Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pa. Results Renew Debate About Democrats & Red States

By Dan Balz
Barack Obama's campaign team moved quickly Wednesday to keep driving the narrative that their candidate remains the inevitable Democratic nominee, despite Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania, and the strongest candidate in November. What they are arguing is that Obama's unconventional appeal is actually the safest choice for the Democrats in 2008.

Campaign manager David Plouffe, in a conference call with reporters, laid out the delegate numbers that still heavily favor Obama, arguing that she will need to win 57 percent of the remaining delegates just to cut Obama's lead to 100. He also sought to debunk fears that another big-state loss for Obama should be regarded by superdelegates as a sign of potential weakness in the general election.

The core of his argument is that, her victories in big states not withstanding, Obama and Clinton are running about the same against John McCain in some of the traditional general election battlegrounds, but that Obama is uniquely positioned to expand the electoral map in ways that Clinton cannot. That, he said, will give Democrats more ways to win the presidency.

This is a discussion likely to dominate Democratic circles over the next few weeks as the nomination battle continues in Indiana, North Carolina and beyond. Absent a pair of Obama victories on May 6, Clinton will be in this race through June 3. Obama likely will be ahead but still somewhat short of the majority needed to win the nomination. At that point, the verdict will rest in the hands of the superdelegates, and both campaigns are now playing to them.

Which is the riskier course for the Democrats? Embracing Clinton's traditional constituency, well-established electoral map and potential for polarizing effect -- or Obama's new electorate, revised map and relative inexperience? Clinton will argue that she has demonstrated strength with key general election constituencies -- working class whites, Roman Catholics and women. Obama will argue that his appeal to younger voters and independents gives him strength against McCain that Clinton cannot match.

Let's look at both sides of this argument. Obama's change-oriented campaign has followed a far less conventional path. His strategy has been to find and inspire new voters. In the primaries and caucuses, Obama and his team have known from the very start that, to the degree to which the elections turned on traditional Democratic voters, Clinton would have a clear advantage.

That certainly helped him in Iowa, perhaps his most important victory of the campaign, and was critical to his strategy in those caucuses and primaries in states that have long voted Republican in general elections.

Plouffe projected that strategy forward to the general election Wednesday in making the case that Obama, despite primary losses in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, is a far stronger candidate than Clinton in traditionally Republican states like Virginia and Colorado and in some of the most closely divided general election battlegrounds like Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.

Plouffe said it is a "flawed exercise" to extrapolate from the primaries to how a candidate will do in the general election. It may be equally flawed to look at hypothetical general election match-ups taken in April as an indicator of how voters will behave in November, but nonetheless, the Obama campaign is relying heavily on such numbers to argue that those red and purple states may well be Obama country in the fall.

Obama certainly has more appeal in some of those western states than Clinton. More than polls tell us that. Endorsements from red-state Democrats like Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius testify to their belief that Obama would be a far strong nominee to lead the ticket in their states than Clinton.

But does that mean Obama can carry those states in the general election? Some Democrats, particularly pro-Clinton Democrats are skeptical. Rick Sloan of the Machinists union, which is strongly in Clinton's camp, argued earlier this week that Obama is asking Democrats to believe that he can overturn long-established voting habits in some of these states.

"His biggest vulnerability is the Electoral College," Sloan said. "His belief that his message can transcend the voting behavior of four decades means he will waste millions of dollars and precious time trying to turn dark red states light blue."

Clinton wants Democrats to believe that, despite her negatives, that she is the safe and steady choice. She can point to her success with white working class voters. Although Obama spent more than $11 million on television ads in Pennsylvania, he failed to move the meter with white voters who do not have a college degree. Clinton won them by 44 points in Ohio, and by 40 points in Pennsylvania.

The same is true of white Roman Catholics, one of the most important swing constituencies in the electorate. In Ohio, Clinton won them by 31 points, in Pennsylvania by about 40 points.

The Obama campaign argues that these Democratic primary voters will stick with the party's nominee in November, whether it's Clinton or Obama. But the exit polls from Pennsylvania suggest there could be substantial defections among white, downscale voters if Obama is at the top of the ticket.

Both Obama and Clinton have proven to be extremely strong candidates whose coalitions have been, with the exception of a couple of states, extraordinarily durable. That's why the race goes on. But the process has shown that each has limitations and vulnerabilities and they would have to pursue different strategies to win the general election. Democratic leaders will be weighing the risks as they anxiously look for clarity in the coming primaries.

By Web Politics Editor  |  April 23, 2008; 4:03 PM ET
Categories:  Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Washington Sketch: The Neverending Primary
Next: No Novelty to Obama's Weakness with Blue-Collar Pa. Dems

Comments

Hillary Clinton using hormone therapy? I would guess. Nuke Iran, god fearing man, or women? Man you people are screwed, unless you speak out and vote. I do mean all you uneducated hicks. Sorry, but that's what the Holier and mightier than god are saying about the rest of the USA. So she wants a debate. I must ask you why? She will be the down fall of Democrats and the USA. May any God Bless the people.

Posted by: justadad55 | April 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

neocons for Hillary,

I love your message, keep posting on this site and many others, maybe her supporters will open thier eyes, well atleast, some them anyway. Her George Bush Neocon supporters will not be swayed, but her common sense supporters will... Thanks so much your message if powerful, keep it up...

Posted by: la82 | April 24, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

People make it seem if you dont vote for Obama you are a closet racist. I voted for Hillary and I am nowhere near a racist. I grew up in South Central Los Angeles and the majority of my friends are black. I just feel that Hillary is better on policy issues and is a better candidate in the general election. Dont make this a contest about race and make it about the issues. Every Obama supporter i debate with has limited knowledge of his policy that is different than Hillary but know he stands for change. That is so lame. DO YOUR HOMEWORK and research before you vote us into a loss in November!

Posted by: Jesse R | April 24, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Hispaa:

There's no good reason to vote for Hillary unless you want a president who constantly "misspeaks". How will you know when she's "misspeaking" and when she's telling the truth?

Go to: http://www.paulvclinton.com for a dose of the truth.

Posted by: msmart2 | April 24, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

You have only to read the comments by Obama supporters which insult Hillary Clinton to understand why many Democrats will be voting for John McCain.
Party leaders, if you can ascribe that title to Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will save the party by nominating Barack Obama and lose the White House for another eight years. Bill Clinton won the White House by moving to the center and not to the far left.

Posted by: Fred C Dobbs | April 24, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

So what was that again about Bush alienating the world?

Maybe the next time you Democrats insist on their old canard about Bush being hated, they can get out a map and see who's left. Right now, they have no one, apart from a few anti-American dictators.

Democrats have hammered the Bush administration for supposedly losing allies and global standing. But a look at U.S. ties shows Bush to be a master diplomat who is strengthening U.S. relations all over.

As for me, it's McCain '08, and thank you to George W Bush - the BEST PRESIDENT OF THE USA EVER.

Posted by: John | April 24, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

While McCain languished in a North Vietnamese prison cell from 1967 to 1973, Obama's friend Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground bombed NYPD headquarters in June 1970, the U.S. Capitol Building in March 1971 and the Pentagon in May 1972. McCain '08

Posted by: Anonymous | April 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

For battle-weary Democrats, the big news out of Pennsylvania is pretty simple: Their nightmare continues.

That is why so many Democrats are praying for this divisive primary campaign to end. They sense, correctly, that the longer it goes on, the better it is for John McCain.

But how does anyone persuade the first serious African-American candidate, the leader in every relevant measure of popular support, to abandon a historic candidacy?

How does anyone persuade the first serious woman candidate, the possessor of the best brand name in Democratic politics, and a politician who has battled back from seeming defeat at least three times already, that she should quit?

The Democrats have to resolve this somehow. The longer this goes on, the greater the costs for November.

Posted by: divided party 4-ever | April 24, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I have some news for you, Mr. Obama: There are more than 100 million of us Americans who greatly value our religion along with our liberties and patriotism. We are accomplished adults and do not like to be patronized.We stick to our guns in defense of home and hearth and freedom. That is what those 9,387 heroes' graves at Normandy American Cemetery and the more than 600,000 others around the world are all about.To you and your fellow deconstructionists, our quaint folkways are part of what is wrong with America -- and must be "changed." But to us, they are bedrock to the American creed. We and our collective forefathers have been working on it for centuries.Apparently you do not understand us -- and perhaps not America, either. We are not an embittered and failed people. Therefore, unlike your pastor, Reverend Wright, we do not ask God to damn America. Instead, we ask that He bless America and believe that He has done so. Ours is a religion of goodness, hope and ultimate success.

Posted by: Patriot | April 24, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I love the Obama-ites and their doe-eyed innocence. The thought that such a left-wing-liberal that vows to raise taxes will be elected at a time that normal americans are feeling a pinch at the pump and worrying about their mortgage payments is laughable. You can say that the Wright comments were much ado about nothing but in reality, many americans view it as significant... obama himself called Wright his spiritual advisor and mentor. He might laugh off the Ayers connection with his assenine '8 yrs old' comment but the true question is, why, why in the hell would you even be friendly with a known, un-repentant terrorist that blew up government buildings within this country? 'The Dahli Bama' will not win the election as Reagan-Democrats like myself will either stay home or vote for McCain come November if this left leaning marxist receives the nomination.

Posted by: jeff, oklahoma | April 24, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

I note that all the calculations about Sen. Obama's lead to date fail to consider that some sort of compromise for Florida and Michigan is inevitable, and thatthere are about 20 delegates controlled by John Edwards. I accept that a 50% haircut is about the best Hillary can hope for, but that would yield 50 delegates extra. She is also hoping to pick up more delegates than Obama from future contests. Give her net 30 from future primaries and 50 or so from Fla/Mich settlement, and she's just down a few.

Posted by: loki | April 24, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama's biggest negative (aside from his arrogant disdainful demeanor)is the obnoxiousness of his supporters as they push their ridiculous contention that the messiah hath cometh.

Eight years of having to endure an obnoxious Commander in Chief is enough. Who needs eight more?

Posted by: RC | April 24, 2008 4:39 AM | Report abuse

Well stop with this idea that Obama has to win OH or Floridia. If you look at the electorate, he could win the nomination if he won new mexico, colorado, nevada,and iowa. These along with the other safe blue states will get him into the white house. So when we talk about opening up the electorate, we are not just talking about somewhere like virginia .

Posted by: Skroftruth | April 24, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Ugh - I just have to ask, what negative attacs did Clinton make that:

"Second, Hillary had 60% of the Black support at the beginning of primary season but has lost it as she began her negative campaigning. (Yes, you can look this up.) Blacks were torn between loyalty to the Clintons and wanting change; she helped Blacks make up their minds by her many missteps."

Asume for the sake of argument taht I do not know how to look it up. Explain to me exactly what attacks and misteps you are talking about.

And regarding the "math" there is only one thing you need to know - neither candidate will reach the 2025 threshold without the super delegates. Neither Clinton NOR Obama. Saying she can't catch up in pledged delegates is true, but if Obama doesn't get 2025 pledged delegates (not including supers) then he hasn't won either.

Super delegates represent 20 % of total delegates. They represent more delegates than CA, NY and IL combined. There is a very specific reason for this. Read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?pagewanted=all


Please stop putting race into this campaign. Obama has been doing this the whole time. Read this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536677319031953.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

If as a white person, I don't want to vote for Obama, that does not make me a racist, stupid or any of the other things that have been bantered around in here. It means I prefer Clinton.

But I will say this, regardless of who wins this race, I vote Democrat in November. That's what matters.

While I personally fear the let down that Obama's suporters will feel when he comes down to Eearth and they find out that he is now, always has been and always will be a politician first and foremost, I would still rather take a chance on him than on McCain (whom I happen to like very much).

For me, it is all about the Supreme Court. All 3 (Obama, Clinton, McCain) are in the pockets of big business and will not nearly deliver on what they are promising, and the Democrats are promising to end the war (which is huge), and healthcare and all of the other things they are saying that I hope the will deliver on. But one thing that they can and will deliver on is putting some left leaning justices on the bench and allowing Ginsburg and Stevens - and maybe even get a crack at the Kennedy and Scalia seats.

Issues like that Patriot Act, the eminent domain rulings, the EPA rulings, the CA case about car emissions and mpg and all of the other things in front of the nation where I want a court that sides with the individual's rights against business and puts a check on government power over and control of its people - where freedom is the over-riding principle and defending the rights given to us by the Consititution of the United States.

So plese people, dial down the rhetoric. Stop calling people who support the other candidate stupid and mis-informed and delusional. Stop calling the other candidates names and lying about their records, comments, past - and stop lying about yor own candidate's, as well.

There are much bigger concerns than who is going to be mad about their candidate not winning and who is being negative or not and who is getting a free pass or not.

Don't let your own blindness to your own views and comments cast a shadow over the common goal - getting the White House back from the Republicans. And picking up 10 seats in the Senate.

If you are really that pasionate about Democrats winning, or even your Democrat winning, then remember, they need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done of any substance. Go doate your time and money to help a Democrat win that seat. And pick up more house seats. And state houses and legislatures, and mayoships and council membership and school boards.

What the last 8 years were in the White House (and up until 2 years ago, 12 years in Congress) was the result of all the tracks laid down by Reagan and the conservatice right back beginning in 1976. That's when they went after the city councils, school boards and mayorships and built the conservative moment up from the ground.

Its not all about the White House. Get involved at the local level and start picking up those small seats. They will lead to larger ones soon. And those small seats will be very important down the road.

Posted by: KnSD | April 24, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

WV-DC - Are you for real? I can tell you for certain Virginia is a swing state, and people here are longing to see the back of Hillary. Obama clobbered Hillary here, and the Republican turnout was negligible. WHEN Obama runs against McCain in the general election, he will beat Bush III handily here.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 24, 2008 1:48 AM | Report abuse

HRC is not a leader - she behaves like a scam artist who panders to whatever audience she is speaking to, is willing to play whatever cards will get her ahead (invoking Bin Laden in a scare ad extremely similar to the Bush terrorist ad with the wolves). Haven't we seen this movie before?

Does anyone think that she would just leave those ways behind if she got elected?

Here are a few features in our national leader that SHOULD trump all other traits and issues, are in stark contrast to HRC, and are Obama trademarks:

1.) Forthcoming. Remember what this word means? Obama does. Obama gives answers without skirting the questions, daring to talk to Americans like adults, and in more than sound bites, challenges them to consider the situation in its full context.

2.) Honest. He says what he thinks despite the audience. e.g. When speaking in Detroit to a group of automakers, he was pushing much higher fuel efficiency standards and alternative fuels. And despite their lack of enthusiasm, switching to some new products may just save those companies.

3.) Leader. Leadership is not achieved simply by standing in front. Being a leader is knowing the issues, assimilating ideas, then bringing people together, and yes, inspiring them to better themselves and their country. The other campaigns discount Obama's speaking ability on a regular basis, but when someone can convey so well what it is they are thinking, it becomes impossible to believe they are making it up - contrast that Clinton, or better yet Bush.

4.) Judgement. This is the most important of all. Experience without good judgement means nothing. Dick Cheney is one of the most experienced people in our government, and his judgement is horrendous. Obama has an impressive depth of knowledge and balanced judgement. For example, his race speech spoke volumes to his understanding of such a complex situation with centuries of history.

