home

The Electoral Map vs. the Primary Map

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:05:18 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McCauliffe today said the primary race will be decided by June:

As talk swirled this morning over when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton should end her quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, her campaign chairman predicted the party would have a presumptive nominee in June and, if it's not Clinton, she would campaign for Sen. Barack Obama.

As for Hillary, she said today:

"The delegate math may be complicated, but the electoral math is easy," Clinton said, arguing that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is a "formidable opponent" and that she has won more "swing states" -- such as Ohio, New Jersey and Pennsylvania -- than Obama.

Hillary's campaign schedule is as full as always: [More...]

But the Clinton campaign showed no signs of slowing down. The New York senator began the day with an appearance in Charleston, W. Va., then was to fly on to Sioux Falls, S.D., and finish the day with an event in Central Point, Ore. -- all states still to hold nominating contests.

And Bill Clinton planned five appearances in West Virginia, a state his wife is favored to win Tuesday. But analysts generally agree that barring a tidal shift in support away from Obama, Clinton has little chance of overtaking the Illinois senator's delegate lead, which would leave the decision in the hands of the party superdelegates.

The point:

Clinton hopes that strong showings in the last few states will help her make the case to those uncommitted superdelegates that she has momentum and is better able to compete against McCain in crucial swing states in the fall.

In other news, Hillary's campaign took in $1 million in donations in the 24 hours after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

For more on how the electoral vote may play out, see my post a few weeks ago based on an analysis by William Arnone, The Electoral Map and the Battleground States.

Update: 7pm MT: Comments now closed.

< Ed Kilgore For The Unity Ticket | The Michigan Proposal is Unfair to Hilllary >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Electoral Map vs. the Primary Map | 244 comments (244 topical)
    Thank you Jeralyn. (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:09:22 PM EST
    This is indeed the crux of the matter.

    What is Obama's path to the White House, if not through Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc. etc. etc.?

    And no, Utah and Kansas will not vote for Obama.

    Novemeber was never the point (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by pluege on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    the point of Obama was never the WH - his strategy was always and only about beating HRC. They have gamed the system to win the primary even though it means losing the election.

    Parent
    that makes no sense (none / 0) (#232)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:43:51 PM EST
    the idea when you run for president is to win.  he had to beat HRC - he did.  now he has to beat McCain.  the silliest of all arguments is this post; that Obama won't win the states in the general election that Hillary has won. How one fairs against a fellow party candidate in a primary has NO correlation to how that person would fair in a General Election against a candidate of another party.  

    Please show me evidence of that in the past (hint: there is none)

    Parent

    for me it isn't an issue of (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    obama's chances at the white house, which i think suck at best and are catastrophic at worst.  for me it's an issue of those among obama's supporters, especially within the party leadership, who know his chances suck and don't care--whether in order to get their hands on his fundraising apparatus, or because they think they can shore up congress and don't mind losing the presidency, or because of CDS, or any number of other potential reasons.  this is what worries me to no end.

    Parent
    Utah, Idaho, Kansas and oh yeah Colorado (none / 0) (#2)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:10:18 PM EST


    Parent
    And North Carolina (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:33 PM EST
    the delusion du jour is that North Carolina is now a swing state. Obama said it and Kerry's parroting it therefore it must be true!

    Parent
    heh janarchacy -- great minds! n/t (none / 0) (#18)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:16:20 PM EST


    Parent
    North Carolina is considered a battleground (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:40:41 PM EST
    state. Even though the last time it voted Democratic was 1976 and Jimmy Carter. However, it could just as easily go battleground to Republican this year as battleground to Democrat. See Arnone's article on the ten key states.

    North Carolina (15 electoral votes): The Republican Presidential ticket carried North Carolina by 12% in 2004. This was a slightly lower margin than the 2000 election in which the Republican ticket carried the state by 13%. The Republican ticket carried the state by 5% in 1996 and by less than 1% in 1992. Since 1964, the Democratic Presidential ticket has carried this state only once - Carter-Mondale by 11% in 1976.


    Parent
    Okay, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    That's actually news to me. I guess as an elitist NYer, I just assumed that anything South of Maryland is just going to go Red as it's always done, mostly because of the hasn't-gone-Blue-since-Carter thing. Thanks for the info!

    Parent
    But both times that a Dem either carried NC.. (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:41:53 PM EST
    or was close, was with Southern Democrats.  No way that Obama can win NC when he was trounced in the white votes including losing indies in the Dem Primary.  The AA vote was near to max in this Primary, while the white vote was not nearly so.


    Parent
    North Carolina too (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:53 PM EST
    the state where the only reason Jesse Helms isn't still in the US Senate is because he didn't run for re-election after being diagnosed with cancer in 2002.  Oh yeah, he was replaced by Elizabeth Dole. Contrary to Dean's fantasies, NC is not a "swing state."

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    they'll get over it. For a while I was arguing with Obama supporters about GA. They swore up and down that GA would vote for Obama. LOL!

    Parent
    Ga6th (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    I'm with you--I about dropped a brick when I started reading they thought they'd take GA.  Talk about a state of delusion!  

    I think we should start a campaign to send every SD a United States census.

    Parent

    the votes that put obama across in the (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:41 PM EST
    primaries don't translate in the general. some of those states are red states and many of those often have a large proportion of aa voters. thinking southern states here. in states with a heavy voting segment of bitter blue collar voters, things don't look rosy. women voters throughout the us could make a major impact in states where the votes are very close. and of course the repubs who voted for him will go home for the general.

    Parent
    I Haven't Seen This One For A While (none / 0) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:30:18 PM EST
    but it is worth a mention.

    Obama will win the GE 65% to 35% and will usher in a 60+ Senate on his coattails.

    Parent

    You know where else they'll vote for him? (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    Virginia!

    LOL

    Parent

    If NC goes dem then GOP will lose 50 states (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:00 PM EST
    It ain't happening

    Parent
    NC is not adverse to electing Dems. (none / 0) (#64)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:31:40 PM EST
    They just don't elect them at the national level for some reason.  A book just came out about this "Tar Heel Politics" phenomenon.  

    I stole this from minvis' Daily Kos diary:

    NC has:
    2.5 million registered Democrats, just under 2 million registered Republicans and about 1.1 million Independents.

    Compare PA:

    4,044,952 people are registered to vote in the Democratic primary; a total of 3,215,478 are registered for the Republican primary.

    I don't know how many independents are in PA.

    Parent

    I'm not saying they wont elect Dems (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    Heck, they elected John Edwards to the Senate at the same time Helms was in (but note, he lost re-election). Plus, the governor is a Dem -- but, no way is NC a swing state in the GE and especially not with Obama.

    Parent
    NC, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by AmyinSC on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:39:10 PM EST
    My home state, has not voted for a Dem president since Jimmy Carter.  It did not go for Kerry/Edwards, btw.

    Parent
    no! (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Nasarius on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    John Edwards didn't run for re-election. He was, y'know, busy running for VP.

    Sorry, but that's a nasty talking point I remember from Obama supporters on DKos last year.

    Parent

    An NC democrat isn't your typical liberal democrat (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:36:08 PM EST
    They have no problem voting republican. They split their ticket every 4 years, democrat for the state constitutional offices and rep. President.

    I've even heard them talking about winning Alabama and S. Carolina which is nonsense

    Parent

    NY was the reverse (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST
    red at state level, blue for pres.

    state level is turning blue, wonder what that means . . .

    Parent

    Oh I've heard that (none / 0) (#216)
    by daria g on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    A friend who is a big Obama guy tried to tell me he'd flip states like Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia.. Hah.  Haven't heard a lot of that lately.

    Parent
    And east of the Mississippi River (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    -- which, as was pointed out in earlier post, Bill Clinton won (and so did Gore for that matter) . . . when the Mississippi River "coasts" proved crucial.

    As for the rest of the upper Midwest (aka the Old Northwest Territory), don't be confident of Wisconsin, with -- I told you so:-) -- Rasmussen's new polls showing McCain well ahead.

    And who knows what Michigan's mindset will be in fall, after who knows what happens by Labor Day at the Dem convention?  And Obama would  get Illinois.  But Indiana?  And Ohio?

    Together, last I looked, this is about a fifth of the country's population -- and some of the "votingest" states in the country.

    Parent

    actually, i do think obama has a (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:45:49 PM EST
    shot--a shot, by no means a probability--at CO and maybe GA.  but the rest i think are seriously wishful thinking.

    the obamablog CW is wrong; obama's ceiling is lower than hillary's ceiling, and his floor is waaaaaay lower than hillary's floor.  obama's potential electoral liabilities are huge.  he could easily turn swing states like OH, TN, FL, KY, AR, NV, NM, WV red--and even put blue states (with checkered histories) like CA, PA, MI, and NJ at risk.  conversely, hillary is stronger in all of those states.

    if we're talking about electoral victory for the presidency, i think nominating obama for his potential upsides is like mortgaging the house, the car, and everything we own for a shot at winning a thousand bucks.  needless to say, i'm not too keen on the idea.

    Parent

    He has (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:55:07 PM EST
    zero chance here in GA. Denise Majette got about 40% of the vote in 2004. She was an AA running for the senate. There was high AA turnout. Last poll I saw here in GA had Obama getting about 40% of the vote. He'll get blown out.

    Parent
    I can top that. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Boston Boomer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:10:48 PM EST
    I doubt that Obama can carry Massachusetts.  Shocking, but true.

