail. Whatever she says on the stump at campaign events is fair game for criticism, just as it has been with Bill Clinton. Obama's camp has unloaded on the former President for statements he made about Hillary's loss in South Carolina and several other incidents in which they believe Bill [Clinton] played the race card to explain Obama's success. Bill's not running for anything this year, but he has made himself a public figure in this primary race, and his statements are also legitimate targets for attack.

    "The whininess factor has become a real problem for Obama. Presumably, we'd like a President who doesn't play a perpetual victim on the national stage. What happens when he has to tangle with Congress over policy, or more to the point, when he has to represent America on the world stage? If he can't deal with legitimate political criticism now, what will we get for a response when Obama runs the federal government?"



    Parent
    I honestly (none / 0) (#155)
    by pantsuit chic on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:41:04 PM EST
    Could not believe what I was seeing.

    Parent
    CNN calls it for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:00:34 PM EST


    CNN Projects 30pt Kentucky win! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM EST


    CNN projection (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by delacarpa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:18:24 PM EST
    Somebody said Obama would close the gap in Kentucky and he isn't, not after spending once again at most at a  3-1 on ads, boots on the ground,  Hope the Supers are getting the message that Obama can win some big cities, split the suburbia area votes and wins almost every county in rural areas.

    Parent
    Cnn Projection (none / 0) (#161)
    by delacarpa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:48:27 PM EST
    oooooooops didn't proof read. What I wanted to say is the opposite he can't win the rural areas, nor all of the suburbia areas. The Supers need to take note on this.

    Sorry

    Parent

    Fox calls it for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by angie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    says exits polls show she will win the state 2-1. She wons because this state is "tailor made" for Hillary because it is full of white, rural, poor, religious people! Yet, they then turn around to show she beats Obama in the college degree voters as well. Ha! Guess KY doesn't really count.

    but they are hicks (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    with college degrees

    Parent
    An Example of Alex Castellanos's Work (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:05:05 PM EST
    on behalf of Jesse Helms.  Lee Atwater would be proud.  See here.  The sad thing is that wasn't the most offensive ad Helms ran.  

    Which is why I can't take the claims of racism coming from the Obama campaign towards the Clintons seriously.  I lived through Helms-Gantt, that was racist campaigning.

    Donna Brazile must have got the message (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:07:49 PM EST
    last week, she is being more respectful of CLinton and not acting like an Obama cheerleader, at least not yet.

    be NICE! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:11:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Fox is hammering Obama's weakness (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
    among working-class voters.  Juan Williams says you can't avoid this pattern if you're looking at the picture, and women voters are getting turned off by Obama.

    See - fair and balanced!  I bet they're not talking about this on CNN or MSNBC.

    definitely not, so keep telling us (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:12:52 PM EST
    what they are saying over there!

    Parent
    Will do! (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:18:52 PM EST
    Once again, Kristol is reiterating that it's very troublesome that the presumptive nominee is losing primaries by 30-40 point margins.

    Somebody else - can't remember who - said that the exit polls saying 50% of Clinton voters won't vote for Obama in November is also a huge warning sign.  He said that even if only 20% go through with their threat, it could spell the difference between victory and loss.  All too obvious and all too rarely pointed out by most of the MSM.

    Parent

    John King says Obama will be (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:14:32 PM EST
    just short of the 1627 number after KY, so he can't claim anything yet, will have to wait until after OR.

    there will be a backlash (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by nellre on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    It'll bump HRC in all the polls.

    149-17 (none / 0) (#1)
    by CytoEric on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST
    What does that mean?  I'm confused...

    just the votes in so far (none / 0) (#2)
    by tandem5 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST


    Parent
    raw vote totals for Clinton and Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    so far

    Parent
    Me too. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    Too many to be delegates.  Too many to be counties.

    ???

    Parent

    She Is Now Over 170,000 Votes Ahead Of (none / 0) (#170)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:34:57 PM EST
    obama....hope she makes it over 200,000!