Obama should be our next president.

Posted by: Brian | April 24, 2008 1:40 AM | Report abuse

It is obvious that Only Hillary Clinton can defeat John Mccain in general election because she has the potential for winning OH, PA, and FL. If Democrats can not win, at least, two of them (OH, PA, and FL) in general election, I think Democrats will lose in general election.John Mccain will be the next president of USA.

Posted by: tc huang | April 24, 2008 1:38 AM | Report abuse

When John McNasty is sworn in, how long will it be before people start to leave? The U.S.- a place where war is loved, the economy is down a rathole, and crime surges daily with more guns and assault weapons on the street. America - a place where people are more concerned about whether a candidate wears a flag pin and if he wants to criminalize abortion, than whether the candidate can stop the surging gas prices and skyrocketing food prices. We are in serious, serious trouble, folks. The Democrats have found the formula for losing. In a year where Democrats could beat almost anyone, they figured out how to lose. Sad. I'm so tired of you, America.

Posted by: lynnette | April 24, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Posted by: jacksmith | April 24, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Here's what I think will happen. I'm a big Obama fan btw. At the end of the primaries Obama will be up by about 100 delegates and 500,000 popular vote (not counting FL and MI). Hillary will continue to wound him and put enoug doubts in the supers minds to hold off the avalanche for Obama. She will take this all the way to the convention and whip up her supporters to not accept anything else. At that point (at the convention) I believe Obama will cut a deal with Gore for a Gore-Obama ticket to assure that Hillary will not steal the nomination. This would be easier to swallow for Hillary fans than seeing Obama win. A Gore-Obama ticket would crush McCain-Romney in a landslide and Obama could try again for Prez in 2016 (a wiser and more experienced candidate). Otherwise I see Hillary trashing him all the way and trying to making him unelectable so she can run in 2012.

Posted by: Rob | April 24, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Extra, Extra, read all about it!
"THE NEWS OF HILLARY'S SURVIVAL HAS BEEN
GREATLY EXAGERATED"

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 24, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

At least this article is more even-handed than what most of the media is putting out there.

To the disrespectable news media including principally Fox News, CNN, and ABC, here's a news headline for you:

"THE NEWS OF HILLARY'S SURVIVAL HAS BEEN GREATERLY EXAGERATED"

Posted by: eljefejesus | April 23, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama will win NY, CA, PA convincingly. The same way McCain will carry the republican states won by Huckabee, Romney.

The Democratic race is really over. We just have Billary-Huckabee and their supporters hoping that an earthquake occurs and someone hands them the nomination. There is no mathematical path to the nomination for Billary. Her candidacy is alive, thanks to the media and people like George Stephanopoulos.

Posted by: Nancy | April 23, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

What counts in the general election in deciding who will be the next president is the electoral votes, taking into account all 50 states and DC.
If the Dem. primaries follow the electoral votes, not the current overcomplicated (pledged delegates, caucus, super-delegate) system, and the elections in FL and MI are valid, the total electoral votes sen. Clinton got will far exceeds sen. Obama by as much as 15 point and the primary will end by now with sen. Clinton as the nominee for the general election.

Posted by: austin | April 23, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse


First off, if you think that ALL of Obama's votes have come from Blacks, you are delusional. He has support from many groups. The first state he won had a very small percentage of Blacks. Second, Hillary had 60% of the Black support at the beginning of primary season but has lost it as she began her negative campaigning. (Yes, you can look this up.) Blacks were torn between loyalty to the Clintons and wanting change; she helped Blacks make up their minds by her many missteps. Third, I want to caution Hispanic voters (yes, you Hispana) from slamming Black voters because many of the freedoms they have are due to Blacks fighting before most Hispanics started coming. You as well would be in the back of the bus and using separate fountains. Obama has yet to make an attack at Hispanics, but yet you have sat there and acted like Blacks are public enemy Number One. Fourth, if we only emphasized big states, then why do we bother with this whole process? The primary should then only include big states, and the general election should only count swing states from the prior election. Save us all time.

Posted by: Ugh | April 23, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

For 8 years, America was led by a man who wasn't aware that the exposition of certain body parts was meant only for the confines of the bedroom. The next 8 years, America was led by a man who seem to be too dyslexic to realize that the English alphabet had 26 letters, let alone have the capacity to count the WMDs in an adversary's possession. Now, America is courting two equally unprepossessing candidates for leader; one, a 71 year old, has-been army veteran, who cannot seem to make up his mind whether he is a conservative or a liberal or a hybrid, or whether he is coming or going; and the other, an inveterate liar, who is more eager to throw the kitchen sink than work with it and enjoys spinning grandiose, make-believe, bullet-ducking fairy tales against the backdrop of a foreign airstrip that even the native birds have had for some time a "safe fly zone" advisory in effect.

Posted by: MDEAL | April 23, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans are attacking Obama and holding their fire on Clinton. Only fools will not be able to figure out why. They know the Clintons can never win a general election in this country again. They would rather face Hillary.

Here is one of the many scandals the Republicans will finish the Clintons with - the Clinton terror pardon scandal

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120277819085260827.html

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

sorry ctop. I did not see the whole thread above. I did not mean to impugn your intelligence.

My apologies.

Posted by: birdman | April 23, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Please vote the Clintons for a third term. They deserve it, it is their birth rights. We have to be ruled by the Clintons or the Bushes. That is our destiny, we do not deserve any better.

We need Hillary and Bill back in the White House, so Bill can get back to work pardoning felons, and terrorists (FALN) for cash and political advantage.

Bill can also turn the White House into his meeting place for business with dubious businessmen all around the world.

The Clintons for a third term. They are ready on day one, we do not deserve any better.

By

The Clintons and Bushes For President Forever Network

Posted by: Jim | April 23, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

As I said, I understand your point. Felipe was trying to figure out why people kept saying there is a ten point spread. I was not arging the point but rather clarifying it. In reality, it is not ten points, and yes I know how to subtract...

Posted by: ctop | April 23, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

"This is a test" -- I'd actually love to put your hypothesis to the test.

Just based on anecdotal evidence -- including the people from industry, technology, and other areas -- Obama has actually been attracting the lion's share of people who would register on the very high end of an IQ test. Lawrence Lessig, Paul Volcker, and Robert Reich are a couple big shots that jump to mind.

Now maybe you're referring to some inverted IQ test where the 10,000 year history of the world is taken as fact, and the notion that the world is round is viewed with a great degree of skepticism.

Posted by: JP2 | April 23, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Single digits! That's so true...

Posted by: John | April 23, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

ctop yes you can round it that way and you can also subtract

Clinton 54.6%
Obama 45.3%
-------------
9.3%

That is less than a 10 point spread.

Posted by: birdman | April 23, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is indeed the NEW Edsel his development department has obviously learned from their mistakes the first go around. His model has broken all kinds of records in terms of new voter turnout, fundraising, and the diversity of his voting and fundraising base.

Against an "inevitable" candidate this newcomer with marginal name ID in early 2007 is now leading a party contest just one year later.

On the other hand, we have McCain and Clinton with all of their experience and advantages coming into this election cycle running like the OLD Edsel.

Personally, I'll take the new model over a older model better suited for a pre-George W. Bush presidency.

Posted by: JP2 | April 23, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

And for the record, I am very tired of Clinton supporters suggesting that those who vote for Obama are delusional, not "real" democrats, too young to know, etc. This has been going on for months. You have your reasons, we apparently have ours.

If Hillary is so strong, why can't she put the nomination away? Everyone is asking it of Obama, but Clinton can;t seem close the deal either.

Posted by: birdman | April 23, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania Results:
Although I understand your point...
Clinton 54.6% which rounds to 55
Obama 45.3% which rounds to 45

Posted by: ctop | April 23, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Electability arguments based on comparisons on how Obama and Clinton fare in primaries is bogus. Sure each of them has warts and will not likely get 100% of the others coalition - that is just the facts. But many will (I hope )come together for which ever democrat is the nominee.

I support Obama because Hillary is too Hawkish for me. Her comments about "obliterating Iran" and a "nuclear envelope" from the Penn debate and news show appearance afterwards make me tense about her foreign policy positions. But you can take it to the bank that she will be more moderate, and held to more account by the Dems in congress, than will neocon McCain. I will certainly be supporting whichever comes out of the primary because McCain would be a bitter pill for the US to swallow - more Iraq war, more tax cut and deficit spend, more ultra right supreme court justices.

Posted by: birdman | April 23, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is 'shaking the Republicans in their boots...' because they know she's unelectable. And so they want to run against her.

Her negatives are simply too high. She may have won the primary in PA, but in the general election she won't win any of those 'big' states.

Sure, California, New York, most of New England - they'll vote for the Democrat, any Democrat.

But the fact that Ohio and PA went for Hillary in a Democratic primary, and somehow that translates to a win for her in the general election is pure nonsense.

Most people don't like her. And, concerning any 'Bradley' effect - pollsters keep asking white voters if they'd vote for Obama because of his race. And yet, I've yet to hear a poll showing how many men would not vote for Hillary to be Commander in Chief, because she's a woman.

No, it's not fair. And I'm not one to say she wouldn't make a good president.

But trying to 'outman' the men in this campaign is starting to get a bit annoying. "Obliterate Iran."

Give me a break. For starters, could both Democratic candidates (starting with Ms. Clinton) start talking about the problems facing this country. And stop shouting out soundbites that have gone way past annoying.

Posted by: Captain John | April 23, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama is an IQ test. If you support him, you don't have one.

Posted by: This is a test | April 23, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Why do people keep saying Clinton won PA by 10 points? She won by 9.31 points, which by my math rounds to 9, not 10, and is less than the "double digit" victory she claims.

Posted by: Felipe | April 23, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the new Edsel.

All the lemmings love him.

Obama supporters are to politics what Typhoid Mary was to nursing.

Posted by: Obama is the new Edsel | April 23, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA AND HIS POSSIES CREATED THE EARLY PRIMARY. YOU LIVE BY THE SWORD YOU LIVE BY THE SWORD.

Posted by: Grace | April 23, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

It's great to see that FreeRepublic has been let out tonight! The tell tale sign are the posts where not single bit of evidence is marshalled to support a claim. Just bare assertions. Hilarious!

This is exactly how a nation ends up with $4 trillion of new debt in 7 years -- with every penny of benefit going to the top .01 percent. This is exactly how a country gets tied down in an unending war that has only undermines larger strategic objectives.

The suckers on the right are made to be played.

Limbaughland turds, FreeRepublicers, and the Bush "30" are God's gift to America's enemies everywhere. They are easily the most easily duped group in this country -- they prove it every election cycle. The U.S. cannot win for losing with those suckers. They are a living insult to the sacrifices of generations of Americans.

Posted by: JP2 | April 23, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama rolls out his new strategy, "Ignore the troll."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/politics/23obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, OJAI CA | April 23, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure where pasifikawv bought a calculator. Perhaps the battery is dead.
Without the votes of Florida and Michigan, Obama is ahead by 500,353 popular votes. With Florida included, Obama's total is +205,581 popular votes. With both Michigan and Florida included, Clinton is ahead by 122,728 votes. It does not seem that either candidate is WAY ahead.

Posted by: ctop | April 23, 2008 9:35 PM
------------------------------------------
Wasn't it easy to state the facts, versus all this other MATHMANIA which is a smokescreen? Thanks for your comment. The significance of the Pennsylvania win is that it gets Hillary to begin to prove the point that Obama is NOT WAY AHEAD. She would have strong arguments on this, the electoral college and her qualifications. She also covers a wider base of Democrats versus the population that supports Obama. So, by no means this race is over.

Thus, sit tight and let's see how this develops.

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

If she does not win I'll vote for Nader. My bacl friends tell me that they want to vote for him just because he is black but they like Hillary but if she wins they will vote for her. What that heck is that?

Hillary and if not I'll throw my vote away to Nader

Posted by: HispanicsForHillaryLivingInFlorida | April 23, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Nominating Obama is llke bungee jumping without a rope.

Its like parachuting, without a parachute.

Obama is the candidate that appeals to every Democrat's inner lemmmings.

Nominating Obama is a sure way to win the "javelin catch"

Just like winning, losing is a habit..

If we nomate Obama, we're buying a Darwin award for the Democratic Party.

Don't do it.

Don't jump out of that plane.

Lets surprise the Repubicans and not run a loser this time.

Barry Obama's a very bad idea.

Only Hillary Clinton can defeat John McCain.

Lets try winning one for a change.

We might even find that we like it.


Posted by: Link bundgee jumping without a rope | April 23, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to PA. where our governor endorses racial bigotry, Catholic women are like Hillary, and alter boys are nervous.
----------------------------------------
It is obvious that garbage like this is the only thing to be spewed out of your mouth when you don't have an argument. And who is the bigot?

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Everyone is getting mired in the math. It will be difficult for Obama to lose the nomination. As Martin Luther King exhorted us, we should worried about a Democratic candidate with the following character flaws that will be mercilessly exposed during the GE:

1. Kicked off his 1996 campaign with someone who bombed the Pentagon and said on 9/11 that they did not do enough. Refuses to distance himself.
2. Worshiped for 20 years at a anti-American, Black liberation theology church. Still a member. Refuses to distance himslef. Even Oprah left.
3. Destroyed fellow candidates in that 1996 election, including Alice Palmer, using old-style, very questionable technical legal maneuvers to win.
4. Appears to have engineered an almost 3x raise for his wife through a shady quid pro quo earmark request arrangement with her employer.
5. Procured a piece of land to build his $1.6 million mansion in Hyde Park through an extremely shady deal with Mr. Rezko, a gentlemen who is now being prosecuted for some of his dealings.
6. Cozies up to San Francisco liberal elites and admits his true feelings about the working folks that built this country, from a book (What's the Matter With Kansas?) that drips with condescension and elitism (and, BTW, has been proven to be incorrect).
7. Has a wife that complains about having to spend $10,000 on ballet lessons for his children in a misguided attempt to convince regular folks that she's "just like them".
8. Talks about the price of arugula at Whole Foods in a state that does not have a Whole Foods.
9. Refuses to wear a flag pin out of some misguided philosophical stance.
10. Refuses to place his hand over his heart for the singing of the National Anthem. This is absolutely true. The misinterpretation was that he was accused of not doing it for the Pledge of Allegiance. However, refusing to put your hand over your heart for the National Anthem is, in my book, equally unpatriotic.

So, check list for the Republicans currently salivating at the prospect of slicing and dicing the democratic candidate:

Liberal elite, check.

Completely out of touch with regular people, check.

Does things that can easily be construed as non-patriotic, check.

Shady Chicago political dealings, check.

Associates with terrorists and america-haters, check.

Still waiting for someone to explain to me why I should support this guy.

Posted by: Ben | April 23, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure where pasifikawv bought a calculator. Perhaps the battery is dead.
Without the votes of Florida and Michigan, Obama is ahead by 500,353 popular votes. With Florida included, Obama's total is +205,581 popular votes. With both Michigan and Florida included, Clinton is ahead by 122,728 votes. It does not seem that either candidate is WAY ahead.