    Parent
    No kidding (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:14:08 PM EST
    Aren't the current polls showing McCain creaming him?

    Everyone always thinks of MA as so liberal but they forget about all those working class conservative people in the middle! (I have friends all over the state so...yeah. Boston is not Worcester is not Pittsfield)

    Parent

    okay, so 10% chance in GA, then. (none / 0) (#170)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:16:31 PM EST
    i say that only because voting for an actually viable AA prez will likely make AA turnout skyrocket in a way no other seat or election could.  plus GA has gone dem before (albeit rarely, i'll admit).  in any case, i think a unique combination of factors this electoral season alter the calculus somewhat--but, more importantly (for me), not nearly, not even by a hallucinogenic long shot, as much as happily deluded obama supporters seem to hope.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:22:25 PM EST
    it's still zero. We had maximum AA turnout in 2004. I would agree with you if we hadn't already maxed out the AA vote and seen the results.

    Parent
    interesting. okay, well i don't have (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    those numbers, but i'll take your word for it.  and in that case, his chances are even worse than i thought--and i already thought they were abysmally low!

    Parent
    thanks for 1-rating me, agreetodisagree. (none / 0) (#242)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    your moniker is apparently a misnomer.

    Parent
    Please say it people (none / 0) (#246)
    by fullcircle on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:53:07 PM EST
    If you are saying that the Democratic Party should ignore the electoral vote if they think they can win with a different candidate than the one with the most PRIMARY electoral votes then say that.

    "We should ignore the majority of our party, because we want to win..." say it, because that is what you want.

    I think we all know super delegates CAN overturn the popular results, but if they do there will be a high price to pay.

    All of you who say you will never vote for Obama, and there are a lot of you here, are saying that you don't believe he can win because YOU and people like you are unwilling to support the majority of your party. If McCain wins it is because Democrats don't vote for the Democratic candidate. The same thing goes for the Obama supporters who wouldn't swallow their pride if Hillary somehow manages to win 95-100% percent of the remaining delegates. Which she won't unless Obama strangles a baby on national TV.

    And before people trot out Michigan and Florida, remember that as of now two States are being "ignored" in the totals. If the primary electoral votes (as opposed to the primary + superdelegate votes) are ignored then you are alienating about 51% of the democratic voters in over 40 States.

    We will never know how the vote would have come out if both candidates had campaigned and been on the tickets like the other states, but we can be fairly certain that Hillary would have won by fewer votes than she did if Obama had been campaigning as normal.

    The numbers are pretty clear, Obama is the choice of the majority of the Democratic party any other choice is a decision to ignore that majority.

    Parent

    actually, not so much (5.00 / 2) (#251)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    There are many posts here addressing the numbers and how they break down - last time I checked, Clinton had a majority of Democratic Party votes - Obama's lead such as it is comes from Independents and cross-over Republicans. Also it is difficult to extrapolate numbers from caucus states.

    Parent
    define "majority" (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:59:19 PM EST
    if you define "majority" without "trotting out MI & FL" (as you put it) then you are wrong.

    Parent
    his majority slimmer than you realize (5.00 / 4) (#256)
    by kempis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    His popular vote/delegate lead is about 2% and that's padded by excluding MI and FL and caucus wins.

    Most of those caucus wins are not representative of the views of the broader populations of those states but instead reflect the choice of the largely activist core with the free time to attend the caucuses. That sort of cuts a lot of blue-collar workers out of the equation.

    When you look at state polls, head-to-head against McCain, Hillary is the choice of most voters in most battleground states. She fares much better against McCain than Obama does. Why that doesn't seem to matter to "Democrats" who want to win in November is a mystery to me.

    Perhaps if the Democratic primary system weren't skewed by caucuses and the machinations of the DNC, if the actual voters were allowed to vote in election-style primaries, then we'd have a popular vote and delegate count that more accurately reflected the will of the people.

    But Obama's campaign and the DNC seem not to be overly interested in observing the will of the people. Instead, their main concern seems to be handing the nomination to Obama, electability issues and all. Go figure.

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:13 PM EST
    for posting this. It's good news. The calls for her to quit are simply based on fear of her winning. They always do this when she looks to win a state like WV.

    Fangurl moment (5.00 / 11) (#4)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    I love her so much.  I know it sounds corny, but she's an inspiration to me.

    D**n that stupid Gary mayor for delaying the results to try to mess with her financing.  I gave another $250 yesterday.

    Even my cynical husband said this morning, "She's like the Energizer Bunny!"

    Something I've been wondering about - why do we have this WWTSBQ meme going on again?  Nobody expected her to win NC - although I have to admit I had my hopes.  She came closer than she has in other Southern states.  She won IN, even though it was tight - but isn't this all pretty much what was predicted?  So now why is the MSM trying to cast her as a big loser who needs to drop out for the sake of the Golden One's candidacy?

    The Gary (5.00 / 11) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM EST
    mayor did Obama no favors. He made Obama's campaign look sleazy.

    Nevermind, WV is next week. She'll probably reel in a ton of donations from that win.

    I should give some money.

    Parent

    Did you mean (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by 0 politico on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:45:03 PM EST
    "sleazier?"

    Parent
    We just gave her (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by Rhouse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:21:15 PM EST
    another $200 tonight.  And they don't want her to win because then they'd have to switch all the bathrooms in the White House.
    snark

    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:51 PM EST
    At last the true reason comes out!!!

    Parent
    I think her campaign fell down (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:13:25 PM EST
    very, very badly in paving the "conventional wisdom" ahead of NC and Indiana.  I listened to a lot of commentary both before and after, and waited in vain for somebody to mention he was supposed to win Indiana big until pretty recently.  THe Clinton campaign should have been on a crusade in the weeks leading up to the primary to remind the MSM of that fact, but for some reason, they didn't do it.

    Parent
    Ah, great point! (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:24:49 PM EST
    I feel the same way.  Her campaign was so reticent about expectations that it got my hopes up.  It should have been pointed out that Obama was the favorite to win both states.  Now we're in this mess where she lost NC (which she never had a hope of winning) and won IN by a small margin, and it's like she lost both states.

    It's all about expectations.  I think now that Bill was campaigning so hard just to get the margins down, which he did, but at the time I thought they had a hope of actually winning.

    Parent

    they did do that (5.00 / 3) (#228)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    but there is only so much you can do when the MSM ignores your talking points and keeps parroting the Obama camp's talking points.

    Parent
    Because (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by The Realist on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:17:26 PM EST
    They are ready to lower the boon on Barry and they are getting impatient.

    Parent
    Who's (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:28 PM EST
    going to lower the boom on Obama? The GOP? Heck, if he's the nominee they can start in Sept and start running the stuff 24/7.

    Parent
    I just hope the media hysteria (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:13:07 PM EST
    will not cause her supporters to stay home in the upcoming primaries -- because that is the ONLY reason for what is going on now with the "Obama has won" the nomination meme.

    You know (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:12 PM EST
    what? She should be Harry Truman and carry around a copy of Time Magazine with Obama's picture on it and talk about how wrong the media has been time and again.

    Parent
    It's happening (5.00 / 12) (#13)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:52 PM EST
    on the phone, people in WV have been saying there is no point in voting, she can't win anyways. They are demoralized.

    If you can, PLEASE get on the phone, PLEASE.

    Fighting back is not just about Hillary, it is about showing little girls all over the country that they don't have to sit down, shut up, and quit just because the boys tell them to. We are showing a generation of girls that it is okay to fight for what you believe in.

    Parent

    Second this!!! Make calls to WV! (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:20:02 PM EST
    we need to GOTV there big time!

    Parent
    Link for calling: (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:29:26 PM EST
    http://tools.hillaryclinton.com/calling/

    Parent
    I'll be calling Sat & Sun (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:38:53 PM EST
    I'm hosting "calling parties" at my house -- I've got wireless internet, everybody brings their laptops & cell phones, I provide munchies, and we call, call, call. It is fun because it provides support -- especially to those who are a little timid calling.

    Parent
    The local news will push her hard (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    And the same thing happened here in PA.  The major networks knocked her down and the local newspapers lifted her up.  And word of mouth is real big in small town america.  

    Bill and Hill will be out there and the supporters will be knocking on doors and many folks who support her will be putting out signs to get the vote out.

    Don't worry, she's got this one solid.  The Mayor of Gary won't be counting the votes either.

    Parent

    Maybe Bill (none / 0) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:53:04 PM EST
    has a plan to get out to front porches the way he did in NC to make sure her supporters realize that it is more important now for them to get out to vote their choice. This is an election where every vote counts.


    Parent
    For all the work that needs to be done (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    to repair the policies that have been damaged domestically and internationally, the energy and commitment shown by Hillary Clinton makes it very easy for me to remain loyal and committed to her presidential candidacy.

    the magic number revisited -- big time (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    I didn't know what all the bluster was about May 20th and how he plans to announce his victory based on a new number.  I just read this:

    "Obama will not reach the 2,025 magic number on May 20. Rather, on that date he is all but certain to hit a different threshold--1,627 pledged delegates, which would constitute a winning majority among the 3,253 total pledged delegates if Florida and Michigan are not included. "

    So the magic number is 2209, 2025 or 1627 or whatever anybody feels like saying since the DNC is taking a long walk off a short plank into shark filled waters and has been for many months.

    A train wreck of their own design. Lovely.

    Usurper? Is that the new word?

    Also, for a real powerful inspiring video Check out No Quarter's Good Morning W. Virginia thread.

    Hillary and country roads made me tear right up.

    Very nice video (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:50:44 PM EST
    Hillary has compassion for the people of this country that is sorely lacking in the Obama's.

    Did you also read that incredible article on who's stealing the election?
     

    Parent

    Psychological warfare. (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:15:11 PM EST
    Bernstein on CNN kept saying: "It's all about Hillary's psychology now".  His premise is that Hillary goes crazy when she loses.  So, this is what the Obama campaign is doing.  Humiliation and this idea that he won.  Meantime, they are all clueless about the GE.  

    And do they think (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    that even if this works, that'll work against McCain? eyeroll

    Parent
    Sure. (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM EST
    Because the media hates McCain as much as they hate the Clintons!

    Oh, wait....

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    No, it won't work. McCain's camp just released a memo calling Obama out on the utter hypocrisy in his campaign and basically put the press on notice and made it clear this BS will not work with them.

    I am no fan of John McCain's, but goodness, at least SOMEONE is calling him out on it.

    Parent

    And calling them out while she is still (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:23:22 PM EST
    in the race. Thank You John McCain.

    Parent
    Sad (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:27:26 PM EST
    to say but that makes me admire McCain for his gumption.

    Parent
    Seconded on the link (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:53:15 PM EST
    It's kind of depressing that McCain's starting to look better and better to me. Nooooooooo!

    Parent
    He's not looking good to me. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:56:43 PM EST
    He scares the living crap out of me.

    But I'd like to see what he said anyway. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :-)

    Parent

    Oh, don't get me wrong (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:17:11 PM EST
    I know McCain's position on policy and it is scary. He just is very good as coming off as the nice affable grandfatherly type who can laugh at himself and seems to listen when people talk to him. Case in point, his appearance on The Daily Show last night. And he's doing a better job of selling himself to the majority of the people than Obama is at this point.

    Parent
    He will be a (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Leisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:06:56 PM EST
    formidable opponent!

    Parent
    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#50)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:25:14 PM EST
    I would love to read what he said. Maybe I'll agree with him for the first time evah!

    Parent
    It's some kind of game they are playing (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:18:22 PM EST
    sophistry, with computer hacking.  

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by chrisvee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    Madwoman in the attic.  Fatal attraction.  When powerful women get frustrated and can't achieve their plans, they destroy everyone & everything in their path.

    What a world.  How can anyone actually employ Carl Bernstein?

    Parent

    Julia Kristeva (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    would call him Abject.

    Parent
    ^^ wow (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by daria g on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:42:34 PM EST
    Kristeva references and the Madwoman in the Attic? I love this blog!  But is it rather that if he read Kristeva he'd call Hillary abject.. such is his behavior toward her.

    Parent
    Where is Nora Ephron when we need her? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:21:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Ooooh! (none / 0) (#172)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:16:44 PM EST
    Bad, BAD boy, Oculus!  (er, or girl, either way...)

    Parent
    Well, I am actually female, although (none / 0) (#217)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    Oculus is a male noun in Latin and Italian.  

    Parent
    absolutely, i couldn't agree with you more. (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:49:34 PM EST
    it's the media's (and obama's) oldest trick this season--except this time they doubled down.  we should all be wary of this crap.  thank god i no longer own a TV, otherwise i suspect they might've gotten to me too.

    Parent
    Notice to Commenters (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:09 PM EST
    We cannot accomodate all the comments our posts are generating.

    New commenters -- those here less than 30 days -- are limited to 10 comments a day in a 24 hour period.

    Chatterers, see the comment rules, are likewise limited to 10 a day no matter how long they 've been posting here.

    We close threads at 200 and I'm not inclined to let new readers displace older and loyal ones.

    10 comments a day for new posters and chatterers. If you see a violator, let me know.

    ijpb is suspended for the day (25 comments) as are a few others.

    Sorry Jeralyn... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:26:02 PM EST
    I will behave, it's just that sometimes they really push the buttons.  

    Parent
    I know (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    and I don't intend to let anyone drive longtime readers away from the site.

    BTW, you are not limited in your comments, nor is anyone who has posted here for more than 30 days -- except chatterers and they are limited to 10.

    Chatterers are defined in the comment rules.

    Parent

    Unless (none / 0) (#161)
    by Helen8 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:10:45 PM EST
    the longtime readers don't support Hillary.  :)

    Parent
    Have you bothered to read (5.00 / 3) (#208)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:32:59 PM EST
    the comments policy on this site? Bless your heart, you might not know that it is common courtesy to do so before posting.  

    Parent
    Forget the phony smiley (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    You just started commenting today, right?

    You're at 17 comments already.

    If I misread your comment history, my apologies.

    Parent

    I think the landscape will look (5.00 / 12) (#41)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    very different after WVA.  You can't ignore a win like that.  At least anyone with a brain can't.

    I've admittedly been in and out of TL a lot, so maybe I missed this, but I know BTD thinks it's over, but has our beloved Jeralyn made a statement on the matter or not?

    I, for one, am not giving up.  Clinton still has a case to present to the SDs.  If she'd lost their support, we'd all know it by now.  There is a reason they're not all declaring en masse, and I think it's his bad demographics combined with her energizing of the base.

    The SDs have been around a looong while.  They know how important the base is, even if Donna Brazille thinks they don't need them.

    It is not over (5.00 / 23) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:24:02 PM EST
    It is not over until there is a nominee. As long as Hillary says it's not over and continues to campaign, it is not over. Anything can happen.

    Parent
    Bless you! (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:28:20 PM EST
    I agree 100%.

    Let the people decide, let FL and MI be settled fairly, and then we'll see where we are.

    Parent

    thanks (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    it's such a relief to read your words on this.  Sometimes, I feel very Don Quixote on this matter.  TL has been such an anchor of sanity for me this entire race and, sometimes, I turn on the TV and think, "holy crap, have I lost my mind?"  It's exactly how I felt in '00 when Bush et al kept insisting they won Florida.  Reality isn't jibing with the objects I see on TV.

    I hope this isn't chatter.  I know I post here a lot!

    Parent

    Kathy, Stella and Others (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    Chatterers by definition are those who hold opposing views from Talkleft.  They post with the intent of hijacking or dominating the discussion or annoying TalkLeft readers. That's why they are limited. So if you generally agree with my positions, you are not a chatterer and don't have to worry about being limited. (Exception: All new posters are being limited right now to 10 comments a day. They need to get accustomed to the site and the rules and the 200 limit is hitting us faster and faster, sometimes within an hour or two.)

    Parent
    Phew...! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    I always worry cause I was a really "chatterer" in grammar school and would get in trouble all the time for that.  Phew...now I can feel better.  

    Parent
    Oh, me too! (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:57:54 PM EST
    I was worried about that myself!

    Parent
    One thing you might want to do (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    is plan for the end of that business.

    The traffic on the comments section isd composed of refugees who are not quite familiar with shorter commentary sections.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#198)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    "Chatterers by definition are those who hold opposing views from Talkleft."

    Wow.

    Parent

    Typical Obama supporter reading (4.42 / 7) (#213)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:36:00 PM EST
    leave out the main parts:

        both  holds opposing views from those expressed by TalkLeft  and :

             Posts numerous times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread; or

              Posts numerous times a day and insults or calls other commenters names or repeatedly makes the same point with the effect of annoying other commenters.

    Hint for more effective reading comprehension: the words "both" and "and" are important!


    Parent

    I use TL like a canary in the mine (5.00 / 14) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:36:41 PM EST
    Since Tuesday I have not turned on the tv, radio or gone to anything other than the TL and the other friendly blogs.  I have to say over and over, this is an island of sanity.  

    Parent
    I appreciate that (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:25 PM EST
    and the sentiments of all of you who feel that way. You will always be welcome here.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, TL really is an oasis (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    It's one of the only political sites I visit any more, and probably THE only one where I can read the comments and actually enjoy them - and learn something.

    Parent
    Another Amen! (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:16:04 PM EST
    TL is the last blog standing not dominated
    by rudeness and obscenity.
    I've left so many blogs behind me forever.

    Parent
    As I've told other people, Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM EST
    this is place is my reality check. Otherwise, I start thinking I'm living on Bizarro World. I've been lurking for about 3 months -- it was only recently that I got the nerve up to actually post/comment. (It helped that you were posting Lennon and Harrison music clips... ;))

    Parent
    <3 for Jeralyn, BTD, and TL! (5.00 / 4) (#245)
    by lansing quaker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:52:31 PM EST
    Thanks for all your commentary.  And besides, you also brought me to Anglachel's Journal, too, which I LOVE reading.

    </filler, hopefully not chatter!>

    Parent

    Amen! (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    I'm off msm & will only visit sites like TL --- life is beautiful.  As a result, I've had time to cancel my subscription to Vanity Fair after that stupid Thomas Wolf piece and I ripped up my "D" voter's registration card and sent it to the DNC. I'm now a proud "I."

    Parent
    I started doing the same thing, (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by seeker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:54:47 PM EST
    with the exception of C-SPAN, yesterday.  I don't need to watch then to know that they are smugly proclaiming that the nominee has already been selected.

    Parent
    Kathy (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:01 PM EST
    I agree with everything you said, and I'll tilt windmills with you any time!

    Parent
    It is a relief (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    I completely agree.  I have felt as if I'm in some alternate reality or like I'm going completely crazy every time I turn on the TV or read a blatantly biased article in, well, anything.

    I am relatively new here too and this truly is an oasis of sanity considering what is out there.  Thank you Jeralyn and BTD.

    Parent

    I'm always (none / 0) (#73)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    interested in last stands.

    Although Edwards had his massacre a while back.

    Parent

    Yes, we'll take Denver, the we take Berlin (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:18:25 PM EST
    Buses from all over to the Convention floor yo take the party back
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DinvTZ85OtI

    Parent
    I've felt since TX and OH (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Makarov on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:21:40 PM EST
    that Clinton's only path to the nomination was through Denver, with the help of at least a 50% seating of MI and FL along the way.  If you didn't believe that then, you had to believe it after PA. Anything can happen, but barring a dead hooker showing up in Obama's trunk, I don't see how anyone but him is the nominee in June.  

    Now, if MI and FL are seated as elected with full votes, you run into a different situation.  Namely, that you'd need significant defection to Obama from Hillary's superdelegates.  That said, Dean and Brazile seem pretty determined to make sure MI and FL count for nothing.  I wonder how long after May 31 the RBC can delay making a decision.

    I wish I had your optimism.  Without staying in until the convention, I just don't see how Clinton can win this.  I hope she does, because the party of FDR and the country both deserve better than Obama.

    Parent

    It is not over because neither one can get ... (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    the magic number without SDs.  It is 2209, the Democratic Party cannot select the nominee while disenfranchising two big important swing states and millions of voters.  It is not over when you are talking about a small pledged delegate lead that would shrink dramatically if these two states are counted.  It is not over because Obama, his campaign, the media and his supporters say so.  I am so angry at the hubris and arrogance of this.

    Jeralyn is right, there is no nominee and Clinton has just as much of a chance of winning this if the Dems count Fl and MI as they bloody well should and the SDs do their job, which is to choose the candidate that can beat McCain and be the better President.  It is hands down obvious that Hillary can beat McCain and Obama can't and absolutely, she would make a much better President.

    Go Hillary!

    Parent

    Obamedia is calling for her to quit (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:46:18 PM EST
    and Obama has set his coronation date of May 20! - all in an effort to lower turnout in WV and KY where Hillary leads by 30 points.

    Parent
    There ought to be laws (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by nellre on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    Laws that forbid anything that calls itself news from trying to influence the election.
    They are suppose to be telling the story, but now they are the story... with 24/7 talking heads and BS analysis.

    In other words lots and lots of disclaimers when what is being presented is opinion

    I stopped watching Weds. am. (5.00 / 8) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
    My tv is back on non-news stations. Online you can pick and choose what to read.

    Carl Bernstein is an eternal blemish on CNN.

    Parent

    Agreed on all counts. And (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:14 PM EST
    after the debacle of Gary, when I feared I was going to stroke out with no one still up to talk to about it except for TalkLeft . . . I now am finding refuge in the past again, aka the History Channel.   And nature again, aka gardening shows on HGTV.  At this rate, I may become so transfixed by the other stuff that I will find myself taking up "scrapbooking."  (I just don't get that hobby, I really don't.:-)

    Carl Bernstein is so awful, I really want Nora Ephron to write a sequel for Meryl Streep.

    Parent

    These are Hillary's States (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:28:11 PM EST
    West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. She will win big. Real Big.
    Hillary Should Stay In (5.00 / 17) (#68)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:35:27 PM EST
    If only to ensure that working class American get a voice.  Because if it's up to the A-List Bloggers, working class people can forget about having any power in the Democratic Party.  Here's Chris Bowers:

    Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives: There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. Given the demographics of the blogosphere, in all likelihood, this is a socioeconomic and cultural demographic into which you fit. Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class instead of rich donors and the white working class.

    It's like a bad parody.  

    Gee, it's shocking how Obama has a reputation for being an elitist and trouble with the working class. I can't imagine why they don't think his movement has their best interests at heart.  More proof that the Obama movement isn't about winning in November, it's about ensuring certain groups gain control of the Democratic Party.

    I weep for the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Robert Kennedy.

    Wait, this is a Progressive? (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:38:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, yes it is a progressive. (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:08 PM EST
    It's not recognisably social democracy though.

    More like the lunatics in the Liberal Democratic party in the UK. They exist without a foundation in the working classes of the British population and are forever doomed to marginal status.

    Bowers is prescribing permanent minority status.

    Parent

    Good God (5.00 / 9) (#130)
    by Kathy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:55:22 PM EST
    That's everything that Obama is trying to say he's not--and, unfortunately, everything he is.

    Stellaaa, I was thinking about you the other day (I know, it's weird) and how you rail against his claim of being a community organizer in the shadows of Rezko's slums, and I thought that Obama is the embodiment of everything his mother tried to get away from.  He is living the life she would have had if she'd settled down in Kansas with a respectable oil company executive friend of her father's, squeezed out some kids and drank martinis at the club every Friday.

    Parent

    Tom Frank needs to be phoned (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:10:03 PM EST
    and asked about Bowers Manifesto.

    Was this what you meant? Or have these guys misunderstood you?

    Parent

    Kathy... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:42 PM EST
    You so get it.  Community Organizers that do not walk and know their community are worthless.  

    War stories.  In the 90's after the "events in LA'" I did some work for the City and the County of LA.    I told them before we do anything we had to walk the neighborhood and talk to people who live and work there.  They resisted.  I dragged them down there and it was their first time there.  Well, their entire plan would not have worked, cause, turns out the people in that community did not need what they wanted.  

    When I work with young people who enter Community work I make them walk up and down the streets and talk to people.  Not in meetings, one on one.  Teaches them humility.  

    Parent

    This is a joke, right? (5.00 / 13) (#86)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:41:50 PM EST
    The scary thing is, I fit into that CC stereotype, right down to the Whole Foods, wine (and actual profession) - and I find this incredibly offensive. The Democratic Party is supposed to represent the working class, dammit. The underdog. What is Bowers proposing here? Two elite Parties, and the only discernible differences between them being cultural ones?

    Parent
    me too. (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:43:45 PM EST
    His plan seems so blinkered and lacks empathy.  It's almost divorced from reality.

    Donna wasn't kidding when she said we'll do it without the voters.

    Parent

    He seems to think (5.00 / 7) (#108)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    that the "Creative Class" can wall itself off in its groovy urban enclaves while the rest of the country goes to hell around it.

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 8) (#116)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:51:16 PM EST
    The bitterclingy people might be tempted to build a wall around the groovy enclave people.

    The rest of the country won't go to hell. It'll watch in fascination as the narcissists trip hard on the Ocid and Oxtacy.

    Parent

    Country split in 3 pieces maybe 4 (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:50:18 PM EST
    Time for a new party.  Honestly.  I find their brand way to libertarian for my taste, hence the elitist tinge.  I just am an old new dealer/ new society person.  We cannot continue without having some of the western world core safety net stuff built.  We are not done with the new deal or the new society.  That is why I think I am so fanatic for Hillary.  Krugman said that in his book as well.  

     

    Parent

    This confirms that Donna (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:07:14 PM EST
    wasn't misspeaking.

    We are deep into SDS, People's Temple territory.

    Parent

    Read the Comments (5.00 / 7) (#101)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:46:06 PM EST
    I don't think it's a joke in the ha-ha sense (although at first I thought it had to be).  It's just a joke on working class Americans of all colors.  These folks don't care about them.  They only care about process, not whether that process leads to anything.  Other than their own empowerment of course.

    Parent
    Word. (5.00 / 11) (#131)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:56:12 PM EST
    What I am beginning to hear esp from Bowers is what I think of as Snooty Republicanism.  The Dem Party is now to be the party of privilege, but the party of the privileged that cares about the unprivileged...on an abstract level.  Who is this Party functioning for?  Our goals include helping working people right?  We're not about trickling down...but we're about what exactly?  The working class seeing the light after we destroy them?

    Bowers - ever hear of identity politics?

    What's worrying is not Bowers in and of himself.  He will go on writing in his little corner, having revelations, whatever.  I'm sure he'll believe something completely different four months from now, when the AA-elite coalition isn't working out on its lonesome (because, apparently bloggers flip flop as badly as pols do).  What's worrying is that the Obama campaign vindicates these people and suggests they should continue down this road.  Obama may not condone this en masse throwing of the white working class under the bus - why would he? - but it seems like the tendency of the blog media will be to grow more frustrated with the white working class, and drive them thus further from the party.  They are writing their own chapter of What's the Matter with Kansas - people don't vote for the Dems, though it's in their self interest, because they feel unwanted and insulted.  Greeaaat.

    Parent

    That's what I tend to see as well. (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:02:50 PM EST
    It does sound like a brand of GOP thinking.

    But it's also PSeudo-Marxist in the vangardist reference to the CCs.

    AA-African American
    BB--Bobos
    CC-creative classes

    He'll start calling the workers "Gammas" before too long.

    There's a People's Temple tinge to the way he writes as well.  Unite these factions AA and CC and the revolution begins.  The half cocked dream of a diletante liberal.

    Parent

    But Wait! There's More! (5.00 / 8) (#155)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    Here's the third thing he's celebrating:

    We will see lots of emphasis on non-partisanship, ethics reform, election reform instead of on, say, placating labor unions, environment groups, and the LGBT community by throwing each of these groups a policy bone or two. Now, the focus will be on broad, squishy fixes that are designed to appeal to several groups at once.

    No wonder these people hated the gas tax holiday, it might actually help someone.  I'm all for good government reform, but that's not - in and of itself - going to put food on anyone's table or get anyone access to healthcare. Not that I see much interest in achieving those goals. And we're on the brink of what is probably going to be a brutal recession.  What voter is going to list "election reform" as their first priority.  Again, something that needs to be done, but it's kind of like re-organizing the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking.  

    Parent

    Note he doesn't mention Healthcare reform. (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:12:34 PM EST
    That's just stunning.

    Parent
    And No More Placating Labor Unions (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:16:46 PM EST
    I'm sure the Teamsters will immediately get on board with that.

    Parent
    Ha. Election reform. (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:22:04 PM EST
    That's a funny thing to hear from someone whose candidate is going to be the nominee due to CAUCUSES.

    Parent
    Instead of a secret ballot (none / 0) (#199)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:27:47 PM EST
    lets have the next general be a Caucus?

    That would be quite a reform.

    Parent

    lol!~ I can just see NYC (none / 0) (#227)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:42:56 PM EST
    doing the caucus dance. OY.

    Parent
    Yeah I fit that CC stereotype too. (5.00 / 2) (#257)
    by daria g on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:27:38 PM EST
    I admit it freely and there is nothing wrong with it.  I also know what it is like to be broke and have no health care, and wish I hadn't had to find that out, it was so hard. It is tough in this country and the playing field isn't level.  It is very expensive to be poor and our party should be fighting for everyone to get a good public education, have health care for themselves and their family, have opportunities to get a job that pays enough that if you work honestly and save money, you too can buy a house, raise a family, send your kids to college - you know, the American dream.  For everyone. Heck even if they are Rush Limbaugh dittoheads and buy books from Ann Coulter.  

    If we have a party of creative class elites I fear they will fight for their own interests and benefits only, not for fairness, not to make the American dream possible for all.  I see it right now in much of the "liberal" blogosphere where it is OK for a Democrat to use GOP talking points on Social Security and universal health care, as long as he is cool and gives inspiring speeches.  I know it offends people to say "elites" (and find personally that none are so touchy about this than, um, creative class people) but consider that only a little over one quarter of the people in this country over 25 have a bachelor's degree - I know I'm privileged, but I know where I stand on core Democratic values and that's what matters.  Who gives a crap if Fox News makes fun of me for liking wine and sushi and lattes and arugula.  Brush that off your shoulder and talk about issues that affect people's lives.

    Parent

    I have heard (5.00 / 2) (#258)
    by Leisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:38:56 PM EST
    this elitism blather before.  Yes, they will "rise up" because they think their ideas are superior to the Average American (also known as ones not voting for Obama.  This includes bubba, you , me, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, elderly, 10 -15% of the AA community, many GLBT and very attractive males... and the uneducated).

    The whole idea of "creative class" reeks of self aggrandizement and separation, hence, elitism.

    What concerns me about these ideas is that it makes it easier for someone to justify doing something unethical/illegal/immoral because they think that they "know more" or better than the person/people they are doing it to.  

    Many horrific things can happen when a group of people get together with that mindset.  Never underestimate the corruption a "good education" can buy you.  

    Parent

    The whole thing (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:43:07 PM EST
    is wierd.  They really need to form their own party.  

    And I honestly don't think this coalition will hold, since it's one that can't win.  And when the lose?  The circular firing squad will ensue and instead of separating themselves from us, they'll fracture.

    Just my prediction.

    Parent

    What they are doing is... (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:47:06 PM EST
    ...tempting populists and moderates to leave enmasse and form their own party. Bowers is describing a watered down Middle Party that tricks lefties into voting for it.

    The Liebercrat comment was odd, I'd imagine they are long gone anyway. Joementum left after 9/11.

    Parent

    They Are Totally Unprepared (5.00 / 10) (#111)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:48:43 PM EST
    for what's coming their way.  They really are going to take arugala to a knife fight.  

    With friends like these, Obama will be roadkill by August.

    Parent

    That is simply horrible. (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:45:15 PM EST
    ...where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR.

    First of all, Bowers, Obama is the Liebercrat elite to a tee. Get a freaking clue. His mentor in the Senate WAS JOE LIEBERMAN.

    Second of all, a political party is not a product. You can't just throw a bunch of adjectives together as if you're creating a new soft drink.

    Finally, the overweening arrogance and preening pride are unbearable.

    If Obama is the nominee, I will read Bowers' weeping and gnashing of teeth with the utmost glee.

    And if Clinton is the nominee, I will be cackling at these clueless morons just like nasty, witchy, periodically down HRC.

    Parent

    You missed one -- Obama is not Unitarian! (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    The UCC stands for the United Congregationalist Church, for pity's sake.  The difference is huge.  Unless I missed that along with throwing his reverend under the bus, Obama threw his entire denomination there, too?

    Parent
    Well, that gives us 20% (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by denise on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    of the vote. Where do they plan on getting the other 30+%?

    Parent
    I'm so sick of this "creative class" (5.00 / 8) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:51:55 PM EST
    nonsense.

    It's a ridiculous and meaningless term.

    But I was somewhat please when I was told I don't belong to this class.  In spite of, or perhaps because of, the fact that I actually create things for a living.

    Parent

    Bowers Forgot To Mention One Of The Other (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:55:17 PM EST
    demographics of the A-list blogs. A-list blog communities are predominately male.

    Also, another statistic about educated folks for consideration. In the 2004 election, college educated voters split evenly between Bush and Kerry. Each candidate received 49% of this demographic.

     

    Parent

    PBR? (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by spit on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    Heck, I could be president! Who knew?

    Sounds to me like Bowers and friends think the majority of voters are urban hipsters. They're not.

    Dude needs to get out more.

    I'll even one up him, I eschew the IMO somewhat maliciously corporate Whole Foods for the local natural food co-op. I'm also not silly enough to base an electoral strategy around that kind of thing.

    Parent

    PBR as in Pabst Blue Ribbon?! (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST


    Parent
    I just went and read Bowers' post (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by cygnus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:05:10 PM EST
    "Bad Parody" doesn't begin to descrbe its utter idiocy.  I commented that I preferred a Soylent Green future to a Chris Bowers one.  

    They've gone completely off the rails there.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:05:59 PM EST
    that is absolutely the most arrogant thing I have ever read. One thing to think about though is that Bowers has been truly clueless about the electoral landscape in the past. He was writing posts about how Howard Dean was going to do this and that and was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Creative class bloggers have a real knack for picking losing candidates.

    When Obama loses the GE do the regular people get to run the party again?

    I think you were mainly right about it being about the old coalition rising its head again. These are the new McGovernicks. They'll disappear when it's time to pick up the pieces.

    Parent

    But We Don't Have Time To Pick Up the Pieces (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:13:19 PM EST
    We have a major recession looming, a law-breaking executive to clean up after, corporate looting of government funds, a drug war that isn't working, two real wars that aren't working, and a GOP slime machine headed our way.

    We do not have time to fix the Democratic party after these idiots break it.  And to be clear, I'm not referring to all Obama supporters, I mean these folks who care more about process than they do about getting the government working to provide services.

    Parent

    On Public Policy (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:09:59 PM EST
    On Public Policy:  The Samantha Power kind of people.  What in god's name not overtly leftist mean?  to me that is why I cannot support them.  These are neocons but of the left variety.   University of Chicago, Kristol et. al.  The people who brought us Iraq and Katrina.  

    It will all be very oriented toward think-tank and academic types, and be reminiscent of policy making in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. A sort of "technocratic liberalism" that will be less infuriating than DLC style governance, but still not overtly leftist.

    This is exactly what scares me about these people.  There will be no healthcare.  They will all get jobs doing studies and making decisions and no one will deliver a single program that gets anything for poeple.  They will be processing.  

    Parent

    Unitarianism?? (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by AmyinSC on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:13:45 PM EST
    No, he is NOT a Unitarian - he is a member of the United Church of Christ.  Admittedly, there is an old joke by Unitarians that "UCC" stands for "Unitarians Considering Christ", but there is a BIG difference between the two denominations (oh, did I mention that I'm a Unitarian Universalist minister?).  Just sayin', for clarity's sake...

    Parent
    Thanks, and apologies for my post (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:30:11 PM EST
    above that didn't get the denominational name quite correct, in my astonishment at the statement -- but I know enough (as a Presbyterian) to know that, as you say, UCC'ers are far, far from Unitarians!  

    Parent
    I got a party for Bowers (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:28:35 PM EST
    it's the Republican Party!
    They don't care about working class folks either!
    Head over to the GOP, Chris.
    They're waiting for you.

    Parent
    Chris Bowers is describing the McGovern ... (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:37:01 PM EST
    coalition that saw a 49 state defeat even with an unpopular war and and unpopular President.  This is so what the Dems will get if Obama is elected.

    I'm so sorry that I sound like a broken record.  but, as many have noted, these guys have no clue, no sense of history and certainly show their elitist and classist attitudes!

     

    Parent

    My God (5.00 / 5) (#220)
    by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:39:46 PM EST
    I have to apologize to you.  I clicked the link simply because I couldn't believe you were accurately quoting an A-list blogger.  I'm just floored.

    I've always believed that latte-drinkers like myself joined the Democratic Party because we believe the regular, working-class guy or gal deserves a fair shake that they don't get when the oligarchs are in charge.  It's a do-gooder mentality, I guess, but I cop to it.

    And now the do-gooders have taken over the party to such an extent that there's no longer any room for the folks they set out to do good for.  Yes, sometimes we're at odds because the working-class voters can be more culturally conservative at times.  But without them, why do we even have a party?  To fight for net neutrality?

    Parent

    I Know! /Monica (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:01:53 PM EST
    When I read the quote from Oxycon (who I should've h/t) at Corrente, I didn't believe it either.  I thought it was a bad parody.  I guess the joke's on me.  And my working class family back in Indiana and Tennessee.

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by chrisvee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:46:21 PM EST
    I'm a wine-sipping, WF-shopping, creative classer and I'm finding myself offended by what Bowers has written. I may sound silly and naive but I thought we were the party of social and economic justice, protecting the powerless and giving voice to the forgotten.  This sounds like some sort of battle between the haves and the have mores, all of whom think they know what's best for the rest of the country.

    Are we on the verge of some momentous politial realignment here?  This isn't my mother's Democratic Party anymore.

    Parent

    That is so offensive (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by daria g on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:01:21 PM EST
    What kind of liberal values is it to not even WANT entire groups of people to be part of your political party? How is that even democratic?

    Oddly enough the vogue for PBR (Pabst Blue Ribbon, though I hear the NYC hipsters are moving to different brands now.. Michelob, maybe) is completely driven by the creative class trying to act like some idealized stereotype of a working class person. Hardly anyone drank it until it became a hipster fad.. and part of a larger trend of posing as authentically blue collar.. so long as you have a white collar salary and benefits. But funny that, Chris Bowers evidently doesn't want to actually ask for blue collar votes, have them in his political party, and doesn't seem much interested about economic justice and universal health care.

    Obama went and had a beer the other day at an event and, of course, got a PBR.  Trying to appeal to blue collar voters I guess, but that's a total hipster beer. And sort of going out of fashion - and if politics to you is about being cool, and that's Bowers' new coalition, it's only a matter of (short) time before the creative class people eat their own trying to be cooler than each other and kicking the uncool to the curb.

    Parent

    Oh, he didn't did he? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:39:27 PM EST
    Dukakis, Kerry, McGovern, Mondale were more or less the same as Obama's "shift"

    Unless there's a miracle, Obama can only win with that sliver that LBJ, Carter and Clinton got to vote our way.

    If Bowers is wrong--it's a catastrophe.

    Parent

    They Won't Have to Smear Obama as an Elitist (5.00 / 10) (#92)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    His supporters will gladly scream it from every roof-top.

    And I ask again, were these people always this stupid and I never noticed because I agreed with them about Bush?

    Parent

    Antiwar sentiment doesn't (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:48:35 PM EST
    make a viable political party.

    Parent
    They were always this stupid. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    And a lot of us on the left DID notice.

    Parent
    Power anger at it's best (none / 0) (#109)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Do you mean that he is SERIOUS? nt (none / 0) (#137)
    by seeker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:58:30 PM EST


    Parent
    The superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by cygnus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    aren't going to be swayed by electability arguments. Why should they care?  President John McCain is no threat to their positions within the Democratic Party. But an angry mob of unhappy Obama supporters? Now that's scary!

    they were created (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:46:52 PM EST
    to care about things like electability and forestall mob rule.

    Parent
    Of course they are (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:57:25 PM EST
    now succuming to the mob.

    Ironic.

    Parent

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by honora on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    The reason that Obama has not won is that many SDs are praying for cover to go with Clinton.  Many SDs are politicians and they know that Obama will be creamed.  If you are in congress or in state government, the difference between being on the outside looking in and being in power is huge.  Pelosi , Kerry and Kennedy may believe that they will be the power behind an Obama throne and are gambling.

    Parent
    What I want to know: (none / 0) (#160)
    by seeker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    Does Hillary have something ready to go that could significantly change the game, not including large wins in KY & WV, and a win in PR--maybe OR, but as an Oregonian I doubt it.  

    Considering her debt, and her seeming conviction in proceeding, it seems to me that she sees a real possibility of pulling it out.  Maybe challenges to some of the caucuses, but is that enough?

    What might there be that is and, perhaps, cannot be made public?  Any speculation out there?  Or am I being delusional?

    Parent

    You are not being delusional (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:37:00 PM EST
    Yes, there is something out there.  I don't know what it is, but I sure wish I did.  A friend and I have been following the clues about this for a couple months now.  The political media and the politicians all know what it is, and I'm confident that's why the SDs are holding back.  I'm certain that's why Pelosi, Reid et al did that 180 a few months ago after trying to push Hillary out and then suddenly changed their minds all at once overnight and have consistently been saying right up to today that she should not get out.

    I've now heard a fair number of well-connected media types, like Joe Scarborough, Joe Klein, David Gregory, David Gergen, etc., acknowledge there's -- direct quote -- "something out there" that the Hillary people are confident will kill Obama's candidacy, no matter how many pledged delegates he's got when it breaks.

    I say again, I have zero clue what this is (and it's driving me crazy!), but I'm certain there is something everybody is waiting for.  Obama thinks maybe he can survive it, but only if he's already won the nomination or HRC has dropped out by the time it hits.

    The Hillary people appear to believe whatever this is will come out around mid-June, so my best guess is some kind of pre-scheduled publication in a major and highly credible magazine.

    There was some talk earlier on that the Hillary people were debating revealing this themselves (so-called "nuclear option"), despite the damage the would incur from doing it, but I'm not hearing those suggestions anymore.

    Take all with a grain of salt, however, because political media people live and work in a miasma of rumors and insider gossip 24/7, some of it true, some of it not true.

    Parent

    I think the final strategy ... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    would be to force it to a second ballot in Denver.

    If a relatively small number of Super Delegates vote for a third candidate this could be achieved.

    Parent

    What amazes me (none / 0) (#222)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    and consistently amazes me is how people can vote for Obama in Oregon after that mailer he sent out that was such a cut and paste job (you know, the one where claimed Lake Erie was in Oregon & talked about helping the PA veterans).  Guess the CDS is strong in Oregon.

    Parent
    For the Dems to win in November (5.00 / 8) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:46:15 PM EST
    the nominee needs to carry Catholics, Hispanics-Latinos, older voters and women. Arnone again:

    Unlike African-Americans or younger voters who have voted steadfastly for the Democratic Presidential ticket in recent elections, Catholics, Hispanics-Latinos, older voters and women have tended to vote less Democratic in recent Presidential elections. In the 2004 Presidential election, the Democratic Party suffered significant losses of support among each of these four critical constituent groups.
    i got an email from big dog today. (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    he was writing about being the comeback kid. i think bill is encouraging her to stay in the race. i wonder what lou dobs is doing with this.

    Parent
    I am beginning to like good ol' Lou, he is (none / 0) (#143)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:01:41 PM EST
    trashing the Dem Elite

    Parent
    yup he has been taking them to task and (none / 0) (#250)
    by hellothere on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:56:44 PM EST
    rightly so. another thing i like about him is that he doesn't let the commenters on there get away with anything.

    Parent
    That's the gamble. (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by pie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:59:50 PM EST
    They figure those groups will vote dem in this election after eight years of Bush.  Listen to the issues being talked about: immigration, Social Security, Roe v Wade.  The thinking is that a dem will address these better.

    Now they've pissed off a lot of those people for different reasons.

    Good luck in November.

    Parent

    A Couple Of Problems With That Scenario (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:19:28 PM EST
    Obama has put Social Security on the table and he has been very wishy washy about choice. I don't trust Obama on either issue.

    Parent
    The irony of the 'problem' (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:47:05 PM EST
    Is that in winning Obama the nomination, it cost him the GE.

    Dawning tin foil hat (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:54:21 PM EST
    Putting on my tinfoil cap to ask a question:

    Do you think it's coincidental that the Democrats scheduled their convention so that the last day (and I presume the OBAMA nomination day) coincides with the 25th anniversary of the MLK "I Have a Dream" speech?  After all, they moved the convention to this day, a convention that had always previously been held in July (in years when Republicans hold the White House).

    It would be nauseatingly cynical if it weren't so cute. LOL.

    Electoral map or no electoral map, voters or no voters, I think they knew who they were going to nominate all along.  Making sure FL and MI didn't count, was a way of making that happen, and who cares about winning?

    okay, I'll take off the tinfoil now.

    Well, the first full day, August 26 (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:35:09 PM EST
    is Women's Equality Day -- annually by presidential proclamation -- as the anniversary of the 19th Amendment.  Aka the only Constitutional amendment written by a woman, Susan B. Anthony.  (I still like to call it the Susan B. Anthony Amendment as suffragists did, until it got a number.)

    So let's celebrate the heck outa that.  We need another Million Woman March for Women's Lives a la 2004.  If not a march on Denver or on Washington -- let's organize marches in every city a la the first Women's Equality Day in 1970, the 50th anniversary of the amendment.

    Oh, and let's be sure to sing happy birthday that day across the land -- to the first woman ever on a major-party ballot, Gerry Ferraro. :-)

    Parent

    Okay ;-). (none / 0) (#221)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:40:31 PM EST


    Parent
    you may be correct (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Electoral Map (5.00 / 8) (#125)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    versus delegate math is the only current argument she has.  She lost the momentum argument, unfortunately.

    I think I'm seeing that the remaining SDs are paying attention to the absolute loyalty and ire of the women who have backed Hillary, and they are on the same page.  Hillary will make the decision as to when it's over.

    So this new discussion by her campaign is mostly a morale booster for her supporters and for voters.  

    I've been checking out a lot of blogs today, and the emotions and anger are sky-high.  The same statement is being made on many blogs as here, that her supporters feel booted out by the antics of Pelosi, Dean, Brazile, etc., and they are talking about pulling out of the party altogether.  I had thought most women would not go so far, but the anger is deep, and it's about the perceived sexism that has been going on non-stop.

    The cork has popped.  

    I Don't Think It Is Just The Anger Of Women (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    that Obama needs to worry about. The working class folks have been hearing for months the distain that Obama's campaign (clinggate and Axelrod) and his supporters on TV and in print have for them. Many of them are getting real, real tired of hearing that they are racists, uneducated, looked down on and not particurly valued. Not sure that Obama can walk that dog back.

    Also, I'm sure the Republicans have a large file of all these remarks ready to remind working class people just what has been said about them.

    Parent

    The World's Anger (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cate on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:19:38 PM EST
    Obama's EGO takes a turn on CNN with Wolf this afternoon:

    "The world wants to see the United States lead. They've been disappointed and disillusioned over the last seven, eight years," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

    I am not so sure sentiment will be well received by the World at large....

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#230)
    by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:43:46 PM EST
    I'm sure the world hopes for better out of us, but the general sentiment is probably that we've done a little too MUCH "leading" and not enough "following."  One of the guiding principles of the Bush Republicans is that disregarding international norms (i.e. doing the opposite of what the French want) is practically an end in itself.

    We talk about the US "leading" on issues like climate change, etc., but the reality is that even in the best-case scenario we're going to be one of the last to the table.

    Parent

    It's possible that it is deliberate. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:02 PM EST
    They may feel their only way to win is to grab upper middle class voters BY offending working class Donkeys.  That reassures teh Upper middle class that Obama is not going to Rock the Boat, but will instead do something much cooler---Barack the Boat.  He'll give the proles nothing, he'll give the AAs nothing.

    Parent
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:16:39 PM EST
    that anger can be channeled into turnout in the rest of the primary. They can certainly make their displeasure known with their votes.

    Parent
    Yet, not another word was (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:56:13 PM EST
    said about it once the final numbers were turned over. Same thing has happened on all the other episodes of questionable behaviors and tactics.
    and it's a fallacy to believe (5.00 / 7) (#134)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    all Obama's "Dems for a day" will vote for him or any Dem in Nov.
    After all, Obama assured them could vote for him in the primary and
    the GOP nominee in Nov.
    Obama has spent more effort on process and Obama Girls than policies - which he basically copied from Hillary and Edwards.
    Copied and diluted. nt (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by seeker on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:17:23 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama has it in the bag. He has (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:59:48 PM EST
    an Irish ancestor:  LA TIMES

    Well, Clinton is from the First People (none / 0) (#231)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:43:46 PM EST
    in this country, or at least when we were part of the same country as Canada -- she has French Canadian ancestry intermarried with Native Americans (many, many hundreds of years ago, of course).

    So I think that a descendant of the First People  here should go first to the White House, huh?

    Parent

    Yes, but will the Irish-American voters? (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:47:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Think........repost (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by Mrwirez on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:04:28 PM EST
    As I have stated before on this site, I am an IBEW union electrician from Pittsburgh, and as a whole we are 80-85% Democrat as most union construction workers are. Most nonunion construction workers are NOT Democrat, because of Associated Builders and Contractors (the ABC), an anti-union entity that competes with the unions for large jobs, and are backed by the Republicans- (think union busters). As the Obama and Clinton campaigns rolled through here 2 weeks ago, 75% of the people I talked to were for Clinton. Now as the end for Hillary is near I can not find ONE person that will vote for Barack Obama in the general election. I have been asking about 150-200 guys this week who they would support in the GE if it is Obama vs. McCain. About 50% NOW say McCain and the rest said they would leave "president" blank and vote the remaining ticket Democrat or they will just not vote at all. The state of PA will be RED in November, even though our Union leaders will use our money and send us fliers telling us to vote for Obama, these guys will not do it. PA voted 51-49 for John Kerry, a white war hero with local ties to Heinz ketchup. PA will be a RED state with Obama.

    I personally do not like Obama, he is neither hope nor change, they have painted the Clintons as racists, he is inexperienced and is not qualified to be President. I also believe Michele Obama is VERY racist, anyone read her thesis? I will also leave "president" blank, but support the down ticket Dem candidates to help cancel out McCain.

    Obama is another McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry type LOSER candidate that the Democrats insist on running. Gore could have won if Donna Brazile would have used Bill Clinton for campaigning instead of hiding him, or if Gore had carried his home state.

     The super delegates need to grow some testicles and put forth the STRONGEST Democratic candidate against John McCain....... That is Hillary Clinton. Obama winning all those western/republican states is bull$hit He simply can not win. Does anyone really believe Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida will be blue with Barack Obama? The only true swing state he has won was Illinois his own state against a democrat.... Besides, I have also heard racist remarks such as , I will not put a "N-word" in the white house, as sad as it is, it's out there, everywhere. I truly believe racism will not permit him to win.

    Democrats...... Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...... Or as As Yogi Berra used to say "it's deja vu all over again".

    I am tempted to let teh Dems (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:17:06 PM EST
    allow McCain to kick them in the teeth.

    The sort of philosophy I hear Brazile talking about, the comments by Bowers above.

    Yep, let Obama have it, go ahead Obama-mano a mano with McCain and really teach these guys a lesson about politics.

    Parent

    It's sad (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:49:04 PM EST
    It's not just that Democrats always find a way to screw it up.  It's that it's always the SAME screwup!

    The office wingnut was taunting me today, telling me how it's going to be exactly like Dukakis all over again.  There's nothing more I want than to prove him wrong, but I really don't know that that's the smart way to bet.

    Parent

    call the DNC (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by karen for Clinton on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:06:26 PM EST
    And let them know what is on your minds, I know I sure feel better, I had just a few things to get out of my system.

    877-336-7200 DNC operators are there now recording your thoughts to deliver.

    Ahhhhh, what a great feeling to get that out.

    I told them, among many other things... the day obama becomes the shooed in nominee I will switch to an Independent.

    In November I will leave the presidential slot open since I cannot vote for either McCain or Obama, but I will vote downticket for the other deserving democrats as always for 32 years.

    I also told them to not count on my donations this year, Michigan and Florida, magic number, loser dems for obama, Brazile and so much more.

    ahhhhh, I really do feel better!

    Here's something to think about (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:18:36 PM EST
    Clinton won in caucus states 113 delegates.  Obama won in caucus states 266 delegates.  I didn't include the Texas caucus in my tally.  The advantage he gained due to caucuses is within the rules of the process, but it also helps present a misleading picture of how he will perform in Nov.  The margin between Obama and Clinton is 154 delegates total.  The margin between their caucus performances is 153 delegates.  Again, not including Texas.  The reason Obama is winning is his performance in caucuses.

    Just something to think about.  Turning caucus victories into GE victories is going to require a little imagination.  Turning his (sometimes close) primary losses into GE victories is going to require imagination as well.  

    Question:  BTD says demographics are destiny.  Do caucuses follow the same rules?

    These numbers are telling (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by chancellor on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:16 PM EST
    If I were Hillary, I would borrow a leaf from Elizabeth Edwards' recent speeches about the irresponsibility of the press in covering this race. At this point, at every opportunity, Hillary needs to stand in front of voters and ask, "Do you want the press to determines who wins this contest or do you want to vote your hearts for the candidate you truly want to be President?" This should also be the argument for every Hillary phonebanker: Don't let the media take your vote away.

    I thought the same thing when I read Edwards's (none / 0) (#233)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    op ed in the NYT.  

    Parent
    Slightly OT (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:18 PM EST
    and I don't want to sound like a concern troll, b/c anybody who's read my posts here over the past couple of months knows I'm not - but I'm disgusted at the way the media is now dismissing Hillary as if she's not in the race anymore.

    Goddess help me, I was watching O'Reilly's interview of McCain on Fox and it totally focused on how McCain would beat Obama in the GE.  No mention of Hillary.  And this after her awesome interview on The Factor last week.  

    Well, I always knew I couldn't trust the MSM, but I'm thoroughly disgusted with their dismissive attitude. I totally expect them not to give WV and KY proper coverage.

    Bleh.

    Unfortunately ... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM EST
    ..for Hillary she needed to see Obama's support among AAs drop to around 80%.   Instead it solidified and rose a few percentage points to 93%.

    If Obama denouncing Wright couldn't pry AAs loose shes sunk.


    Parent

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:39:24 PM EST
    but it would be nice if they'd postpone the funeral until the body is cold.

    Plus, there are very legitimate concerns about Obama's performance with women, working class folks, Latinos, Jews, Catholics, LGBT's.  His AA and latte liberal coalition may win him the primary battle, but it'll lose him the election war.  That's a legitimate argument to the SD's - not that I expect it to do any good.

    Parent

    As I haven't been able to go near (none / 0) (#218)
    by suisser on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    the MSM since Tues night, I've been wondering if HRC was getting shut out, not just by the media pundits, but if her existence on the campaign trail was also being obliterated?

    Parent
    I haven't watched too much either (none / 0) (#229)
    by stillife on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:43:39 PM EST
    Joe Scarborough said nice things about "his girlfriend" on MSNBC (saw it on Youtube) but aside from that I've been avoiding the news until I tuned into O'Reilly tonight.  

    My sense, from my limited viewing, is that they are phasing her out.  I can't help but wonder, how much different would it have been if they'd called IN for her early in the evening.  I watched a bit of TDS last night and Jon Stewart (whom I've come to dislike quite a bit) opined that there was "no issue" with the late reporting of Lake County IN.  I guess it's just Hillary being a sore loser again, like Gore was in 2000.

    Parent

    Thanks for proving my point (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:22:11 PM EST
    by branding (yet again) the Clintons as racist.

    Big difference (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:23:40 PM EST
    She is talking demographics which everyone in the media has done all day every day of this campaign.  She didn't say a racist word.

    Please try again.

    Good To See TL Full Of Hopeful Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:31:01 PM EST
    supporters again, full of hope, piss and vinegar....GO HILLARY....glad you are all back!!

    Just called the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by just victory on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:35:24 PM EST
    Karen--thanks for the number. I just called them and politely expressed my thoughts. I urge everyone else to do so. My spouse and I each sent a donation to the Clinton campaign today as well.

    I looked at the electoral map earlier today, (5.00 / 3) (#234)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:45:04 PM EST
    wondering if it had gone upside-down since Tuesday - I mean, the message from the media is that she's lost and he's won, she should get out so he can cruise to November.

    Imagine my surprise to see that Hillary is at 291 electoral votes against McCain, with 11 up in the air, and Obama is at 263, with 11 up in the air.  She could cede those 11 votes to McCain and still win - he would have to have them in order to beat McCain.

    I've found myself not just being angry because of what the media are saying, but because I used to be someone who soaked up information like a sponge - listening and watching and reading from all kinds of sources - and now I am like a media ostrich - I don't watch the news, I don't read political news in the magazines, have crossed off a slew of blogs.  I'm here.  Pretty much, period.  I read Think Progress because it's about the only other place for real information.

    If I happen to catch a snippet of news - like I did last night - I shriek at the TV; if I lived in a neighborhood, I'd probably be yelling at the kids to get off my lawn.  Sigh.

    These people are, I'm sorry to say, idiots, if they cannot see that the writing on the wall spells disaster if Obama is the nominee.

    And Chris Bowers has lost his mind if he thinks that that snotty, elitist, we're-too-cool, shoulder-brushing dismissal of the heart and soul of the Democratic Party is going to elect his precious Obama.

    D@mn them - it's getting to the point where it would serve them right to be left with a party of full-of-themselves egomaniacs who would so quickly get on each other's nerves that it would be Lord of the Flies in about 10 minutes.

    Feh (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    don't let the media get you down. I watched the news last night. My husband usually is affected by the news to the point of "hillary can't win" but it didn't affect him last night. As long as she stays in she is sending the message that she can win. These idiots think that if she drops out all of Obama's problems are going to disappear. The truth of the matter is that Obama's problems are only starting.

    Parent
    Tonight for music (5.00 / 3) (#238)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    Dixie Chics:  Not Ready to Make Nice.  

    The Bowers article sounded like Obama had some overwhelming victory.  Did I miss something.  Half of the Democrats do not want him.  

    The problem with this arguement (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:19:31 PM EST
    is that both canidates already have GE polling that shows they can beat McCain, and both canidates would get an additional uptick once nominated. It is not like Obama is polling badly against McCain.

    I think Hilary needed to pull really close with pledged delegates, say within 30-50, and win the popular vote to have an appealing arguement for SD's.

    She tried really hard but failed at that. Time to focus on McCain.

    What polls? Not the ones (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:57 PM EST
    like Gallup, which shows either essentially ties McCain, i.e., only a point ahead so well within the MOE.  Not others I've seen.  Internals?  Well, then every other pollster disagrees.  No Dem has a walk on this yet.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    a true Obama believer wouldn't bother
    to try and mess with true Hillary believers.
    What is your motivation, as they used
    to say in acting class?

    Parent
    No it is not. (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:26:04 PM EST
    Just because the Obama Campaign plans to declare that he is the nominee on May 20th does not mean that he has actually won.

    Sorta like how George Bush landing on an aircraft carrier in May a few years back and declaring "Mission Accomplished" didn't mean the war was over.

    The arrogance and sense of entitlement emanating from the Obama campaign, his supporters and his media enablers continues to amaze and infuriate me.

    Parent

    Someone (none / 0) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    either here or on another list talked about photoshopping a aircraft carrier photo complete with Mission Accomplished banner.  Was that you?.

    I should sit down and do it, unless someone already has.  It would be a perfect viral picture.

    Parent

    Here ya go: (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by jen on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:34 PM EST
    Mission Accomplished?

    h/t New Hampster

    Parent

    OMG (none / 0) (#196)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:25:31 PM EST
    That is hysterical.  He looks so strange with Bushian hair too.

    Parent
    It might have been :) (none / 0) (#112)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:50:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Tone (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:22:40 PM EST
    She tried really hard but failed at that. Time to focus on McCain.

    Ok, as you can see, we don't buy that the show is over.  So, please don't be so condescending.  

    Parent

    leftyagogo (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    you have left 30 comments here today -- your first day on the site. Please come back tomorrow, and no more than 10.

    Parent
    See (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    BTD's post down. Obama is not going to win the general election. It looks like he's going to lose by about 10 pts. to McCain.

    Parent
    Straight National Head To Head Polling Maybe (none / 0) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:43:01 PM EST
    Electoral maps (based on state by state polls) are showing a different  picture. With Obama either tied are behind McCain and Clinton over the 270 threshold.

    Parent
    polling this far out means absolutely nothing. n/t (none / 0) (#249)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST


    Parent
    There is no chance (none / 0) (#62)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    that New Jersey is a swing state.

    I live here.  I have a lot of Republican and Democratic friends.  And whenever I bring up the Presidential election to my Republican friends their face turns glum and they start talking about 2012.

    The Democratic nominee will win by 10 here without breaking a sweat.

    I don't understand how the Clinton campaign can, in one moment, suggest that the Democrat is going to win no matter what and then, in the next, suggest that it is going to be a slugfest in the swing states.

    I agree, I think NJ goes blue. (none / 0) (#76)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:36:55 PM EST
    But what about PA, OH and WV and KY and...

    not so much.

    Parent

    What do you want Clinton to say? (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:42:19 PM EST
    I have won the swing states, and thus without me the Dem Party will lose in the fall?  You'd hate it if she said that.

    It's always a slugfest in the swing states.  That's why they are swing states.

    Parent

    Obama will lose NJ (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:04:35 PM EST
    without some major campaign retooling.

    And he could blow as much as $60 million in losing it.

    Hillary would win it handily, and spend very little money to do it.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#66)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:32:33 PM EST
    McAuliffe's statements are scaring the cr*p out of me. Am I overreacting?  I feel like it's a set-up for her to get out of the race.  Help me out, 'cuz I'm not understanding why he'd say that.

    He's (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:34:17 PM EST
    just saying that they'll have a nominee after all the voting is done. It's pretty much been that way for a while now.

    Parent
    And That's Always the Way It Was Going To Be (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:36:48 PM EST
    Hillary was never going to take this to the convention.  Or rather, there was always going to be a presumptive nominee after the voting was done.  If that presumptive nominee is Republican roadkill by the time August rolls around, then we could see interesting maneuvers at the convention.

    Parent
    Me, too (none / 0) (#82)
    by Davidson on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:40:05 PM EST
    I thought she would take this to Denver if MI and FL weren't legitimized.  However, it seems she's all but quitting after June.  I can't express how depressing that is.

    Nothing will change from June to August that will have the Democratic "leadership" basically take back the nomination of the first black candidate.  If people still foolishly believe that Obama has a chance in the GE now--after putting MA in play!--there's no reasoning with them.

    Totally demoralized here.

    Parent

    The committee (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    to seat the delegates from MI and FL is meeting on May 31st. They want to release the delegates. That's why Obama is in such a hurry to declare himself the winner after Oregon.

    Parent
    only for the curious (none / 0) (#224)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:41:55 PM EST
    I just wonder what this would look like - a U.S. map identifying U.S. House districts and states won by Hillary or Obama.
    Districts = House reps
    States = U.S. senators

    It must exist. (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:50:49 PM EST


    Parent
    electoral math? (none / 0) (#236)
    by diogenes on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:47:05 PM EST
    If it's all about the electoral math then why not dispense with all these primaries and have the superdelegates pick the most "electable" candidate.  Nine times out of ten it'll be someone like Sam Nunn or Casey of Pennsylvania, and we'll never see a left wing president again.

    You've never seen one (none / 0) (#244)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:52:17 PM EST
    Teh Supers are not going to choose Clinton.

    They are terrified.

    Parent

    Heck (none / 0) (#247)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    maybe we were better off when they didn't let the voters decide. You certainly could make a case for that since the candidates we had that came out of smoke filled rooms have done better electorally.

    Parent
    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#248)
    by angie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:55:03 PM EST
    Bless your heart, are you giving lessons now? How about explaining your intentional cutting of the comments policy to pretend that the definition of a chatterer is one "who disagrees with TL."  But no, much better to try (emphasis on try) to insult me -- but I would expect that coming from you -- you are the guy/girl who defended KO's comment that a SD needed to take Hillary into a room only he walk out because KO was a "former sportscaster," right?


    Flavia vs. Cavuto (none / 0) (#252)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:57:55 PM EST
    Flavia has been one of the most distasteful of the Obama supporters.  Cavuto really handed it to her today.   (ok..ok..look where we have to go to get fairness)

    electoral polling (none / 0) (#259)
    by diogenes on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    At this time in 2002 Bill Clinton was running third; maybe the dems should have nominated Ross Perot?

    The Electoral Map vs. the Primary Map | 244 comments (244 topical)