    Parent
    SHE DID!!! (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton      D     385,407     65.2%    
    Barack Obama     D     180,453     30.5%

    with 85.8 of the precincts reporting. She is hammering him. He has only won two counties, Jefferson and Fayette.

    Parent

    8 of 3545 reporting (none / 0) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton D 1,448 77.8%
    Barack Obama D 320 17.2%
    "UNCOMMITTED" D 59 3.2%
    John Edwards D 35 1.9%

    LINK

    Uncommitted? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Emma on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:25:36 PM EST
    Can anybody explain why there is a choice for "Uncommitted" on the ballots?  Is this a delegate thing -- "I want to send uncommitted delegates to the Convention"?

    It means (none / 0) (#66)
    by hlr on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:52:43 PM EST
    I hate 'em all!

    Parent
    Or I don't care, I'm American (none / 0) (#127)
    by Prabhata on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:14:19 PM EST
    I'm joining that group after the June election.  I'll be another independent who doesn't vote for any presidential candidate.

    Parent
    What is taking so long? (none / 0) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:30:19 PM EST
    The MSM should have called this already.

    I'm getting nervous...

    the polls don't close in KY for another (none / 0) (#12)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:31:13 PM EST
    30 minutes

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#14)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:32:29 PM EST
    I saw several sites that said 6 pm Eastern.

    Thanks!

    Parent

    some polls are still open (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    7PM is when the last of them close I think . . .

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#15)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    Louisville came in and Obama's numbers jumped.

    Hillary Clinton D 27,786 50.7%  
    Barack Obama D 25,332 46.2%  
    "UNCOMMITTED" D 944 1.7%  
    John Edwards D 789 1.4%

    6.2% reporting.

    Lexington (none / 0) (#16)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:36:26 PM EST
    I think Louisville is still voting

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    You can see the county maps at the CNN site I link to.

    Parent
    Gotcha (none / 0) (#20)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:38:51 PM EST
    But he's only winning in Lexington, so far

    Parent
    Louisville is done voting (none / 0) (#21)
    by davnee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    Looks like they also have about 1/3 of their vote reported.  That's good for HRC, because this is the biggest county and the likely most pro-BO county in the state.  If she holds him here to a draw or a modest win then everything else in the state should be pretty much gravy.

    Parent
    What county is that in? (none / 0) (#27)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:42:25 PM EST


    Parent
    It looks like Jefferson County n/t (none / 0) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:44:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep Jefferson County (none / 0) (#43)
    by davnee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:46:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Jefferson (none / 0) (#37)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Jefferson County (none / 0) (#42)
    by apolitiko on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:46:21 PM EST
    It's a huge metro area of about 1.3 million people.  The metro area encompasses all of Louisville, Jefferson County and a few others. It's up in the top central part of the state by Indiana and the Ohio river.

    Parent
    Jeff County (none / 0) (#61)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:50:31 PM EST
    As of right now, Obama's got 49% and Hillary is at 48.1% (with 87% precincts reporting)

    Parent
    That Is Not Good for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    Jefferson County has the highest AA population and should go for Obama by several points.   If it's this close, that does not bode well.    I suspect as in WVA, Hillary has eaten into his base with college educated and wealthier voters.

    Parent
    She Is Currently 204,000 votes ahead of obama (none / 0) (#171)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:41:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Wolfson is on CNN (none / 0) (#17)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    He is as sharp as he was after WestVA but not as excited.  He seems very tired.

    looks like Obama actually won a county (none / 0) (#19)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:38:16 PM EST


    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:40:07 PM EST
    Victory is ours in November! ;-)

    Parent
    Fayette county (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:40:49 PM EST
    has less than 1% reporting though.