Posted by: ctop | April 23, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

feastorfamine:

You keep repeating this paragraph in all blogs in this newspaper. I guess we should keep it as a reference to see who will turn out to be the victor. You are so wrapped up in your Math that you fail to see that too many things can happen between now and the convention. So, stop inundating with the same Math, take a deeeeeep breath, cinch your horses and let's wait for this process to complete!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

The "Republican Attack Machine" will paint Obama as too liberal. They will attack Clinton as too liberal and unprincipaled liar (in a way that the Obama campaign has refused to do). She is the weaker candidate for November against a man who sacrificed his freedom and safety in a Vietnam POW camp and despite his conservatism has fostered a moderate maverick image.

Posted by: RobinHoodwasnotaPollster | April 23, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to PA. where our governor endorses racial bigotry, Catholic women are like Hillary, and alter boys are nervous.

Posted by: msmart2 | April 23, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a better candidate who appeals to me as a white person. None of the other candidates has come close to speaking out in a way that makes me believe we can have a better life. I know there are more people out there who believe that then the few who push hate. He has won because he is better than the rest and offers a choice. All the name calling is no more effective than in high school.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 23, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

In my view the resounding victory given by Democratic voters in Pennsylvania to Mrs. Hillary Clinton testifies to the fact that they consider her as representing the true spirit and ethos of America.They want also to show the World at large that America has progressed enough to have a Woman as their
President. With a Woman as American President
the moral standing of US in the comity of nations will scale new heights and this single fact could decimate the ugly forces of terrorism/

Posted by: Ramakrishna Tumuluri | April 23, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Oh! Shucks! At last, Billary managed to defy the odds! Now, how about getting rid of those pant suits for something that's more becoming? But, then again, some are born ugly, some just manage to maintain ugliness, and some just can't do anything about it.

Posted by: MDEAL | April 23, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama isnt hardballing anyone. He won it fair and square with white voters like me supporting him. Its the white voters who have courage to vote for him and stop the haters. All over america people have done this in greater and greater numbers and we are coming after you nutcake conservatives who have ruined our lives.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 23, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I dont regret nominating Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry. The Democratic party stands for something besides opportunism. I wouldnt vote for a gun supporting democrat even if he or she is electable. I wouldnt support a war mongering democrat even if he or she could win. Democrats were right to nominate the Greek governor of Massachusetts to run against Bush I -- the people of America were wrong. Democrats were right to nominate Al Gore -- the supreme court was wrong. Democrats were right to nominate John Kerry -- Ohio was wrong. Democrats have suffered because their natural leadership was eliminated through violence in the 1960s. Conservatives may have won the Presidency, but who admires the President? There is a lesson there. I admire Kerry, Dukakis, Gore more than Bush and I don't want another Clinton in the White House. I want a real Democrat.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 23, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

To non-Africans Americans Voters,

What will you do if Obama and his cronies hardball the rest of us to making him the nominee as if he has a claim to it? The media is already biased for Obama, and many just ignore it. The Democratic Party is putting the blacks ahead of other members of the party like the working class voters and white women. Have the blacks grown so powerful in the party that everybody else is secondary citizen in this country? If Obama wins by muscling through our (super)delegates despite losing on every other demographic group, should we just ignore this? What if we vote for McCain since Obama does not represent us anyway. I don't like what I see in the Democratic party. It seems to me that the party is taking the rest of us for granted, just to have a black president who has no qualification to speak of and with a doubtful character.

Posted by: CP Cook | April 23, 2008 7:42 PM
-----------------------------------------
Just pure facts is that the Hispanics have exceeded significantly since the Census count of 2000, the black population and will be a major significant group offsetting the blacks in the Democratic party. With the rise from 2000 to present the numbers have significantly surpassed any of the black population. So, no longer can this group pose a threat to the Democratic party. The Hispanic would vote for the Democratic party and have proven to be loyal to Hillary and there is no argument about Bill Richardson, who is not supported by the Hispanics.

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Last posting from me for the night..later fellow Dems...

Obama versus McCain in the Electoral college.....
SurveyUSA interviewed 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states. A total of 30,000 interviews were completed. If John McCain faces Barack Obama, Obama wins 280 to 256. McCain carries 26 states. Obama carries 24 states plus the District of Columbia ... and then there is Nebraska, which divides its electoral votes based on which candidate wins each of the state's congressional districts. McCain wins Nebraska 45% to 42%, but loses in two of the state's three congressional districts, which results in Barack Obama taking two of Nebraska's five electoral votes.
Not to mention Obama has consistantly polled better than Hillary in head to head matchups nationally.
But way more important is this...
Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 17-19 percentage points (67-69%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Ironically Hillary's win in PA actually HURTS Hillary in more ways than one. (Kudos though for winning it!) First off it leaves only 9 contests to cut the margin. A 14% point win in PA wasnt merely one of expectation but more of necessity. Failing to reach the margin of 14% now changes her margin for the rest of the contests. In fact the change is rather drastic. As of yesterday she needed 14% wins in ALL states left. Now she needs 17-19% point wins. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 67-69% wins from here on out and see what you get. The magic number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination is 2,025 out of 4,049 total number of delegates. If the race stays remotely the same as it is now, Hillary will be in the hole by 23% in superdelegates, plus she would need the 51% margin of those superdelegates for victory. That means Hillary would need 74% of all the superdelegates. As I stated, big big wins are needed in ALL 9 contests from here on out. Otherwise she cannot catch him with the superdelegates. Again crunch the numbers with the delegate calculator below.
The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 23, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

The Obamsnuts are whining and crying and making excuses as to why Obama chokes in the big states that count for Democrats.

One was even stupid enough to claim Obama won the Alaskan Demo nod as justification to nominate Obama. Shows how stupid Obama and his Obamanuts are. As one who lived in alasks for 26+ years and was active in politics, I know that claim is more Obama snake oil.

Alaska would never vote for Obama for president. How many other states Obama claims to have turned are the same way?

Obama, the McGovern of 2008, will tank just like McGovern did in 1972! He is too liberal and too left elitist for the majority of the country.

Posted by: William Phillips | April 23, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

I am a white person supporting Obama. I dont care about what people in Pennsylvania do, and don't care about what white gun owners think. I don't want any more conservatives as President. The standard of living has fallen for everyone. I can tell among us live a lot of people who do nothing but hate, and many of these people vote. So is it any wonder we have a 911? With people like this who have so much hate? Hate attracts hate.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 23, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Much has been made of the 9.2 percent (or so) spread between Hillary and Obama in Pennsylvania. Reagan's margin over Carter in 1980 was 9.7 percent, and it was called a landslide. Some would argue that Reagan's landslide was the number of states he won (44) against Carter's (6 + DC). In point of fact, Hillary won, it appears, 62 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. This is exactly the same pattern we witnessed in Ohio. This is very serious, and people are pretending it means nothing. When people go to the voting booth and contemplate President Obama, they are emoting the same way they did when they contemplated President Dukakis. We Democrats are in a world of trouble.

Posted by: Mike Meyer | April 23, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

51% is what you need. That's the female population percentage. Think. Some folks need to step back, take a deep breath, and get real.

Obama is 90% of 12% plus 35%. Does not equal general victory.

Clinton.

It's staring you in the face. New voters (unregistered women), independents, a fair number of Republicans, are all available on top of your base.

Obama's folks seem to be the pseudo-intellectuals.

Posted by: It's Math 101 | April 23, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

The best argument that Hillary has is the electoral college Math so she should be pursuing this as her first argument to the Super Delegates.

And then the issue of Florida and Michigan needing a re-vote if the results are not accepted.

The media pundits will spin all kind of theories in their quest to destroy any chances that she has. With the win in Pennsylvania, she presents a strong argument that the various segments of the population that she won, which constitutes the base of the party, she can carry a great majority of states. She should not forget that Hispanics would offset significantly any losses suffered with the black vote. The black folks continue to threaten defection if Obama loses, and they forget that they are no longer the most significant minority vote in this country!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 9:07 PM

-----------------------------------
AGAIN Hispana have you simply done THE MATH? I get you are a passionette supporter but have you taken a peek at reality? Not trying to be mean but if you actually do the math the picture if far more bleak than you might want and its actually gotten WORSE since Hillarys victory in PA (Kudos)

Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 17-19 percentage points (67-69%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Ironically Hillary's win in PA actually HURTS Hillary in more ways than one. (Kudos though for winning it!) First off it leaves only 9 contests to cut the margin. A 14% point win in PA wasnt merely one of expectation but more of necessity. Failing to reach the margin of 14% now changes her margin for the rest of the contests. In fact the change is rather drastic. As of yesterday she needed 14% wins in ALL states left. Now she needs 17-19% point wins. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 67-69% wins from here on out and see what you get. The magic number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination is 2,025 out of 4,049 total number of delegates. If the race stays remotely the same as it is now, Hillary will be in the hole by 23% in superdelegates, plus she would need the 51% margin of those superdelegates for victory. That means Hillary would need 74% of all the superdelegates. As I stated, big big wins are needed in ALL 9 contests from here on out. Otherwise she cannot catch him with the superdelegates. Again crunch the numbers with the delegate calculator below.
The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/


Posted by: feastorafamine | April 23, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Even in the industrial northeastern states, like PA and MA, in which people are more liberal thinking than in the south, Obama did not do well. By county-to-county counts, Obama only won 25% of the counties in MA, and only half as much in PA.
sen. Obama will certainly fail in small-town America and also the general election, like his supporter John Kerry did in 2004 and Governor Dukaicus did in 1988.

Posted by: austin c | April 23, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Hispana wrote:

I can tell you that the Hispanic vote alone if united and determined, can easily offset the black vote and have Hillary win. The Hispanic population has exceeded the black population since 2000.

Of course this ignores the fact that the Hispanic population is an "artificial" combination of diverse people from very different countries and backgrounds. In Chicago, for example, one Congressional District is "primarily" Hispanic -- but it is split between the Puerto Rican Hispanic and the Mexican Hispanic. And the two do not get along at all.

Further, while the Hispanic Population is important in two States that the Democrats would like to win - Florida and Texas -- it is also heavily concentrated in three states that the Democrats should carry without trouble - New York, Illinois and Cailfornia.

And, of course, if Obama names Richardson as his running mate, that should solve any issues.

Posted by: Over Simplified | April 23, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The best argument that Hillary has is the electoral college Math so she should be pursuing this as her first argument to the Super Delegates.

And then the issue of Florida and Michigan needing a re-vote if the results are not accepted.

The media pundits will spin all kind of theories in their quest to destroy any chances that she has. With the win in Pennsylvania, she presents a strong argument that the various segments of the population that she won, which constitutes the base of the party, she can carry a great majority of states. She should not forget that Hispanics would offset significantly any losses suffered with the black vote. The black folks continue to threaten defection if Obama loses, and they forget that they are no longer the most significant minority vote in this country!!!

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama is bull.
He supported the war after ragging about it. He also supports Bushes NCLB which robs public schools to fund religious and private schools. Since our kids use publics schools I can support him even if he is cute and has dimples.

Posted by: hhkeller | April 23, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

The Dems have no choice but to nominate Obama.

If Obama has the most pledged delegates (which it seems now he will ) and he is not the party nominee it could very well be the end of the Democratic Party. Not only will they lose a donor pool of 1.5 million, alienate the new young voters as Democrats, they have the very reasonable chance to lose the African American Vote - not only in this election but in the foreseeable future. How could this happen?

As the party loses it's nerve to nominate an African American, while Hillary and her slime throwers make Obama unelectable in the eyes of the party officials they might seek another candidate. Through some mechanics or floor fight Obama does not get the nomination. McCain and the Republicans will see a once in a generation opening and picks Condoleezza Rice or even better for them Colin Powell as his running mate. Powell (an Obama admirer) might do this due to his perceived injustice to the African American community.

African Americans, many who would feel that the Democrats have placed them in the back of the bus once again, will come out in record numbers (70%) to vote for the Republicans in a way to regain some self-respect. If McCain turns left and back to the middle this would probably end the Democratic monopoly of the African American vote and thus greatly if not mortally damage the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Lcerngl | April 23, 2008 7:07 PM
--------------------------------------
I can tell you that the Hispanic vote alone if united and determined, can easily offset the black vote and have Hillary win. The Hispanic population has exceeded the black population since 2000.

Posted by: Hispana | April 23, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

The blacks have united against Hillary; The media was biased against Hillary; Online hateful bloggers have ganged up on Hillary; Obama outspent her 3 to 1; Haters came into play; Friends have betrayed her; Yet IN SPITE ALL THAT, she is standing strong and competitive. Hillary's electability has a higher premium because it withstands the odds. Obama's electability has been resting on the naive notion that he can convert Republicans & traditional democrats. Obama is a higher risk when the Republicans start fighting.

Posted by: ReadingBetweenLines | April 23, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I totally agree with the assessment.

Barack Obamas biggest problem is the electoral college.

He wins no states in the South. That means that he has to run a straight flush on Ohio, Penn, NJ, Mass, Mich or he loses.
Obama objected to a revote in Michigan so I doubt they will be excited about supporting him in the fall IF he is the nominee.
The electoral math is what elects a president. Remember 2000. Forget it at your own peril. Clinton is by far the stronger general candidate.

Posted by: Independent | April 23, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Polls indicate that Obama is leading McCain in Pennsylvania and within 2% in Ohio. He can compete and win in those states and he will expand the Democratic base to include a lot of small states that national Democrats have ignored, but are turning our way at the local level - Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas - as well as some that we have already tried to win but come up short - Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado. It will be a fascinating election and truly is a chance for Democrats to change the voting map.

As for the superdelegates overturning the election results and giving the nomination to Hillary Clinton - it ain't gonna happen. Party leaders are not suicidal. Talk about disrespecting your base! Do you think black voters would rally to Hillary Clinton if she is perceived to have stolen the election from Obama? How about anti-war progressive Democrats that have been swelling his ranks? Or those independent and Republican crossover voters? They will all be gone and it would mean an electoral disaster for the Democrats. The superdelegates already know this. Watch for the continued, slow, drip, drip, drip of their daily endorsements of Obama in the coming weeks followed by a deluge either after Indiana (if Obama wins) or after Montana/South Dakota when the primaries are complete.

Posted by: Chuck | April 23, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

OOPS!
Obama versus McCain in the Electoral college.....
SurveyUSA interviewed 600 registered voters in each of the 50 states. A total of 30,000 interviews were completed. If John McCain faces Barack Obama, Obama wins 280 to 256. McCain carries 26 states. Obama carries 24 states plus the District of Columbia ... and then there is Nebraska, which divides its electoral votes based on which candidate wins each of the state's congressional districts. McCain wins Nebraska 45% to 42%, but loses in two of the state's three congressional districts, which results in Barack Obama taking two of Nebraska's five electoral votes.

Not to mention Obama has consistantly polled better than Hillary in head to head matchups nationally.

But way more important is this...

Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 17-19 percentage points (67-69%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Ironically Hillary's win in PA actually HURTS Hillary in more ways than one. (Kudos though for winning it!) First off it leaves only 9 contests to cut the margin. A 14% point win in PA wasnt merely one of expectation but more of necessity. Failing to reach the margin of 14% now changes her margin for the rest of the contests. In fact the change is rather drastic. As of yesterday she needed 14% wins in ALL states left. Now she needs 17-19% point wins. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 67-69% wins from here on out and see what you get. The magic number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination is 2,025 out of 4,049 total number of delegates. If the race stays remotely the same as it is now, Hillary will be in the hole by 23% in superdelegates, plus she would need the 51% margin of those superdelegates for victory. That means Hillary would need 74% of all the superdelegates. As I stated, big big wins are needed in ALL 9 contests from here on out. Otherwise she cannot catch him with the superdelegates. Again crunch the numbers with the delegate calculator below.
The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 23, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA THINKS TAHT HE IS THE AUTOMATIC DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE BECAUSE OF DELEGATES AND RED STATES.

BUT OBAMA IS NOT ELECTABLE IN DEMOCRATIC CORE STATES AND DEMOCRATIC CORE VOTERS.

DELEGATES WILL DECIDE AUGUST 25TH IN DENVER.

THERE ARE 650 UNDECIDED DELEGATES THAT WILL VOTE IN AUGUST FOR THE MOST ELECTABLE CANDIDATE.

OBAMA MAY NOT WIN AGAINST MCCAIN BECAUSE IF THE VOTERS DO NOT COME OUT NOWFOR HIM THEY MAY NOT COME OUT IN NOVEMBER FOR HIM.

HE DOES NOT WIN THE GOD AND GUN STATES.

THE OTHER ARGUMENT IS THAT WE CAN'T TAKE THE FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE AWAY FROM AFRICAN AMERICANS.

I AM AFRICAN AMERICAN AND I HAVE ASKED HUNDREDS AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO VOTE FOR CLINTON IN NOVEMBER.

Posted by: Grace | April 23, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama RUINED his chances in PA and every other swing state with his now infamous Bitter 'truth'... he doesn't have a CLUE what this country is about... if he gets the nomination, he might as well write it off along with any other state except those NE of NY and CAL... and Hillary CANNOT win... and it's really great to see all you liberals turn even bitter... though.. jsut 3 weeks ago on NPR a OBAMA fan was gleefully exclaiming..."I HAVEN'T SEEN SO MUCH EXCITEMENT ABOUT A CAMPAIN SINCE McGOVERN!!" huh?! You libs are really a bunch of self loathing losers...once you figure out the majority of the country ISN'T a bunch of bitter USA hating oppressed victims, but a self reliant proud family orientated bunch who LOVE this land... well... you become CANNIBALS who eat there own children!!!! I'd be funny... if you weren't so pathetic.. WISE UP!!! GET A LITTLE SELF RESPECT!!! LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND SEE HOW UGLY YOU"VE BECOME!!!... if Kennedy were around.. I'd vote for him... but... I was born the year the Democratic Party died (1963). The country under President McCain will win in the middle east... History is written in the present... the USA will be the world's leader for the next 100 years... and Democrats will hate every second of it... Please.. all of you OBAMA fans.. come back from the DARK SIDE!! For your sake.. and your childrens

Posted by: BitterSweet from NEPA | April 23, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

MDEAL, It's our election we'll do it the way we like. Where are you hiding so when I see you I can park these size 12'vs where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted by: Redman | April 23, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has something Obama doesn't. Passion. She has the passion to be president.

Posted by: mellowyellow | April 23, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

MDEAL classy! I guess in your country they choose their leaders through their looks. Well apparently that wasn't the best idea since your home country is screwed up badly enough to force you to live amongst us Americans who apparently you hate. I think that this pretty much shows how much credibility you personally have.

Posted by: DCDave | April 23, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

I completely agree with the above posts. Why are Obama supporters supremely loyal to him and super super critical of Hillary, when after all, they are both Democrats. Its one thing to like your candidate, but the outrageous favoritism is more than bias, its obsession, and has no place in politics. Its the reason why Mr. Obama could do the most terrible thing, and his supporters would defend him at every turn, because of the psychology that is now involved. I am not surprised that young voters are so likely to be acting this way; it has become more of a sporting event (bashing, and cheering) than critically thinking about what needs to be done in this country. If Obama is going to purport that much of that change is in the process and not policy, then he needs to live up to that standard, stop being a hypocrite and have supporters that can conjure the same sentiments. If not, then he is just a politician, and welcome to the liberal version of Bush supporters.

Posted by: Sarah | April 23, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

So now we continue to watch the spectacle of one candidate clawing kicking scratching dragging another candidate down in the vilest display of ambition since lady macbeth plotted to become queen

Posted by: beaupritchard | April 23, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary steals the nomination I will stay home in November. Dems will not fall in line behind Hillary. They are not as loyal as some would believe. Nader proved that in 2000. All that contribution power that Obama has will go to Nader.

Posted by: Matt | April 23, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Why is this butt-ugly, face-ugly woman still around? Shouldn't this senile degenerate have retired long time ago along with her even-uglier family? You Americans are pathetic for allowing this type of reprobate to hang around for so long. Add to that is the whole shebang of the dyslexic CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC and the other moronic American media networks. Grow up America! Stop being the laughiing stock of the rest of the world.

I'm getting tired to my core watching the media circus that is driven by ratings alone. You Americans are fuc'ing the world with gay abandon, and we, the rest of the world have had enough of it.

Posted by: MDEAL | April 23, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

I only wish people could get around themselves and their own prejudices enough to recognize something this nation hasn't seen in years...for some a their entire life...and that's a leader who wants to restore the government to the people...and not corporations, the military or intelligence communities. The difficulty here is that soooo many from what I can read in these comments have been so swathed in this "me-me-me-syndrome" which has been a cancer from the early 70s to present day they are too blind and refuse to acknowledge something new...a change from the status quo. Sondheim's lyrics are true...'what's hard is simple, what's natural comes hard.' In this case, I strongly urge to HURT yourself by putting your ignorance in a safe place so you can retrieve when you need comfort...do a little broadening of your perspective...you might grow in ways you never thought. For those of you too insecure to leave your ignorance for fear it will be lost...well I'm sorry for you...but what you can do is tuck it away in a pocket so it's still close to you...but at least broaden your perspective. Get over the fact that this man is only 1/2 white...that half i fyou want to look at it this way could clearly represent that which you just put aside momentarily.
This nonsense that he won't win republicans...Sue Eisenhower as well as Julie Nixon are supporters and actively seeking to gather more republicans to his support; his pastor's remarks...granted he's Christian although not Catholic so he may not be the Tony Soprano-esque Catholic; this Bittergate is so contrived to make him appear to be elitist...you have to ask yourself if he's only 1/2 white how elitist could he really be?

Oh think about it long enough before you grab your safekeepings...

Posted by: eww | April 23, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

One thing has been made clear with Hillary Clinton. She can duke it out. For weeks she was prodigiously out spent, she was held up to ridicule, she was told to quit by the Party elite and the bobble headed MSM political pundits, yet in a hard fought primary election in Pennsylvania she won big. Just this last weekend the media and Obama campaign were touting pre election polls that showed that Obama had closed the gap and was within the sampling margin of error. She came storming back, kicked, scratched, bit, gouged and on Tuesday spanked him. Obama even lost in Pittsburg. She has shown tremendous grit and determination. Obviously this primary won't be over until the pant suited lady sings. I like Obama but I also like a fighter. She is one. Clinton reminds me of a female, pant suited, perfumed, version of a scrappy Harry Truman.

Posted by: Redman | April 23, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is not a lesbian, as far as I know.

Posted by: Shrillary Cliton is a Liar | April 23, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Look how well Clinton's focus on the traditional Democratic coalition and traditional Democratic states worked in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004.... The only times since JFK the Democrats have won is when they did something different -- and (sorry posters above...) Carter in 1976 was one of those different campaigns. Still, the Democrats want to run the same old types of candidates...and lose. Am I the only one old enough to remember the "ABC" campaign of 1976: "Anyone but Carter"? Those were Democrats saying that as he headed toward the nomination and what his party was sure was a loss to Ford in the fall. The only Democrats who get elected president in this country are the ones who don't listen to or come from their own party's establishment. (Hillary should know that, you'd think.) In 2008, that's Obama.

Posted by: Tom | April 23, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I dont think that the Democrats are more electable by trying to be like Republicans. If that is the alternative I can vote for McCain. The Hillary play book is no different than Roves. I was hoping for something more uplifting after 8 years of Bush. The experience that appeals to me is Obama. God bless him and hope he overcomes the obstacles to win the Presidency.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 23, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Forget about the red states:

What about these states:

Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Michigan.

All non red states that Obama does much better than Clinton in.

Clinton could lose most of those states, and Obama can win most of those states.

Posted by: johnnydrama | April 23, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The demographic analysis in this article is too narrow. Clinton does do better with downscale voters along the Appalachian ridge -- including downscale Catholics. Her support may even be sufficient to flip a state like West Virginia.

It will not be sufficient to flip Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, or South Carolina. So essentially Clinton's strengths are in West Virginia and PA -- that's the benefit of having her on the ticket.

She will lose Oregon in the GE -- and every state west of the Mississippi -- with the exception of California. In some early head to head match-ups she loses Washington state and New Mexico as well against McCain -- this is for a candidate with 100 percent name ID going into this election.

There is no question that Obama is the more competitive GE candidate west of the Mississippi and in the mid-Atlantic. Contrary to what Sloan says NO Democratic candidate -- Obama or Clinton -- is seriously thinking about competing in truly deep Red states in the GE like Oklahoma -- where Dems have been unable to win statewide office.

However, there are purple states where Obama has remained the far stronger candidate.

Clinton's "trustworthy" numbers in the 40 percent range are Bushesque circa 2006 -- they are a serious liability. Her negatives in the mid-50s are not numbers that a person would want to see in a serious general election candidate.

All of this is putting aside the question of the popular vote and the pledged delegate count. Clinton scored a good win in PA last night, but even with that win she now has to win 71 percent of the outstanding votes in order just to get to parity against Obama. If the superdelegate vote based on the outcome of 85 percent of the contests this one is going to be officially over on May 21st. The rest of this debate is academic.

Clinton with huge name ID advantages going into this election -- and generally positive numbers with the Democratic base (not so much with independents and the GOP) plus years of political connections in states like PA where she and her husband built up massive "chits" -- couldn't even get her vote total to double digits last night. Her opponent may have outspent Clinton 3 to 1 in a 6 week campaign, but the reality is in 6 short weeks her opponent closed a 20 point gap by 10 points in a state where the Clintons have spent the better part of the past 16 years building up political networks in the state. The Clintons had a 16 year head start. Obama's team had to start from scratch -- and all things considered did pretty well.

As far as the "media" treatment goes -- no one -- except for McCain -- has gotten more of a free pass than Clinton. Never mind the fact that since March 4th she has also rec'd a nice 2 to 4 percent lift in every state that she's competed thanks to bored GOP voters in states like Ohio, Texas, Mississippi, and PA who have no intention of voting for her during the general election.

This race may have been close after Feb. 5th. Since that time though Obama has pulled away and built a lead that Clinton has been able to crack. At this stage the only way that Clinton closes the gap is if the outstanding supers decide to vote against the candidate who has 150 more pledged delegates and over 500,000 more primary votes (excluding the caucus state results which would pad Obama's totals). This excludes the conservative estimate of 250,000 Limbaugh sh-tto-heads who have thrown their weight behind the Clinton candidacy since March 4th in Operation Turds in a Cow Pasture.

Posted by: JP2 | April 23, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

I am from france, and I have read some of the comments posted here. It seems that many of you are extremely passionated and loose any clever judgement on Obama or Clinton!
You discredited yourself when your arguments are so extreme. Please, keep cool and smart and stop things like Hussein ossama and so on!!!

Posted by: jojoju | April 23, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

As a Kentucky voter I support Howard Dean & Obama's idea that we need to campaign in all states and not just cherry pick a few states. Unless we do that we run the risk of not only losing this election but miss out on changing red states to blue.

The Clinton campaigns comments that there are some states more important than others (no matter the # of delegates) is a throwback to the old ways of campaigning and quite frankly an admission they do not plan on campaigning in states like mine. This is short term thinking at it's worst and needs to be discouraged. With the disastrous Bush presidency fresh in the minds of voters in red states we do our Party great harm by not taking advantage of it.

Posted by: pmorlan | April 23, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Fear McCain!

Fear The Republicans!

Fear Obama!

Fear! Fear! Fear!

McClinton 08!

Posted by: FearMonger | April 23, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Supers, look at Obama's attractions on the map of the United States. Don't you see his capabilities? IF (I said IF people and this is not at all meant to be an insult) Obama wins the democratic nomination, we shall do very well in the general provided the backing of proper support.

Obama '08

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 23, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

It is my opinion that the democratic party should bank on a winning strategy. Anyone can see that the electoral map gives no room for error. While Obama is a good candidate in an ideal race-free contest, he is far too vulnerable in a racially sensitive contest. But he is also a great asset with African American and young voters. So it seems to me that a wise decision for the democrats this fall will be a Hillary-Obama ticket, eventhough it seems unrealistic at the moment. It will ofcourse be unpleasant for Obama, but some one like Ted Kennedy should convince him that he should agree to such a team for the sake of the party. The PA primary results clearly tell us that democratic party will be the looser in an Obama-McCain contest, especially because of the recent events pertaining to Rev. Wright, bitter-gate as evidenced by PA results. McCain has distinct advantages with voters that can not be overlooked, and Hillary has the support of core democratic groups such as Women, Blue collar workers, Catholics, Seniors, Hispanics, Asians etc. to overcome him. Obama's support among African Americans and young voters will decisively help in this contest.

Posted by: Nathan | April 23, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe we are talking about a guy that dint know how to do a state Senators job in Illinois. He wants to be the president. Not just any country but USA, whose economy and military makes a difference to a large part of the planet earth ???

People in this country gone insane or become delusional. How can this guy, who dint know what to do in state Senate in Illinois, he will all of a sudden figure out what to do with a job that has implications for the whole world !!!

This country has been acting strange since dot com bubble. One bubble after another. Now Obama bubble. How long it'll be before it bursts right in our faces ???

If you want to waste your vote on a condescending, corrupt, racist, incompetent, failed Senator that has no experience, no accomplishments to shoq for, talks for hours saying nothing of value, go ahead. You expect this guy to solve the issues the country is facing !!!This is a free country but we get the leaders we deserve.

Posted by: Shelly745 | April 23, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Would someone please tell me how many EXTRA DELEGATES Obama has as a result of the delegate allocation formula which is not from electoral strength ????


In a true proportional system, Obama would be 1.8% ahead in the pledged delegates.


That margin would put Obama ahead by 51 pledged delegates, not the 154 lead he now enjoys.

Something is wrong with the democrats' system.


There is no reason why such a 200,000 vote win in Pennsylvania should have such a low impact on the race - the reason is that CLEARLY something is wrong with the proportional system.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 23, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

COlorado was mentioned as a traditional red state--the winds are shifting. There are 7 House districts in the state and 4 are currently held by Democrats. Furthermore, Representatives Salazar's (often thought to be Republican) rural district, is currently rated a safe Democratic seat.

Posted by: Unamerican | April 23, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Comments clearly show who will not vote for Obama: no brains. Obvious without the comments. Even the press misses the big picture: Bill Clinton, two terms, known liar, impeached, disbarred, Bush/Clinton dynasty. Anyone voting for that, does indeed want corruption and the same old garbage in DC.

It is okay that Hillary tells tall tales about Bosnia; okay that she lies about special interests; okay that she lies about herself, her votes, Obama. She insults citizens, panders to the dumb and the bigots; the press and DNC still believe she is the inevitable candidate.

I listened to people complain about the government and the government controlled media. I am especially tired of them whining about Bush. You are going to get what you let people who type like this: HUSSEIN OBAMA want. Dumbness, corruption and lies.

You will almost assuredly get into Iran, welcome back draft with your choice of McCain or Clinton. Dumb, dumb, dumb people.

Posted by: Mary M | April 23, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

To non-Africans Americans Voters,

What will you do if Obama and his cronies hardball the rest of us to making him the nominee as if he has a claim to it? The media is already biased for Obama, and many just ignore it. The Democratic Party is putting the blacks ahead of other members of the party like the working class voters and white women. Have the blacks grown so powerful in the party that everybody else is secondary citizen in this country? If Obama wins by muscling through our (super)delegates despite losing on every other demographic group, should we just ignore this? What if we vote for McCain since Obama does not represent us anyway. I don't like what I see in the Democratic party. It seems to me that the party is taking the rest of us for granted, just to have a black president who has no qualification to speak of and with a doubtful character.

Posted by: CP Cook | April 23, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Louima, that's it. Abner Louima. Lest we forget those violated (literally) by enlightened, non-racist northerners.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 23, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm still scratching my head as to why anyone would consider Barack Obama, who is basically George McGovern without the military experience, a good candidate. He's a hardcore leftist with no experience who surrounds himself with people that are still even more radical. If the media wouldn't have handled him with kid gloves and scrutinized him the way they have every other candidate, he'd have never won a single state.

Posted by: Nancy | April 23, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

This woman, and her minions, are becoming psychotic.

The race is decided on PLEDGED DELEGATES + SUPERDELEGATES.

Not by:

-who wins the popular vote, inclusive of "votes" from states that are not allowed to participate in the nomination

-who raised the most funds since the contest they won the night before

-who performed best in the latest debate that was moderated by a former staffer from their husband's presidency

-who has won the largest states

-who has won the prettiest states

-who has succeeded in disgusting the largest number of Americans by their willingness to outright lie at the drop of a dime

The Democratic party leaders must be losing their minds with this woman's antics.

Posted by: gthstonesman | April 23, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama's inability to close and Clinton's refusal to drop out are pushing voters towards McCain.

Posted by: x32792 | April 23, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Africans Americans Voters,

What will you do if Hillary and her cronies steal this election from Obama? You can see how the white Main Stream Media has already turned on Obama. You can see that the Democratic Party is more concerned about offending their working class voters and white women, but they don't give a crap if they offend African American voters. Will you hold your nose and support Hillary, even if you know that she was given the election, when Obama is leading in all categories. How will you show your outrage? I say if they steal this election from Obama, we boycott the election. If you are like me, you are sick of this attitude that Hillary is entitled to the White House because she is a white woman. Wake up and realize that the Democratic Party is a party of inclusion in African Americans voters fall in line and vote the way they want us to vote, but don't make the mistake of choosing your own candidate, which is an African American. You are called everything from stupid, racist, ignorant, ungreatful, traitor. Wake up and take a good look at the Democratic Pary and you may not like what you see.

Posted by: Michael Hargrove | April 23, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

YoBama, not Obama!

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Posted by: Meck | April 23, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

To Blue Dog... True, just because one is for Hillary does it mean that he won't vote for Obama in the general election. Maybe the number is about 50%, and I am one of them.

The more I see him, the more I am turned off by him. Before, I would rather have any Dem than have a Republican for president. Now, anybody but Obama. Obama made me realize that change is not necessarily a good thing, and having no experience is not a qualification. In summary and in all fairness, Obama is shallow and arrogant, and let's not get started on the wife as she is not the candidate. (Having said that, I noticed that she is not easy on the eyes. McCain's wife is.)

Posted by: CP Cook | April 23, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

HUSSEIN OBAMA DID NOT VOTE FOR THE WAR BECUASE HE WAS NOT IN THE SENATE.

HUSSEING OBAMA DID VOTE FOR REV. WRIGHT AND SPEND SOME QUALITY TIME WITH AMERCAN'S #1 ENEMY TERRORIST WILLIAM C. AYERS.

Posted by: Mieck | April 23, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

sure can tell a lib by their tolerant,coherent bombastic name calling. the dmes are toast in november as far as the white house. all us gunclinging,God fearing toothpaste saving white devils will vote for mickey mouse before a hater.

Posted by: gary | April 23, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Hello I am Hussein Obama. Please vote for me. I am not a Muslim!

http://www.obamaunveiled.com

Posted by: Jenna | April 23, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary gets the votes of Democrats, Independents, and a good sized fraction of Republicans.

Obama gets African Americans, kiddies, the loony-left, and the "tin foil hat crowd"

Hillary for President.

Obama for "Willie Wonka"

Posted by: Hillary gets the votes of Democrats, Independents, and a good fraction of Republicans | April 23, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who does not believe that Obama is damaged goods should have his head examined!

Posted by: John | April 23, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

All the GOP slimeballers, swiftboaters, racists, chickenhawks, and professionas liars agree: they'd rather run against Hillary. Google it. Check it out. For whatever reason, they HATE Hillary, and can motivate their ignorant followers MUCH easier against her. It's probably because they hate how Bill gave us eight great years. In any event, Obama is far more electable- even top Rethuglicans admit this.

Posted by: losthorizon101 | April 23, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKE HIM UNELECTABLE.

HILLARY CAN'T BRING IT UP.

REPUBLICANS WILL.

YOUR PARROT IT DEAD.


Posted by: OBAMA'S FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKE HIM UNELECTABLE | April 23, 2008 7:08 PM

---------------------------
BOO!

FEAR FEAR FEAR
FEAR FEAR FEAR

FEAR FEAR FEAR
FEAR FEAR FEAR

Bill Clinton in 2004:
"Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is
this: If one candidate's trying to scare
you and the other one's trying to get you
to think; if one candidate's appealing to
your fears and the other one's appealing
to your hopes, you better vote for the
person who wants you to think and hope.
That's the best."

Keep on pasting your bumper stickers. its a shortcut to thinking, which is what Bill suggests we do.

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 23, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Speaks!

Hello ladies and gentlemen! I am Hillary Clinton and I am best qualified to be your president! Why? Because I am awesome! Because of what I have done..... EVERYONE HOLD ON.... THERE ARE SNIPERS SHOOTING AT US! EVERYONE RUN FOR COVER! EVERYONE PUT A PIZZA BOX ON TOP OF YOUR HEAD TO STOP THE BULLETS! PUT YOUR HEAD IN A FISH BOWL IF YOU HAVE ONE!!! IF YOU DON'T HAVE A FISH BOWL, THEN PUT A LAMPSHADE OVER YOUR HEAD!!! SAVE YOURSELVES! SNIPERS ARE SHOOTING AT US!!!! SAVE YOURSELVES!!!!! what? oh really? that is just the ups delivering a box of t-shirts for our campaign? I knew that. I wasn't afraid. I know there aren't snipers. Now, please vote for me. I am not a schizophrenic psychopath. Honest. In fact, I have never said.... UH OH!!!! INCOMING SNIPER FIRE!!!! THEY ARE SHOOTING AT US AGAIN!!!!! HIDE THE CHILDREN!!! HIDE THE WOMEN!!!! HELL..... HIDE ME!!!!!!!!! I'M TOO YOUNG TO DIE!!!! FORGET THE CHILDREN... FORGET THE WOMEN!!! SAVE ME INSTEAD!!!! INCOMING SNIPER FIRE!!!!!!!!!

that's right. vote for hillary.

not only do you get hillary, but you get bill.. you get chelsea... and if you act this week.. YOU GET HILLARY'S ALTER EGO FOR FREE ! ! ! !

*** 4 PSYCHOTICS FOR THE PRICE OF 1 ***

SWEEEEEEEEEET!!!

Posted by: BOB | April 23, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Neocons for Hillary?

When people say Neocon, aren't they unfairly implying something that sounds strikingly similar to "Neo-Nazi?" I'm sure people on the far left don't appreciate being characterized as "left-wing moonbats." That said, people on the far right can't feel good when they are labeled as closely to "NEO-NAZI" as possible. As a moderate and a historian, I am appalled when people use these ugly poltical labels to demean those they disagree with. Extreme right-wing people might talk crazy, but so do people on the far-left. That said, this is a free country, and we're all free to speak our minds.

Here's my point: Calling people "Neo-cons" or "Nazis" or "Moonbats," or "Left-wing nuts," etc, reflects more about the integrity of the person speading such demeaning labels than the people they are seeking to smear.

"Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: Andrew | April 23, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone wondered by voters in PA did not vote for Obama? Surely, they know that if Obama won PA, the race is over. Yet despite the odds and money spent wooing them, PA voters decided to cast their lot with Hillary. BTW, the margin is a healthy 10%!

Surely, Obama won the red states that will not go to Dems anyway. Is this the definition of suicide? Republic friends ask me why Dems always go with "losers".

BTW, isn't it worth asking why can't Obama convince the remaining few needed to seal his nomination? I believe that each delegate should vote the best candidate to win in November. Based on statistics presented time and again, Clinton is the person to win the crucial constituencies for Dems... middle class Americans, hispanics, Asians, and women. The superdelegates have the duty to vote for Hillary, and avoid another win by the Republicans.

Posted by: CP Cook | April 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is showing she has what it takes.

Posted by: John | April 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary beats Obama among Republicans. Do you think they will vote for her in the election?
Hillary beats Obama among white racists. Do you think they will vote for here in the election?
Hillary beats Obama among conservative Catholics. Do you think................

As soon as these primary elections are over, her support will diminish and her inability to win will be evident. But, are the super delegates smart enough to understand that?

Is the Party ready to blow off the young? We know they will stab African-Americans in the back, but what about the future of the Party?

Posted by: rusty 3 | April 23, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

.

VOTE FOR MCCLINTON !

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKE HIM UNELECTABLE.

HILLARY CAN'T BRING IT UP.

REPUBLICANS WILL.

YOUR PARROT ISN'T "RESTING"

YOUR PARROT IS DEAD.


Posted by: OBAMA'S FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKE HIM UNELECTABLE | April 23, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKE HIM UNELECTABLE.

HILLARY CAN'T BRING IT UP.

REPUBLICANS WILL.

YOUR PARROT IT DEAD.

Posted by: OBAMA'S FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKE HIM UNELECTABLE | April 23, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

The Dems have no choice but to nominate Obama.

If Obama has the most pledged delegates (which it seems now he will ) and he is not the party nominee it could very well be the end of the Democratic Party. Not only will they lose a donor pool of 1.5 million, alienate the new young voters as Democrats, they have the very reasonable chance to lose the African American Vote - not only in this election but in the foreseeable future. How could this happen?

As the party loses it's nerve to nominate an African American, while Hillary and her slime throwers make Obama unelectable in the eyes of the party officials they might seek another candidate. Through some mechanics or floor fight Obama does not get the nomination. McCain and the Republicans will see a once in a generation opening and picks Condoleezza Rice or even better for them Colin Powell as his running mate. Powell (an Obama admirer) might do this due to his perceived injustice to the African American community.

African Americans, many who would feel that the Democrats have placed them in the back of the bus once again, will come out in record numbers (70%) to vote for the Republicans in a way to regain some self-respect. If McCain turns left and back to the middle this would probably end the Democratic monopoly of the African American vote and thus greatly if not mortally damage the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Lcerngl | April 23, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

I am not sure what their point is but somebody listed all the "red" states that Obama had won so far in his quest to win the Democratic nomination. I looked them over and with the possible exception of Colorado neither Democrat has a ghost of a chance of winning any of those states listed in the November general election. There is one state that is turning to purple that Clinton can win. It is where Obama cannot come close to McCain and that state is Florida. Clinton can win in Florida this time around and Obama can't even get close. As a matter of fact he would be trounced there. Florida is a huge prize that has 27 electoral votes 10% of the total needed to capture the Whitehouse. The truth is if McCain can't win Florida he can't win the election. Clinton will win in Florida and win the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Redman | April 23, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"he failed to move the meter with white voters who do not have a college degree." What exactly does this mean. it carries the notion that we should not vote for clinton because only the uneducated people vote for her. and an uneducated vote..... well it is what it is.
VOTE FOR OBAMA PEOPLE
clinton lies and plays dirty. even after obama's a perfect union speech, ties obama to pastor wright. and mind you Obama has not made personal attacks on clinton's pastor who is undergoing child molestation charges. and her husband an awesome a person he is he lied under oath. so where exactly does she get off with the personal attack. the fact that Obama plays the high ground shows what kind of person he is. THE UNEDUCATED PEOPLE VOTE FOR HER BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF CHANGE AND COLOR AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON.

Posted by: Babloo Pilli | April 23, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Let Hillary soldier on. BUT, tone down the rhetoric. Ultimately, nasty attacks by HRC on BHO will result in retaliation, if not by his campaign, then by 527 surrogates. You call that escalation, and we all know how useful that is. It's already begun.

There are vast quantities of voters who won't vote for Hillary because of fallout from the 90s. Many won't vote for Obama because he's relatively young, not white, and has had some 'interesting' events in his life.

The no-Hillary voters have no compensating voters on the other side. Just the usual Democratic base.

The no-Obama voters have the compensating group of new, energized voters that he's drawn into the election.

The result ought to be a slight advantage in the GE against McCain for Obama as opposed to Clinton.

Realize that the Republicans will do everything possible to tear down any Democratic candidate and will do it with glee and complete disregard for the truth and decency.

Billions of dollars are at stake.

With Clinton, Republicans who are only lukewarm about McCain will come out just so that they can vote AGAINST her.

With Obama, many of these same voters will stay home even though the Repub attack machine will paint him as the very devil incarnate: a liberal. That label is now quite old stuff and won't energize the electorate against Obama.

If either can win against McCain, Obama can. If Obama is the nominee, more Democrats will go to Congress because of the McCain dislike, age, and general snooze factor. Also, because of the excitement factor of Obama himself if HRC hasn't shredded it by then.

The bottom line is that Obama already has won the nomination but isn't yet installed. Clinton has lost but is still walking around with apparent, but unreal life literally hoping for a miracle. Talk about the "audacity of hope!"

Either one has the fall election to lose. McCain cannot be the favorite by any measure against either.

I can't wait for the McCain-Obama debates.

Posted by: Harry, Los Angeles, CA | April 23, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

John,

We'll soon see if your prediction is correct: if Obama does as well as expected (or better) in NC, we will know that Rev Wright is a non-issue. Actually, the fact is that he was expected to do worse in PA than he did in OH *before* either Wright or "Bitter-gate" broke, yet he did slightly better with white rural voters, so I think those issues resonate much more with people who where never going to vote for Obama than they do with anybody else.

Patrick NYC,

VA has a Democratic governor, a Democratic senator, and is expected to have a second Democratic senator come January - in what way is this a write-off Red State? The idea that Democrats must find a way to win via traditional battlegrounds, while writing off most of the country, strikes me as the height of both elitism and stupidity.

Posted by: 333 | April 23, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama's wounds "are not as deep as a well, nor as wide as a church door, but twill do, twill serve"

YOUR PARROT IS DEAD.

Posted by: Obama's wounds | April 23, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Pasifikawv, you're missing the point. Obama's strengths are in states that likely will go to the Republicans in November. Hillary is strong in the states that are "swing" states and really give Democrats the chance to win in November. Without them, the Democrats are toast.

Posted by: WV-DC | April 23, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

My contention is this simple:

After this long, it's clear who the best on the economy will be. Obama has convinced people to give up their money, and is not in debt. Clinton is.

As such, Obama has the right of way, and Hillary should drop out of the race. Quite frankly, I think that the war chest issue alone is enough to settle matters.

However...

The thing that Hillary Clinton needs to do to win this race is...

Divorce Bill. That's right. You heard me. She needs to divorce Bill Clinton at once, and send him packing. What the heck is he going to do in his wife's white house? Sleep with interns and chew gum?

Posted by: Balabanto | April 23, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama's flaws (and, as with any human, there are some) are only fatal if America's people have lost all hope.

Posted by: Jaxzone | April 23, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Just because certain demographics have favored Sen. Clinton in the Democratic primary, it doesn't follow that these Democrats, for the most part, will not vote for Sen. Obama in the general.

Yes, there are signs of disaffection, and possible defection to Sen. McCain, from the supporters of both candidates but how much is that down to the ongoing and, at times, bitter continuous fight for the nomination?

There isn't a hair of difference between them on the issues. Neither are closer to Sen. McCain.

I've looked at the exit polls I don't see any seen of any deep ideological divide that could render the party, hopelessly, split like it was in 1968, 1972 and 1980.

It's not that liberals are predominantly for Sen. Obama; with more moderate and conservative primary voters being overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton.

Furthermore, there isn't that kind of split among congressional and gubernatorial endorsements of the two either. It's not like liberal Democratic governors, senators and representatives are lock step in with Obama with their more moderate to conservative peers lock step in with Clinton.

Do Democrats want to win or do they want more of the failing Republican same out of born spite?

If the Democrats opt for fratricidal hissy fits then they deserve to lose. What matters is that the Democratic presidential nominee wins fair and square.

Think about it.

Posted by: Blue Dog | April 23, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are like little kids.
They cover their eyes and ears to try to block out anything they don't want to see or hear.

Its actually kind of cute.

Posted by: Obama supporters are like little kids | April 23, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war!

.

N E O C O N S

F O R

H I L L A R Y !


war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war!

Posted by: -Neocons 4 Hillary- | April 23, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the Democratic party is undergoing another realignment, again based partly on race, as it was almost fifty years ago, but also on education. Interestingly, it seems to be shifting south again. As someone who's lived in Virginia for 13 years, where three out of the last five governors have been Democrat and likely both senators will be as of November, it amuses me whenever I go up to see my brother in New York and get snarky comments as though it's still the early sixties down here. This from people in a town that hasn't had a Democrat for mayor since Dinkins and saw the atrocities committed on Amadou Diallou and the guy who was raped with a broken broom (forget his name) by Officer Volpe. I'd say the percentage of racists in this country is now more or less spread out evenly.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 23, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters remind me of the "dead parrot" sketch from Monte Python.

Their candidate's a polticial "dead parrot" but they keep trying to prop him up.

OBAMA'S FELONY HARD-DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE.

Nothing can change that.

Ignoring the 800 pound gorillia doesn't make it go away.

OBAMA'S FELONY HARD-DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE.

Nothing can change that.

Its not going to go way.

Neither is his comment about "Typical White People" or his 20 years of going to Rev. Wright's anti-white, anti-jew "God Damm Americs" Church.

Like a child who refuses to stop believing in Santa Claus or Tinkerbell, Obama supporters simply make fools of themselves.

OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE.

Nothing can change that.


Posted by: Ignoring Obama's fatal flaws won't make them go away | April 23, 2008 6:45 PM

--------------------------------
Like the many repetative posts saying almost the exact same thing (coincidence?)

FEAR
FEAR
FEAR
FEAR

Bill Clinton in 2004:
"Now one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is
this: If one candidate's trying to scare
you and the other one's trying to get you
to think; if one candidate's appealing to
your fears and the other one's appealing
to your hopes, you better vote for the
person who wants you to think and hope.
That's the best."

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 23, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

BlueDog - I just have to ask you, how did Bill Clinton do what you say he did? Tell us the specific quote he used?

"I had initially intended to support Sen. Clinton but when Pres. Clinton sought to define Sen. Obama as the 'Black' candidate..."

Thanks

Posted by: KnSD | April 23, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I am enjoying the Democratic Meltdown and am hoping it continues all the way to and through the convention.
Not that I love McCain mind you, but I would definitely take McCain over the other two socialistic "government has the answer" candidates, who will have the government defining everything we do, think, and see. I rue the day we decend to the depths of socialism of our European counterparts in the UK, France, Germany and others.
Remember that political correctness (or the dumbing of America) was a product of the Clinton era. We don't need to explore that dead end any further.
I have no idea what Obama really thinks because he is so skillful at dodging questions. I have no desire to see what his "Changes" will be... most likely bigger government regulating everything and picking our pockets to ever greater depths.
So keep fighting the good fight, Hilly and Hussein!

Posted by: Libertydog | April 23, 2008 6:46 PM

Posted by: Libertydog | April 23, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Somebody listed all those red state results. What's the relevance? Obama got all the black votes there. That's not unconventional. Blacks always voted Democratic. The small white Democratic vote population there will be totally over taken by the larger Republican base. 40 years ago Nixon deviced the "Southern Strategy". What has changed since? Nothing, except those states became redder and redder. Plus those are the bible belt states with many "bitter" white people. Obama can forget about it!

The only competative states for the Democrats down south are: Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana. Guess what? Clinton won those states.

After lost out to McCain in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Michigan, the "red states" Obama's people dreamed up will not make a dent to the outcome: A disaster lead by Obama.

Posted by: Gy | April 23, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters remind me of the "dead parrot" sketch from Monte Python.

Their candidate's a polticial "dead parrot" but they keep trying to prop him up.

OBAMA'S FELONY HARD-DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE.

Nothing can change that.

Ignoring the 800 pound gorillia doesn't make it go away.

OBAMA'S FELONY HARD-DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE.

Nothing can change that.

Its not going to go way.

Neither is his comment about "Typical White People" or his 20 years of going to Rev. Wright's anti-white, anti-jew "God Damm Americs" Church.

Like a child who refuses to stop believing in Santa Claus or Tinkerbell, Obama supporters simply make fools of themselves.

OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE.

Nothing can change that.

Posted by: Ignoring Obama's fatal flaws won't make them go away | April 23, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Democrats better wake up and realize that Obama is the much weaker general election candidate. It's not just the fact that Obama has lost PA, OH, NJ, FL, etc. but that he has lost the critical working class white constituency in almost every state (even those states where he beat Clinton). Obama will not win FL, and he will have a very difficult time beating McCain in OH, PA and MI and could conceivably lose in NJ & MA (check out the polls!). Even if Obama won IA, WI, MN, CO, NM, OR, WA and NV, he would still lose to McCain.

Posted by: gary | April 23, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

There is no doubt that Senator Clinton is the best chance we have of winning in November. She can win the big states plus she is experienced and has the vision and plan to revive this country. Obama is unqualified and he is unelectable. Vote smart, vote Clinton.

Posted by: Tobias | April 23, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

"He needs to just stop playing her game.

All he has to do is remain positive, allow her and her surrogates to slosh about in the mud, and let the thing run its course.

This nomination is over regardless of what Team Clinton or some members of the media (who obviously have an agenda in keeping this thing going as long as possible) have to say about it.

There is no way she can win the Democratic nomination without, in the process, destroying the Democratic party for years to come.

The superdelegates are well aware of this fact."

100% Agree. If he has got so much as a candidate it is precisely because he is different, inspirational. If he plays same dirty and old electoral tricks game, seems to me the same

Posted by: irpi | April 23, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama's negatives, like his self-admitted history of Grand Theft Auto and of repeated purchase and use of cocaine are "deal-breakers" with regards to the Presidency.

Hillary's negatives are "soft negatives" they have to do with things like people saying that they "don't like her", but that kind of problem is easy to change by people seeing her give positive speeches like the one she gave last night.

Obama's problems are ones of substance, of criminal grand-theft and hard-drug behavior, of arrogance, of incompetence, and of how he views and thinks of other people, as demonstrated by his own words.

Hillary's problems are ones of perception.

Obama can't win once people know the facts about his history.

Hillary not only can win. She does, and she will.

Posted by: Obama's negatives make him unelectable | April 23, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war!


V O T E

F O R

M C C L I N T O N !


war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war!

Posted by: -Neocons 4 Hillary- | April 23, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

No matter the results yesterday,.....She still can't be trusted, she's a bullet dodging liar, she's 70% of the world's worst snake oil team that brought us NAFTA, and she'll not be president. People keep talking about her experience, but she has none,....she lies when she says that she does. Experience isn't what we need to effect change in our government anyway. We need a new approach,....I'll vote for Obama since Mr. Paul is out of the running,......

Posted by: Olddog | April 23, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

You can fool some of the people, but you can't fool all of the people,Mr.Dean and the DNC. Obama is bringing in the big crowds and getting unprecidented voter registration and the so called CONTRIVERSIES are causing these new voters to vote for HRClinton that is the BIG gotch ya to voters!!! REMEMBER people the 2004 election and Obamas speach the DEMOCRATS light bulbs went off!!!But they hadn't counted on so many voters checking Obamas NAME!I hate to tell everyone Obamas'being used by the democrats.NOW what?

Posted by: purpliscious | April 23, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

So let me get this right ..... Obama spent three times as much as Hillary ??? Dont that mean he put three times more money back into the economy of PA ??? Also i wonder If a company that Clintons own or A clinton themselve was the first big donar to Hillary's web page after the PA election .... She said she dont give up a fight .... so I take it that since she claims that ... she will keep the war going ... sheesh i wish she would make up her mind ... pay attention people ... the small things show up

Posted by: Dennis | April 23, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"His biggest vulnerability is the Electoral College," . . talk about missing the forest for the trees. Obama's problem is not the electoral college, it is the state 'winner-take-all' statutes that are now in place in 48 states. It is commonly recognised that Sen. Obama could never have beaten Sen. Clinton under Republican party rules, which, like state electoral college laws, often awards all delegates (or electors) to the winner of a plurality of votes statewide. For the same reason, Obama has no chance of winning in November in places like Kansas unless the winner-take-all statutes are repealed, as they have been in Nebraska and Maine, allowing in those states the same kind of proportional representation that has so disproportionately favored Obama in the primary contest.

Posted by: dajh | April 23, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm wondering - do the Hillary supporters think the general election is only going to be among Democrats? Do they not think Republicans will be voting too?

Which candidate do they think will attract the most votes OVERALL? Hillary "I'm married to Bill Clinton you know that guy with the stained blue dress who doesn't know what 'is' is and by the way was impeached and hell if I'm going to bake cookies when I'm president" Clinton?

NOT!!

Clinton didn't bow out after Obama clobbered her 10 STATES IN A ROW! She wins 3 big states and now the Clintonistas want Obama to quit?

Clinton can't win the nomination.

Forget how many of the Democrat base will vote for Clinton. More AMERICANS will vote for Obama than either Clinton or McCain in the general.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse


To poster: "Conservatives won't vote for Obama", why don't you get the help you so obviously need? Or get a job or some other means of occupying your time as a wingnut republican who has nothing better to do than parrot what "Operation Chaos" (oooo, so scary!) is telling you to do. Go back to your boy McCain, "McCain, more of the same" and let him start standing up on his own merits and "fresh" ideas. Your party made this decade a mess, what are you going to do, other than slander the other side. How about offering up something new and productive, or is the status quo going just great for you? Once you get this world domination thing wrapped up, all will perfect, eh?

Posted by: tdub | April 23, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE.

Nothing can change that.

Read Obama's books. Its all there in his own words.

Obama's unelectable for an host of reasons, but there are several "sure-kills" that Hillary hasn't used but Republicans will.

Among the most powerful are his self-admitted history of Grand Theft Auto and Repeated purchase and use of hard drugs --specifically cocaine, which he braggs that he did "as often as he could afford it" in his books

When he gets asked in a debate with McCain --

"Mr Obama how many times did you purchase or use hard drugs such as Cocaine?"

What will his answer be?

How many people would vote for him after that?

His own words make him unacceptable to the majority of Americans.

The only reason it hasn't been show-stopper so far is that the kids that support him seem to think its cool, and adults that support him don't know.

To mainstream America, its unacceptable.

Even just rumors of it almost sunk Bush.

In Obama's case, he admits, in fact, braggs about it, in his books.

Posted by: OBAMA FELONY HARD DRUG HISTORY MAKES HIM UNELECTABLE | April 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

It is the purple states that are going to decide the election - the bi-states that can swing in either direction. Which candidate looks best in purple? In the purple states that are too close to call until the last minute, which one will succeed? It doesn't take much to lose to those fickle voters.

Obama's fund raiser speech in California managed to offend a rather large audience. Main Street is a much different audience than Berkley.... a city Obama is right at home in. They even want to get rid of military recruiters in Oakland. That is the element in the Democratic Party that is running Obama's campaign. They are motivated by guilt, hate and self-loathing.

The war and economy register as concerns, but whatever you do, don't trample on people's values. Obama better start looking out for the fat lady, she's warming up her vocal chords right now.

Posted by: alance | April 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war!

.

N E O C O N S

F O R

H I L L A R Y

.

war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war! war!

Posted by: -Neocons 4 Hillary- | April 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

First off, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were won by Kerry in the last election, there is no reason to think any of those states will swing to McCain regardless of the Democratic nominee.

The problem for Obama as I see it is that he might very well lose Pennsylvania and Michigan, and won't take back Ohio. That loses Obama 38 electoral votes. Now suppose he wins Virginia, and Colorado, and since I think he will win it Missouri. That give him 33 electoral votes. But in the end he loses the general election by more than Kerry did.

Posted by: DCDave | April 23, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

if the clinton camp did attack based on him being less appealing it would turn into poor poor obama and how he is getting beat up on the playground . . . frankly the discussion of whether he is ready for the presidency is precisely what we should be talking about.

Posted by: To Zathras | April 23, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Words1inger wrote:

He has shown he can't win the big states.

He has? What is the correlation between winning primaries, particularly closed primaries and success in the General Election?

I would suggest that Sen. Lamont from Connecticut could be very enlightening. Sen. Lamont you ask? Who is he? The answer is that he is the Democrat who won the closed Democratic Primary against Joe Lieberman. Under Clinton logic, he was the stronger candidate because he "showed that he could win the State". But he wasn't.

Posted by: Still Confused? | April 23, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

A lot of the talk about the Democrats' risk right now rests on the lessons of past elections, in which the Republican "brand" was much less badly damaged than it is now. Frankly, I think either Democratic candidate should win easily this year.

Having said that, I still think it's only common sense to avoid matching the other sides strongest feature with your own candidate's weakest feature. Voters like John McCain and see him as more honest than most politicians. Large numbers of voters dislike Hillary Clinton and see her as personal trustworthiness as open to question.

That ought to push Democrats toward Obama, about whom some voters may have doubts but do not feel the dislike and/or distrust they do toward Clinton. The Clinton campaign and many Clinton supporters appear to recognize this; their attacks on Obama aren't really based on his being a less appealing candidate but rather on doubts that he's ready for the Presidency.

Posted by: Zathras | April 23, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Congrats Barack on winning all those red states that will vote for McCain in Nov. Once again, the loser-wing of the Dem. party (Kennedy-Dean-Kerry) has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Barack and his mesianic Obamaniacs should just buy another latte, sip another white wine, take another road trip in their Prius and leave the political fight to those who know how to win. Hillary '08!

Posted by: Warren | April 23, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters make fantastical claims that are completely non-sensical.
They try to minimize and sweep under the rug issues such as his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright which are "deal breakers" as far as middle America is concerned.

His claim that he will attract conservatives when he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate is not only illogical, its completely inane.

Obama can't even attract Democratic Centrists. His entire support comes from the very young and the loony left.

Republicans couldn't ask for a better candidate to run against, except Abbie Hoffman himself.

Obama and his supporters make bold claims that are literally incredible.

They have simply no credibiltiy at all.

Believing in Obama's claims is like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth-fairy.

Only very small children, or those with either limited or damaged mental facilities can be excused for believing in them.

Anyone else who does is completely delusional.

Posted by: Conservatives won't vote for Obama | April 23, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 17-19 percentage points (67-69%) and then she must win 64% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know I LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What I have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way I want them to be. Ironically Hillary's win in PA actually HURTS Hillary in more ways than one. (Kudos though for winning it!) First off it leaves only 9 contests to cut the margin. A 14% point win in PA wasnt merely one of expectation but more of necessity. Failing to reach the margin of 14% now changes her margin for the rest of the contests. In fact the change is rather drastic. As of yesterday she needed 14% wins in ALL states left. Now she needs 17-19% point wins. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 67-69% wins from here on out and see what you get. The magic number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination is 2,025 out of 4,049 total number of delegates. If the race stays remotely the same as it is now, Hillary will be in the hole by 23% in superdelegates, plus she would need the 51% margin of those superdelegates for victory. That means Hillary would need 73% of all the superdelegates. As I stated, big big wins are needed in ALL 9 contests from here on out. Otherwise she cannot catch him with the superdelegates. Again crunch the numbers with the delegate calculator below.
The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

Posted by: feastorafamine | April 23, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I would really like to see analysts taking a look at what happens in those states where there was a Caucus instead of a Primary. What happens when either of these candidates goes out in a general election where just huddling together in a corner DOESN'T win delegates? Will this decrease the impact of Obama? Would this favor Clinton? Questions, many questions, that I for one, would like to hear a conversation about . . . that doesn't include childish name-calling from either camp of supporters. I find the labeling of Obama supporters as Kool-Aid drinking zombies just as offensive as a refusal to use someone's name and instead inserting Billary.

Posted by: Caucus Factor Correction | April 23, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I would really like to see analysts taking a look at what happens in those states where there was a Caucus instead of a Primary. What happens when either of these candidates goes out in a general election where just huddling together in a corner wins delegates? Will this decrease the impact of Obama? Would this favor Clinton? Questions, many questions, that I for one, would like to hear a conversation about . . . that doesn't include childish name-calling from either camp of supporters. I find the labeling of Obama supporters as Kool-Aid drinking zombies just as offensive as a refusal to use someone's name and instead inserting Billary.

Posted by: Caucus Factor | April 23, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

After Pres. George W Bush, voters should pay more attention to competence rather than ideology. The Republicans had their chance to nominate Sen. McCain, a much more worthy man of the highest office, in 2000. Too little too late as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not supporting Sen. McCain because I'm far from reassured that he will be closure on the failed policies of Pres. Bush.

And, after Pres. Bush, I'm not buying any more pious 'populist'sounding platitudes from conservatives about the hardship millions of Americans are facing with an economy tottering on the brink of recession, when it is their failings which have brought us to this point.

Sen. Obama is a pragmatic progressive though, of course, the Republican smear and fear machine attempt to portray him as some radical leftist.

And I'm a white male Southern Democrat of a populist hue who is at significant variance with Senator Obama on a host of issues but he's a good man, who I know cares about people like me.

I had initially intended to support Sen. Clinton but when Pres. Clinton sought to define Sen. Obama as the 'Black' candidate, when in fact he is a post-racial candidate who doesn't do identity politics, in the run-up to the South Carolina primary, I changed my mind.

Race carries too much saliency in American politics. It's the 21st century and now is the time to move on.

I'll support Sen. Clinton should she be the Democratic presidential nominee.

Posted by: Blue Dog | April 23, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed leading Democrats are not insisting Obama drop out of the race. He has shown he can't win the big states. By refusing to disavow Wright, he has compartmentalized himself as a black candidate. And, thanks to Rezko, he has been shown to be sleazy. He should accept Hillary's offer of the second position on the ticket and hope that in eight years people will forget Wright and Rezko.

Posted by: Words1inger | April 23, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Core Democrat wrote:

One more reason to show how inexperienced you really are. Obama has confused winning the Democrat nomination with the General Election.

Uh, no. the ones who are confused are you and the Clinton Campaign. Firstly, the fallacious argument is made that winning in a primary means that you have a better chance of winning the general election. This is simply not proven. Poll numbers show that in States that he "lost", Obama does better against McCain than Sen. Clinton. Further, you need look no further than the Senate election in Connecticut where Joe Lieberman lost in the primary but won in the General election. Was he the "weaker" candidate in the primary? It would seem so, he lost. But he was the "stronger" candidate in the General Election.

Secondly, the Clinton strategy appears to be based on the (failed) conventional strategy of the last two elections. Winning a select set of states that is sufficient to just carry the electoral college with 2 or 3 key states and no room for a "mis-step". As a result, all of the monies concentrate on a few battleground states and the Republican Party can use its limited resources to focus on those states. In contrast, an Obama strategy does not write off those battleground states, it simply contests other states as well forcing the Republicans to spread out the money over a broader area and providing a "greater margin" for error.

And the Obama "national" strategy is much closer to Pres. Clinton's successful strategy which went for more States than just the select few and which, in fact, provided a greater margin for error. Had Gore, for example, focused more on a few States that he lost be small margins (such as the Single State in New England that he did not win) Florida would have been irrelevant.

And the Obama strategy is going to energize voters in a lot of States where Obama might not win, but the Obama energy could make a difference in the Senate race (such as Louisana and the very vulnerable Sen. Landreiu.)

Posted by: Confused? | April 23, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

In the long view [all Americans] especially women candidates for political office from both major parties will respect and admire that the first viable woman candidate for the presidency (Senator Hillary Clinton) was tenacious and did all she could to break the historical glass ceiling on the American presidency being a "male only" club.

Moreover, I think it is a good thing that voters in these later primaries are able to have an opportunity to help determine who the Democratic presidential nominee is; rather than just endorse the candidate that the early primary states have chosen as "their" nominee for all of us

Clinton is right to fight on for the nomination. Why should she demure in a close race to Obama and make his road more comfortable and easy? I think if Clinton were a man with this same relentless spirit that she would be celebrated and admired for being bull dog tough, like Winston Churchill in the face of the Nazi's in WWII. Instead she is said to be trying to "steal" the election and harshly criticized for being a dogged determined competitor of the first order.

If Obama is the nominee, he will be battle tested and battle hardened for a tough fight in the general election because of his sparring with Clinton. McCain and the GOP will be tough on Obama and because of the lessons learned during this primary season, he should be better prepared to succeed against GOP assaults. Moreover, Obama must do better with winning white working class, so called Reagan Democrats, if he is to be viable in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania against McCain in the fall. He can thank Clinton for showing his weakness with this Democratic constituency and work to win these voters over by the fall election.

Hang in there Hillary! Time will show that you were right on with doing so.

http://theblackamericandiscussion.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Beni Dakar, Duluth, GA | April 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

You beat the republicans by making inroads in the south and border states, where loathing of both Clintons finds as much universal agreement as the concept of original sin. Granted Obama will face racial headwinds in the cotton south, but states such as Maryland, Virginia, NC,Missouri, Kentucky and quite possibly La and MS are within reach.

Posted by: George | April 23, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

When Barack Obama "wins" red states, he does it with constituencies which will no longer be competitive when the white blue collar workers go McCain. African Americans will vote Clinton if it's between McCain and Clinton. White blue collars will vote McCain if it's between Obama and McCain. That's because their vote is as racially aligned as the vote of African Americans inthe primaries when it's between Obama and Clinton.

Posted by: KRG | April 23, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY KNOCKS HIM OUT

Posted by: LONG LIVE THE QUEEN | April 23, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Wright's comments have been blown out of proportion as an excuse for the whites to cover up their own racial bias. Its always easy to accuse someone else of our own weaknesses.

Posted by: xxx | April 23, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

McCAIN OR HILLARY

BOTH ARE STRONG ON

BOMB BOMB BOMB
BOMB IRAN

Posted by: NUKE IRAN | April 23, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Hillary also got blown out by Obama in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Washington State, which between them have 38 electoral votes. Current polls show her trailing McCain badly in Iowa, tied with McCain in Wisconsin, and virtually tied with McCain in Minnesota (Clinton up by 1) and Washington (Clinton up by 3), while Obama holds commanding leads over McCain in all these states. Similar results in Oregon, where the most recent poll shows Obama leading McCain by 9 points while Clinton is in a virtual tie with McCain.

The Clinton camp wants to keep hammering away on Pennsylvania and Ohio, but the fact is, in the primaries Clinton hasn't shown she can win in the Upper Midwest, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, or the Southeast. Polls have consistently shown Obama ahead by comfortable margins in the Pacific Northwest and Upper Midwest, competitive or leading in several Mountain West states (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico), and highly competitive in several southeastern states (Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina). That's just too much of the country for Democrats to write off.

Posted by: Brad k | April 23, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama is ahead. Yes, he is. And why? Because voters were deceived by the media and Obama himself, fronting as someone he is not. Had the Wright controversy came out in the beginning, Obama would have been OUT of this race before it started. So STOP with he is ahead. Being ahead whn deceived, and now losing because we know who he is, means he is NOT ahead, not when it comes to being electable NOW and in November. He cannot carry one big state besides his home state of Illinois. The majority of the states he has won are Republican and will still be Republican in November. He is out of this race in a big way. And North Carolina will not save him for the Democrats. he needed Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio for that. And he lost in a big way. He cannot carry one swing state when we must carry ALL to win in November. Yes, Obama, I heard your Indiana "red and blue does not matter" rhetoric! One more reason to show how inexperienced you really are. Obama has confused winning the Democrat nomination with the General Election. The General is all that matters. And if the Super Delegates and the DNC do not wake up to this fact, he will lose not only the Presidency for the Democrats, but the Senate seats, the House seats, the Governorships and right on down the line. And it is his own fault. He never distanced himself with Anti-American rhetoric, even when he wants to be the American President. Obama must drop out of this race before he destroys this Democrat Party.

Posted by: Core Democrat | April 23, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

LINDA DAVES
FOR VP

Posted by: NEOCRAT NEOCON NATION | April 23, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I think that the correct analogy is the meal analogy. One Democrat is Steak, the other is Roast Beef and McCain is Tuna Fish. If I have a choice only between Steak and Roast Beef, then I may well prefer Steak. But if I have the choice between Roast Beef and Tuna fish (even though I prefer Steak) I will still be much happier with Roast Beef.

And that's ultimately what would happen absent some radical and real unfair action. If its Obama, the Clinton supporters (at least most of them (and not the trolls that post here)) would end up voting for Obama. If its Clinton (and its not done in an unfair fashion -- something which at this point is hard to fathom) the Obama supporters would end up voting for Clinton.

The only "factor" would be if a perceived "unfairness" (a real unfairness not this Florida and Michigan nonsense) resulted in one candidate being chosen over another. For example, if Obama came to the convention with the most states won, the most pledged delegates, and the lead in the popular vote (which will likely be the case EVEN counting the Florida votes, and will certainly be the case if the caucus voters are given the correct weight in the popular vote) and the Superdelegates pick Sen. Clinton, then a portion of the Obama voters would (correctly) walk away). But if Sen. Clinton does "pull off a miracle" and win the 70%+ in the rest of the primaries, then the Obama supporters should and would vote for her.

And even if she "steals" the nomination, a lot of Obama supporters, such as myself, would hold our noses and vote for Clinton.

Posted by: Beef or Fish | April 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

KEEP MY HEDGE FUND TAXES
AT 15%

AND
BOMB BOMB BOMB
BOMB BOMB IRAN

Posted by: NEOCRAT NEOCON NATION | April 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

There is no legitimate argument for saying that either candidate cannot carry the states won by the other in the primary. The only way that happens is if one of the candidates refuses to get in the tent for the general election. Remember, many conservatives said they couldn't vote for McCain...until he was the Republican nomination. Heck, they were crying in the aisles when Romney announced he was dropping out...

That said, would it surprise me if the Clintons refused to get in the tent if they do not get the nomination? No. Hillary's window is closing and she has to either be elected this time around or in 2012 or her time will have passed. The Clintons know this and they may be small enough to torpedo another Dem to give themselves another shot at the nomination in 4 years.

Obama, on the other hand, has different math in that regard and will get in the Dem's tent regardless. He truly believes that more of the same Republican policies will be harmful to the nation.

Now, would that make Hillary a better choice as a candidate or a worse choice as a person?

Posted by: scott032 | April 23, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I am from India. It does not matter to me who becomes the US President. But to me it seems Hillary has overstayed her welcome.

Height of physical thirst: Thirsty man sucking a straw

Height of political thirst: Hillary in campaign 2008.

Come on Hillary, you've done enough to help John McCain. If you had a reasonable chance of winning the nomination, it would have been fine but your vitriolic attacks on Obama are only endearing you to the republicans. Or is your way of getting the republican vote?

Posted by: rmalik | April 23, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

its OVER she KNOCKED
HIM OUT

GO SUPERDELEGATES
1 PERSON 2/3 VOTE

Posted by: Scott wells | April 23, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

It is really unfortunate that this debate is so heated. Hilarious. I have to laugh a little about Obama playing the race card, as if there is no gender card. They have just hurt themselves too much. Will the country really vote for a Democrate even though they don't like whichever one is picked? Maybe. Can either of them really change things around? Doubt it. Will the economy get better? Really don't think so. Not for awhile, by then the next election will be around the corner. Whichever party is elected will take the praise if the economy is doing good, expect it.
For everyone, name calling is stupid. If you were up for a job, would name calling, age card, gender card, race card, techniques be the way to get that job? I hope not.
By the way, I like tax cuts. If you say only those who can pay a satifactory amount of taxes already are the only ones to get a break, what do you do for a living? I am at the start of my career and low man on the totem poll, but I feel the tax cuts. I am thinking....education should be your goal.
Life is easy. Pay attention in school, get good grades, work hard, exercise daily, don't over do it on the drinking, partying too much side, and love those around you as you would love yourself.

Posted by: ai3d | April 23, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

The person quoting red state totals is obviously idiotic: those are DEMOCRATS voting. Obama will win NONE of those states. Who honestly thinks after Rev Wright, Ayers, God and Guns Bittergate, no flag, no hand on heart for national anthem, disastrous wife, corrupt fundraiser Rezko, not to mention all the skeletons in reserve that we know about in Chicago and that the Republicans know, what idiot is left that honestly thinks ONE republican will vote for Obama, when there are a lot of Democrats who won't even vote for him?

Do YOU see a pattern here: Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Gore, Kerry, Obama: left liberal losers who gave the White House to the Republicans for 28 of the last 40 years and counting.

Hit the history books, kids.

Posted by: Chicago1 | April 23, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Tax cuts cannot improve the economy. Tax cuts only help the businesses and individuals who are already doing well enough to pay significant taxes. To jumpstart an economy you need to promote those which are struggling.

Wow, this has been tried before and guess what? It always fails.

Taxes actually HURT businesses and the economy. Why? Because it is a COST to businesses.

What do businesses do when costs get too high?

Downsize, move overseas, fire people, close up shop, and fail to grow (meaning FEWER jobs, HIGHER prices and so on)

Now how does that HELP the economy?

If you are struggling it is YOUR job to figure out what to do about it.

Posted by: None of the Above 08 | April 23, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Victor,

I have to say it would be nice for the current Dem front runners to kill each other. By doing so, the Dem party would have the chance once again to choose a "good" candidate.

Posted by: None of the Above 08 | April 23, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama campaign argues that these Democratic primary voters will stick with the party's nominee in November, whether it's Clinton or Obama."

Dream on, boys and girls, should Mr.Obama not get the nomination at the convention, claims of white conspiracy will be heard by the 90+% that vote for him because of his race.
If Mrs Clinton does not get the nomination the white working class voters will not vote for Mr.Obama as they view him as an elitist, out of touch with their class.

You can't win the presidency without the white working class!

Posted by: JLeopold1 | April 23, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Patrick NYC,

Whoever wins the Dem nomination will most likely carry traditionally Dem states in the general regardless of what happened in the primary/caucus.

Posted by: None of the Above | April 23, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

In Hillary's world, she has won more votes because people voted for her in states where the votes don't count. What is it about "don't count" doesn't she understand. We need a reality-based candidate.

Posted by: thebob.bob | April 23, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

pasifikawv

The wins in the red states were for the Democratic caucus or primary ONLY.

Comparing what happens in a party's primary or caucus to the outcome in a general election is like comparing apples and broccoli.

Posted by: None of the Above 08 | April 23, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Wow, it seems that Obama's supporters are much more willing to vote for Clinton over McCain than Clinton supporters to vote for Obama over McCain. Seems a little "bitter" to me.

Posted by: RollaMO | April 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Dave,

I have visited Mr. Obama's website on numerous occasions throughout the course of my research on all the candidates.

However, I will NOT be voting for him in the general and did not vote for him in my state's caucus.

Arguably, it is logical to argue that a relatively unknown newcomer would have more site traffic than 2 other candidates who have been around a while and therefore are "known" entities, as voters attempt to figure out who the heck is this guy?

It doesn't prove much, if anything.

Posted by: None of the Above 08 | April 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter how loud you cream obamacons, the results of penn suggest that a core middle class constituent is not supporting your candidate. And what about Florida and Mich? does disenfranchising those very important states matter to anyone? It matters to them and I guarantee Florida goes McCain if Obama is the nominee.

Posted by: sybil | April 23, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe that Dems will stay home and allow McCain to be elected in the fall if their primary choice doesn't end up with the nomination.

I voted for Obama in the primary , but if Hillary is the candidate, I'll vote for her because I cannot stand back and see the White House to remain in GOP control. The only choice I have is a Democrat...no matter which one is ultimately nominated.

I don't want war with Iran on top of what we're already dealing with.

Posted by: My 2 | April 23, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama's unelectable for an host of reasons, but two of the ones that Hillary hasn't used by Republicans will are his history of Grand Theft Auto and Repeated purchase and use of hard drugs --specifically cocaine, which he braggs that he did "as often as he could afford it" in his books

When he gets asked in a debate with McCain --

"Mr Obama how many times did you purchase or use hard drugs such as Cocaine?"

What will his answer be?

How many people would vote for him after that?

His own words make him unacceptable to the majority of Americans.

The only reason it hasn't been show-stopper so far is that the kids that support him seem to think its cool, and adults that support him don't know.

To mainstream America, its unacceptable.

Even just rumors of it almost sunk Bush.

In Obama's case, he admits, in fact, braggs about it, in his books.


Posted by: Don't forget Obama's self admitted felonies | April 23, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

From the comments written by the most
of you...
you were same people who voted for
B/C, twice, you were the same people that voted for HRC in PA, because you are
so 'sensitivity', yeah, when youre not
stepping on others shoes...
bushclintonbushclintonbushclintonbush
clinton...whiteswhiteswhiteswhiteswhiteswhites...govtdebtglobalwarmdollarweaklosejobs
Do you see a pattern here ?!!!!
OK maybe you all are
idiots !!!!

Posted by: iknowthatyouknownothing | April 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is unelectible in the general election but it doesn't matter because she's LOST the nomination battle to Obama on every measure:

Obama leads in popular vote
Obama leads in delegates
Obama leads in the number of states won
Obama has won more red states than clinton has won in total.

It is time for hillary to go back to NY so we can start fighting the REAL election!

Posted by: JBE | April 23, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

If the Democrats are trying to make a point "how to please the Independents and screw the Democrats" then BO is getting it done
If Democrats care about our Nation,the true Democrats in our party and want to win this election they will make a quick scramble to Hillary Rodham Clinton, just like every big state has done. Do it now!

The United States needs strong leadership and someone that makes Republicans shake in their boots. Hillary Rodham Clinton is our Democratic candidate.

Posted by: Roosevelt1 | April 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"Conservatives won't vote for Obama, conservatives won't vote for Clinton" GREAT! Hopefully the conservatives will realize how ideologically challenged they are based on their results the past 8 years, the damage to our country, AND THEY WILL STAY HOME...festering in their virulent arrogance...enjoying their narcissistic personalities, their false literal-mythic religious ethos, and their beloved Fox News.

Posted by: Robert | April 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Tax cuts cannot improve the economy. Tax cuts only help the businesses and individuals who are already doing well enough to pay significant taxes. To jumpstart an economy you need to promote those which are struggling.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

So Obama can't win the big states against McCain because Hillary has bested him there. Huh? If you give me the choice of cake or ice cream, I'll take cake. But if the next choice is then between ice cream and brussel sprouts, I'll take the ice cream.

Posted by: RollaMO | April 23, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The Red State debate is more than that: the DNC Delegate Allocation Formula gives more delegates per capita to the small states - that has given Obama a 50 delegate advantage - not by strength at the ballot box but by strength at the formula.

Give the country a break.

The Superdelegates and the DNC need to get their election fair and free of any claims that the process was not legitimate.


Otherwise, they will have a tainted nominee.


yea, tainted.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary''s new slogan is " Why can''t he close the deal?" Someone should remind Hillary that they are running for the office of the President of the United States and that they are not some used car salesmen. Keep counting those imaginary delegates from Michigan and Florida. If there is one thing that America stands for, is that We are a nation of Laws, and Michigan and Florida broke the Democratic laws. The Democratic Party is not going to show the rest of the country that they will break their own rules."If we had the same system as the Republicans, I would already be the nominee...." yet another Clinton scenario for winning the primary. Do you think that you can make any other points as to whether the superdelegates should back Hillary ? Why did the media fail to chastise Ed Rendell " There are some people in this State that will not vote for a black man" but they vote for someone who channels Truman and said " we can totally obliterate Iran" By the way that wasn''t McCain who made that statement... it was Hillary. I did not say Clinton, because you may have understood it to be Bill Clinton. By the way AOL might want to get their facts straight.... Hillary won by 8.5 points and not 10

Posted by: Ron | April 23, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

You could see how Obama would get the impression he can do that based on the turnouts that greet him and the many little nobodies donating to his campaign. I might even think he can do that. In time, we will know.

Posted by: Gaias Child | April 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing that people including senators and congresspeople are reportedly depending on their daughters and sons to choose Senator Obama as president even though those young people don't know with whom they will climb into bed tomorrow. lol.

Posted by: ing1 | April 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

"DEMOCRATIC LOSERS CLUB"

Oh, yes, the ever-growing list of Democrats that the Clintons hold in contempt. There's president Carter, vice-president Gore, Democratic frontrunner Obama...

Gosh, this list is getting kind of unweildy. Maybe we should just compile a list of Democrats that the Clintons DON'T hold in contempt?

1) Clinton, Hillary
2) Clinton, Bill

Yeah, that's much more manageable.

Posted by: Christoffel | April 23, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary won the big states because she won the big states. Obama lost the big states becuase he lost the big states. Obama has no track record in the Senate and can't hide that fact with scripted speeches and practiced smiles. Money and tv ads will not buy the nomination. Deeds count most and most Democrats are not looking for another male egotist for their next president.

Posted by: hhkeller | April 23, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama's so called red state appeal is totally bogus. He can only win primaries in red states in which almost all democrats are blacks. Looking at the number of primary voters in these states is almost laughable: in many precincts there were only a few tens of democrates who voted. He used to have appeal in independents when he was projected as a centrist candidate. The revelation of his elitist point of view of ordinary people drive these independent voters away. All republicans need to do is to drive home Rev Wright, Cling-gate, Rezko and God-knows-what-to- come-up and will defeat him in any of the red states.

Posted by: God Father | April 23, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

All of this is pure speculation from both the Clinton and Obama camps. And the media is just following their lead without provinding an ounce of context.

We really don't know how the electorate will behave once the general election starts. For example, Kerry won both Ohio and Florida in the primaries but he lost both in the general. Why are we not including that argument in this piece? Morever, we're 7-months away from the General Election. A lot of things may and will happen. Nobody knows. We have not gone through one single debate between the two main candidates. Voters have not seen the difference between what each is promising. There is a lot to process between now and November and right now is just a lot media and campaign spin that we're listening to all in the name of higher ratings.

Let this election run its course and then see what happenes.

Posted by: Eros Wong | April 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

He needs to just stop playing her game.

All he has to do is remain positive, allow her and her surrogates to slosh about in the mud, and let the thing run its course.

This nomination is over regardless of what Team Clinton or some members of the media (who obviously have an agenda in keeping this thing going as long as possible) have to say about it.

There is no way she can win the Democratic nomination without, in the process, destroying the Democratic party for years to come.

The superdelegates are well aware of this fact.

Posted by: gthstonesman | April 23, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Barry and Bobby Show are over in Pennsylvania. Barry was so humiliated, he ran away to another state fast before the poll was even closed.

Of course, the Democratic Party is so stupid; they will nominate him away, just to make sure he will lose another general election in November.

If Obama is the nominee, there is no need to wonder why once again democrats have lost 8 out of 10 presidential elections in last 44 years. Democrats are guilty of picking wrong horse every four years.

Obama will be the newest member to join DEMOCRATIC LOSERS CLUB along with members like Humphrey (1968), McGovern (1972), Carter (1980), Mondale (1984), Dukakis (1988), Gore (2000), Kerry (2004) and Obama (2008).

Posted by: Looking Forward To 2012 | April 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

They are killing each other, as soon the democrats have a candidate,they will plunge in the numbers against Mc Cain that is because no enough numbers of supporters of each one, will go to the other side ,Hillary women will stay in home rather than vote for Obama and a lot of hispanics,but african americans will do the same to Hillary,and the Obama independents;only a ticket together will save them,or a third name.

Posted by: victor | April 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Down goes Obama - Down goes Barrack Hussein Osama Bin Laden

Posted by: steve | April 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Newsflash, Conservatives won't vote for Obama:
Conservatives won't vote for Clinton, either.
And while I really, really hate to generalize, any conservative who would vote in the primary for two people the Right supposedly hates or fears, based on irrationality -- just because a morally bankrupt, elitist right-wing windbag tells them to -- have far greater things to worry about than taxes!
Oh, and to me, "CONSERVATIVE" equals "DEFICIT."

And the red state/blue state spiel grows more stale with every passing month.

Posted by: vegasgirl | April 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

1. Conservatives will not vote for a far-left candidate, especially during a recession.

To conservatives, "liberal" is a "codeword" for TAXES.

2. Obama's comments about "Typical White People", his 20 years in Rev Wright's "God Damm" America" Church and his links with the weather underground make him completely unelectable, especially in "Red States"

Posted by: Conservatives won't vote for Obama | April 23, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary won the big states because she had the backing of the Democratic machinery. Simple. Hillary works in tandem with Bill and McCain and Rush Limbaugh against Obama. Multiple foes, a hydra, are tough to fight yet Obama continues on and wins. Pundits and journalists seem linear in thinking. Obama can slay the Clinton machine and the Republican dragon as well. Go Obama.

Posted by: M. Stratas | April 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama has won far more "red" states than Billary and has won many more states overall. He is way ahead in the popular vote even counting FL unless we disinfranchise the millions of voters who participated in their state's caucuses. Billary can only win thru theft.

Posted by: pasifikawv | April 23, 2008 4:32 PM
-------------------
I don't think any democrat can win those red states, it's OH, FL and PA that are the concern with Obama running. I've been to all three several times over the past 30 years and they are not always liberal leaning.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

As North Carolina is already proving, a state where a local Republican group is running an attack ad using imagery of Rev. Wright's now famous diatribe (McCain has begged that the ad be pulled), the idea that Obama stands a chance in some of those states where Democrats had long "given up" and Republicans stop at nothing...is almost sadly laughable.

What confuses many of us, is why so many of these "new" Democratic voters he relies on have not yet done some campaign homework and vetted Senator Obama's Republican like funding... and more importantly, challenged his less than forthcoming disclosure of his entrenched lobbyist and corporate handlers.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2008/4/19/182319/814

Posted by: John | April 23, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Remember VA: Huge "red" state.
BO 65%; HC 35%

Remember GA: Huge "red" state
BO 67%; HC 31%

Remember AL: Huge "red" state
BO 57%; HC 41%

Remember AK: Small, but VERY "red" state
BO 75%; HC 24%

Remember CO: Swing/"Red" state:
BO 68%; HC 31%

Remember ID: Very "red" state
BO 80%; HC 16%

Remember KS: "red" state
BO 75%; HC 25%

Remember Miss: very "red" state
BO 62%; HC 36%

Remember Neb: Red state
BO 69%; HC 31%

Remember ND: "red" state
BO 62%; HC 36%

Sen. Obama has won far more "red" states than Billary and has won many more states overall. He is way ahead in the popular vote even counting FL unless we disinfranchise the millions of voters who participated in their state's caucuses. Billary can only win thru theft.

Posted by: pasifikawv | April 23, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi must be enjoying the inevitable.

One of two things is brewing, Both will save Her.

Barack Hussein gets Elected, and QUICKLY drops in Favorability even FASTER than she did, OR, McCain wins, and the Republi-CANS get control back, and get her idiot Arse out of the way of HR-1940:Birthright Citizenship Act, and More! :-)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain -
a Web Comparison:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=76

Posted by: Dave | April 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company