    Parent
    You can also go here for updates (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:43:29 PM EST
    Kentucky Secretary of State:

    http://electionresults.ky.gov/KyElectWeb/

    Parent

    Any "Lake County" (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:39:52 PM EST
    types of counties in Kentucky?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:41 PM EST
    Or rather, any Lake Counties are more likely to be Clinton Country and so won't matter because it looks like she's going to wipe him out.   No need to hold onto votes anywhere.

    Parent
    9% and approx 80, 000 counted (none / 0) (#60)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:50:17 PM EST
    does that help?

    OMG (none / 0) (#69)
    by DJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    CNN ...I can't believe Alex's comments!

    Mind blowing (none / 0) (#76)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:56:29 PM EST
    isn't it?  He actually said that out loud on national TV.

    Parent
    my husband (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by DJ on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:12:26 PM EST
    had to leave the room.  There is no clearer example of the media crap.  Wow.

    Parent
    You must be talking about (none / 0) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:01 PM EST
    how some of us womenare "really" ( ) itches. I couldn't believe that either.

    Parent
    Are We Talking About Alex Castellanos? (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by BDB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:02:41 PM EST
    Because the man is a racist, sexist pig, best known for incredibly racist ads run on behalf of Jesse Helms against Harvey Gantt (flashback to my "Vote Against Hate, Vote Against Helms" bumper sticker).  That CNN has him on is a travesty.

    But then look at its team - Bennett, Bernstein, Borger, Tony Snow (when he's well), Campbell Brown - they have a lot of right-wing hacks and married to right-wing hacks.  Even their so-called "democrats" consist of hacks like Brazile.  This may be the best political team on television, but by and large it still sucks.

    Parent

    yep (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:04:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Switch to Fox (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:10:23 PM EST
    and yes, I can't believe I said that, but they're actually excited by this -- it's like the old days of watching Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite, etc., reacting to news rather than creating it.

    A reporter just now read the exit polls as saying that the voters are disgusted by the disrespect of the media, Dem leaders, etc., aimed at a Senator and former First Lady, at a woman who has worked hard, etc.

    You won't hear that on the other networks -- not without what I was hearing on CNN before I switched channels, which was Russert calling for the b**ch to begone, blah blah.

    Parent

    I can't believe it either (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:24:24 PM EST
    but it's true.  Aside from the loathsome Dick Morris who is clearly mentally ill, Fox's commentators have been pretty decent.  

    Parent
    Fox News (none / 0) (#156)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:41:07 PM EST
    Fox News is a conservative propaganda unit.  It is in keeping with what their viewership (older Republicans) wants to see that they portray a chaotic Democratic primary race with no end in sight and two equally viable candidates.  If the situation was reversed, and Clinton had a narrow but unassailable lead and was being dogged by Obama, or Edwards, or whomever, the Fox people would be dour about Clinton's prospects and bullish on the upstart candidate.  It has nothing to do with fairness or impartiality and everything to do with ideology.

    Parent
    Fox is no more a propaganda network (none / 0) (#158)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:46:20 PM EST
    than CNN or MSNBC.  

    I'll take a news network reporting a chaotic primary race over a network trying to anoint a nominee in an extremely close race before all the votes have been cast.

    Parent

    I never said CNN or MSNBC were paragons... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    ...of journalism.  But their primary bias, I think, is financial rather than ideological.  They want ratings.  They are not for or against candidates based on their positions on issues.  Many of them treat McCain favorably because they like him personally and because he makes for good TV sound bites.  Many of them had/have an unfair bias against Clinton, partly because of who she is (many of these people made their careers during the impeachment insanity, and to bash a Clinton is a reflexive instinct), but partly because they sensed an opportunity to see a foregone conclusion change into an uncertain race.  Matthews himself said that they're dreaming of a divided convention this year.  That to me indicates not a partiality for a given candidate, but for the "drama" of political uncertainty.  It's ratings.

    Fox News is different.  Fox News is essentially a division of the Republican Party.  It is in their interests to see the Democratic race drag out interminably and for different factions to bloody one another up.  They want to see us wound each other.  They want to see McCain win.  They are not worth our time.

    Parent

    I don't give a d*mn (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:03:16 PM EST
    what their motivations are.  All I know is, Fox News has given more unbiased coverage during this primary season.  I don't care why MSNBC and CNN are in the tank for Obama, all I know is that they are.  I take it all with a grain of salt, but for now, Fox gives the most balanced coverage of the primary season.

    I also disagree with your assertion that seeing the primary "drag out" is a Republican ploy.  It's called democracy, baby.  We have a process and it's not over yet.  If Obama, the media darling and presumptive nominee, has failed to seal the deal with millions of voters, that's his own fault.

    Parent

    Re: I don't give a d*mn (none / 0) (#168)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:10:33 PM EST
    "I don't care how biased they are, they're clearly not biased."  Okay then.

    And I didn't say that the primary process is a Republican ploy.  Far from it, I think this contest is going to be a huge advantage to us come November, no matter who the nominee is.  Every Democrat around the country is fired up and feels a part of this for the first time in...well, as long as I can remember.  It's always been Iowa-NH-SC-Super Tuesday-game over, really.  2004 lingered a little longer.  But to have it go all the way, to give everyone a chance to feel a part of the process...no, I think it's awesome.  I think we should try to make this more the norm than the exception.

    What I said was that Fox News's coverage is a Republican ploy, and that's entirely different.  They're all about highlighting the weaknesses of the frontrunner and building up the hopes of the underdog for us.  It's a tactical move and it has nothing to do with objectivity, they just want us to implode.  That was my argument.

    Parent

    HAHAH (none / 0) (#157)
    by pantsuit chic on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:42:32 PM EST
    Dick Morris. Remember when he said Condi Rice was the only person who could beat Hillary?

    Parent
    heh. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Sleeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:01:06 PM EST
    I laugh whenever I go to Barnes and Noble and see the stack of CONDI VS. HILLARY hardcovers with their basement bargain $4.95 stickers.  Dick Morris is a toad who's turned an embarrassing termination for dallying with prostitutes into a lucrative cottage industry.

    Parent
    Sorry! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Josmt on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    I'm not watching TV, what did he say?

    Parent
    Alex's Comments (none / 0) (#100)
    by chrisvee on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    Here if I might be so bold as to link to my own comment. :-)

    Parent
    isnt he the one who said (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:59:20 PM EST
    Obama would need a food taster if Hillary was VP?


    Parent
    Yep, that's the guy -- and any reputable (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:11:05 PM EST
    network never would have him on again after that.

    Parent
    How DARE she (none / 0) (#92)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:00:21 PM EST
    that uppity Clinton woman! I almost expected him to get the vapors.

    CNN calls it for Hillary by 30 pts (none / 0) (#95)
    by bjorn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:00:50 PM EST


    yikes (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:02:15 PM EST
    thats gonna leave a mark.

    Parent
    Fox called it Clinton 2-1 (none / 0) (#99)
    by Salt on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:02:23 PM EST


    Sounds like WV redux (none / 0) (#101)
    by stillife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:02:35 PM EST
    Hillary leading in all of Obama's groups (except, presumably, AA's).  

    Fox is predicting she'll win by at least 2-1.

    4:07 PM PST per msnbc (none / 0) (#117)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:08:19 PM EST
    73% Clinton Shares Their Values
    47% obama Shares Their Values

    92% Experience important

    78% Over 65  Clinton
    78% White Voters   Clinton
    74% Non College    Clinton

    Low turnout? (none / 0) (#132)
    by wasabi on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:15:15 PM EST
    The Kentucky Sec of State has the Dem turnout at 10.7% (of 1.63M registered Dems) ((174,500 votes))
    Rep turnout at 5.8% (of 1.04M registed Reps)((59,900 votes))

    I guess that's the total voted so far (none / 0) (#134)
    by wasabi on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    Yup.  Never mind.

    Parent
    Kentucky Results Thread | 170 comments (170 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment