Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Is Clinton Right That She's the Stronger Candidate?

"I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate. ... The White House is won in the swing states and I am winning the swing states."
-- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) during her victory speech Tuesday night in West Virginia.

The debate over whether or not Clinton can best Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the race for the Democratic nomination is all but over; the endorsement of Obama by former senator and two-time presidential candidate John Edwards (N.C.) late Wednesday was yet more evidence that conventional wisdom assumes this race to be nearing a conclusion.

That said, is Clinton right about the general election? Would she be the stronger Democrat to run against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)? There's no easy answer to that question, but those are just the sort of questions The Fix is most intrigued by.

Let's start with the fundamentals.

While the presidential election is cast as a national race, those in the know have always seen it as a series of contests often fought in a dozen (or so) traditional battleground states. The existence of the Electoral College adds another layer of complexity -- running up the vote in a state or states that are solidly in hand for one party or the other is far less important that winning (even if by only a handful of votes) in the so-called "swing states."

So, the best way to analyze whether Clinton would indeed be a stronger general election candidate than Obama is to take a look state by state at the playing field on which the race will be fought in November.

Each party has a group of states that -- barring some sort of fundamental political realignment -- should go safely for whichever candidate is nominated.

For McCain, that list includes: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona (a potentially competitive state typically but the Republican nominee's home state), Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming. Those states total 132 electoral votes.

For Clinton and Obama, the list includes: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. Those states total 165 electoral votes.

Once you get beyond those two sets of states, 22 total states remain -- about two-thirds of which are almost certain to be competitive regardless of the identity of the Democratic nominee. The remainder would likely only be competitive under a specific candidate scenario.

Let's take those latter states first. If Obama is the nominee, it's likely his campaign plays in the non-traditional battlegrounds of Kansas, Montana, North Carolina and North Dakota -- states totaling 27 electoral votes. It's hard to see how Clinton could make a serious play in any of those four. By the same token, Clinton would likely run real campaigns in West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee (30 electoral votes) where Obama would not likely do so.

When you total up the traditional state strongholds for each party and the potential growth areas for Clinton and Obama, it's essentially a wash.

That means that the 14 states likely to be competitive between McCain and either Obama or Clinton form the crux of the New York senator's argument that she gives Democrats a better chance of reclaiming the White House in the fall.

A glance at these 14 states -- and the polling to date in each -- suggests that Clinton is clearly the stronger Democrat in three: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. That trio of states, which includes the two central battlegrounds in the 2000 and 2004 presidential contests, have 68 electoral votes between them.

Obama would seem to have a discernible edge over Clinton in six states: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. These states have a total of 57 electoral votes.

Neither Clinton nor Obama can make an air-tight case that she (or he) would be stronger against McCain in Maine (4 electoral votes), Michigan (17), Missouri (11), New Hampshire (4) and New Mexico (5).

Taken as a whole, Clinton's argument that she is the stronger potential general election candidate against McCain is true -- to a point. She is stronger -- although not by much -- if the playing field in 2008 is a mirror image of the battlegrounds of 2004 and 2000. Clinton, at the moment, is more strongly positioned to win in three states -- Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio -- that have decided the winner in the last two presidential contests.

But that argument only holds if you believe two things: First, that the playing field will be essentially unchanged between 2000/2004 and 2008 and, second, that current polling is an accurate predictor of what things will look like in November.

On the first point, Obama's campaign insists that the idea of a static group of battleground states between 2004 and 2008 is old thinking and misunderstands the nature of Obama's candidacy. Campaign manager David Plouffe has insisted that places like North Carolina and North Dakota could be competitive due to the unique appeal of Obama's change message. (The Fix is somewhat skeptical of this argument, but time will tell.)

On the second, it's difficult to predict whether Obama's inability to win primaries in Ohio, Pennylvania and West Virginia against Clinton will translate into weakness in a general election when voters are faced with the choice between the Illinois senator and McCain. Current general election polls in each of the states (as well as Florida) show Clinton as the stronger candidate. But if Clinton is removed from the race, it seems likely that some of those voters who are skeptical about Obama will ultimately come home.

Just how many Democratic-leaning voters defect to McCain is the key question. And, as of today, it's impossible to know.

Put simply: A traditional and static map would seem to affirm Clinton's argument. A changing battlefield with a series of newly competitive states plays to Obama's strengths. Which one do you believe is the more likely scenario this fall?

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 15, 2008; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Edwards Endorsement: What It Means
Next: Democratic Media Group Ditches Ad Effort

Comments

Visit clintonsupporterscounttoo!!! We are organizing against Obama!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Mason: I may be wrong but I count 31 Primaries and Hillary winning 16. What most of you are missing is in the states Obama has won, a lot of them will go "R" in the GE. I am almost sure Pa., Ohio, and WV cannot be won by Obama, and along with Mi. and Fla., that are at best "Iffy" for him, it is pretty safe to say that if any one of these five states go "R" in the GE the Dems will lose. I am looking at the Electoral College map, and considering Trends at the present time, Hillary is well positioned to win all five.

Posted by: lylepink | May 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

the kirkpatrick scandal in michigan is going to make it very hard for obama to win against mccain there.

Posted by: chris | May 17, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink:
Stop lying. Do you even read this paper before you post? National polls show BHO and HRC running equally ahead of JSMc. State polls, as shown on places like electoral-vote.com still show a significant amount of statistically inconclusiveness, but BHO is competitive in far more states. That's where the numbers stand. Since invalid premises lead to invalid arguments, the rest of what you have to say is bogus.

You sound like Karl Rove. Before the 2006 election, he told Robert Siegel, "You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to 'the' math." His math was telling him that the GOP would hold the House and Senate. We all know how that went. Statistics is a harsh mistress. Her ambiguity obscures insight until the view becomes all too clear.

Posted by: Mason | May 17, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

I do not like to repeat myself so many times, but it is very clear to me that Obama cannot win the GE. Everything I have learned in my 60+ years in politics is the weaker candidate loses, and the stronger one wins [No argument] HELLO . Look at every Poll and you that supports Obama can see, [If you would] that he has ZERO chance of winning in 2008. I have tried to make the point that the "IDIOT-Ology" cannot and has never been on the winning side. Many of these folks like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, The Nation Magazine, Salon, and others in the category I consider "The Far Left Wing of the Dem party" are HELL BENT [working to lose the election] on losing the 2008 General Election. The only thing I can think of is something I talked with a friend about how Nikita Kruschev said so many years ago that "The US would destroy its self from within". I have researched everything I can find about Obama and find many things that are so similar in how Obama is against most of the people in the US. This, to me, is an absolute NO to his candidacy for Prez. Hillary will win if she is the nominee, Obama will lose.

Posted by: lylepink | May 16, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama has never run a town let alone a state. What makes anyone think he can run the country? Bush, Regan, and (Bill)Clinton were 2 term Governors; that's experience.

Throwing Rev. Wright "under-the-bus" shows that Obama is amoral and unscrupulous. Either he lied to Rev. Wright for 20 years pretending to believe what Rev. Wrght preached or he's lying now by pretending not to believe. Either way Obama is a liar and an opportunist who can't be trusted.

Posted by: Lesley | May 16, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Very succinctly.

Obama may win the nomination battle.

Obama will lose the war. Unquestionably.

Posted by: Lesley | May 16, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

YES, she is the stronger candidate! And yes, she has more experience!
But it is also the experience that Obama HAS that she does NOT that makes her the srtonger candidate...Obama's experience with terroist assosiations, 20 years with ANTI American hate filled Wright, a spouse that is not proud of her country, and Americans (terroists) that BOMB American buildings, and a father and step brother tied to terroist activity in Kenya, Resko and this is NOT over, Sinclair, the Choir Minister from Obama's church,and ON and ON and on!
Hillary has been a PROUD American EVERY DAY of her adult life and a champion for the American People!

Obama has done nothing for the American peoople. NOTHING! But he wants to be the AMERICAN President. NO NO NO!

YOU BET SHE IS THE STRONGER CANDIDATE! We know we can TRUST her with this COUNTRY!

Posted by: DEM OR IND | May 16, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

To the person who posted that Obama has no experience neither did President Bush, ronald regan and they got elected president.

Hilary was never in the milatry so what's your point?????

Posted by: jacie | May 16, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I was wrong! Keith Umemoto endorsed Clinton today. I now predict that Keith Umemoto will be the last non-add-on, non-promised-to-honor-the-results-in-a-district superdelegate to endorse Clinton.

Posted by: Not Ciro Rodriguez | May 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

As the economy continues to deteriorate because of the Bush trifectra of arrogance, incompetence, and dishonesty - people will be more concerned with who can do the job versus who they like. That equation leaves both of the men out in the cold - if Hillary loses the democratic nomination she could win as a independent - things could change that quickly - all those people that hate her for being the smartest in the room will only be too glad to have her run the show until things get back on track.

Posted by: Jack | May 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I like Barack - he's intelligent, extremely eloquent and he's going to be a great President someday but the current climate is not right for him - had he succeeded Bill Clinton and just had to keep the training going - he would do great - the Clinton's would have been there every step of the way helping him preserve Bill's legacy. Most people don't realize it but Bill is recognized as the top public sector manager in the world. Even the Japanese consider him the best (in the public sector). But right now you have the two smartest politicians in the Democratic Party and maybe the world hoping he fails -so that either she gets the nomination now or in 4 years. Not a good place for Barack to be in. And then Barack needs time to develop a thicker skin - he should laugh off President Bush - point out that the President should go back to playing golf like he did 42% of his time before 9/11.
I deeply resent people making an issue of Barack's race - John F. Kennedy was the first democratic and the only one my father ever voted for - because President Kennedy was an Irish catholic just like my father - black democrats have every right to be proud of Barack - it just isn't a good time to be President if your last name isn't Clinton - so yes she's the best candidate because she's smarter than almost everyone on the planet and has a skin as thick as a rhinoceros.

Posted by: Jack | May 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Well, here's the deal. My entire family voted Hillary and I live in California. That's about 9 people not counting me. We're immigrants (forget where we are from). None of them are willing to even consider Obama in a McCain vs Obama matchup. Why? Others were sort of vague about why they wouldn't consider him, but one cousin bluntly said that he would leave this country the minute a black man is elected president. I am embarrassed and ashamed of what he said, but that's the reality. I am a hardcore liberal and I see no reason to vote for a republican over a democrat because I know what's at stake since I go to college and know about politics and economics. The other people in my family don't. I'm already swayed, I'd rather shoot myself then vote for McCain, but the other people in my family will vote for McCain. I'm not going to make the case for Hillary since there's the Math thing that will be pulled again and again. But honestly, as an educated member of this society, I don't see how Obama is going to win Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, Florida or Ohio in the general election.
Yes, he is awesome, but so were Howard Dean and Al Gore. I would vote Chris Dodd if he were the nominee, but will everyone else? The point here is not that we're talking about how our support is strong for Obama or the democrats, the point is, how is everyone else going to support them?
27% in WV for Obama translates to 15% of total voters in the general election. 45% in Ohio only mean about 22%.
When you have 25% of the electorate in your bag in the primaries only because of your race, you can win them. But when they trickle down to 13 percent in the general election, finding that other 37% could be and will be hard. Please, don't waste your time arguing with me on this since I'm not going to be reading this site again. If you are an Obama supporter, get to work right now. Instead of trouncing Hillary, start working on appeasing her supporters as I type. If you continue to fight with her supporters, then their going to join your enemy.

Amen

Posted by: Josh | May 16, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

That is not what any Google web page states with respect to electoral college votes. Hillary or Mc Cain win. Obama will never get it. I am surprised you even say that or are you a scret obama person. I didn't think so? Obama using caucuses in states where it is not a democratic process is not a good test and any map on google shows where Hillary beats Mc Cain in several situations and it's objective. But Mc Cain beat Obama. Eemember Gore's anti-gun rant of 2000. He lost W.VA, Tenn.-home state and turned back on Bill and lost Arkansas. If he had one of those states with the least votes: W. VA. for 5 electoral college votes he would have been the president. Didn't need Florida.
So That is why I am sticking Hillary or Nader as a protest vote until Dems get it right. No more Deans, Pelosi's, Reid's, in leadershoip positions. Rahm Emmanuel-YES Hillary-Yes! Westly Clark-YES! The rest are nice but role over too much and obama is very weak like Carter- 22% inflation and I remeber hostages. Hated it but day after Reagan was elected Hostages were released. SIGH on weak Dems! I vote Nader, if Obama, as a protest vote. He's done nothing here in Illinois -senate on Afgan committe? and friends you would not like Emil Jones-Il. senate president- protecting another Dem. governor from jail-in Ill. the 4th to possibly go. It's a bad state. Highest taxes now 10.25% I love Dems but I am not stupid.

Posted by: Chris | May 16, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Chris, but the Dems start of with 168 electoral votes all but sewn up, not 165. Sigh...even in our hometown paper, folks forget the District of Columbia, with 3 electoral votes. That's as many as Vermont, Delaware, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and both Dakotas. Don't count us out in the one national election we actually have!

Posted by: 20010 | May 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I can't speak for the other states that were included in the re-writing of the electoral map but I can talk about Kansas because I live in this very "red" state (at least when it comes to presidential elections.

I live in the northeast part of the state (borders on Kansas City, MO.) which is one of the most populated areas in the state and Johnson, Co. is also the wealthiest county in Kansas. It is true demographics have been changing in this area since my family and I have moved here almost 18 years ago. But still moderate republicans tend to be the order of the day.

Democrats who run for public office and get elected and re-elected like Dennis Moore, the U. S. congressional representative from our area, are conservative democrats - not the left-wing version of the "party."

Our state was a caucus state on "super Tue." It was a mockery of a "fair election" at least in our area. I witnessed it up close and personal in our caucus sites as well as friends at other caucus sites in our county. (BTW, one friend was an Obama supporter at the time.)

It should also be noted prior to super Tue. that McCain was not the presumptive nominee for the republican party. As stated before, the republicans in our area like "moderates." With McCain, now the presumptive nominee for the repubs., I have no doubt the state of Kansas will go republican at least for the "presidential" candidate this November. (It should be noted the last time Kansans voted for a democrat for president was 1964 and more than likely was a "sympathy vote" because the election was not long after JFK's assassination.)

Posted by: Cathy in Ks. | May 16, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Have you guys ever thought that the main strategy of Al-Qaeda to destroy our country might be to foment a civil war?
The Clinton hillbilly-high school dropout supporters are the ones fomenting the racial strife.
They throw White against Black, and Latinos against Black. If you walk on any street of America today you will see that the Clinton HATE strategy is starting to bear fruit, as people from different races seem to be uneasy around each other.
So, are the Clinton supporters playing a role on the Al-Qaeda strategy to foment a racial civil war within the United States?
Only time will tell us, but surely this legacy of hate left by the Clinton supporters will not wash away fast.
Me and my friends we are cutting our relationships with all the Clinton supporters that we know, because we cannot handle their bitterness and hate.
Clinton's and their supporters are indeed bringing so much evil to our country, destroying families, friendships and whole communities, that I think will take a while to repair what they have destroyed.

Posted by: Hillbillies are terrorists? | May 16, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

"I can't believe the party I have suppoorted all my life, the Democrats, are chosing Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton. Has anyone noticed that the Junior Senator from Illinois has NO experience in running anything? Not even a Mom and Pop grocery store.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, has tremendous experience in providing health care for kids, trying to get Americans universal health care coverage, being a two term Senator, foreign policy exposure and much more. She is trustworthy, hard-working and not a quitter when things get tough.

Sen. Obama seems to be a Democrat-lite. A whiny, wordy empty suit who can rouse the masses with rhetoric but has little to show for his accomplishments. Once, he says, he was a community organizer. Well. So were a lot of people. Big deal.

Sen. Clinton has shown her solidarity and understanding of working class people - those necessary to win a general election. She understands working stiffs in Michigan and the retired in Florida. She gets the women's vote because she is intellectually astute and a problem-solver who gets things done.

How naive Democrats are this year being taken in by wishful thinking and not looking at the hard facts. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Sen. Obama and his blank resume. I also cannot vote for him because of the way his campaign trashed Sen. Clinton - maybe for the first time I vote Republican. "

_____________________________________

1) Obama has run stuff before
2) Clinton is slightly more than a 1 term senator
3) Compared to the number of people who are "trustworthy" or "hard-working" or have "foreign policy exposure," not many people are community organizers
4) Obama did not trash Clinton's campaign.

Nice try, though

Posted by: DDAWD | May 16, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

The major problem here is that it assumes that all the voters voting in the GE are either Dems or Repubs. It ignores the 10 to 15 percent or so of voters who are Independents. Among independents, Mrs. Clinton has very high negatives, well over half indicate they wouldn't vote for her. If one loses better than half of the independents right of the bat then one's chances of winning are seriously damaged. Second, in many states where Republicans might not show up to vote out of disgust might show up to vote against Hillary. The working class voters in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania might vote against Obama but at this point they have nothing to lose by voting for McCain. Since 1980 the "Reagan Democrats" have been voting for Republicans. As a result their jobs have gone overseas, many have lost their pensions, they have no health insurance, and now they are losing their homes. They have followed the siren's song of the Republicans and have lost everything.

Posted by: Repub | May 15, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Actually Chris, polling data says that she wins Michingan, and he doesn't (18 electoral votes), she competes in Nevada and he doesn't and that NJ and CA become states he has to defend- He has nearly no chance in NC and basing a CO win for him on caucus results is at best a reach.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I've got two cases for you, 0 for 37:

Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)

Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1974)

Read em and weep. Parties have a wide amount of latitude in the selection of national delegates. It seems that the courts err on the side of protecting freedom of assembly and association. Furthermore, while the states must attempt to provide equal protection under law, the parties act o serve a "pervasive national interest, which is paramount to any interest of a State in protecting the integrity of its electoral process". (CvW)

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at the Primary and Caucus states that each of them have won so far and project whether these will likely go D or R in Nov.. Clearly Hillary is the Strongest.

Posted by: lylepink | May 15, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

"
If that wimpering wimp Obama and {Michell} too ,woe is me ,woe is me, on TV I feel sad for America , goodbye Isreal, hello Kenya"

could you be more racist or offensive? and it's spelled Israel with the a before the e, if you are so hot and bothered to defend a particular FOREIGN country shouldn't you know how to spell its name?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"Obama's name was on the Florida Primary Ballet because to be on the GE Ballet your name also has to be on the Primary.

Proff.... that the DNC rule to not campaign did not require the removal of their names."

NO IT DOESN'T. STOP LYING. The deadline to remove names had passed.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama's name was on the Florida Primary Ballet because to be on the GE Ballet your name also has to be on the Primary.

Proff.... that the DNC rule to not campaign did not require the removal of their names.

If the votes were not counted why risk a loss in MI.... looks bad.... ?
To minimize the loss in WV..... stand behind, I did not campaign...
To put water on the fire of winning in WV, have Edwards endorse the next day.

We are lead by those that know how to play the game.

How does she survive? Unbelievable. She has such power trying to destroy her.

She has so far..... she just might make it to the end.

Posted by: Mattynr | May 15, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

To answer the question?
Mattynr said:
"Why did Obama leave his name on the Florida Ballet and remove it from the Michigan Ballet?

To be on the General Election Ballet, your name has to be on the Primary Ballet in Florida.

Proff.. that removing their names was not part of any DNC rule...... it was a choice in Michigan....."


That's wrong. The deadline to remove your name from the ballot had passed in FLA. Come on. Everyone knows the answer to that question.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

To answer the question?
Why did Obama leave his name on the Florida Ballet and remove it from the Michigan Ballet?

To be on the General Election Ballet, your name has to be on the Primary Ballet in Florida.

Proff.. that removing their names was not part of any DNC rule...... it was a choice in Michigan.....

Posted by: Mattynr | May 15, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

The Compromise has always been important and several attempts have been offered.
These two states are vital in the General Election.

Obama has driven a hard deal..... and Clinton, again, is losing in the compromise. But the delegates will be seated. This is critical.
Finally we are again ..United States of America

In Michigan....
The rule was not to campaign.. nothing about taking their name off. OOOOPPPPPSSS

When it became clear that a mistake had been made. I now believe it was not a mistake.....it could be they didn't want to risk a loss that would reflect bad.
The cover for WV was.. they didn't campaign there.

Massive, massive, massive media and radio blitz went out to tell voters...... if your vote is for Edwards or Obama vote undecided (never did they mention any others) Kucinich was also on the ballet.

Hillary Clinton got 53%
Undecided got 40%
Kucinich got 7%

When the voters in Michigan went to the polls.
If they were not sure if they wanted to vote for Hillary???? Guess What? There was a place on the ballet that said.."not sure".... 40%of the voters voted that way.
Hillary votes are Hillary votes..clear and simple.

Now the undecided? Sorry, Obama you didn't want a re-vote did you.
John Edwards was a real candidate, Obama does not get all of the undecided... he splits that. But, he has demanded that and it looks like the DNC has caved in.

THE SUPER DELEGATES MUST MUST MUST DO THE MATH.
Even if the DNC cannot..... because of the rules.
They left a re-vote to the Candidates. Hillary said yes.... Obama didn't want to. Volunteers stepped up to cover the cost of the re-vote. Obama drug his feet until the time expired for the vote.

He is not to be rewarded but he is not being punished either. John Edwards was a real Candidate.
And, Hillary Clinton should not have to be punished for the mistake of removing their names.

We need to honor these voters... real Americans. real votes.

Florida???
Record numbers went to the polls. Hillary Clinton beat them all, Democrat and Republican.
She beat McCain 2-1 and the Democrats beat the Republicans in number 2-1.
Hillary got 51% and Obama got 33%

She can win this state in the GE

He wants to split Flordia.... 50/50
of course he does.
He is getting close to the wash needed to retain his lead.
When you vote for the man that will deliver change in this country...... you may not like the change he has to offer....... I don't....

Posted by: Mattynr | May 15, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

It is a VERY interesting analysis. Basically, it is sound to me, with the exception of one assumption. You assume that Michigan is a toss up between Senators Clinton and Obama. Don't the demographics favor Senator Clinton, or am I missing something here?

Thanks for your article.

Posted by: Art, San Diego | May 15, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Stronger?
He cannot face her in a debate and has passed up 4, Washington, Wisconsin, North Carolina and now Oregon. The Governor of North Carolina sent him a formal letter requesting a debate....he declined.
Obama: "If I debate in NC, the IN will want one too"
Well yes......

PROBLEM AND QUESTION. She is stronger!

If he cannot face Clinton in a debate how will he face other power people, Oil Cos., and thoes of power that want to do us harm?

Posted by: Mattynr | May 15, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

I am sure that if Martin Luther King could be alive today....

He would be ashamed of Barack Obama... I know it.
Obama blocking American votes? If there were even a hint that Barack was going to do that, MLK would come down hard and fast without doubt.

Obama blocked the re-votes of Michigan and Florida and now he is blocking the count.

When the DNC left the compromise up to the two Candidates for a re-vote, in Public Obama said what ever you guys want to do.

Re-vote...... volunteers came forward to cover the cost. DNC said yes, States said yes, Clinton said yes ... Obama didn't say no but he drug his feet until the time expired to do this.
He has been blocking the count. Again, the compromise is between the two. He wants
all of the 40% of Michigan and 50/50 of Florida. (he got 33%) What he wants is a wash. Which means..... votes given to someone else are to be given to him.

Ask MLK what he thinks of that?

Posted by: Mattynr | May 15, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Huh. The SCOTUS held in Bush v. Gore (2000)that "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States".

Weird. Never though I'd cite that one.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Chris, it's way too soon to think Clinton is the "stronger" candidate. Nobody's attacking Clinton. Nobody is pointing out her weaknesses, but rest assured, Republicans would have a field day! McCain is getting a free pass and plenty of free photo ops, while Clinton pretends this is a close race. On the other hand, everybody is taking potshots at Obama. McCain, Clinton, a lame duck president, a former president behaving badly, and every Republican operative and pundit on cable. All of these skew any real matchup results between Obama and McCain.

Posted by: Wanakee | May 15, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Oh course Hillary is the stronger candidate. Obama can't win in the General His game plan that he announced last night was to register new voters, particularly blacks to beat Mc Cain. I want someone running that is basing their votes on policies and experience, not someone playing the race card to win. The 90% black vote for Obama is racist.
He talks about faith and hope, way too much, he sounds like someone groomed to go into the Ministry.

Posted by: Shelby | May 15, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

If that wimpering wimp Obama and {Michell} too ,woe is me ,woe is me, on TV I feel sad for America , goodbye Isreal, hello Kenya

Posted by: Raul | May 15, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Give me a place to start. Go on. Do it. Give me a case as a starting point.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Jesus. If you were right, we wouldn't do primary season the way we do. We'd have it all on one day becasue having some before others would violate equal protection. Thing is, THERE'S NO VIOLATION OF EQUAL RIGHTS by stagering! NONE. VOTES ALL GET COUNTED! Prove that there is, and you might have a bit of an argument, but until you do you're argument is a gleaming crystal tower of justice built upon the quicksand mire of not having an actual violation of law.

When the states decide to ignore the perfectly constitutional rules of a private entity, they, not that entity, are responsible for the consequences. The best a lawsuit can hope to obtain at this point is to force the states to pay for another election. No judge in the land is going to stick their nose into that.

The constitution doesn't say anthing about letting CMNI, Guam or PR vote for president, does it? How come they get to vote in the primaries? Because it's internal bussiness for the parties to determine their nominations.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Help, anyone with a calcuator. Add the votes for Hillary and Obama in the Primaries. They are on the Fix. WV results are Hillary 239,298 and Obama 91,747, which was not on the Fix.

Posted by: lylepink | May 15, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Mason:

I am not going to debate Fifth Amendment liberties with you - read up on the Votings Rights if you want.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Ach!!! Warren court alert!

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Well Mason


You just don't get it - that is what everyone is fighting about, isn't it.


If it worked the way you say it does, there would be no dispute.

The very existence of the dispute proves you are wrong.


Don't you understand here - we are talking about a party making up a set of rules which they expect the STATES to then pass into law and utilize taxpayer funds for.

NOT only that, we are talking about Voting Rights for the highest office in the land - which citizens have a right to participate in - on an equal basis.

hhmmmmm

On your side, you would have a private entity being able to make rules which violation constitutional protections, and then allow those entities to take enforcement actions to get the STATES to cooperate in those rules.


How far would you allow the enforcement actions to go?


Intimidating the candidates to sign pledges not to campaign in certain states goes pretty far out there here - what other sanctions would you be willing tolerate.


Obviously, these enforcement actions did not work this year - would you be willing to allow the political parties to go further next time?


What are the responsibilities of the states in cooperating with such plans???

When you start to think about it, your position does not work.

.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Several posters have made reference to the polling data and maps on www.electoral-vote.com.

I'd urge you to go beyond a surface reading of those data. It reveals a pattern that is troubling for Clinton and on the whole quite encouraging for Obama.

The website electoral-vote.com posts a state as a "win" for a candidate however narrow the lead, even a 1 point difference. That is obviously absurd, first because a 1-point difference is within every poll's margin of error, second because with this much time before the general election public opinion can shift markedly, making a 1 point lead, or even a 4 or 5 point lead, relatively meaningless.

A more useful way to look at the data is to sort out the states that are currently "strong" for one candidate (leading by more than 5 points), and which are "contested" ( within 5 points either way). On that measure, Obama is clearly in the stronger position.

Obama currently has "strong" leads in 18 states (CA, OR, WA, HI, MN, IA, IL, PA, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, CT, RI, MA, ME, VT), good for 220 electoral votes.

Clinton currently has "strong" leads in 13 states (CA, OR, HI, IL, OH, PA, NY, MD, DC, FL, MA, RI, ME, VT), also good for 220 electoral votes.

But they're different states: Clinton is up by 10 points in Ohio and up by 8 in Florida, while Obama is in a statistical dead heat with McCain, down by 1 point in each of those states. On the other hand, Obama has "strong" leads in Washington, Hawaii, Minnesota, Iowa, Connecticut, Maine, and Delaware, all states that with Clinton as the candidate become "contested." .

Advantage? Well, it's a matter of intepretation, but I think the data suggest Clinton could be in deep trouble if she loses either Ohio or Florida, and she's on very shaky ground in a lot of smaller states that McCain has a chance to pick off. Obama, in contrast, has a broader base of "strong" states and remains very much in contention in the big prizes of Ohio and Florida, but could afford to lose either or both.

Where is really gets interesting, though, is in how McCain's numbers change depending on the Democratic nominee. Against Obama, McCain has a "strong" lead of more than 5 points in 19 states (AZ, UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, KS, OK, TX, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, KY, WV, NH) worth 159 electoral votes.

Against Clinton, McCain runs much stronger, with "strong" leads in 24 states worth 196 electoral votes (adding AK, NV, CO, MT, NE, VA, and SC to the "strong McCain" column, and moving on WV and NH out of it).

Against Obama, McCain has weak leads of 5 points or less in 13 contested states (FL, OH, SC, NC, VA, MI, WI, IN, NE, MT, NM, NV, AK), worth 132 electoral votes. Against Clinton, the pool of contested states leaning toward McCain shrinks to 7 (NC, IN, MI, WI, MO, NM, NH), worth 73 electoral votes, as more of these states are sifgted into the "strong McCain" column.

Adding it all up, if Clinton is the nominee only 11 states worth 101 electoral votes are "in play," within 5 points either way (assuming Clinton maintains her currently leads in Ohio and Florida). Starting from her "strong" based of 220 electoral votes, Clinton would need to win almost exactly half of those contested electoral votes--50 out of 101--to win the presidency.

For Obama, in contrast, 14 states worth 141 electoral votes are "in play." He'd need to win just over a third--50 of those 141 electoral votes--to win the presidency.

Thus, seemingly paradoxically, Clinton is both the stronger and the weaker candidate. She's stronger in Ohio and Florida, to be sure, but Obama remains highly competitive in both states. Michigan is a dead heat for either candidate, and both Obama and Clinton currently enjoy strong leads over McCain in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Clinton enjoys a small lead in West Virginia which Obama probably loses, while Obama enjoys a small lead in Colorado which Clinton almost certainly loses.

The big difference is that McCain runs much stronger against Clinton in the Upper Midwest (WI, MN, IA, NE), the Pacific Northwest (WA & OR), parts of the Mountain West (CO, NM, NV, MT), the southeast (VA, NC, SC), Hawaii, and Connecticut.

On balance, then, because McCain is stronger against Clinton than against Obama, it's reasonable to conclude that Clinton is the weaker of the Democratic candidates.

Posted by: Brad K | May 15, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"We are not talking about the Federal Government here in any event - we are talking about Voting Rights of citizens."

Not sure what this means...

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"Liberty" from the 5th Ammendment? Ah.. the due process clause. That's your answer? Final answer? Let's take a look.

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

It means they can't send you to jail, execute you, or take your stuff without a trial. It's never been read the way you're reading it. Try again.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


We are not talking about the Federal Government here in any event - we are talking about Voting Rights of citizens.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

And again... You've yet to prove that Staggered voting ACUTALLY VIOLATES EQUALITY. Every vote gets counted, and used to appoint delegates.

This is just such a basic part of your argument, and the fact that you have yet to do it is mind-boggling.

Furthermore, an individual state cannot be called upon to ensure equality under the law between citizens of that state and citizens of other states. States are only required to ensure equality before the law of the state within that state. If an entire state gets cut out of the process, oh well. That's a federal issue. I'm still waiting for you to point out where in the constitution it states that the Feds must provide for equality before the law.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


I just told you - it's in the liberty part of the Fifth Amendment.


Do some research before you go off like this and then claim you know everything.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

of-course Sen. Hillary Clinton is one of the strongest candidate and stongest commander in chief of our great country. She is experienced and has a vision and wisdom to take our country in the right direction.!!!!

VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON.!!!!

Posted by: Akber A. Kassam. | May 15, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Point to the section of the constitution that forces the Federal Gov't to provide equal protection under the law.

I'll wait.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

"BILL CLINTON LOST 13 PRIMARY STATES THAT HE WON IN THE GENERAL ELECTION!NO ONE KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN 6 MONTHS FROM NOW.HILLARY WAS LEADING IN THE POLLS BY 30 POINTS 6 MONTHS AGO!"

Blah, if you're going to make a good point, can you at least not look foolish while making it?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Mason


Nice try on your quoting the 14th Amendment however again you have simply made my positions stronger.


If the DNC had a plan which would violate the equal protection of the citizens, AND then the STATES cooperated in that plan, the STATES would be violating the 14th Amendment.

My original thoughts had to do with the general equal protection rights of citizens as it pertained to voting rights which is simply part of the general range of natural rights under the liberties of all citizens.

This applies to the Federal Government and later applied to the states under the 14th amendment.

My original argument is that the political parties must adhere to such constitutional liberties such as voting rights - as opposed to having complete freedom of action if the parties were to be regarded as completely private entities.

Mason, give it up.

I don't believe this is a case.

However, if it was, I would win.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Er... Yeah.. No I'm not. I promise you I'm not agreeing with you. Read more carefully next time. The 14th ammendment can't be used in the way you want to use it. Sorry. You're still wrong. Or are you talking about how some in the African American community will react to being marginalized by the Democratic party? I think we've already established you're a bit delusional on that count, as you seem to think they won't mind having one of their own pushed aside to please working class whites.

Regarding DDWAG- Again, read more carefully peabrain. Note the quotes around the "make one another look bad" part. I know DDWAG was quoting an earlier poster. He then agreed with the earlier poster stating "I really like Obama, but I have to agree with this. I'm not sure why." I then agree with him and referecnced the concept of synergy and antagonism: Where the whole is more or less than the sum of it's parts.

You're a lazy idiot who can't read. You have my pity, as the schools have failed you. If you had a tenth of the intellegence or drive as that "Empty Suit" you'd have told me about those court cases from Texas.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

"In States that have gone Demmocrat in the past two Presidentiiol elections, Clinton won 9 with 151 Electoral Votes as opposed to 9 for Obama with only 84 Electoral votes.

If you can count, that would seem to make Hillary a much stronger candidate."

What happens to this lead if you discount New York and California.

Or are you saying that Obama won't carry these two states?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis generally but that Montana and North Carolina are in play is an Obama fantasy. I recently went to a fundraising lunch with the governor of Montana and when asked if his state could go for Obama, his answer was an unequivocal no. I think he should know.

And NC? Republicans and Independents (who in NC mostly lean Republican) outnumber Democrats substantially and Obama loses big among white women and white working class voters. John Kerry got 90%+ of the black vote (like Obama) and had a sitting NC senator as VP, native son John Edwards, and still lost NC. Forget it, Obama wins neither MT or NC.

Broadly, the Obama camp loves to talk about redrawing the electoral map. Where's the proof? New voters? Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana... all had record new voter registrations. Obama lost and many of those new voters went for Clinton. Youth vote? Sometimes but Clinton won the under-30 vote in W.VA by 18%.

Clinton is definitely the stronger general election candidate. Year after year, I have watched as my party has happily walked off a cliff then looked up from the ravine saying, "Huh? What happened?." Here we go again.

Posted by: BJWL43 | May 15, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"It's because it's two Senators standing next to one another. There's something in the Capitol Hill water that causes an antagonistic effect. You've got a bunch of smart people, but put them there and the come up with some really dumb stuff."

Now that I think about it, I think its because both are "pretty boys." You know, the jocks in high school and the frat boys in college. Groups I couldn't stand. (at least frats were a good source of free beer)

Although I guess I could get a case of cheap beer with Hillary's gas plan.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

"For the record, Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries and neither one got the votes necessary for the nomination. So, the party elites (very left of center) have decided on Obama."


As an intelligent voter, you do realize that the superdelegates are part of the numerator AND denominator would change. (ie, the magic number would no longer be 2025, but would be much smaller.) The reason that neither candidate has the required delegates is that the required delegates takes into account the fact that you've got 800 "elites" If you took them out of the equation, Obama only needs like 25 more pledged delegates to get a majority. He's going to pass that next week.

And Obama is winning in popular votes. The only way to deny this is to include Michigan.

And if you take into acount that Obama got ZERO votes in Michigan, I'll repeat my oft repeated statement that anyone who thinks the popular vote count in Michigan is a reasonable surrogate of electability is an absolute moron.

Seriously, this isn't advanced political theory. It's fourth grade arithmetic.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Mason


DDawd was taking a quote from this morning

*************

Obama is an empty suit if I have ever seen one.


Seriously.

The visual of Edwards standing next to Obama was horrible - sort of like the sum of the parts adds up to LESS - they make each other look bad.


.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:39 AM

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Mason


You are agreeing with me again - stop it - stop it now.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

""The visual of Edwards standing next to Obama was horrible - sort of like the sum of the parts adds up to LESS - they make each other look bad."

I really like Obama, but I have to agree with this. I'm not sure why."

It's because it's two Senators standing next to one another. There's something in the Capitol Hill water that causes an antagonistic effect. You've got a bunch of smart people, but put them there and the come up with some really dumb stuff.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"The black community is alot smarter than you are giving them credit for."

Who's casting aspersions on the intellegence of the black community? You seem to be saying that they'll vote Dem no matter what happens. I'm not convinced. I think that after all they've done for the party, dating back to FDR's Black and Blue coaltion, some of them will see a black man and Senator being pushed aside in favor of a Former First Lady and Senator as a bit of a slap in the face. It might cause them to step back and reconsider their place in the party, and politics as a whole.

But nah... 'Em darkies will do whateva da party massas tell em to, Yessa...

(eyeroll)

Come on... they'll be ticked. Some will vote HRC, but others just won't because of resentment. That's not a good thing for the Dems.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Superdelegates...

This has got to be changed.

Either make them 100% of the process. You still have state polls, but no pledged delegates. Then you can have the supers go over the exit polls, look at the demographics, judge electability and so forth. Not the most democratic method, but it might be better in choosing the candidate that fares the best in the general election...

Or you drastically reduce the number of superdelegates. 800 is far too many. I do think its ok for them to affect the outcome of primaries, but only when the pledged delegate totals are very close. For the supers to be able to overturn a margin of 100 pledged is kind of insane. I think somewhere between 50 and 100 supers would be appropriate. Then they can act as a tiebreaker when you have razor close races. By doing this, you can perhaps overturn a 25 or 50 pledged delegate lead which I think is reasonable.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"The visual of Edwards standing next to Obama was horrible - sort of like the sum of the parts adds up to LESS - they make each other look bad."

I really like Obama, but I have to agree with this. I'm not sure why.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Many people on this website are drinking the Kool Aid. But, that is what has propelled Obama's campaign from the beginning. The problem is that the party elites, not the primary voters are making the decision on the candidate (like the bad old days) and they are way to the left of the electorate. Dean, Pelosi, Reid have destroyed a sure White House victory with their hatred of the Clintons, and specifically, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid who have lower ratings than Bush (if that is possible), should be fired after the November election. A much better candidate for Democrats would have been an Evan Bayh or Joe Biden. Obama cannot beat McCain. I myself, a lifelong Democrat, will vote for McCain. I have to put the country before the party, it is my obligation as an intelligent citizen. Clinton could have beat McCain, but the party elites decided they would not let that happen. For the record, Clinton won the popular vote in the primaries and neither one got the votes necessary for the nomination. So, the party elites (very left of center) have decided on Obama. He will crash and burn. In fact, my prediction has been that Obama will lose 40 states, possibly the 49 McGovern did, since Obama's nomination is a mirror image of McGovern's. 1972. What a disaster! It could have been different. But, that's the Democrats. I am going to register Independent from now on. I am fed up with my party!

Posted by: Polcomm | May 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Sigh... Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the constitution states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now lets parse:

The first sentence has to do with who is and isn't a citizen, establishing Jus Soli as a vaild means of obtaining citizenship. (See "Anchor Baby") I'll stipulate that votes in MI, FL, and NV are citizens.

Moving to the first clause of the second sentence we see a prohibition from abridgeing the "privleges or immunities of citizens". Assuming that the Parties are subject to this, prove how making some states vote later "abridges" the privlege of voting in a presidental primary. You can't because it doesn't. Everyone still gets to vote. It is wholly immaterial that some votes don't generate the same buzz, momentum, or press. The votes all still count the same for determining delegates.

The second clause ensures due process. Immaterial here because no one is being deprived of "life, liberty, or property".

The third clause is the Equal Protection clause. Firstly, I'm still not entirely convinced that this even applies. It orders STATES, not the Federal Government, to ensure equal application of law to citizens WITHIN THE STATE'S JURISDICTION, not across state lines. Even assuming it does apply, dismissal of this argument is trivial as it is impossible to prove that voting later violates equal protection vis-a-vis voting sooner as both votes are still counted, and treated relatively equally for the purposes of determining delegates.

Sorry man, the 14th ammendment doesn't really help on this one.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


I know what the polls say - would you please be serious.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Brad K


Thank you - finally some sanity to this conversation - however I have to point out there are still 10% undecideds in your numbers.

Let's focus on those people, what are they all about??


Which way is that 10% leaning?

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Last 3 polls in Michigan:

Rasmussen (May 8)
Obama 44, McCain 45
Clinton 44, McCain 44

Rasmussen (May 7)
Obama 44, McCain 45
Clinton 44, McCain 44

EPIC/MRA (April 8)
Obama 43, McCain 41
Clinton 37, McCain 46

Michigan is indeed a dead heat whether Clinton or Obama is the Dem nominee. Indeed, the only one of these results outside the polls' margin of error is the April 8 EPIC/MRA poll showing McCain beating Clinton by 9 points.

The idea that Michigan won't vote for Obama because of the illegal primary mess is a fairy tale concocted by the Clinton camp. There are just as many Michiganders angered by Clinton ally Gov. Jennifer Granholm's arrogant and high-handed decision to go ahead with an illegal primary, thereby disenfranchising Michigan primary voters in general and Obama supporters in particular, as there are Hillary supporters demanding that their votes in an illegal and one-sided contest be counted.

Posted by: Brad K | May 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Mason


The black community is alot smarter than you are giving them credit for.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is Dukakis, look at the polls, how can a Democrat be elected while losing FL, MI, OH, WVa, PA?"

First off, forget WVa, it's 4 EVs and went 57% for Bush. It's not the critical state for this electionb. Obama runs ahead of McCain in PA (by an average of 10 pts if you discount the partisan Strategic vision polls) and runs even in Michigan and Ohio if not better, and that is with polls taken at the height of the Reverend Wright issue. The only blue state from the last election I'd be at all worried about losing is PA, I'd give him better than 50/50 to pick up Ohio, and on top of that he'll get NM, NV, CO, and IA at a minimum, while forcing McCain to waste his limited rtesources playing defense to hold VA, NC and several other traditionally strong Republican states. To say Obama is writing all of those states off and has no chance at winning is just nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Harvey please watch your language

Surely you can express yourself adequately and eloquently without sounding like you are in a locker room.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

You wrote this article WAY too late. Clinton's out. Would you like to now do a comparison between Obama and McCain?

Posted by: Arjuna9 | May 15, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse


"You are speculating on what the polls say without actually looking at the polls."

So are you. The polls don't exist! You would have posted one if they did. Oh, wait... Maybe you wouldn't have. Do your own research.


"I have to tell you are you wrong on many of your comments and it makes no sense to go point-by-point."

Lazy bum. But then:


"Your last comment sounds RACIST to me - you assume that the black community is supporting candidates based solely on the color of their skin, not the content of their character as Rev. King asked.

In addition, if the black community came to believe that Obama would not win in November, you are assuming that that the black community would not want a different democratic nominee either.

So Mason, you are basically calling the black community a bunch of RACISTS."

LOL. Go back to school and learn some reading comp. That's hardly what I said. I'm not assuming that they're voting solely on the color of the candidate's skin (though you could certainly make the argument that they are - 92% for BHO in NC) nor am I assuming that they won't vote for a white person (Hey, they've vote for white people since emancipation!). I'm saying that if you tell them, "Sorry. One of you people won by any metric, but we just can't nominate him because it won't fly with poor and middle income whites and latinos," that they'll be ticked. Some will get over it and vote for HRC, for sure, becasue she'll probably do more for them the JSMc, but you've got to be joking you think that there won't be a size subset that won't say in November "Eff this. Whitey screwed us again. What else is on TV?"
That's not rascism, it's real politic. Tick off your base and bad things happen. Trick is, the Democratic party has a disparate base.

(PS: The black community probably still feels that BHO can win, thus falsifying the condition of your if statement. As anyone knows, if the condition is false, the status of the consequent is immaterial and the conditional is always true. I'd suggest basing your assertions on real, verifiable facts, lest you reveal yourself a fool.)

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Here's the usual reminder that anyone sowing divisiveness in the Democratic party is more likely to be a Republican under a false flag than a true Democrat.

Who do you predict will be the last superdelegate to endorse Clinton? Let's ignore add-ons, for obvious reasons. (If these reasons aren't obvious, you may want to skip the rest of this post.)

I propose that we also ignore people who pledged to choose a candidate based on the voting results in their district, or the like. If there are any of those in Montana or South Dakota, they're likely to be the last superdelegates to endorse Clinton. So let's ignore Chris Carney.

I therefore predict Ciro Rodriguez will win the honor. While his district's primary voting was a "big reason" is his decision, he hadn't previously pledged to follow the wishes of his constituents.

(When I say "ignore", of course we can't ignore their votes! But they're just not very interesting to predict.)

Posted by: Not Ciro Rodriguez | May 15, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

"Posted by: Sarah | May 15, 2008 3:32 PM
It's a toss up between Obama & Clinton in Michigan? Excuse me? What planet have you been hiding under? Obama purposefully took his name off our ballots and does NOT want our delegates seated or 'counted' at the convention. "

________________________________________
Excuse me, knock, knock! What planet are you hiding under? It is verrry much a toss up in Michigan between Obama and Clinton. Wishing it were'nt so does not make it a fact.

The rules were the rules and all of the candidates agreed to the rules. Tell me do you think if the roles were reversed so many would be shouting to let the votes in Fl and MI count.

Posted by: Michigander Too! | May 15, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

True, well said.

Fox has been up Obama's a$$ since Iowa. If Hillary were winning, they would be up hers. She says they've been through her baggage, and I'm sure they have, but they are not going to lose "Obama Bashing" air time to nit pick a Lost Candidate.

She DID get a free pass.

Hadn't thought about it like that. She's got plenty of Baggage, which to be fair is mostly due to Bill Clinton.

You know what they say, "You can't pick your family, but you CAN pick your" Husband. Another lack of Judgement.

Then again, if she hadn't picked Bill as her husband, we'd never had heard of her.

Posted by: HARVEY | May 15, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The Equal Protection clause is relevant because it goes directly to the substance of what everyone is fighting about - there is a material difference between going early and going later.


There would not be a fight otherwise.


In addition, the DNC in its very selection of some states over others is stating there is a difference.


Hey, I dispute the right of the DNC to make these rules.

I dispute the right of the DNC to choose one set of states over the others and then to attempt various methods of enforcing that decision. That is my opinion. To review what has gone on with this issue, I have been right.

hhmmmmm.


Also, taxpayer funds are utilized in the holding of the primaries - the DNC is seeking to force states to follow their schedule. To state that constitutional principles should not apply to such a situation is by far the longer stretch.

Obviously the DNC has come a long way since the KKK controlled blocks of delegates at the Conventions.

However, the issue with Florida and Michigan solved nothing - the issue is even hotter now for 2012.

Plus the democrats have risked alienating the voters of Michigan, how smart is that?

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm Republican.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary OR Obama if they ran against Jimmy freaking Carter!

I know from talking to folks, here in Kansas, that many Republicans actually respect Obama. They do not trust Hillary Clinton and, let's face it, Bill Clinton is a major reason why.

We are not up in arms about her right now, because she lost the nomination, but a few months back when all was up in the air, people were talking, and they cannot STAND Hillary Clinton.

Folks here did not forget about them selling nights in the lincoln bedroom, about outsourcing jobs, initiating the spying program on US Citizens - monitoring their emails, phone calls, etc...

We did not forget what a shameful liar and sexual pervert her husband is. Their alliances with shady characters like Marc Rich and Their China Lobbying schemes.

I'll put it this way. She's got a free pass. If she had won it would be all Hillary bashing all the time, and that's their own fault.
Why do you think she lost in Iowa? People were energized against her.

Aint NO WAY she would beat McCain. Republicans will NEVER trust her.

Posted by: Lance Stensine | May 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Oh and Edwards is a suck-up trying to jockey for his own position. The timing of that Obama support thing after Hills big WV win was in extremely poor taste. NO, the average white voter did not fall for the chicanery.

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 4:02 PM
---------------------------------
Edwards, you mean the two time loser for the nomination, and the loser for the VP spot who could not even carry his own state? I don't know or care what Obama promised him but the timing was in bad taste on his part, for Obama it just got Hillary taken off as the lead story and pissed off more Hillary supporters, he is going to need in November. Not a smart move after all is said and done.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Jeebus, does Axelrod have this place staked out, or what? Where do I send my resume?

Posted by: Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 15, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

One would think that if Hillary was the stronger candidate she would be the nominee?

BUT SHE IS NOT AND WILL NOT BE IN 2008.

100 Delegates from Obama...

DREAM ON HILLARY!!

Posted by: Enough Hillary | May 15, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


You are speculating on what the polls say without actually looking at the polls.

I have to tell you are you wrong on many of your comments and it makes no sense to go point-by-point.

Your last comment sounds RACIST to me - you assume that the black community is supporting candidates based solely on the color of their skin, not the content of their character as Rev. King asked.


In addition, if the black community came to believe that Obama would not win in November, you are assuming that that the black community would not want a different democratic nominee either.


So Mason, you are basically calling the black community a bunch of RACISTS.


please.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

For example:

Bush is President now. Nobody is happy with this.

Guess what?

Too Bad. That's the rules. Why is nobody crying that the Stupid Rules produced Four More Years of Idiocy?

Well, because, they understand that those are the rules.

Why can't Hillary get this through her sprayed Hair?
Why does she stop at the Nomination?
Why not change the rules that have Bush in the White House when he couldn't beat McCain if they ran right now?

Because, those are the rules we have agreed to live by.

Nobody wins elections because they are the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate wins elections.

That's Obama. That's why he's winning the Contest.

Not that Hard.

Maybe they should change the rules next year if the rules they have been going by don't seem to be working.

That's not a bad idea.

Doesn't help her now, though.

It's not the end of the world.

Posted by: Common F'in' Sense | May 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse


"Move on, you lost this round. Come on, be serous."

No. You still haven't shown how the EPC is the least bit relevant to the order of primary elections. If this were a court, the judge would toss your case out.


"This is a blog, research of cases is not required to support each posting."

Willful ignorance at it's finest. What you're saying is, "I'm gonna say whatever I think is true, act like it is, and not bother to check!"

"Lighten up."
Rich. I lurk around here and you're on here every freaking day posting the same tired semi-fact-free drivel and you tell me to lighten up when I call you on it and ask you to back up a single assertion with a shred of evidnce? Like I said earlier: You have my pity.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

There. I have just made my first donation ever to a political campaign in my 20 years as a Democrat. That is how much Hillary has inspired me with her strength and resolve. This is how much the injustice against Hillary Clinton (and my FL vote for her) has disgusted me. My first pick was Kucinich, and I am still a huge Al Gore fan. Now that I have gotten to know Hillary better these last few months I like her more each day. She is the candidate who is qualified to fix this mess we're in, not this Obama huxter. PLUS she is the clear winner in a general election. I will not stand by and let a bunch of kids and racist votes cause Dems to lose the Presidency once again. Do any of you really think Obama can win without the Hispanic vote, the Jewish vote, the average American white vote? As goes WV, so goes the Presidency. Please don't blow this for us. We have a shot at a Dem President, House and Senate and the ability to fix the Bush mess, move into a new era of common sense and logic with Hillary Clinton....President Hillary Clinton.

Oh and Edwards is a suck-up trying to jockey for his own position. The timing of that Obama support thing after Hills big WV win was in extremely poor taste. NO, the average white voter did not fall for the chicanery.

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

As a conservative and Republican who wouldn't vote for Hillary or Obama if you paid me, I agree with Hillary, she is the stronger candidate. Thank you Democrats! With Obama the Dems nominee we keep the WH. With Hillary we would have had a much tougher fight.
Obama couldn't get elected dog-catcher in the general election with his history of supporting racist anti-white and anti-America haters like Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and his like-minded clone and desciple Jerimiah Wright. While the liberal lip-service Americans in the Democratic Party love Barack Obama because of his and their mutual hatred for all things America stands for, this won't play in the general election. Bye, bye Obama and the hopes for taking over the WH for the Democrats.

Posted by: madhatter | May 15, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

HEY, I got an idea...

Lets set up rules for selecting the Democratic Nominee for President, then, run the contest with all Qualifying Candidates.

We'll take whoever wins this contest, we'll call it The Primaries, and they will be the Democratic Candidate for President of the United States.

Sound Good?

Great.

Posted by: Common F'in' Sense | May 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Mason


Move on, you lost this round. Come on, be serous.


This is a blog, research of cases is not required to support each posting.

Lighten up.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I definitely believe Clinton is the stronger candidate against McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The way you people are talking here, Obama has a chance to win the top position in the KKK.

I seriously do not know what Planet you people are on.

When you say Kansas, do you mean the STATE of Kansas, or some town named Kansas in a Blue State????

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse


"The basic problem was your original arrogance in your postings."

I'd rather be willfully arrogant that willfull ignorant.

"Yes the political parties do have to follow constitutional protections."

Established, but you're unclear as to the extent of thes constitutional protections. The Constitution doesn't care about the order of the state's primaries. It's just not relevant because, EVERYONE GETS TO VOTE EVENTUALLY!

"It is like a motel, they have to follow the regulations of interstate commerce, even though they may be located far from a stateline.

The truth is this: All Americans have voting rights - the voter is supreme."

Now IANAL, but the Constitution is supreme. Voters are actors within it's framework.

"When these rules and other considerations come up, they may have some merit, however the other rules and considerations do not outweigh the voters."

The courts have thus far disagreed with your central premise that NV before MI violates the EPC.

"And when a person such as you finds oneself suckered, the best course of action is to admit it."

Shove your advice in your piehole. You're too lazy to be bother to look up SCOTUS rulings that supports aspects of your postition. It took about thirty seconds of google work to pull the relevant case. You're in no postition to lecture about being a sucker.

I'd love to continue this flamewar (really I would), but the damn page is becoming to hard to load. I only get to the bottom every third or fourth attempt or so, so I'm going to have to leave at that. Stupid movableType.

To the later post:
And you're in a huff I took the Lords name in vain? Go to Hell. Wait, that's right: IT DOESN'T EXIST!
You really don't think that if the Supers and pledges gave a win to Hillary that *she didn't earn*, that it wouldnt' damage downticket races? That's delusional, man. It would remind people of machine politics. That discomfort alone would cause problems.
As for your situation that would cause PDs to switch, there's two related problems. Firstly, no such polls exist. There aren't too many polls saying that Dems will take massive hits in blue states. Heck, running against BHO isn't even working in Mississippi. Lastly, switches won't save tickets. See above. If POd blacks stay home, tickets across the country suffer.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The stuff about Wright and the Weather Underground dude doesn't hold a candle to 8 years of Bill, Monica, impeachment, etc. I really do not think BO is a lightning rod to turn out the Republican base like the Clinton name.

Posted by: Derek | May 15, 2008 3:33 PM
----------------------------
Most of the people who will be turned off by the Rev Wright don't give a crap about the 8 years of GOP mud thrown around the Clinton White House. Those who hate the Clintons will vote McCain regardless.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Sarah


Very well said, you are correct.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

If Kansas is in play, then surely so are Indiana, Alsaka, and even Nebraska, where Obama polls better and the fundamentals are more favorable to him. Also, I don't see how Colorado is a battleground state for Clinton. According to the polls, only Obama has a real shot there.

Posted by: NA | May 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Mason: Your 2:19PM Post is flawed because the "Operation Chaos" was a JOKE started by Rush only after the Repub strategy was in place since January to vote for Obama and most of these votes were for him, although some in the later Primaries most likely did vote for Hillary, but in a much lesser degree. My early estimate was 10%, and it was not long after I changed it to 25% based on information mainly gathered on the total votes cast in the earlier Primaries. My GUESS would be four to one, at least, went to Obama. Again, watch the exit Polling from Ky., and I am almost sure this trend will continue. This process is far from over despite the efforts of those that are HELL BENT on losing the White House for four more years.

Posted by: lylepink | May 15, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Is Hillary the strongest candidate? Please. The "white voters" comment? The "obliterate Iran" comment? The negative, divisive campaign for over two months? Hillary has lost the African American vote, the youth vote, the majority of people (all colors) with a college degree and she even managed to divide the feminist movement. Good grief. How do you win a general election with people more likely to vote for John McCain then any Democrat? You don't. Is this even worth discussing anymore. Let's move on and take down the neocons.

Posted by: maxfli | May 15, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I love electoral-vote.com. And I have a lot of respect for Tanenbaum. But his methodology is weak: "always use the latest poll". I'd go to fivethirtyeight.com for better projections.
Compare http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/nov/nov02.html with http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/nov/nov08.html to get an idea of how things went during the last presidential election.

Posted by: Not Andrew Tanenbaum | May 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Well Mr. Fix forgets that hillary is the cause celeb for the wing nuts and evangelicals.

...Note the republican party is pushing anti abortion, anti-gay marriange, and anti-flag burning type ballot initiatives to give their base a reason to go to the polls.

Obama expands the members of the democratic party, and crosses over to independents and republicans.

Hillary expands the hardcore wing-nut base of the republican party.

THAT isn't measureable in delegates, but is a guranteed lifeline to the republican party's electoral hopes.

Vote Obama for President!

Posted by: JBE | May 15, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

HRC is a lightning rod that will increase Republican turnout and McCain support. And HRC as the nominee will alienate the many new Dem votes, so we'd see low turnout in places where it's been a record in the primary. So even though she can pick up traditional Dem votes that BO cannot, it's not obvious that she will really win states she claims.

BO will definitely lose some traditional Dem votes (working-class white votes). But are these outweighed by new voters? Nationally, probably yes. In the battleground states where it matters? Not sure.

The stuff about Wright and the Weather Underground dude doesn't hold a candle to 8 years of Bill, Monica, impeachment, etc. I really do not think BO is a lightning rod to turn out the Republican base like the Clinton name.

Posted by: Derek | May 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

It's a toss up between Obama & Clinton in Michigan? Excuse me? What planet have you been hiding under? Obama purposefully took his name off our ballots and does NOT want our delegates seated or 'counted' at the convention. In 2000, well after Bushie had the nomination locked up, we STILL voted for McCain. Clinton has a decent shot at Michigan, but way better than Obama! Michigan WILL vote for McCain, those of us here are just all too "bitter" that Obama doesn't care about Michigan or the Auto industry. He has made that very clear that DETROIT and the american auto industry is the problem behind the energy crisis. If that's the case - change the law - require fuel efficiency!! oh wait, Mr. Obama doesn't show up to vote, i forgot.

Posted by: Sarah | May 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Why are we still having this conversation? It's over, and Clinton is NOT going to be the Democratic nominee, so there's little point in speculating about how strong a candidate she'd be in November.

So far this week, notwithstanding Clinton's strong win in West Virginia, Obama has only lengthened his delegate lead, picking up 24.5 delegates, including 16.5 superdelegates and 8 elected delegates from West Virginia. Clinton added only 21, including 20 elected delegates in West Virginia and 1 superdelegate. That means for the week so far, Clinton has fallen another 3.5 delegates behind, with an additional 45.5 delegates taken off the table.

According to CNN, Clinton now trails Obama by 180 delegates with 421 delegates remaining to be decided, including 189 elected and 232 superdelegates. Obama needs less than 30% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination; Clinton needs more than 70%. It's just not going to happen for her. Even if she wins another landslide in Kentucky and takes Puerto Rico by a large margin, Obama is going to easily win the other three contests in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. The best Clinton can possibly hope for is a 60-40 split on the remaining elected delegates, and that's generous.

But let's say she gets that, and closes the elected delegate gap by 40 or so. That leaves Obama needing to pick up only 52 of the remaining 232 superdelegates, or barely over 20% of them, while Clinton would need to gather in 80%.

Any signs of that lopsided superdelegate landslide in Clinton's direction? No. In fact, quite the opposite. Obama's pulling in 4 or 5 new superdelegate commitments a day, Hillary just 1 so far this week, and the trend toward Obama appears to be accelerating. To put it in stark terms, Hillary's picked up about 7% of the superdelegates making a decision---a far cry from the 80% she'd need.

Hillary says she's in the game until the end because "sometimes you win with a 3-point shot." But she needs something more like a buzzer-beating 50-point shot, and there is no such thing in basketball or in politics.

Posted by: Brad K | May 15, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"...Obama's campaign insists that the idea of a static group of battleground states between 2004 and 2008 is old thinking and misunderstands the nature of Obama's candidacy."

Just wishing the world to be different is not going to make it so!

Current polls have Clinton winning against McCain... for the last 4 weeks!!! (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr19.html)

Obama on the other hand never managed to break the 270 barrier, his best result for that period was 269 (=close, but no cigar).

Even more troubling: she polls better than Obama in places such as Kentucky, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan and Florida.

She would win 20 states compared to his 18 (both incl. DC) for 280 votes compared to his 237!!!!!!!!!!!
so much for his myth that he would bring more states into play. Looking at the map, her map is far more promising than his.

If the democrats really want to win the White House, they have to pick Clinton. Obama may look tastier, but she simply has more potential, because he already maxed out on the black and liberal vote and they are the most loyal voters out there, voting for any democrat. You can put at least 80% of his black and liberal vote in her column, if she is the candidate, but you can only put 33% of her vote in his column, based on West Virginia.

So if both have 16,6 million voters each, and she has the potential to draw 60% of his over-all votes, and he has the potential to win 30% of her over-all vote, who would you pick to win? Simple math, if you ask me...

Posted by: Steve-O | May 15, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


I realize that you do not understand the Constitution, however violating the Ten Commandments here is uncalled for.


The Superdelegates could change their minds, and I would guess if Hillary decides to go to the Convention like Ted Kennedy, many will.


The Pledged Delegates are free to switch too.

I don't really see the connection with the down ticket races if a Pledged Delegate switches.

The situation could be this: the delegates start reading polls which show that the democrats will take massive hits in close races in Blue States - Obama delegates in those states feel they have to switch to save their tickets in the blue states.


That makes sense.


.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Based on the tarnished GOP brand this year, Obama can have Kermit the Frog as his running mate and the Democrats will still win. Why do you think HRC and Bill are fighting so hard despite the math? They know a Dem will win the White House (which is why they will want the VP slot to get a piece of the action). People who live in OK or KY saying they'll vote for Grandpa McCain instead of Obama should not phase anyone - solid red states. PA will stay blue - Philly and surrounding suburbs will keep it that way. There are many states in play for Obama to offset OH. People will stop looking solely at race once they can't pay their mortgage, medical bills, etc...2008 is 1992 all over again. It's the economy stupid.

Posted by: Kevin | May 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

2:12 .... Obama is Dukakis, look at the polls, how can a Democrat be elected while losing FL, MI, OH, WVa, PA? I don't care if he makes VA, ND and NC close, he will still lose those states in the end. The math simply doesn't work.

Posted by: Rob | May 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Huh

That is the purpose of this forum - let the debate rage on - actually Chris has laid out the discussion very well.

YOU are supposed to give your answer.

Besides, if you have been around Chris' blogs before, you would know that if Chris does take too much of a position, half the people jump all over him.


Which is fun too.........

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

"The Republican Party never allowed any KKK people in."

Utter rot.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Mason

The basic problem was your original arrogance in your postings.


Yes the political parties do have to follow constitutional protections.

It is like a motel, they have to follow the regulations of interstate commerce, even though they may be located far from a stateline.


The truth is this: All Americans have voting rights - the voter is supreme.


When these rules and other considerations come up, they may have some merit, however the other rules and considerations do not outweigh the voters.

And when a person such as you finds oneself suckered, the best course of action is to admit it.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Okay loons - the reason the fix posted this scenario the way he did, is because he has no clue. NO-ONE does, and anybody stating they would be stronger six months from now is on crack. What polls provide you is a snapshot IN TIME, not the future.

The FIX is sitting in a lounge chair right now in his chain mesh drawers with all these posts scrolling on his laptop, as he is giggling at how he can throw any bait out and the minnows will chase it around, and around and around. But hey, some of us come here purely for teh entertainment value of it. No reason 5 percent of the population controls all the wealth - 95 percent of you have no clue how your country is even run.

Posted by: Huh | May 15, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

37 and 0
Jesus you're an idiot.

Sure the delegates could change their mind, but they won't because it will tick off more than half the party and kill downticket elections. These are politicians we're talking about.

Posted by: Msaon | May 15, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Dude | May 15, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Vanitsky makes very good points

The DNC is weak - dont know what else to say beyond I really can not believe what they are thinking.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

"Congressmen Howard Berman and Henry Waxman -- both from California, both key committee chairmen, and both leaders in the Jewish community -- added their blessings.

"Senator Obama's vision for change has inspired tens of millions of Americans," Waxman, chairman of House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in a statement. "And he's also proved that he has the experience, judgment, integrity, and toughness to bring real reform to Washington. Our nation faces big challenges. We need to bring our troops safely home from Iraq. We need to solve global warming and finally enact universal health care legislation. And we need to create new jobs and strengthen our middle class. Senator Obama is the leader we need both here and around the world. He will be an extraordinary President, and I look forward to working with him to make his vision for change the new reality in Washington."

"Berman, chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, added: "Barack Obama has laid out a foreign policy vision driven by principle and conviction, and he understands that our moral authority and our safety as a nation go hand in hand. I spoke with him about a number of foreign policy issues that most concern me. He assured me that he shares my views. The moment President Obama takes office, we'll send a powerful message to the world that America is back and ready to lead again -- that we haven't abandoned the values that made us the light of the world, and neither should anyone else." "

To ALL of my fellow citizens:

Let's push this country forward!

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Vanitsky wrote: "DNC is weak. And - to be honest - is pretty much frightened by Obama's supporters. But it is DNC's mission and obligation to make the right decision."

So now you don't think you'll swing the superdelegates, you want to throw ALL the rules out the window and just have the DNC decide?
Why did we even bother holding all these primaries then?

Posted by: Gook | May 15, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"You actually got suckered into agreeing with me that political parties were not entirely private entities and had to follow some constitutional principles."

No. I looked up court cases that were appropos to the discussion and based my opinion on them. It's called rational thought. Try it sometime, you might like it.

"Don't blame me because you are a sucker."

If I'm a sucker what does that make you, you lazy G-town Piker? You could very easily have found the same damn court cases and you even admitted not knowing if they existed. That's call willful ignorance, and it's a very bad thing. The court cases *I found* only support your red herring and they don't affect your central thesis.


"Now go away, you obviously do not know what you are talking about."

You tried that already. I'm still here, still right, still supported by the law, and you're mad and still wrong, and still ignorant of the law. The Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply to the political question of who goes first.

"And your earlier arrogance - very displaced."

Whatever, douche. Try rational though for once and then everyone else won't seem so high-falutin'.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:02 PM

Are you on the pipe? They have help at 37th and O, or are you posting from there now. Total moron.

Posted by: SlappyWhite | May 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama has advantages that Kerry didn't. The party has grown, while the GOP has shrunk. Groups that historically don't turn out are turning out in droves, and the extra voters all come from the demographics that support Obama.

The best example is the South Carolina primary, where the Dem's turnout was 82% larger than their last primary, while the GOP's turnout shrank by 27%. Obama got twice as many votes as Hillary, but he also got twice as many as the GOP winner, McCain, at a time when the GOP contest was still live and hot. In South Carolina.

Blacks and Hispanics both prefer Obama to McCain, and both have plenty of room to increase their turnout, really shifting the centre of gravity of US politics.

On Super Tuesday, 14.6 million Democrats voted in primaries, and 8.3 million Republicans did.

Democrats won a deep-Red house seat in Louisiana last week and in Missisipi today. In both races, Republicans showed ads linking the Democratic candidates to Obama. It didn't work.

Newt Gingrich wrote in Human Events this week: "The Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti-Rev. Wright or, if Sen. Clinton wins, anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail. This model has already been tested with disastrous results."

Posted by: OD | May 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


I guess my comment about a "smart lawyer" offended you because you seem to view yourself in that category.

hhhmmmmmm

Sorry to burst your bubble like that. I'm sure you are right on somethings I guess.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Well, this article was configured to favor Hillary from the start. First of all, it includes Kentucky and Tennessee in Hillary's possible column, AS IF!!! And then it puts Pennsylvania in Hillary's column as if it's comparable to Minnesota or Iowa on Obama's side; yet all three would go to Obama or Clinton almost equally. And finally the article minimizes the Obama effect on places like Virginia and North Carolina (or even perhaps Georgia) where Obama would have a real impact. Very cutely the author makes sure Hillary comes out ahead on points in each case study while making these gross errors. Fact is, Obama plays 5-10% better than Clinton in every battleground state, save PA, Ohio, and Florida. That's only 68 electoral votes (favoring Clinton) versus 165 (favoring Obama). End of story.

Posted by: Cedric | May 15, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

This is a kind of breakthrough for the "FIX". And the first discussion where I read all serious postings.

Without repeating arguments I'd like to add not much.

Today's re-alignment of McCain's Iraqi policy clearly demonstrates how comfortable he feels being in the political center - an unsual position for GOP - but unique to oppose Obama.

It is not correct that Obama's and Clinton's platforms are the same. They are close, perhaps, but THAT WERE THE DIFFERENCES which pushed Obama deep into the far left corner.

As a result his any attempt to move to the political center will be painful for his supporters. While McCain - whatever he says - will be eventually - though unwillingly - supported by all Republican voters.

In terms of political science Clinton is a much stronger opponent for McCain. First of all because - as many noticed here - there is nothing new to tell, to reveal and to get public.

We should keep in mind that the Republican Rove Tuned Killing Machine - that will tear Obama apart and eat him alive - works hard everywhere: in Kenia, in Indonesia, in Honolulu, on a sleazy Sinclair materials - in search of an explosive stuff.

DNC is weak. And - to be honest - is pretty much frightened by Obama's supporters.

But it is DNC's mission and obligation to make the right decision.

Posted by: vanitsky | May 15, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"A traditional and static map would seem to affirm Clinton's argument. A changing battlefield with a series of newly competitive states plays to Obama's strengths. Which one do you believe is the more likely scenario this fall?"

Hillary referred to a "dynamic" competitive context a few days ago, and I'd have to believe that her access to sources enabling this depiction is better than mine.

Posted by: FirstMouse | May 15, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Hillary clearly lays out her case to be more electable in this video, from Saturday Night Live.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/candid-admissio.html

Posted by: OD | May 15, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse


Mason


I was referring to the Superdelegates - they could look at polling data for Obama and decide to vote for someone else at the Convention - even a third candidate.

AND since you appear to know so much about DNC Rules you are aware that pledged delegates can switch as well - they are not obliged to vote for Obama or Hillary or anyone else.


Hillary could be picking off Obama's delegates right now.

OHHH I think Hillary has convinced 100 Obama pledged delegates to switch to her however she is holding back for a big news conference to squash Obama's news cycle.


Two can play that game.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Get over yourselves, remember its not about you, or is it.

Posted by: Huh | May 15, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

KKK-History! HRC-History! Black AND white, Barack Obama is a genius! He identified the greatest need of the people, and there he created a postion for himself, based on his own qualifications, and then he applied for the job!! He sold himself, based on the genuine needs of the "buyers", (voters), simlpy by defining the benefits of having him. He is the genuine article. Brilliant! The competition is still trying to sell the old bill of goods, along with strategic ploys, and having difficulty believing that the acceptance of it is down, drastically due to the new and improved version. Meanwhile, he's moving on, in his forthright way, directly to the final interview. The old cast is markedly less supportive of the old game. Deep down, they all know what's right. The supporters are following the leader, even at the risk of being called "Judas", and Obama's wake keeps growing.

Posted by: Francesca | May 15, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"See the links above, Clinton would win today based on the latest polling in each state, Obama would lose. Simple as that. You can look into the past maps on that site, Obama was winning too, until Rev. Wright happened to him."

Good thing the election isn't until November (If the Democratic nominee were decided last December, Clinton would have won without serious competition)

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Mason


by the way Mason, a lottery system may pass muster.

You simply do not understand that Harry Reid pressing Nevada forward for the benefit of his own political operatives - that was a very horrible way to make a decision.

The democratic party's efforts to punish Michigan are ill advised.

The whole effort at getting candidates to agree not to campaign in certain states - and favor New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina - who gave them that authority to do that???

Michigan should actually always hold its primary before SuperTuesday and never back down.

Why should they?


Actually, Michigan should figure out a way to deny the democratic nominee access to the ballot in November - we don't count that means your nominee does not count here.


Let's see what a judge would say to that.


If the nominee tries to go to Michigan, Michigan could say that the nominee agreed not to campaign in Michigan and should stay out of the state.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

You start your article out with a question that you never really answer. I'm struggling to see the purpose in an analysis if there is little or no desire to actually arrive at a conclusion.

Posted by: mycall | May 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

HRC is a strong candidate, Obama is a strong candidate. The argument is over, but reading these posts concludes one thing:

1. The MSM hates HRC
2. Men hate HRC
3. Everyones fault but HRC and her campaign
4. Polls today, reflect reults November
5. Polls from last summer predicted this outcome
6. Poll selection to suit your needds is good
7. Seven posters and all their friends will never vote for Obama
8. Seven posters and all their friends will not vote for HRC
9. Lots of sore losers here
10. Lots of overzealous winners here

Posted by: Casual Observer | May 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

37 and O said:
"Everyone can still change their minds - it would probably be wise to do so as well"

You go first.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the weakest one that we could put forth. His ties to Terrorism (ayers the american born white admitted terrorist gave him his first political fundraiser), his racist church. I attend a black church and am insulted than anyone could think that singing God D---America, and the condemnation of white folk is anywhere near normal. All of this and more will bite him in the rear. He needs it.

Posted by: Love | May 15, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


You actually got suckered into agreeing with me that political parties were not entirely private entities and had to follow some constitutional principles.


Don't blame me because you are a sucker.

Now go away, you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

And your earlier arrogance - very displaced.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


You actually got suckered into agreeing with me that political parties were not entirely private entities and had to follow some constitutional principles.


Don't blame me because you are a sucker.

Now go away, you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

And your earlier arrogance - very displaced.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"I am a registered dem who will not vote for Obama, the liberal equivalent of Bush."

Wow.

Posted by: Spectator2 | May 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

To all you crazy people out there


It matters who is the stronger candidate


All these superdelegat pledges are one thing - however NO ONE has actually cast a vote yet.


The vote is in August.

Everyone can still change their minds - it would probably be wise to do so as well -


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

If you think Obama is a misogonist, you will just LOVE McCain.

I also find it highly amusing that a Hillary supporter claims that Obama is "elitist" in the same sentence that they heap scorn on little states like North Dakota and Montana -- and totally ignore Washington State. Hillary is losing a lot of support from the rank-and-file here for the scorn that she has shown the states that didn't vote for her.

A lot of Hillary delegates are switching, word to the wise...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Can the four of you multiple posters get a room and spray each other with waterhoses until you get your political hate in order.

Posted by: Hippo | May 15, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't care if Obama is weaker and we (Dems) lose the election. He represents the preferences of Democrats and getting out of our comfort zone with a Black politician and the Black church is good for us. I'd rather have Barack be the nominee and lose to McCain than have Hillary be the nominee and we win.
-----------------------------
Having McCain pick Supreme Court replacements, really? I have no problem with voting for a Black politicion, I voted for Mayor Dinkins twice, as well as several other NYC canidates. As for my comfort zone with a church like Rev Wrights, I don't need to get any closer than seeing that nut job melt down a few weeks ago. Men of God do not preach hate in my eyes, that goes for the Pope and the Christian Right as well.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

37th And O
I don't think you're qualified to say what a "smart lawyer" would do since you couldn't be bothered to look up three cases that vailidated the red herring point you were trying to make about excluding blacks from primaries. You're lazy. That said, you're larger point is sill misguided, as it's unclear how the Equal Protection Clause applies to this case. You say that it applies because the "original decision" to have the State of Nevada vote before the State of Michigan somehow favored voters in the state of Nevada. You're just flat out wrong. If Michigan had gone when it was supposed to, not only would it have been equal, it would have been more relevant.

Taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, the Equal Proetction Clause says that all primaries should happen on the same day so that *no* state votes before any other. Good luck finding a judge willing to render that ruling. It's not going to happen. No judge will inject themsleves into such a political question.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

In 45 years, I have never voted for a Republican at any level; in 2008 I will vote for John McCain rather than Barak Obama. Obama and his supporters have assumed that the Clinton supporters would rally around the candidate; dream on. My support and many others in PA, WVa, FL, OH, MI and other critical swing states have to be won. Obama doesn't get it, and his supporters are hateful, misoginist, elitist, and arrogant. Winning North Dakota and Montana, give me a break. What a joke. Interesting that most of the states he won to get the nomination are states Chris indicates will almost certainly vote Republican. How many swing states did he win in the primaries? As I said, I will vote for McCain before I vote for Obama.

Posted by: tjs20036 | May 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama picks up four more superdelegates
Posted: 12:30 PM ET
(CNN) - Barack Obama picked up four more superdelegates Thursday, his campaign announced.

Washington Rep. Jim McDermott, California Rep. Henry Waxman, California Rep. Henry Berman and Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen will all cast their superdelegate votes for the Illinois senator.

Waxman and Berman both have ties to the Clintons, and many of their prominent supporters in California are supporters of Hillary Clinton.

The CWA said Thursday that Cohen's endorsement is a personal one and does signal an endorsement by the union, which decided last year that it would not back a candidate. In a Thursday release, the union said that decision would be re-visited at its June convention.

According to CNN's estimate, Obama now has 291 superdelegates to Clinton's 274.

Posted by: Huh | May 15, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

My family member and friends and myself have mulled over who it is that will be the stronger candidate, and have the power to garner not only the popular vote, but the electorate college vote as well. Our decision, which was made by actually looking at what has happened to date is that Hillary Clinton would win over John McCain in a national election.
Regardless of what all the nay sayers have suggested, such as McGoverm Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards, et al - Hillary is the better candidate for victory on November against John McCain!

Posted by: vjg | May 15, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I don't care if Obama is weaker and we (Dems) lose the election. He represents the preferences of Democrats and getting out of our comfort zone with a Black politician and the Black church is good for us. I'd rather have Barack be the nominee and lose to McCain than have Hillary be the nominee and we win.

Posted by: Derek | May 15, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

So glad to wade through a convoluted count of electoral votes concluding with "time will tell." I think my grandmother told me that when I was five.

Posted by: Jerry | May 15, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Is she a stronger candidate? At this point does it matter? Move along, people.

Posted by: Finn | May 15, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


Allow me to be clear and repeat my original position: the democratic party's selection of Nevada over Michigan in the primary schedule violates the principle of Equal Protection.

Because the party is favoring the voters of Nevada over the voters of Michigan - and those voters are all US citizens and therefore must be equal in the election.

It is the original decision to favor one state over another that is wrong.


You are actually supporting my position, you do realize that ???


.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse


Mason


Glad you have that Obama research department in the next room at Obama headquarters.

A smart lawyer would simply take those case and ask the court to extend it's reasoning to include the Constitutional Principles of Equal Protection.

Thus, the democratic party's attempt to control the schedule COULD be held to violate the constitutional principle of Equal Protection.

So I am correct in saying that the parties do not have complete control over their own rules, that they must follow constitutional principles in their primaries.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

lylepink -
You're right that we can't be certain how many GOPers who will vote for McCain voted in the Dem primary to mess with it. Where you run off the rails is if you think we don't know for whom they voted. Hello, Operation Chaos? I'd be willing to bet that they voted for Hillary 9:1 because they'd love to drag up Billingate, Watergate, Monicagate, and Richgate up again.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I wish the educated would acquire some common sense! Dems like myself (not the far left liberal nuts backing BO) did not want a far right wing nut in office nor do we want the extreme opposite in 2008. Most Americans are dead center...Hillary is not too liberal nor is McCain too conservative, one reason why both their parties did not line up behind them. The American people will. Obama is too extreme for me. I don't trust his black theology mindset, his behind the scenes meeting with leaders in Canada or Hamas (geez!)His 20 minute record does not give me confidence he can do anything about the state of our affairs! This does not make me racist as Obamabots cry to anyone who doesn't want Mr. Bittergate for president, it simply means I have common sense! Get some please!!!! Then add it to the knowledge that Hillary is the better candidate with solutions instead of words!

Posted by: daisymom4 | May 15, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is the strongest candidate for all of the reasons stated, as well as her determination to win despite odds against her. In addition, Barack can never emulate her preparedness to tackle the intransigent issues now facing our nation. We actually need someone who knows how to govern after winning the election. Hillary can do that. Barack is a babe in the woods. McSame has flipflopped so much that he does not remember what he intends to do; if you don't know where you're going, you're likely to end up somewhere else.

Posted by: bjbprice | May 15, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I am a registered dem who will not vote for Obama, the liberal equivalent of Bush. I will also not vote for ANY dem who endorses him. Country before party.

Posted by: Kate Sheahan | May 15, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Mason


I have to agree with you Obama is Mondale Part Deux and McGovern Part Deux.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton is not the nominee, here is one lifelong Democrat who will be voting for John McCain. Twenty years in Rev. Wright's pew is simply too much. Also, it seems to me that the place where 'change' is most needed is in the nomination process. Why are the number of delegates allowed to each state not in proportion to their population?

Posted by: C.R. | May 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Harriet said "I know that most people in New York who voted for Hillary, would not do so today. "

Funny- I'm in NY and the people I know who voted for Obama (mainly because they always hated Hillary) say if they knew then what they know now about Obama, they never would have voted for him in the primary. Obama's campaign is like a fish- the longer it is exposed in the open air, in the light of the sun, the more it stinks.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Sweetie


you can add sexist to the racist against whites charges

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is Michael Dukakis, Part Deux."

Nope. Not even close. Dukakis ran against a sitting VP and lost the state of the outgoing POTUS (California). He got 111 EVs and got killed in the Pop Vote. Both BHO and HRC are polling better than that now, after beating on each other for 13 months. Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

What turnout? And how many new registered voters? This, I think will be one of the issues and a crucial one. Furthermore: latino votes did not go for Obama, but they will once the GOP will start playing the immigration card (maybe McCain won't, it would not be clever, but the party will). Third, it looks like there will be some changes in the evangelical vote. And what abut some demographic trends in some states in the South? Not to mention the massive african-american turnout that we can expect if Obama is the nominee. I think that we might expect some changes in the political map, that Obama can take Ohio (maybe not Florida, but that's to soon) and that Virginia, the Carolinas and even Georgia (how strong is Barr there???) are places to watch.

Posted by: tino | May 15, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Someone has taken the time to count all votes cast in the Primaries and Reporting Hillary has a 200,000+ lead in the popular vote. I do not think there is any way to know for sure how many Repubs voted for either of them. My estimate is about 25% going to Obama in their effort to stop Hillary, and by any logical reasoning, the total % of Dems voting for Hillary is well over what is being reported by The Media.

Posted by: lylepink | May 15, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"Hold on one second, sweetie," Obama replied. "We'll do a press (availability), thanks." He did not reply to Agar's question.
--------------------------
Is this his attempt to hit it off with the hard-hat crowd? Someone in his campaign really ought to tell Mr. Obama that sexist remarks won't attract Hillary's constituency.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 15, 2008 1:57 PM
------------------
Obama called her last night and appoligized for his poor choice. As was mentioned earlier here, I think McCain calling his mistress, excuse me Cindy was his mistress before he left his wife, McCain called his wife a cv^t on the campaign trail.

I'm sure most of Hillary's constituency, along with most people who are not pigs, will find McCain's more offensive.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 15, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Clinton is not the nominee, here is one lifelong Democrat who will be voting for John McCain. Twenty years in Rev. Wright's pew is too much for me.

Posted by: C.R. | May 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama is Michael Dukakis, Part Deux.

Posted by: Rob | May 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

The claim that candidate A is a stronger, more electable one than candidate B is itself an unknown, and unverifiable even after the election is over. Surely no amount of pre-election analysis can tell us much if anything at all. And it is at best a self promotion.

If that is in fact an acceptable and legitimate argument then why bother having a primary? In fact, why bother having a general election? Why not just let the competitors yell I am a better president and whoever yells the loudest gets the prize?

Posted by: Steve Chan, Los Altos Hills | May 15, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

She lost this race long ago.Hillary claims she stays in there for the people.Nothing could be further from the truth, she stays in the race because her own ego demands it.

ITS OVER !

Posted by: Maggie Bell | May 15, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I suggest we poll New Yorkers who voted for her and ask them, would they vote for her again? Many would not. I am sure this is true of other places around the county as well.

Posted by: Harriet | May 15, 2008 1:37 PM
-----------------------
I voted for her and would again, as I'm sure the hundreds who were at the fundraiser here last Saturday. Hillary or Obama will get my vote as well as most in our party. Please do not speak for anyone but yourself.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's wins in the states you mention are all based on a fundamentally flawed premise that she (and he) have been "thoroughly vetted."

The internet chatter simply and clearly proves that isn't the case.

Either due to genuine awe, professional incompetence or the Clintons famous capacity to coerce opponents, the MSM hasn't even begun to vet the Clintons on their byzantine financial and personal relationships since leaving the White House, a gapping void that the RNC is just salivating for the opportunity to fill.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the "strongest" candidate in the general. (That's just a fairy tale.)

Posted by: Carmen Cameron | May 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Ah ha! A series case on the question of racial discrimination in primary elections:

Nixon v. Herndon (1932)
Nixon v. Condon (1927)
Smith v. Allwright (1944)

Final Holding: Primary elections must be held open to voters of all races.

In these cases, the Democrtic Primary was the only competitive election. Thus, an enterprising lawyer would attack the use of these precedents by saying that the GOP primary was competitive and the general election will be. Still, a court would probably reject that argument (so long as it didn't have too many originalists). Since there is precedent to the contrary of my previous position, I reverse said position. Primary elections cannot be closed to voters of a particular creed. The issue is still not relevant in this case, as no one is being excluded on the basis of race, but rather the basis of where they live. I still don't think an argument can be derived from the 14th, 15th Constitution of the US or from USC.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. -- Barack Obama (in his Reaching Out to The Typical White People Tour) apologized Wednesday to a Michigan TV reporter after he called her "sweetie" and dodged her question about autoworkers.

WXYZ-TV's Peggy Agar shouted a question to the Democratic presidential candidate during his appearance at a Chrysler LLC plant in this auto-making suburb of Detroit.

Agar asked Obama what is he "going to do to help American autoworkers."

"Hold on one second, sweetie," Obama replied. "We'll do a press (availability), thanks." He did not reply to Agar's question.
--------------------------

Is this his attempt to hit it off with the hard-hat crowd? Someone in his campaign really ought to tell Mr. Obama that sexist remarks won't attract Hillary's constituency.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 15, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Just as generals are always fighting the last war, Hillary has been campaigning the traditional way and it cost her.

Obama is the change candidate in a time where everyone is begging for change.

Obama wins the general in a landslide (Hillary wins a closer election - she draws out all the neo cons to vote against her).

Posted by: bissron | May 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

First, I've always believed Obama could change the electoral map by bringing new voters, primarily from under represented demographic groups, into the polls this fall. See Ventura, Jesse: how he won the MN governorship. I'm not saying Ventura and Obama have anything politically in common, I'm just pointing out that he would not be the first to radically change the demographic makeup on polling night.

Second, polling in the spring sixteen years ago showed Ross Perot to be the strongest candidate. Polls are irrelevant, even as indicators, until after Labor Day.

Third, all of the results today are from a small slice of the November electorate choosing between two DEMOCRATS. In most, if not all of the primary states, if you counted every single primary vote as a vote for the Democrat this fall, it would not be enough. Primary results are as good at predicting the future as polls before Labor Day.

Finally, The Fix forgot to list Wisconsin, a very close state the last two cycles.

After the three special elections held this year it would seem to be a moot point. Sure the three districts had a conservative Democrat running against a "troubled" Republican opponent, but those are just excuses. A poor economy, a general uneasy feeling about the future, expensive gas, a Republican nominee who is going to look awful old and tired by November and an incredibly unpopular Republican President make any Democrat a strong Democrat. "Any Democrat a strong Democrat" words I never thought I'd see much less type.

Remember if you need 90 points for an A grade, then the kid who scores a 100 points isn't the smartest one.

Posted by: muD | May 15, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

George


The goalposts are in Lansing and Miami - in case you are not aware, those cities are in AMERICA.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

George


The goalposts are in Lansing and Miami - in case you are not aware, those cities are in AMERICA.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"but his far-left policies as well."

Please enlighten us re his "far left policies.." and these would be? (gotcha didn't I?)
======================
"The Republican attack machine can do little to her, it has already been tried and there is very little that we do not know."

OK, did YOU know that she defended a couple of Black Panthers? If we are hammer on Obama for knowing a guy that was in the Weathermen when Obama was 8, why shouldn't Clinton answer for "supporting" a "Black Liberation" Organization like the Panthers. What sort of cases did she argue when at the Rose Law Firm? What did she do when on the Board of Walmart? WHY in God's Name did she vote for the War?
============================
"Today's speech by McCain was an election game-changer. He took away Obama's ammunition of ending the war by introducing his own time-frame and strategy of ending it successfully. Since Obama has no experience, and no one really challenges McCain's on the issue"

Game Changer or more evidence of McCoot's flip-flopping on the issues in order to find purchase in the Election...so sad Just like his new Zeal to Go Green when the Environmental Groups have given him a grade of 23% out of 100 based on his votes on environmental issues; Obama got a 86%, BTW.

And I do Challenge McBush's foreign Policy which sounds like more Cold War era posturing...kick Russia out of the G-8?, "bomb,bomb,bomb Iran?" Someone needs to wake the old guy up and tell him that the USSR is nada, and that we can't go to War with every "evil doer" in the World...
=============================
"I am a Democrat that also votes for the person, not always the party."

yada, yada, yada, and let me guess: that "person" is usually the Republican?
============================
"The actions of the Obama campaign to stop the re-votes in Florida and Michigan were so undemocratic it is a wonder that there was not an outcry about that."

And these "actions" were...block Hillary and her supporters from paying for the re-election themselves?
===================
McCain quote:
"To be fair, however, at least President Carter had some executive experience as Gov. of Georgia ...."

And McGeezer's "executive experience" would be.............

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

I hear the whooshing sounds of goalposts being moved again. The Democratic convention is an election, and Senator Obama won it against very strong odds. If he can vanquish the Clinton machine starting from nothing, wait 'till you see what he can do with the party behind him.

Senator McCain is a pathetic joke of a candidate who loses his temper (he called his wife a c*** on the campaign trail) and cannot remember his positions from day to day. Perhaps if the Republicans select a strong VP they will have a chance, otherwise they look like mincemeat.

Posted by: George | May 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May15.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May15.html

See the links above, Clinton would win today based on the latest polling in each state, Obama would lose. Simple as that. You can look into the past maps on that site, Obama was winning too, until Rev. Wright happened to him.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I know that most people in New York who voted for Hillary, would not do so today. Her alleginace with Rush Limbaugh, and her negative campaigning may not even get her re-elected to the senate. So, by her promoting the racial divide, and claiming she is the better candidate because she can get the blue collar white vote, as turned off progressive people of multi-cultures. I suggest we poll New Yorkers who voted for her and ask them, would they vote for her again? Many would not. I am sure this is true of other places around the county as well.

Posted by: Harriet | May 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama is whipped by his wife. In the interview after he threw rev Wright under the bus, Michele Obama interupted him because he could not answer the question. He kept stumbling about his 20 years in the pew. He has alot more problems, I am one of those LOWER CLASS people that will vote for McCain over Obama if HIllary does not get the nomination. It is not because I am racist it is because Hillary was closer to the middle than Obama. Obama is to left wing for me. I aslo do not knw what he is talking about then he says he is going to change Washington. The last thing we need right now is new taxes and a governemnt that is more messed up then it already is. He is without substance and will bring this country down further because of his inexperience.

Posted by: d55may | May 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

One of the great things about being an American is that we have the FREEDOM to voice our opinons without the fear of reprisal from our government,although one begins to wonder with all the "It has to be politicaly correct" or some group will sue or claim they are being discriminated. It never cease's to amaze me about politicians and all the "If I'm elected I will-----" in paticular are the ones who run for the top positions in government be it local, State, Federal They as one individual can not; lower taxe's, create jobs for out work people, Declare War and so forth. The founding fathers established a form of government that consists of the three branch's Executive, Judicial, Legislative for a reasonso that no one person(s) can have the ultimate power over it's citizens. Listening to all three canidate's making statements that if elected "I Will" is not entirely accurate.It takes all three forms to make the system work. There isn't a politician going that when asked a question requiring a direct answer Yes or No will do it and after they finish speaking one wonders what was the original question. If ALL the members of Congress R's & D's would spend less time "Finger Pointing, Blaming the Other Guy/Party" and get down to the serious business of correcting the multitude of problems facing this nation. Many of us spent a greater portion of our lives defending our nation and all the rights, and freedoms that we enjoy, many paid the "Ultimate Price" defending these freedoms and still are to this day. It sadden's many of us Retired and Ex Military that many of today's citizens have forgotten who we are. We are AMERICANS First with proud heritage's that can be traced back to Africa,Scotland, Italy, France, England, Spain, China and just about any other known nation. Be proud of your ancestor's and heritage as it should be but be an "AMERICAN" First because that's who we are. A few years back people who state with pride; I am an AMERICAN of Italian, Irish, African,ect Descent.

Posted by: DBF'r | May 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

It's not a question of who is the stronger democratic candidate.

It's a question of how weak the Democrats can make McCain look.

Starting with pictures of Bush with his arm around him.

Posted by: Terry | May 15, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"The Republican Party never allowed any KKK people in."

This is yet another Red Herring, but how do you explain David Duke? The difference, the instances you mention are in the Democratic Party's past, they are the foundation of the current Republican Party.

"McCain: Well Tim, my friend, I suppose so, but looking back in my history book I've never read about any one-third-of-one-term freshman senators ever being elected President."

Lincoln seemed to do OK with less than 1 term in the House of Representatives... Trying to make yourself into the candidate of change while running on three decades of experience in the Senate will be an interesting trick for McCain to try to pull off.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Are you saying that the Democratic Party could say that blacks can not vote in their primaries?"

Strawman. Not what's happening here and would never happen.


"That the courts would not act to stop that????"

No. They wouldn't. Note the text of the 15th Ammendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Note that it says state, not party. These aren't general elections being conducted by the various states. That said, it would be monumentally dumb for one party to do that. Not even the Civil Rights Act guarentees the right to participate in internal party politics.

"How much of a fool are you????

Fool enough to read the laws.


"Go away."

No.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse


Hey pjf0226, Translator and kreuz_missile


All three of you are at Obama's headquarters in Chicago, aren't you?


Why don't you just admit it ????


Where is David Axelrod and David Plouffe - are they both there.


Do you keep going back to them to figure out what to say ???

Let's be serious here.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

This is an excellent piece. Refreshingly thoughtful and objective ... don't go to cable for that, my friends. Thank you, Fix.

Posted by: Nancy Brooks | May 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm voting for Nader if Hillary isn't nominated. I do not vote party lines or negotiate with terrorist. The guy never ran any committe -an empty suit who stole cacuses-not primaries.

Posted by: Robin | May 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

g,

What "change?" No, not the same change that Hillary has been giving us.

Obama is well on his way to securing the nomination, without PAC money or special interest groups. This is the prequel to running our government without bowing to the self-same or similar interest groups.

Hillary came close, but only with the extensive backing of special interests and the Old Guard. She is beholden to them. She probably would have gotten a lot done, especially with a Democratic congress, but all of it would have been tilted towards her buddies in one way or the other.

McCain, of course, has a lot of the same problems. But I believe he is where he is DESPITE the establishment, not because of it. I believe that he is a more principled individual than Clinton.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Mason:


The KKK used to control BLOCKS OF DELEGATES AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION


Are you serious, you sit there and defend these "rules"

How about those rules ????

How can you look at yourself in the mirror ????


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris: First, I think Obama is a stronger candidate in the General. He brings states into the mix that HRC simply can't - Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Georgia, etc. That said, the nomination is basically a done deal.

Checking various blogs, it looks to me like Obama is picking up at least 10 supers and other delegates today:
Jim McDermott, Henry Waxman, Howard Berman, Larry Cohen (CWA President), Daniel Boan, Christine Brennan-Bond, Robert Groce, Susan Smith, Mike Evatt and Lauren Bilton (the last 6 are former Edwards delegates from S. Carolina). And it's still early.

Can you confirm?

Posted by: Organizer | May 15, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

So, I guess that means you will vote for Mccain. Like I said, So.

))))))))))))))))))
Response to Stop the insanity


Have you read Obama's book? There is so much resentment toward whites the guy is almost ready to implode.

You really do not know what you are talking about.

Obama surrounds himself with hatred of whites.


Obama brings his children to the Black Liberation Church which teaches his children about whites and blacks.


This is NOT Rev. King's idea of judging a man by the content of his character.


OH WAIT, We actually ARE attempting to judge Obama by the content of HIS CHARACTER, not the color of his skin.

You see, the black community is voting for for Obama based on the color of his skin, not the content of his character.

YES IT IS RACIST.

.

Posted by: SANITY | May 15, 2008 1:20 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Mason


You practically almost said that the Democratic party was not bound by its principles of allowing blacks to vote in its primaries.


YOU said that if it wanted to, the democratic party could ban blacks from the primaries.

Posted by: what | May 15, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Mason


You practically almost said that the Democratic party was not bound by its principles of allowing blacks to vote in its primaries.


YOU said that if it wanted to, the democratic party could ban blacks from the primaries.

Posted by: what | May 15, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter. The Dems have voted and Obama has won. He won the election back in Feb.

However, if Clinton were truly the better candidate, how come she failed to beat Obama? She had the most money, the Clinton machine, name recognition, was ahead in all the polls, had the most superdelegates, had the media basically ready to put her in the White House, and had the most popular democratic president campaigning for her.

Yet, she got destroyed by Obama. Despite what Clinton keeps saying, the race isn't close at all. It hasn't been close since Feb.

So how could Clinton lose this election? Her flaws as a candidate, as a politician, as a leader, are the reasons she lost. And she would bring those into the general election.

If she were the most electable she would be beating Obama. But she's losing in every metric, even the metrics that the Clintons keep making up every day, she's still losing.

Posted by: edzo2 | May 15, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Response to Stop the insanity


Have you read Obama's book? There is so much resentment toward whites the guy is almost ready to implode.

You really do not know what you are talking about.

Obama surrounds himself with hatred of whites.


Obama brings his children to the Black Liberation Church which teaches his children about whites and blacks.


This is NOT Rev. King's idea of judging a man by the content of his character.


OH WAIT, We actually ARE attempting to judge Obama by the content of HIS CHARACTER, not the color of his skin.

You see, the black community is voting for for Obama based on the color of his skin, not the content of his character.

YES IT IS RACIST.

.

Posted by: SANITY | May 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"The stain of the KKK is on the Democratic Party - the history is clear and well documented."

It's also history. The GOP's questionable attitues regarding race are a bit more recent and equally well documented.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter. The Dems have voted and Obama has won. He won the election back in Feb.

However, if Clinton were truly the better candidate, how come she failed to beat Obama? She had the most money, the Clinton machine, name recognition, was ahead in all the polls, had the most superdelegates, had the media basically ready to put her in the White House, and had the most popular democratic president campaigning for her.

Yet, she got destroyed by Obama. Despite what Clinton keeps saying, the race isn't close at all. It hasn't been close since Feb.

So how could Clinton lose this election? Her flaws as a candidate, as a politician, as a leader, are the reasons she lost. And she would bring those into the general election.

If she were the most electable she would be beating Obama. But she's losing in every metric, even the metrics that the Clintons keep making up every day, she's still losing.

Posted by: edzo2 | May 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Obama won the nomination by redefining how the game is played. The analysis given here is based on the old CW and is therefor, invalid. Obama will make McCain defend states that were reliably Republican in past elections. Hillary can not do this.

Posted by: Joebewildered | May 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Trumpet is the monthly magazine published by Barack Obama's 20-year pastor and "sounding board" Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ.

On the cover of a recent issue entitled The Legend Lives On, Barack Obama's picture is shown in a montage along with Rev. Wright and Loius Farrakhan:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/

Posted by: surface_to_air_ missile | May 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Don't we always make these cases about how some non-tradional states are going to be in play and how the map is going to get changed.
Plus, Obama gets derailed from attacks very easily. That's just my view.

Not that he can't win, but he is much more of a risk. He could either win big or lose big.

Clinton seems to have more of firm base.

Posted by: Joan | May 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse


Mason


Are you saying that the Democratic Party could say that blacks can not vote in their primaries?


That the courts would not act to stop that????

How much of a fool are you????

Go away.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

One more comment for you back woods dwellers.

If you grew up with a single mom and she is white, do you really think he hates his mom? You seriously think he is a racist? It is apparent that now that the hillary supporters know it is over, the last resort hey have is to sling any and every type of mud. We are too far along now to really sway a big group of people either way.

The same people who were begging for John Edwards support for Hillarys side are now saying Edwards is now an elitist, out of touch, etc. 24 hours ago your candidate was trying to woo him to her side. What does that say about you and your candidate? If you dont get your way, you go crying foul play or slander the man just less than a day ago you were courting.

If Edwards was honorable 24 hours ago before he endorsed Obama, he still is now.
Let Hillary go back to CNN and cry some more crocodile tears, maybe G.W. Bush will endorse her.

Posted by: Stop the insanity | May 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse


"I do not believe this issue has been before a court - who cares?"

Um... Civil society? Rule of law? Even idealists need rules to play by. By saying that the courts don't matter, however, you've indicated your lack of respect for either. Thanks to this kind of attitude we've got an extra-territorial stalag of questionable legality in Cuba. Rule of Law matters more than anything, even fairness.

"I dispute the legitimacy of the efforts to bully Michigan and Florida - getting the candidates to sign pledges not to campaign there."

The thing I don't understand is why the candidates would waste their time there. The. Votes. Don't. Count.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

37th,

As for the primary schedule, both the DNC and the RNC allow Iowa and New Hampshire "special status." Other state delegations have a legitimate beef with this, but the place to argue this is in the Rules Committees.

The voters of Michigan are not a protected minority. It is stupid to compare Michigan to Nevada--what did Nevada do?

It is absolutely true that the voters of NH and the caucus-goers of IA are given special status, but the disadvantaged voters are the other 48 states, not MI and FL.

I am sure that by 2012, the national committees will have come up with something a little more equitable. But it will only work if the Rules mean something, and they won't mean anything if there are no consequences to state delegations that ignore them.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

JP2


That is a smear against the Republican Party without any basis in fact

The Republican Party never allowed any KKK people in.

The stain of the KKK is on the Democratic Party - the history is clear and well documented.

IF you listen to the Obama campaign, they practically called half the democratic party a bunch of racists this year.

Where have you been???


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Interesting read, CC. I agree with some of what you say, but disagree with other points. My personal take on this race is that Hillary Clinton remains the stronger candidate because she holds the experience card. This fall, if Obama is our candidate, the Republicans will not stop shrieking about Obama's lack of experience for even one second. In a wartime election, that experience (or lack thereof) will count for quite a bit among the electorate. Hillary Clinton has proven herself a viable candidate, if for no other reason than that practically every political pundit has counted her as down and out for the last several weeks, yet she comes back to win big in a primary. I think at this point Obama is just biding his time until Clinton goes away, and hoping to begin a strong campaign once he is the presumptive nominee. That says to me that he is not a fighter. And as much as I liked Al Gore and John Kerry, the reason that we lost the 2000 and 2004 elections is because neither Gore nor Kerry fought hard enough to win the election. I'm not looking for another "nice guy" and, by extension, 4 or 8 more years of a bad Republican president. I want to know that my candidate is going to take the fight to the Republicans. That's what Hillary Clinton offers me. On the other hand ...

Personally, I think that Senator Clinton should be our nominee, but I will definitely vote for Senator Obama if he is our candidate. There is no way that I will vote for John McCain. He has proven himself to be anything but an honest, worthy person lo these past 8 horrible, grueling years. I cannot imagine any Democrat voting for McCain, regardless of who the final nominee is.

Posted by: Kay Decker | May 15, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The important thing for Democrats to do, and to convince their friends and neighbors to do, is NOT vote Republican out of spite!!

The convention has not yet been held. The platform is yet to be decided on by the delegates assembled. The Vice-Presidential candidate is yet to be chosen. All this has to happen before the "real" campaign even gets started.

Let the process play out. Let all the states have their contests. Then let's all take a deeeep breath and get ready for the next step.


Posted by: wide-eyed1 | May 15, 2008 1:02 PM
-------------------------------
One of the smartest posts today, thanks.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 15, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
This is shabby journalism, more of the shameless pro-Clinton spin we've come to expect from you on a daily basis.

You completely neglected Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) and Nevada (5), key battleground states where Obama has consistently run stronger than Clinton in match-ups against McCain. That alone is enough to put Obama in the lead in electability.

Polls also show Obama highly competitive with McCain and well ahead of Clinton in Nebraska (which intriguingly splits its 5 electoral votes by congessional district, making a split decision a possibility) and Indiana (10). You put these states in the "safe" McCain column, but my guess is Obama contests them strongly in the fall.

Recent polls also show Obama within 5 points in Alaska (3 electoral votes); Clinton trails there by 25.

And you put Connecticut (7 electoral votes) and Hawaii (4) in the "safe" column for either Democrat, even though polls have consistently shown pretty much a dead heat between Clinton and McCain in both those states, both rich with independent-minded voters. Obama leads in Connecticut by 17 and in Hawaii by 30.

You can support your claim that Clinton is "marginally the stronger candidate" only by ignoring or distorting evidence from these 7 states which together comprise 44 electoral votes---more than Pennsylvania and Ohio combined. Look at the entire map and it's clear Obama is in a far stronger position gonig into the fall.

Clinton's claim to be the strongest candidate in the general election has always been a fraud, predicated upon two demonstrably false assumptions: first, that only a handful of "big states" will matter in the end for electoral college purposes, and second, that whether a candidate wins the primary in any given state determines whether that candidate wins that state in the general election.

The first is squarely debunked by the 2000 election. Al Gore made Ohio and Florida key electoral battlegrounds and, with a big assist to Bush from the Supreme Court, ended up losing both. But the truth is, he didn't need either. He ended up with 266 electoral votes, just 4 shy of the 270 he needed. A win in his home state of Tennessee (11), New Hampshire (4), Missouri (11), Colorado (8), Nevada (4), or West Virginia (5)---any ONE of those---would have been enough to put him over the top.

The second premise, that failure to win a a primary dooms the losing candidate to a general election loss in that state in the Fall, is also plainly false. In 1992, the last time a non-incumbent Democrat won the White House, Bill Clinton won 39 primaries and lost 11. In November, he lost 16 of the 39 states he had won in the primaries, and won 9 of the 11 he had previously lost. That means 25 states, exactly half, switched from Win-to-Loss or Loss-to-Win.

In other words, winning a primary in a given state is exactly as accurate a predictor of whether you'll win that state in the fall as a coin toss.

Posted by: Brad K | May 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

g,

You aren't making any sense. The negative intra-party numbers are roughly equal.

I could just as easily say that Hillary is "that scary" to the other half of Dems.

The difference is that Obama's "who is this guy" doubters can be informed. Hillary is a known quantity--that is her best asset and her curse. A high floor and a low ceiling as someone here said.


*****that's the difference between a Hill and Obama supporter. Hill supporters don't assume that someone is telling the truth or can elicit change with no proof. (What "change" BTW...the same change that Hillary has already proven by always having our backs in her years of service?) Where's the proof he can and will do what he says? No, we don't fall for this and we are highly suspicious as to why this guy has been getting a free ticket. We don't trust this guy in the same manner that we don't trust Bozo the Clown with a gun. His connection to Hamas for starters?

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

There are two issues within this article. One is the technical issue of vote counting based on the present and history and the other issue is not even mentioned without saying it is a guess. That second issue is what the outcome in November will be. You can listen to all the polls and commentary till your blue in the face and conclude that a majority of it is from within the good old boy and girl style journalism system. In the past, you could rely on our journalists to take an objective and critical approach under the old journalism system. Today, a majority of the talking heads are more involved with style and marketing of there image than substance. Good example is Chris Mathews "Hardball" show. If that show stands for tough reporting and analysis, I must not know the meaning of the words. Chris's show style is hardball at promoting Chris but his substance is very softball. Even his emphasis in identifying himself from the east cost is exaggerated. Could he be more Boston than he shows? We need to listen to those we have not heard. The true blue analysist not engaged in there own career promotion.

Posted by: JAD | May 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Mason


I do not believe this issue has been before a court - who cares?

I dispute the legitimacy of the efforts to bully Michigan and Florida - getting the candidates to sign pledges not to campaign there.

The attempts at enforcement were crazy - Hillary didn't comply -

I gave you my opinion.

Let the Democratic Party stand for what they stand for - they let this dispute get way out of hand.


At some point, the democratic party should have backed off - to attempt to get the states to cooperate with a schedule is one thing - however saying that the voices of millions of Americans do not count - that is lunacy.

The Democratic party can be undemocratic I guess - but at its own peril.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

G-
The experts have stated no such thing. Unless you're counting 37th & O an expert because he's got a Georgtown Adress.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Is Hillary the stronger candiate? Only in her mind!

Posted by: Sue F | May 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

37th&O, Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but in 1964 after a Democrat LBJ passed the Civil Rights act those KKK members that you were talking about left for the GOP.

That transition didn't happen immediately, but it was a key component of the Southern Strategy. You know that, and I know that.

If the GOP was still the party of Lincoln -- Eisenhower -- or even Reagan -- it wouldn't be in the position that it is today.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

You're shreding nothing but the standards of paragraph structure. The Democratic party ended those policies because it was good politics, not because it was illegal. They could still do it if they wanted to. No court has stepped in and said that state and national parties have to choose or seat delegates in a certain way. Hell, the WV GOP doesn't have a primary or a caucus. Throwbacks that they are, they just have a convention and bigwigs do it the old fashioned way.

You're wrong. You just don't know it.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Time again for me to ride my favorite hobby-horse: what matters most is "who will the candidate bring to Washington"?

Obama has the support of people like Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson and John Edwards. They will help particularly in cabinet selections, etc. that a new administration needs to construct.

Clinton has the support of Madeleine Albright, some of the Kennedy's and other notable leaders.

In general, the Democrat will have a better pool of candidates in which to fish for these important job-holders.

If McSame is elected, we will have Dick Cheney and his "shadow cabinet" (are they still meeting on a regular basis in that "undisclosed location"? Donald Rumsfeld, David Addington and the like.

The important thing for Democrats to do, and to convince their friends and neighbors to do, is NOT vote Republican out of spite!!

The convention has not yet been held. The platform is yet to be decided on by the delegates assembled. The Vice-Presidential candidate is yet to be chosen. All this has to happen before the "real" campaign even gets started.

Let the process play out. Let all the states have their contests. Then let's all take a deeeep breath and get ready for the next step.

Posted by: wide-eyed1 | May 15, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

You can make a lot of money if you want to put your money where your mouth is. I believe it is like 10 or 12 to 1 maybe more after today. So hock that trailer you live in and make a nice score for yourself when she becomes the nominee.

**********
Senator Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate. She is the best option in November. Senator Hillary Clinton will be the next
President of United States.

Posted by: maria | May 15, 2008 12:53 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

g,

You aren't making any sense. The negative intra-party numbers are roughly equal.

I could just as easily say that Hillary is "that scary" to the other half of Dems.

The difference is that Obama's "who is this guy" doubters can be informed. Hillary is a known quantity--that is her best asset and her curse. A high floor and a low ceiling as someone here said.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The experts have already stated that FL and MI must have proper representation in the primary. Yes this is a constitutional right for all voters EVEN in a primary. Obama team will not get away with such an injustice as to block voters rights despite their attempt to do so.

Why aren't the Obama voters concerned about this attempt to subterfuge democracy? Oh, that's right. They are blind cult followers.

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Mason


if you were the poster at 12:45, you have my response:


Let me add something else


The democratic party used to pull candidates into a room - and tell them if they wanted the support of the party, the candidate had to sign a pledge of support to the KKK.

Now, that was a private practice of the Democratic party, what do you say about that?

This KKK pledge thing went so far as to the KKK used to control BLOCKS OF DELEGATES AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTIONS.

I really do not know what to tell you - however your postion on the "private practices" of political parties is slightly weak and pathetic given the history of the Democratic Party.


Remember Lincoln freed the slaves. Next time you want to call anyone a racist, look at the Democratic Party.

MASON if you would like me to continue to shred your argument to pieces, I can.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

This argument over who is the better general election candidate vs. McCain seems a bit superficial and late now. The democratic nomination process is over. By all rights, Obama has been victorious. Plus, I saw a poll in Michigan if a democratic contest were today with Clinton 41%-Obama41%. In the general, McCain45%-Clinton44% and McCain45%-Obama44%. Statistical tie in Michigan for either. You look at alot of the conservative states Obama won, they were caucuses and not primaries. Obama didn't really do well in primaries, but did great in caucuses where money & organization counts the most. To his credit, Obama finally won a big primary in my home state of NC. But Clinton won Ohio, Pa., Texas, ect. Not at all suggesting Clinton could even be competitive in Texas vs. McCain, b/c she cannot. But stating that she has won the primaries. But guess what, the DNC formed the rules & alot of small conservative states had caucuses & that's what Obama prepared for and won. Clinton has no excuses, he won & she lost. It should be a McCain vs. Obama general election.

Posted by: reason | May 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

As I continue to read, watch and listen to the discussions about Democratic Party candidate selection process, I am concerned about three things:

First, the coverage focused too much on the horse race. Indeed, there is often little else being discussed other than who won, who is winning and who will win. Several months ago CNN's Reliable Sources had one of the best and most insightful discussions of what I consider is one of the major problems with media coverage--the overwhelming "issue" is the horse race. On this segment, the commentators bemoaned the fact that the reporting was dominated by who was ahead, who would win, who had "already" won, etc. Unfortunately, this discussion has been rare and much of the media's coverage of the election continues to be on the horse race. Ironically, as discussed below CNN coverage is very much a part of the problem.

Second, it might be said that reporters might have trouble talking about other issues, etc. or they will be perceived as being partisan. How do they discuss policy themselves--since they are not usually policy experts? However, such caution is not the problem. CNN commentators often cross the line from reporting to commentary or they mix the two together. Some reporters and commentators actually "sneer" when they discuss certain candidates. For example, Jack Cafferty's "pieces" are "sneer-fests" about/against Hillary Clinton. His facial expression, his tone and his other non-verbals express his attitudes and beliefs very clearly. Such behaviors hurt the credibility of much of the media--even those who do not engage in such practices. However, these problems cited above are not new, but they do seem to be getting worse from this observer's perspective.

Third, there is a model for coverage that I believe presents better coverage of
the campaigns. This coverage is calmer, more balanced and less salacious
than is found on many of the
commercial networks. Public broadcasting news reporting is more balanced, more thoughtful and committed to providing supporting evidence for the observations being offered.


Russell T. Church, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
Middle Tennessee State University

Posted by: Russ Church | May 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"I submit to you that Equal Protection is one of these Constitutional Principles which the parties are subject to - and the placement of Nevada ahead of Michigan violates that constitutional principle."

If you're so certain you're correct, how come no court has agree with you?

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

"The democrats are like a dead-beat dad - they wanted the benefits of the Iraq war in the 2002 elections, the 2004 elections - but they are so weak-stomached they do not want to finish the job."

What have been the benefits of the Iraq war, 37 and 0 so retarded.

Weaker dollar?
Higher gas?
Weaker image around the world?

If these are benefits, you really need to go somewhere else, like Darfur. Since you think there have been benefits for the American people due to the Iraq War, go spread your "knowledge and opinion" to those people. They have as many and more benefits that you can enjoy over there.

Posted by: Stop the insanity | May 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Senator Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate. She is the best option in November. Senator Hillary Clinton will be the next
President of United States.

Posted by: maria | May 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

That was me at 12:45, btw.

How about some logins on this page!!

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

To the poster at 12:45


It is my opinion and I am correct - I actually identified it as my opinion.


Is the democratic party allowed to practice discrimination? If the pary made a rule that a minority group could not vote in its primaries, would that pass your muster?

I submit to you that the parties, as serving a public function like a utility, are subject to some standards.


A private company that engages in interstate trade is subject to interstate regulation, such as a motel.

The point is the political parties are subject to some constitutional standards as well, as they perform a function related to the Constitutional elections.


I submit to you that Equal Protection is one of these Constitutional Principles which the parties are subject to - and the placement of Nevada ahead of Michigan violates that constitutional principle.

I disagree that the court cases that you might cite should apply to this situation of bullying Michigan.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"Which is why Dems continue to lose congressional races in red districts"

Don't watch the news much do you? (And no, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly are not "The News,") and Fox "News" functions more like the Propaganda Wing of the GOP, so I'm not surprized that they barely mentioned that:

"Democrat Travis Childers has won the Special Election in MS-1, defeating Republican Greg Davis (53-47 at this writing)."

"Bill Foster in IL-14 and Don Cazayoux in LA-6, and each district being more progressively Republican, Childer's win is going to send shock waves throughout the political community. This district has a Partisan Voter Index (PV) of R+10, meaning on average it votes 10% more Republican than the nation as a whole. If every district with a PV of R+10 was in play in November, that's 50 seats the GOP will have problems defending."

I think that Democrats have finally figured out how to win House Seats: they aren't Republicans.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

g,

More than half of Democrats have already voted for "this guy."

You quote the statistics for Hillary supporters in WV. But overall, the number of Democrats who say they won't vote for the opponent is about the same on both sides. That number will go down.

****this is what I am trying to make clear to you. Obama is that SCARY to Hill voters that McCain is actually safer than Obama. I have listed reasons why..the biggest having to do with our national security. Keep in mind...I am a very liberal Dem and Obama scares even me. And YES I was vehemently opposed to the Homeland Security BS and Bush IS the devil.

Obama loses/would lose the "just who is this guy?" Dem voters. We don't trust him and we are very suspicious of some of what we have learned and seen about him and his suspect connections in this race. No, Edwards as his VP would not change that.

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse


Mason,

It is very simple. I believe, based on the way HILLARY CLINTON treated Michigan, that she will do whatever it takes to get elected. I will not reward her two-faced behavior with my vote. Period.

As to the rest,

I blame 1st, the Michigan GOP, and 2nd, Clinton loyalists in the MDP, for the Michigan primary fiasco. See previous post.

And as for the Constitution, there is nothing in there ANYWHERE about political parties. Anyone and everyone (US-born, 35 and older) can run for president. Just ask Ross Perot (who got Clinton elected) or John Anderson (who got Reagan elected).

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

37th&O
Nice non-sequiter. Counter my point. Counter my argument that the Parties can pick their nominees however they want. You won't because you can't.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Some of the people on here clearly have no clue what they're talking about. Winning a state's primary has little salience on the outcome in the fall, and using a May statewide poll to assess a candidate's chances in the fall is not a reliable predictor of success. Sure, it may give you insight into strengths a candidate may have, but the only poll that matters is on Election Day.

Since we're going to get into states, I'll give an assessment of some things:

1) Clinton is DOA in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. The Clintons aren't well liked in the area, and people remember Clinton's NAFTA support and see through their fake protectionism stances now.

2) Nearly 58% of voters don't trust Clinton and 51% say they will never vote for her. What sane person thinks that's the recipe for a winning candidate?

3) I'm sick of the Democrats banking on PA, OH, and FL, like there are no other states. We need a competitive candidate who is comfortable in the Rocky Mountain West, in New Orleans, or in the hills of New Hampshire. I'm also tired of the emphasis on Reagan Democrats who are dying off, at the expense of the millions of new voters who can clearly overpower this tired voting bloc. We ended up with 8 years of Bush because of these people, so why is their judgment suddenly so valuable?

4) Obama has more appeal in Western states and he is currently polling much stronger than Clinton in WA, OR, MN, IA, WI, VT, MD, VA, NC, ND, KS, AK, MT, NV, NM, and TX. However, if Hillary was the nominee and strengthened her appeal, she might make a few more states competitive. Its hard to determine these things months before an election. However, Democrats have to use the 50-state strategy and expand the map! Stop with this tired model of running the table and hoping for Ohio and Florida. There are other states, if you actually competed in them.

I think Hillary would have a good shot of winning, and so would Obama. I see there are many fortune tellers on here who are certain of Obama's defeat and claim to be Democrats voting for McCain...

My advice to these people is that if your job dries up and you are paying trillions more for new wars, assuming a McCain victory, I would relish the chance to laugh in your faces and not give a crap about doing it. Cheers.

Posted by: John | May 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Only someone with a name like "Lonewackodotcom" would think Youtube to be a credible source. Oooo! I'm gonna trust some user-submitted garbage that gets put up next kittens on tricycles and "Loose Change".

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Can someone list HC's accomplishments in the public arena? I'm having a hard time coming to terms with her experience. I can't quite grasp how being a president's wife (not to mention an opportunist) is equated with a stronger presidential candidate.
Saying you have the experience to be commander-in-chief is much different than actual experience...who cares about the issues of winning states. I think she's demeaning BO's experience as a smoke-screen b/c she herself is limited in that area.
If that's why she is stronger, maybe she should be the nominee.

Posted by: josiah2 | May 15, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Mason


Your reasoning is flawed - the Democratic party has sold out the people of Michigan with the free trade deals.


To turn around, and give Michigan voters a prominent place on the primary schedule - to showcase what democratic policies have done to the economy of the state - would just not serve their interests.


It is OBVIOUS that one of the reasons they wanted to bury Michigan far back in the schedule is to AVOID a discussion of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S role in the free trade deals - all the lobbyist money, all the campaign contributions - which served to sell out the people of Michigan.

Carl Levin knows this and has said it.

Wake up Democrats - see your democratic party for what it is - a bunch of sell-out hypocrites. Sorry but you are adults and you should know the truth.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Mason


Your reasoning is flawed - the Democratic party has sold out the people of Michigan with the free trade deals.


To turn around, and give Michigan voters a prominent place on the primary schedule - to showcase what democratic policies have done to the economy of the state - would just not serve their interests.


It is OBVIOUS that one of the reasons they wanted to bury Michigan far back in the schedule is to AVOID a discussion of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S role in the free trade deals - all the lobbyist money, all the campaign contributions - which served to sell out the people of Michigan.

Carl Levin knows this and has said it.

Wake up Democrats - see your democratic party for what it is - a bunch of sell-out hypocrites. Sorry but you are adults and you should know the truth.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

37th & O Said:
"My opinion is this: The DNC has no right to choose Nevada to go before Michigan."

That's your opinion, but it's not worth a warm bucket of spit. This is internal party politics and the nominees could be chosen by drawing names from a hat.

"The DNC has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to push around Michigan."

Yes they do, for the purposes of picking their nominee. Take a civics class.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

A couple of things. First of all, I do NOT believe that either Clinton or Obama is the strongest candidate the Dems could have run for a general election even of the announced candidates.

Second, Pfloufe's argument about being able to put Kansas and North Dakota in play is foolishness. I'm a Democrat in North Dakota. I'll vote for Obama or Clinton in November, just as I voted for Kerry in 2004, but part of the calculus for me is that my vote has no real consequence... the state will vote for the Republican nominee regardless of what I do.

It may not make sense to outsiders, and Montana might be in play, regardless, but despite the polling, I do not believe that Obama is the stronger GE candidate in any of the states that border mine, not MT, not SD, not MN.

There are two real issues here... first of all there are not substantial black populations, and most NoDaks, SoDaks and MTans are casually racist from lack of exposure. Second, Wright hurts far more with people who aren't paying close attention than with those that are. Probably 40% of the people that I know think that Obama is a muslim because of the emails that went around. These people don't pay close attention to the race for President, they vote reflexively... hell half the people I know vote on the basis of their perception of gun rights and abortion. That's not a battle Barack Obama can win.

As a prominent NoDak Republican once told me, thank god for gays, guns and abortion because on the economics, nobody would ever vote Republican in NoDak... and yet, despite a generation of mismanagement of the WSI and other state agencies, the GOP has held the Governor's chair for 16 years soon to be 20, and has nearly insurmountable majorities in both houses of the legislature.

What many of us who are active and engaged in politics don't seem to realize is that many aren't, and their votes count just as much as ours do.

Posted by: leuchtman | May 15, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"Obama has lost the last 4 out of 5 primaries."

Who are you, Howard Kurtz? Count again.

Posted by: Not Howard Kurtz | May 15, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Can someone list HC's accomplishments in the public arena? I'm having a hard time coming to terms with her experience. I can't quite grasp how being a president's wife (not to mention an opportunist) is equated with a stronger presidential candidate.
Saying you have the experience to be commander-in-chief is much different than actual experience...who cares about the issues of winning states. I think she's demeaning BO's experience as a smoke-screen b/c she herself is limited in that area.
If that's why she is stronger, maybe she should be the nominee.

Posted by: josiah2 | May 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

g,

More than half of Democrats have already voted for "this guy."

You quote the statistics for Hillary supporters in WV. But overall, the number of Democrats who say they won't vote for the opponent is about the same on both sides. That number will go down.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The actions of the Obama campaign to stop the re-votes in Florida and Michigan were so undemocratic it is a wonder that there was not an outcry about that.

****and Obamabots wonder why Hill Dems will not vote for Obama/Corruption).

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"Vice President Bill Richardson."

McCain probably goes to sleep praying that happens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiszkrzoOs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0YRHXoygRM
youtube.com/watch?v=CifLm6z32eA
youtube.com/watch?v=mN2o208PFhg

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Things are so ugly for the Republican Party right now. On many generic (no mentioned by name of Obama or Clinton) tracking polls, the Democratic Party is up by over 15% against the Republican Party. However, when you track either Clinton or Obama against McCain, the same tracking polls are also showing down to single digit lead only. That tells me, Clinton and Obama are both somewhat weaker candidates than that NAMELESS candidate of the Democratic Party or McCain candidacy should not be taken lightly.

Posted by: TrackerMan | May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland


Then how do you explain the great lengths the Obama campaign went through to stop the re-vote in Michigan.

And how do you explain that Carl Levin wanted to go toe-to-toe with Harry Reid over the primary schedule?

My opinion is this: The DNC has no right to choose Nevada to go before Michigan.

Michigan already established itself on the primary schedule to go BEFORE supertuesday.

Why should Harry Reid, who is in it to help his people in Nevada, be able to push Michigan around??


The only fair way to do it is to have some sort of lottery to pull the states who get to go first.


Otherwise, everyone should have an equal chance to go at the beginning of the schedule.

I actually believe Michigan is right to resist the efforts to diminish the votes of the people of Michigan who have been slammed by the free trade agreements.

I actually hope that Michigan does not cave in 2012 and gets to vote before supertuesday.


The DNC has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to push around Michigan.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Mikeinmidland said:
"As for me, if it is not Obama, I will vote McCain."

I don't mean to single you out, but this kind of thinking drives me nuts because it indicates that the voter is more concerned with style than substance. BHO and JSMc shave few policy viewpoints. HRC and JSMc share few policy viewpoints. Why someone would vote for one of those sets but not for the other Dem just seems like very disjointed thinking, if you're considering policy. Everyone has baggage, so, for me at least, my distaste for the candidates is a wash.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Can someone list HC's accomplishments in the public arena? I'm having a hard time coming to terms with her experience. I can't quite grasp how being a president's wife (not to mention an opportunist) is equated with a stronger presidential candidate.
Saying you have the experience to be commander-in-chief is much different than actual experience...who cares about the issues of winning states. I think she's demeaning BO's experience as a smoke-screen b/c she herself is limited in that area.
If that's why she is stronger, maybe she should be the nominee.

Posted by: josiah2 | May 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama can still pick up those states that Hillary has a stronghold on, as long as he frequently visits them and picks the ideal VP (which I don't think is necessarily Hillary). People in these states want their voices heard cuz they're dealing with hard issues on the ground and if Obama follows a similar town hall model to McCain, he has a shot.

With VP, if he wants to try and hit big wit the latino vote over he could try for Richardson, but the man is not very good at talking points all the time. He could go for Edwards, but who's to say that's going to have enough effect in the important states? In the end, all this hypothetical banter isn't going to mean squat. Americans are going to pick who they want. I know that sounds stupid along the lines of a Yogi Berrism, but it's true.

Posted by: neutral | May 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

What does winning have to do with anything? If I don't want Hillary Clinton to be President, why should I care whether she is more electable? I vote for the person I want to be President, not for the person who is most electable.

Posted by: sscritic | May 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Clintons whole argument about her being a stronger candidate is hogwash anyway. Beacause for one, you can't predict how people who vote in primaries will vote (or not vote) in general elections whether they be Reagan Dems, Independents, or scarred supporters whose candidate didn't make it. Secondly, the X factor eliminating Clinton's argument is that she has so much baggage to give the other party that this election will be like 2000/2004, all based on scandals, name calling, gender baiting and race baiting instead of the issues. Clinton may be tough and play the game but unfortunately she would be at a clear disadvantage because voted for this WAR and for NAFTA so how is she really gonna distinguish herself. Third, just because you claim with polls, tracking data, and other stats you are stronger, doesn't mean you'll finish on top. The 2007-2008 New England Patriots probably thought the same thing and on paper and in polls, they seemed unbeatable to everyone but the New York Giants won the Super Bowl. You won't know until Election Day.

Posted by: 2pacolypse | May 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Realitycheck,

I am not a registered Democrat, but I guess I am a left-leaning independant.

It is a moot point, since Hillary will not be on the ballot, but if she were I would not be voting for McCain out of spite. It would in my opinion simply be the lesser of two evils.

I voted for McCain over Bush for the same reason in the 2000 GOP primary.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Why does talking about demographics make you a racist? When the Clinton's talk about the black vote in any way that reduces its importance or impact they are labeled as anti-african-american. If anyone is being racist, it is the people who are scolding black leaders for "going against their race" and supporting Clinton. Isn't someone a racist if he votes for a black candidate because he is black? Isn't it better to vote for someone because they are the best candidate. Obama has many such supporters, but not on these blogs.

Posted by: Mike | May 15, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I forgot about Nebraska's divided electoral votes in my earlier post. But I'll stick by my earlier prediction of McCain "losing" one of those states; i.e., Obama winning one or two of Nebraska's five electoral votes wouldn't count (but winning three of Nebraska's five electoral votes would count.)

Posted by: Pete Hess Timph-Johns | May 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"For that task both Obama and HRC have the skills and rhetorical chops. On a debate stage opposite McCain, either will do a great job of gently skewering the GOP."

NBC Debate - September 2008

Tim Russart: Sen. McCain. Do you believe Sen. Obama is qualified to be President of the United States?

McCain: Well Tim, my friend, I suppose so, but looking back in my history book I've never read about any one-third-of-one-term freshman senators ever being elected President. Maybe we do live in a world where someone can be hired for the toughest job in the world with two years of experience in Washington. I think the country learned a great deal about electing a "Hope and Change" candidate in 1976. To be fair, however, at least President Carter had some executive experience as Gov. of Georgia and a bright naval career before entering politics. I'm not sure this country is ready to ignore history's important lesson that "Hope and Change" are political filler, not policy. We must not confuse desire to change the world with the ability to do so. So the choice is to take a huge leap of faith with a candidate who has yest to explain just how he plans to unite the universe, or rely on my strong resume of real world experience I am offering the voters in November.

Posted by: Joe SixPack | May 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"Several bloggers have indicated that Obama did not have his name on the ballot in MI. But go to abc online and they have projected numbers for Obama and Clinton as though the numbers for MI/FL were included. Clinton has the popular votes."

Yes, by giving Clinton 350,000 votes in MI and Obama 0 votes and ignoring the nearly 300,000 who voted "uncommitted". Clinton has lost by all measures.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Response to Carla Purks


You are correct - one proposal in front of the Rules committee is to seat half the pledged delegates and all of the superdelegates from Florida and Michigan.

The Rules Committee could also say that the whole dispute was never meant to have this as the penalty - it has gotten out of hand - and seat the entire delegations.

I simply do not understand why the DNC wants to drag the voters of Florida and Michigan into THEIR dispute. The voters are pretty much innocent bystanders. To be offensive for very little reason is crazy.

This is simply another reason why the democratic party has no business being anywhere near the White House.

It looks like Hillary's allies have a majority on the Rules Committee - so it appears likely that something will be done in her direction on May 31 - she could end up with a net plus 70 delegates PLUS a chance at the superdelegates.

Those would be the numbers from June until the Convention.

However, the Obama people could try to steal the nomination back at the Credentials Committee at the Convention in August.


It is hard not to wonder why more people are not screaming that Obama is not the one attempting to steal the nomination through all these wacky rules - however let the American people be the judge of their actions.

The actions of the Obama campaign to stop the re-votes in Florida and Michigan were so undemocratic it is a wonder that there was not an outcry about that.

I throw my hands up - Obama could have been smart and seated all the delegates from Florida and Michigan - attempting to get the best delegate deal that he could in the process -

Holding out like this does nothing but hurt Obama in Michigan.


Obama has already lost Florida so that explains why his campaign has acted the way it has down there.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Hillary clearly wins, as she has a very strong blue collar and white collar supporters. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Florida and she has won NY, NJ,NH,MA NM and will win more southern states. She also has the labor unions. She is much better qualified than all three and she has won in states with a turnout for her, times 3 of what the republican turn out was. Plus nearly all the swing states and they will swing for her. In other words she is getting people out to vote for her, republicans that are moderate and sick of the Iraq war.
Clearly one thing is for sure, Florida and Michigan will not be voting for any ticket with Obama's name on it. Republicans will not be voting for Obama due to his extreme left affiliations and he is the most liberal candidate ever to run. He is far to liberal for republicans to vote for.

Obama, got his states except for North Carolina prior to Reverend Wright. He has lost the last 4 out of 5 primaries. I suspect that will hurt him in most states. He wasn't able to pull Indiana and people know him in Indiana, so he did lose a lot of votes due to his 20 years of attending Reverernd White's sermins which clearly our racial against whites. If a revote were to occurr in most of those states he won, It is be very unlikely he would still win their votes. He lost mine.. I believe Hillary can pull independents, democrats and republicans together. I think the college kids are over rated and are not the majority of voters. It is unlikley they will show up in November, as Kerry and Edwards can attest to that. The
African American's make up about 12% of which 85% will probley vote for Obama. He still cannot win against Mccain and has in most polls running behind McCain and Hillary in the states that count for democrats.

Posted by: rlarkin | May 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Hey here is what is being overlooked. Exit polls showed 70% of Hill voters will not vote for Obama!

Why? I'll tell you why. We don't trust this guy. He is inexperienced, a racist, unpatriotic, anti-white working class and is the result of a Democratic Party hijacking as well as unjust Hillary bashing within the Democratic Party. We witness Obama get 90% of the black vote. We witnessed his arrogance in assuming he is already the nominee and his disrespectful request that Hill step out of a fair democratic race. Pay attention to the fact that more than half of the Dems would not vote for this guy EVER.

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

37th,

As a Michigan voter, I can tell you why I would not vote "uncommitted" in the fall to send a message to the DNC. I do not blame the DNC for a thing. They set rules, and the stupid MDP allowed the Michigan GOP to set the date. Why? Because there are more Republicans in the state legislature than Dems. The only group I hold REALLY responsible for this mess is the GOP state legislators, and believe me none of them are getting my vote in the fall.

As to the MDP, they should have pulled out of the primary before it happened and held a caucus at a later date. Why didn't they? Because the Clintonites were in charge and they did what she asked. She thought that the "win" would be enough to shape opinion and propel her toward inevitability. Only later did she start crying for delegates.

It is perfectly clear to me that you are just trying to stir up discontent in the party against the presumptive nominee. As for me, if it is not Obama, I will vote McCain.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"the downticket races are a maybe with Obama on the top of the ticket."

Which is why Dems continue to lose congressional races in red districts...oh wait...you mean attacking Obama and tryingt to tie Dem candidates to them actually made the Republicans look desperate and petty and served at the same time to drive up the African American votes? Naahhhh

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

State by state, Obama and Hillary have travelled listening to views of people on our current issues, and Obama has called out the youth big time (they're paying attention and they have opinions too on our current matters and where they'd like to see this country go in the future because THEY ARE the future). A poll displayed four-fifths people disapproved of our current stance. At the end of the day, it boils down to whether people across the nation believe McCain will have the passion to focus and take actions we feel are necessary on the issues, versus these two candidates whom take similar stances. I admire McCain, and I believe he will be competitive. However, I'd just say that it will be interesting to watch the masses come out and unified to make their statement. I believe there will be competition. I think it would be interesting to have this further discussion on this topic after we have the Democratic nominee. If Hillary gets the nod, we can have one discussion. If Obama gets it, I think we can have another. Obviously they're both strong candidates with their major bases, but Obama is at a handsome lead right now and we're still waiting to see the choices of the Superdelegates, and those of the remaining states left to vote.

I believe the most important factor is the importance of the issues (war, economy, gas, healthcare, home foreclosures, etc) and what they mean to the people. I strongly believe that will be the #1 factor.

IF Obama's the nominee, we can't ignore the potential to energize. I expect him to do that, making additional rounds (I definitely believe more people will join the team). Also, he has run an outstanding campaign. That will serve well in competing with McCain. Obama has clear potential to break down some barriers, stretching across parties and even with Independents, not to mention energizing the youth.

There is pressure, because this is an important year to vote which will have consequences for the next four years before we are able to vote yet again. I believe many people are on the path to help this country, ourselves and our fellow citizens and I believe that's going to show in the future for the future.

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is a negative person, not much different between her and Bush.She would make a good guide for groups touring the White house. She knows the old game.

Posted by: mrjustjohn | May 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

United Steelworkers endorse Barack Obama for President.
"Senator Obama's call for a significant change of direction amounts to far more than a compelling rallying cry. It is buttressed by his record of consistent support for workers, by his call for sweeping changes to our health care system, by his unflinching support for Employee Free Choice, and by his insistence that America's trade policies must, first and foremost, serve the interests of America's working families."

Let's thank those hard-working Americans for adding their support for OBAMA '08.

Posted by: Joyce | May 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter if Clinton is the "better candidate against McCain in the fall". She didn't win the primaries. That was step one, and she didn't do that.

If her supporters are stupid enough to stay home in November or vote for McCain out of bitterness, then they have no one to blame but themselves for their plight.

This is really like saying the 1991 San Francisco 49ers were the best team in the NFL. They probably were, but they didn't make the playoffs -- so we'll never know.

Same thing goes for Clinton's candidacy: we'll never truly know, because she blew it with her primary strategy that reeked of overconfidence, antiquated ideas and stale politics.

Posted by: Reality Check | May 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I think that what most people are going to remember when voting will be the cost of food. Republicans are going to be blamed.

Posted by: cbs | May 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

With her negatives especially on trustworthiness, and her very established character flaws. including a willingness to say anything to get elected and her willingness to blame others for her mistakes, she is not only the worse candidate, she is certainly not an attractive person to hold the Oval Office as she cannot and will not and has not shown any great effort to reign in her own personal shortcomings. As a female, I think she is a particularly unattractive stereotype of the women who think they deserve things rather than go out and earn them. She is legacy and our most recent legacy shows us the danger of someone whose ego is overblown for her accomplishment. If Hillary were a man, we would not be having this conversation. We would be ridiculing them for having the nerve to foist themsellves upon us.

Posted by: nclwtk | May 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

crowman


Yes Strom Thurman would be a good running mate for Obama

Posted by: what | May 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Several bloggers have indicated that Obama did not have his name on the ballot in MI. But go to abc online and they have projected numbers for Obama and Clinton as though the numbers for MI/FL were included. Clinton has the popular votes.

While we do not know if this will be what is decided once the Rules Committee meet at the end of the month, it does give support to Clinton's argument, as well as vocie to the million of voters who watched their leaders in MI/FL--not themselves--"squander" their votes and more importantly their VOICE.

Guess we will have to wait until the end of the month. But onward and forward for Clinton.

Posted by: Carla Purks | May 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Overall, this is a pretty good analysis, though I think you are giving Obama a lot more potential to reach into Republican thresholds. The bottom line is in the electoral college, if you win where the people live, i.e. the big states, you win. That's all.

The Democrats will carry California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey, no doubt. Clinton could win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and Ohio because the states are comprised of people who form much of her base - already we are at 226.

270 wins - where would she get the other 44 votes? The Clintons have a strong base in New Hampshire and Arkansas as well as West Virginia (15); she is popular among Hispanics and won primaries in Nevada and New Mexico (10); add in the remaing traditional states of Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont and D.C. (27), and suddenly, she is Presidenct, with room to spare.

Nevermind the fact that there are a couple of different places that are in play she could also win - Washington; Oregon; Minnesota; Wisconsin; Iowa; Missouri; Maine; Tennessee; and Kentucky. I like Clinton's chances in at least Maine, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

I would rather have this strategy than Obama's of going after new ground - it's too risky, and the "McGovern Coalition" has not proved successful in the past.

Posted by: Kevin | May 15, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

CC-
You must be doing something right. People think you're carrying BHO and HRC's water at the same time. If that ain't neutrality, I don't know what is. Everyone hates you.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

This may come as a shock to the Kumba-ya wing of the party, But Hispanic-Americans are not enamored with African-Americans. Study the demographics of the California and Texas primaries to see where that group voted.It is incredible that in a year where it would be impossible to loose the presidency,the Democrats are on the verge of doing just that.At this late moment let's try to get real.

Posted by: whippersnapper | May 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Will


I don't know where your numbers are coming from, however if McCain wins Ohio and Michigan, it's over.


Michigan, however, the democrats still have a chance in, however I can't see why the voters would not want to send a message to the DNC by voting "uncommitted" in November.


Missouri and Iowa are leaning toward McCain perhaps that is where your numbers go off.

Wisconsin I would put in Obama's column.


Obama's main problem is Pennsylvania - he has to win that state or its all over for him. That is so serious that if Obama's numbers in Pennsylvania do not look good in mid-August, the democratic leaders should ask Obama to step aside before the Convention.

mmmmmmm


I do not know what to tell you except that Obama's numbers in the blue states are horrible - and it will get worse - the downticket races are a maybe with Obama on the top of the ticket.


Go ahead, go with Obama - however it is clear that elements of the democratic party are doing it with the idea of tanking the November election.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"She is stronger -- although not by much "
She's stronger not by much looking at the contest from the perspective of her campaign style -- turn out the Democrats.
Obama has a record across the country of involving tons of people who haven't been involved before; that doesn't show up in polls.
And, of course, her claim doesn't take into consideration what it would mean to voters to have their choice rejected by the "wiser heads" looking to a better chance at the electoral college.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | May 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

In the closing weeks of the primary season I am confident the Senator from Illinois will be our candidate and I am hopeful he will choose the former Senator from North Carolina as his running mate.

Once the general campaign gets underway in September I look forward to the contrasts of the two party's nominees. Senator McCain is a decent man yet one who has covered about every side of every issue in his senatorial years. His consistency is rarely evident except on abortion which he is fundmanetally opposed to.

We really will have a choice not an echo.

Posted by: crowman | May 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama's secret weapon to get the Hispanic vote, or a sizeable chunk of it:

Vice President Bill Richardson.

He would also give BHO NM, make western races (NV, CO) competitive, make JSMc spend money in Texas, and add foreign policy experience.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if McCain is going to give Rove an official title in the White House like Bush did or just let him slink around in the background. Wake me up in four years.

Posted by: Paul | May 15, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Will,

But your post assumes somehow that McCain will win Michigan?? I don't think so.

I voted for McCain in 2000, before I voted for Gore. And I voted for Kerry in 2004, so I am one of the few non-Texans to vote AGAINST GWB 3 times. And Bush LOST Michigan all 3 times, so I did my part.

Michigan was in play for 2000 and 2004, but it will be safely Democratic in 2008.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Sue-

When you argue for Clinton over Obama because she has more experience, you don't give any meaningful examples. You mention healthcare for kids, but the lawmakers responsible SCHIP have said she didn't play a significant role.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/

You site her "trying to get Americans universal health care coverage." But isn't that a little like giving Bush credit for "trying" to turn Iraq into a functioning Democracy. Both endeavours were fanastic failures.

Granted she is a two term Senator while Obama has only one term. But how effective has the Senate been since 2000? It's caved to the Bush administration time and time again. And that includes the march to war in Iraq.

The candidates with true long term experience were Biden, Dodd and Richardson. And those ships sank a long time ago. The reality is that neither Democratic candidate has the experience one would like in a President.

And as far as negative campaigning goes, I don't see how anyone could make the case that the Obama campaign has been nearly as petty and negative as Clinton's. When Obama attacks Clinton, it's usually over something substative (like her gas tax pandering). When Clinton attacks Obama it's usually political posturing (he's an elitist!).

Posted by: eatmesomecookies | May 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

So, Mr. Cillizza has, for the past several months, been a part of the media frenzy in support of Senator Obama, but now that he is ready to clinch the nomination, Mr. Cillizza decides he should posit that perhaps Senator Clinton is the strongest candidate. The media manipulation of electoral politics is shameless and surprisingly transparent.

Posted by: Mike | May 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Since Sen. Clinton is behind in sen. Barack Obama, I don't see any argument on how she can be the strongest candidate. I strongly believe that the Clintons' assumption is based on race. They believe white voters willnot vote for sen. Obama. Therefore, the Clintons believe America is still racist. Can anyone address this issue honetly?
Javier Dominguez

Posted by: jcdominguez2002@yahoo.com | May 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

I think Clinton is the stronger candidate for three reasons.
1.) The Republican attack machine can do little to her, it has already been tried and there is very little that we do not know. Unlike her, we do not know much about Obama and that attack machine will eat his lunch.
2.) Today's speech by McCain was an election game-changer. He took away Obama's ammunition of ending the war by introducing his own time-frame and strategy of ending it successfully. Since Obama has no experience, and no one really challenges McCain's on the issue, who do you suppose voters will now prefer?
3.) This cross-over vote issue from Clinton to McCain is real. The pundits say that Democrats will support the ticket when the smoke clears. That may be true to a large extent, but we know that a small margin of votes can make the difference in a Presidential race. I, for one, will not vote for Obama, period. I am a Democrat that also votes for the person, not always the party. This has become a situation where those who do not support Obama (for whatever valid reason) is labeled a racist by the Obama supporters, and we are told that too many important issues are not valid to consider, but are "distractions". That won't fly with me.
Bud Curtis
Miami, OK

Posted by: Bud Curtis | May 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Obama is better than the white woman running who now hates us black people.

Posted by: 10th and Varnum, NE | May 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"In all honesty, you should not be a crybaby when you and Translator have been acting they way you have for so long."

By acting the way I have, you mean reacting to nonsensical wild accusations with rational thought backed up by actual facts?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR O.J
BUTI WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA

Posted by: lilahenna | May 15, 2008 9:18 AM
----------------------------------------------------

I FORGOT TO ADD, I WOULD EAT MY OWN POOP IF NO ONE WOULD BE WATCHING ME, AND DO IT BUTT NAKEEDDD!! BUT EVERYONE IS WATCHING ME. I TRY TO RUN AND HIDE, BUTT THEY ALWAYS FIND ME.

Posted by: lilahenna | May 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign continually say that "western states" and "mid-west states will play a key role.

So, lets play Obama's "winning strategy" --

Obama wins IN, PA, MO, NM, NV, CO, IA, MN, ME, VT, MA, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD, DC, IL, WA, OR, CA, HI, and DC.

McCain wins NH, MI, OH, FL, VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, TN, KY, MS, AR, LA, OK, TX, AZ, UT, ID, WY, MT, NE, SD, ND, WI, IN, KS, and AK

Electoral College: 269 Obama, 269 McCain.

So, if you count out Obama in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida -- you still face tie--which he will win with a Dem controlled congress. That said, the likelyhood that Obama can win PA, IN, NV, and MO remains very doubtful.

THE POINT: YOU CAN SWITCH THE PUZZLE PIECES AROUND ON THE BOARD, BUT THE PUZZLE PIECES STILL HAVE THE SAME VALUE AND THE WINNING NUMBER IS STILL 270.

Hillary's odds are better because it seems that she can carry WVA, OH, FL, and PA and still lose CO, NV, NM, MI and MO to get 280+ electoral votes.

Posted by: Will | May 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

There is no way to accurately predict who would be a stronger GE candidate. Polling data this far out doesn't even come close to reality. Just look at the lead that Al Gore and John Kerry had at the same time in '00 and '04. To my recollection, they both lost in the GE.

The key to this race is for Obama (as the nominee) and Clinton (on his right hand, either as VP or otherwise) to combine their coalitions. Obama doesn't need all of Clinton's supporters in the fold, but he will get a large majority of them. Combined with his supporters and the hundreds of thousands of new voters they're bringing in, it's a landslide.

Posted by: JamesCH | May 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

zouk, I know you hate McCain as much as any Democrat. He's sold you guys out before and he'll sell you out again. He hates you guys. You know that better than I do.

You should keep in mind that there are other options out there. Bob "Gooder" Barr, for instance, or whatever radical christianist cleric the Constitution Party puts up. They don't hate you. They are you, and they deserve your support.

I say you stand up for your principles, whatever they are, and vote for one of the spoilers. You won't have to take a Clorox shower afterward to rid yourself of the sell-out stench, and it's not like McCain has a chance in Virginia anyway.

Let me know what you think.

Posted by: novamatt | May 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Lots of water over the dam before Nov.

Can't be sure what will happen. Why, just today McCain says he's pulling out the troops. Say again?

Clinton still in race allows lots of real negative posting here -- possibly by Republicans pretending to be part of Democratic dialog. Ignore them.

The question for the fall is simple. Does an inspiring vision for the future of our country triumph over the old racist (and sexist too) views that have prevailed for centuries?

Can't make 100% generalities. However, the trend is toward less racism in younger, more affluent, better educated people. Just statistical, mind you. Plenty of counter examples on both sides.

Still, would have liked to find out how many of the 7% who marked the Edwards spot in WV were of the mind that they wouldn't vote for an A-A or a woman.

Having a woman in WH would have been great, although I'd rather see a different woman there myself. It's a bigger leap to get an A-A there. Just count women in the Senate vs. A-As. Same for govs.

Once he gets there (and he will because his skills and intellect are incredible), our job will be to be vigilant so that he does not succumb to Washington fever. Go public loudly anytime he appears to be veering off course.

Posted by: Harry, Los Angeles, CA | May 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Even if Hilary were to claim the nomination (a near improbability) and then capture the white house what would be the net result? The same divisive and partisan politics that came to dominate her husband's administration will be back with a vengeance. If the country is clamoring for meaningful change she is not the agent to make that a reality.

Posted by: tydicea | May 15, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile

I want you to admit that false charges of racism and false claims of "offensive comments" are a form of RACISM against whites.

Until you realize that and truly believe it, you have nothing to complain about.

Crybaby.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"To really think that Obama is going to hold onto the hispanic vote - I can not characterize that.

The superdelegates are holding back from Obama for a REASON."

Two reasons actually:

1. The Obama campaign is telling them too- they don't want to look like the supers are trying to force out Hillary in a matter that will make reconciliation more difficult. They want a steady drumbbeat with key endorsements coming at specific times (like Edwards right after WV- completely bumping that story out of the news).

2. Clinton made the case that the voters should decide, so man have said that, unless they think the primary begins to hurt the party, they will give them the benefit of the doubt and wait until all pledged delegates are decided in June. But, at the same time, many (to include Speaker Pelosi and up to 20 CA delegates with her) have already stated on record that they will at that time honor whoever wins the pledged delegate race. The real thing going on here- these are politicians who don't want to isolate anyone for any reason, and so are waiting to take the easy way out. Nothing more sinister or unpredictable than that.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


Like you aren't sitting right next to Translator

In all honesty, you should not be a crybaby when you and Translator have been acting they way you have for so long.

Are you kidding???

If you want to be for standards, go after your pal Translator, who is probably sitting in the same room as you at Obama headquarters at Michigan & Lake.

HA !!!!!


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Chris--

Where are Nevada and Wisconsin in your analysis? You say that 22 states are not locked up by either party, but it seems like it's actually 24.

Posted by: jonathan | May 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"First, that the playing field will be essentially unchanged between 2000/2004 and 2008 and, second, that current polling is an accurate predictor of what things will look like in November."

Wow, given these assumptions, one might as well throw a dart at a board to predict the election. Polls are always unreliable, and like a weather forecast, they become less predictive the further in advance that they are made. And given that the by-elections have been falling Democratic even in Republican strongholds, and that Bush is not running in this election (thus it is not 2000 or 2004 again), the electoral map will almost certainly look different.

What that difference will be, however, is mere speculation at this point. We haven't seen Obama and McCain square up yet, so making predictions, although a fun game for political junkies, is an idle pastime at best.

Posted by: blert | May 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet ....Most of the Democratic & Republican Senators went along with the Bush Doctrine, which has us in this current quagmire.
These are the Senators who had the courage and foresight to vote AGAINST the Resolution Authorizing the Iraq War: Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Chafee (R-RI), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR)

Posted by: Joyce | May 15, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"The superdelegates are holding back from Obama for a REASON"

They want to lose Congress? No, wait. That doesn't work...

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet, is that you Mark Penn?

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

LonewackoDotCom

Great name fantastic.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I am one of the 237,000 Michigan voters who voted for "uncommitted" on the Democratic primary ballot in January.

Obama, Edwards, and the others removed their names from the ballot after all the candidates pledged not to campaign in the state. Clinton left hers on. The fact that she pulled this 'fast one' alone was enough to make me vote against her. Put this in the category of "do anything to get elected."

I will NOT feel 'disenfranchised' if some MDP favorites don't get to spend a week in Colorado. I don't care if the 'uncommitted' delegates are awarded to Obama or can remain uncommitted. It will not be enough to give Hillary the nomination, and it will not be enough to sway the superdelegates.

All I care about now is that I won't have to vote for McCain in November.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"It is true, if you are not supporting Obama, you are probably a racist."

Posted by: kreuz_ missile | May 15, 2008 11:51 AM

Obama campaign Strategy #1 in full view.

Posted by: gravity_bomb | May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

1151 am was not me; Chris, when are we going to force peole to sign on here again?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

pjf0226-
Yeah, that seemed like an odd reaction to a list of numbers.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"CT.Dem" -- Lieberman, is that you?

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

pjf0226


Your conclusion adds some states in which Obama really does not have a chance in.


To really think that Obama is going to hold onto the hispanic vote - I can not characterize that.

The superdelegates are holding back from Obama for a REASON.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Clinton is by far the stronger candidate due to Obama's incredible vulnerabilities. It's not just Wright, Rezko, and all the rest, but his far-left policies as well. The MSM certainly isn't going to question him about those policies (unless they switch to wanting McCain to win), but that's not really necessary.

Sooner or later regular citizens are going to start asking Obama questions about those policies and uploading his lame responses to Youtube. A good question asked by a good questioner would leave him stammering for an answer, and when millions of people see that they're going to realize he's not qualified.

Here are just a few of the many questions that he should be asked:

http://nomoreblather.com/obama-questions

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | May 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

I do think the 2008 context is different and Obama brings an entire new group of voters tot he polls. Even if he does not winn SC, NC, or GA, I think growth in Democratic voters there will force the GOP to spend soem of their limited resources there. THey will be outspent two-to-one and that will make a difference, esp. in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Posted by: Thom | May 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"Even worse than being a fool, you are disrespecting the 4,000 people who have already died there by saying we should leave without first having a stable, safe, peaceful and democratic Iraq."

I have worn the unifrom of this country most of my life, and I have served alongside a number of those great Americans who gave their lives in this conflict. I do not dishonor their service by calling for a dramatic shift in strategy and policy, I want to ensure that another 4,000 brave men and women do not join them for no good reason. "A stable, democratic Iraq" is not a military strategy. "Stay the course" is not a military strategy. "Cross our fingers and hope that the Iraqis will suddenly start playing nice" is nt a military strategy. McCain's sudden embrace of a Jan 2013 timetable is still not a military strategy. What is the strategic objective, and how do we get there? Until then, it's an occupation, not a war, and one that is going on too long.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

This is unbelievable. A unity ticket solves all your problems with the electoral college. Its is advantageous to this nation with the opportunity of representative change for both AA and women. If Obama, the presumptive nominee, doesn't appreciate that Clinton wiped the floor with him in debates, would be an asset as a policy wonk in his administration and would be a fierce campaigner on his behalf, he is showing his political arrogance rather than political smarts.

She has worked eloquently with those in the Senate who hated her husband's administration by gaining their respect. She deserves the respect of all who have witness her fighting spirit. She is an asset to this nation. Those that offer otherwise are using hate as their divisive weapon, something I thought Oprah's "The ONE" was against. There should be a rallying cry for these two candidates to join together. As an independent I don't really care what happens to the Democrat party. Clinton gets my vote no matter what, I know how to write in a name, but if Obama and Clinton supporters are up to winning more than hating perhaps the great divide can be bridged. That's nearly 34 million votes in the bag folks... see the forest?

Posted by: makim | May 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


Exactly, open your eyes to see what the democratic party is all about -


These are the democratic superdelegates which are holding back from Obama


These democrats are going to make up the Obama administration - hold on to most of the positions and make a great deal of decisions.

Sorry, the democrats have become a massive party of sell-outs and deceptions.


Wake up.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

37th & O wrote:

pjf0226

Do you have ANY idea of what you are talking about or are you trying to be deceptive?
Which is it?

Umm...all I did was try to summarize various poll results to try to quantify the candidates' positions in various battleground states which roughly agree with CC's original post. My post plainly acknowledged Clinton's strength in the big 3 battlegrounds (FL, PA, OH) while also pointing out states where Obama was stronger. I'm not the enemy here; I will happily vote for either Clinton or Obama over McCain.

Posted by: pjf0226 | May 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

I think Obama has a snowball's chance in h#ll of winning the General Election. His elitist views of "working Americans ... (who cling to guns and religion - as an opiate of the masses) comes through loud and clear. He won't take Florida, Ohio, Penn or even CT - He'll be lucky to hold 10 states. His "victories" in red state caucuses were simply parlor games.

Posted by: CT.Dem | May 15, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Is this Toby from West Wing?

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

It is true, if you are not supporting Obama, you are probably a racist.


.

Posted by: kreuz_ missile | May 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporters talk about Obama in such a creepy way...They're really doing him a disservice. It's freaking creepy.

Posted by: Toby | May 15, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

"You have no defense, the democrats have been at the core of the worse, sell-out decisions in decades."

Yup, a lot of dems sold out to Republicans on the War In Iraq, that's why it's such a bad idea to elect someone who was an outspoken opponent of the war from the beginning...better to elect one of the biggest cheerleaders of the worst decision in decades rather than someone who shares a party affiliation with folks who didn't stand up to do the right thing and oppose it. Antoher flawless argument...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

37th&O -
You're detatched from reality. The DEM delegate numbers are what they are, and under no reasonable circumstance do they favor Senator Clinton. She cannot win without the superdelegates flipping the result on it's head. While that would be their right, they won't do it because of the catastrophic effect it would have on the party going forward. Imagine what would happen in downballot elections if POd African-Americans refused to show up? Not only would HRC probably lose, but the GOP would probably regain one or both houses of congress. Furthermore, if she were the stronger candidate, she wouldn't be trailing in nearly all measures of candidate strength. To belive otherwise, as you do, is delusional.

You have my pity, sir.

Posted by: Mason | May 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile

What you have to realize is that the Democrats stood behind the Iraqi war.

A war is like a baby - you can't leave after 5 years.

The democrats are like a dead-beat dad - they wanted the benefits of the Iraq war in the 2002 elections, the 2004 elections - but they are so weak-stomached they do not want to finish the job.

In fact, the democrats are hurting our national security by giving hope to our enemies that we just might leave.

You are a complete fool.

Even worse than being a fool, you are disrespecting the 4,000 people who have already died there by saying we should leave without first having a stable, safe, peaceful and democratic Iraq.

The American people will realize that the Obama people belong nowhere near the White House.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

from today's WaPo:

Ramesh Ponnuru writes:
"Last week, Barack Obama predicted that John McCain would run a scurrilous campaign based on distractions and innuendo, and challenged the media not to play along.

Funny how every controversy that has harmed Obama turns out to be a distraction--a distraction, no doubt, from the country's noble business of electing Obama president.

Newsweek has run a cover story accepting Obama's theory of the race: Republicans have only won national elections on slime.

Today, Harold Meyerson argues that if Republicans win the presidential election it will have to be because of racism:

In Appalachian America, a disproportionate number of people write "American" when answering the census question on ethnic origin. For some, "American" is a race -- white -- no less than a nationality, and it's on this equation that Republican prospects depend.


Talk about innuendo. . .

What we have here is a pre-emptive attempt to define the act of campaigning hard against Obama as per se illegitimate. McCain and the Republicans have now been warned: Their role in this election is to be good losers. If McCain sees another role for himself, he needs to push back against this smear campaign, hard."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3a5543a34c-af92-4736-b81b-4aad0ab02e2eDiscussion%3a099b2a0c-60d2-4f22-b448-f537ad64c317


It is chilling to imagine an Obama Presidency, where any criticism is considered a hate crime. The media has truly become advocates for Obama, and have passed the point of redemption. Now they have decided if the Americans who voted against John Kerry in 2004 vote against Barack Obama in 2008, they are officially racists. The loser of this election will be the left-wing media, its relevancy, and credibility.

Posted by: krooz_ missile | May 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

With her negative ratings its hard to see her being the best candidate. With her many character flaws, among which is willing to constantly change to tell people what they want to hear and her great willingness to blame others for her mistakes, she is by far the worst of the candidate to actually be president. The past does tell you alot about the future, and Hillary's past actions should make any one, male or female, say no way, we are talking about damaged goods that could very well damage the nation further.

Posted by: nclwtk | May 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

If the democratic primaries were winner take all Clinton would beat Obama. This business of splitting votes is why it is so close.

Posted by: LesinAdelphi | May 15, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Certainly Hillary has demonstrated that she has the strongest charactor and perhaps constitution of the two Democratic frontrunners. Time and again she has proved that she can face huge levels of adversity and come back stronger. And has proved in spades that she is a gut fighter who will not easily be parried or K.O.'d. While Obama on the other hand looks as if he can be reduced and unbalanced even under the moderate stress of say, the Wright and Ayers controversy...

No, even if Obama does turn out to be the Democatic noimminee he will need the strength, experience and tenacity of the Clintons to beat John McCain and the well oiled Republican Attack Machine...

So now is the Time for the Obama camp (if they are indeed operating on anything other than arrogance and a monumental sense of self entitlement) to be manuvering for the Support of the Clintons and their large and loyal following....To over look this factor only convinces me that Obama is simply NOT mature enough to run this country or strong enough to face off with the likes of a Putin, Abadajahin (the head of Iran) or the Red Chinese...

Birddog

Posted by: Birddog | May 15, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


Since you have your Obama research department there

HOW MANY DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE IRAQ WAR ???

WHILE YOU ARE AT IT, HOW MANY DEMOCRATIC DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION VOTED FOR JOHN KERRY 4 YEARS AGO WHO WAS FOR THE IRAQ WAR ????


You have no defense, the democrats have been at the core of the worse, sell-out decisions in decades.


Don't try to pin the economic downturn on Bush - it is the Clinton's fault.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

If Clinton was the stronger candidate, wouldn't she be defeating Obama? I think that the answer here is really as simple as that. The better candidate wins in the primaries, and the party gets behind that candidate. Obama is so far ahead that only a miracle will prevent him from defeating Hillary Clinton. That makes him the better candidate. Whining that your candidate is better without the actual vote backing you up is moronic.

Posted by: Simple Logic | May 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Forgot to include the Senate headcount as well: 61-38, 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with Sen Dorgan, an outspoken opponent, not present to vote.

Yes, this is how we confront ad-hominem attacks, with hard facts. And for that matter, where have I ever defended NAFTA?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Annie57
It's just you....well, maybe a few other diehards. Most of us don't believe every bit of garbage floating around on the internet. We choose more reliable sources than some pervert making home movies in his basement to show on YouTube. I'd suggest you educate yourself with the facts. For starters, go to barackobama.com

Posted by: Joyce | May 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Novamatt


I conceded to you your last point, but this time you are wrong.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

bush was 'better than kerry and gore, and not by much' in 2000 and 2004.

obama said he could reunite America and then lost all the big blue and swing states to Hillary. Michigan and Florida delegates are not being properly counted-that has tilted the democratic nomination in his favor.if hillary had won those states early she would have emerged the narrow victor.

McCain will win Texas, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio regardless of who is the Democratic nominee. And he will win all the traditional medium and small Red states.

the democratic voters and superdelegates should have done a careful worst and average case analysis based on the 2000 and 2004 elections, before choosing a nominee. it won't matter that hillary's supporters or black voters deserted the democratic party if obama or hillary will loose anyway in november.

hillary has a better chance than obama in november,based on the results and the states mccain will win.

but the democrats are stuck on rules that are not flexible enough to respond to the situation,which will cost them the november election

Posted by: observer ca | May 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet-

In a couple of weeks when Hillary bows out, please come back and give us more of your lame excuses. Hillary lost. Period. You are in the minority, how does it feel, is your voice not being heard? Awww go home and momma will make it all better. Kiss you fragile ego that was just shattered like Hillary's.

John Edwards is now probably a turn coat as well, huh? Thats right, you obviously know more about Obama than Edwards does, so lets give you the floor to spread more of your lies and fear mongering.

Fear is for the weak, you have been showing your hand in every post.

Posted by: Stop the insanity | May 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


OK would you PLEASE now have the Obama research staff look up how many contributions the DNC took from Chinese and Indonesians while those free trade agreements were being drawn up.


YOU are a complete fool and a moron.

Worse, you are defending the selling-out of hard-working Americans.

You are a disgrace to this country.

How do you look at yourself in the mirror???

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

EVERYONE PLEASE BE AWARE


kreuz_missile and Translator are the real Obama campaign speaking - if you want an idea of how the White House would be run:


- take a note of their mocking style


- take a note of how they treat people who do not agree with them


- take a note of how they twist people's words around


- take a note of how they are quick to falsely call people 'racist'

You are giving Obama a really bad name.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"you are a liar - no the Clintons NEVER put Al Gore on Larry King to argue for NAFTA

That never, ever happened.

kreuz_missile you are a complete LIAR.

Go take your deceptions elsewhere."

Man, did I ever say otherwise? You're just getting pathetic and desperate here. I said it started as a Republican issue, which Clinton co-opted into his agenda but had much broader Republican support, both then and now. NAFTA was signed by President Bush in December of 1992, it passed November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote, with 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against. These are facts.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

It finally dawned on me -- the bullying, the swollen self-importance, the poor reasoning skills, the constant hovering and obsessive need to respond to every affront:

37th&O = kingofzouk

Yay, our resident troll is back!

Posted by: novamatt | May 15, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Obama just may have imploded his entire career because he is not seen as a hypocrite."

Actually, 37th&OStreet, most of us consider NOT being a hypocrite as a good thing. It's what we admire about Barack Obama...he is true to himself.

Posted by: Joyce | May 15, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse


Either you are stupid or just an idiot. I don't beleive Obama will be selling vaccum cleaners or cars after the election. I believe he will be the First African American President of the U.S. If you have noticed he is the only trying to bring about a togetherness not just of our conutry but the world, which is in desperate need. Another thing that is amazing is how most of his backers are the highly educated of our counrty. Now isn't this funny our government has pushed education and education on our children. Since they are the leaders of tomorrow! huh!! Looks like the more education people the more sense they have and are not afraid to stand up for what they beleive in. All the bragging about Clinton winning in W. Virginia when the numbers where based on people over 60 with no more than a high school education. Now thats really something to bragg about. Another thing that it shows is the "GOOD OLD BOY" and the YES SIR MASTER" mentality is still alive. IT is on the other hand Great to see that the younger adults are smarter than that.

Posted by: Reply to: dyinglikeflies | May 15, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Hey pjf0226, Translator and kreuz_missile

All three of you are at Obama's headquarters in Chicago, aren't you?

Why don't you just admit it ????

Where is David Axelrod and David Plouffe - are they both there.

Do you keep going back to them to figure out what to say ???


Let's be serious here.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

There is no question that Clinton would be better general election candidate than Obama.

Let us start with primary results first, if we have general election type of system in the democratic primaries, Clinton won.

Since we have quota system type of DNC approach, we normally produce not the best general election candidate. That is one reason why the Democratic Party keep loosing every four years.

If anyone tells you Obama can win Georgia, Virginia, Kansas and North Carolina, they really live in fantasy world. End results would the same as Bob Dole picking Jack Kemp as his VP, hoping blacks would some how vote for the Republican Party. Waste of time and money.

It really comes down to three swing states: PA, FL and OH. Electoral map would look lot better if you can carry or at least in play these three states. Obama may have chance to win one out of these three states but Clinton may carry at least two if not all three states. That is another why Clinton would be better general election against McCain than Obama.

Also, do not forget to read Bob Beckel's interesting article if the Democrats wants win over 300 electoral votes this time around.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/if_clinton_wants_to_be_vp_obam.html

Posted by: DelMar Joe | May 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I keep feeling like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop with Obama. Is it just me, or does it seem as though the Clintons know spmething about Obamathat the rest of us don't? What's the deal with this Larry Sinclair thing?

Posted by: Annie57 | May 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"Obama wants to raise your taxes and create more government waste - more government programs because he thinks he is so SMART that he knows better how to spend your money."

While true that Obama will repeal the lower tax rate that the top 1% of Americans have enjoyed during the Bush years back to Clinton era levels (I wouldn't cry too hard if the rich had to sacrifice a little to get this country going in the right economic direction), Obama has said that he will NOT up taxes on the middle-class, and in fact, wants to give a credit on payroll taxes of $500-1000, to those making $70,000 or less, as someone who is self-employed, this would be a great help. Obama also want to stop taxing most social security payments, which would give a good financial boost to our nation's seniors.
==================
seems to me to be a lot of folks around here post nonsense because they feel "I know it's true because I know it" (or because Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh said it.)

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I don't know what Korea was like? Fine, let's get the opinion of someone who did know:

"Many of those who have thoughtfully endorsed a widening or intensifying of the war have spoken, I believe, that they have been applying the lessons learned from Korea. But there are far more dissimiliarities between the actions than there are parallels. In South Korea, we had a workable government, led by a fiercely patriotic and powerful civilian leader whose opposition to communism was widely known and who held the allegiance of the majority of his people. We acted in concert with many nations and had been deputized by the United Nations to repel the aggressor in its name.

Relatively little terrorist activity occurred in South Korea, United Nations personnel rode in open jeeps throughout the country without ever drawing an assasin's fire. Our power easily contained guerrilla activity, even though our forces were neither as well-equipped nor as mobile as they are in Viet-Nam. A unified military command kept both the United States and ROK armies under the direct control of the U.S. commander. In short, our line of battle was well-defined, the enemy clearly identifiable, and the political divisions were sharp.

None of these conditions holds true for Viet-Nam today."

General Matthew Ridgeway, Allied Commander during the Korean War, as quoted in Look Magazine, 1965

Substitute Iraq for Vietnam...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

TOTAL, SO FAR, COUNTING ALL STATES' PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES:

Popular Vote:
Obama 17,014,911
Clinton 16,934,160

Delegates (including Super Delegates):
Obama 1891.5
Clinton 1719.5

Posted by: Joyce | May 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

pjf0226


Do you have ANY idea of what you are talking about or are you trying to be deceptive?

Which is it?

There is a certain thing in life its called credibility - Obama is losing it. Obama's people are losing it.

It started right after South Carolina, you do not how badly Obama hurt his chances in November by pulling that whisper campaign against Bill Clinton -


Obama just may have imploded his entire career because he is not seen as a hypocrite.

When this is all over, Obama is going to go back to William Ayers house and they all are going to say "nice try."


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

11:24 a.m. post

"Anyone who counters my nonsense with cold, hard facts is lying."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 15, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


you are a liar - no the Clintons NEVER put Al Gore on Larry King to argue for NAFTA


That never, ever happened.

kreuz_missile you are a complete LIAR.

Go take your deceptions elsewhere.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

11:21 a.m. post

"They've gotten under my skin again. I will cut-and-paste the same retarded reply that Words of Wisdom used, exposing my sock-puppetry for all to see."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I predict that McCain will lose at least one of those 15 states you mentioned. Putting Indiana on a list of "safe" states for McCain is particularly incomprehensible. Alaska, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas give my prediction some additional chances (yes, I did say Alaska and Texas).

Will you give me a T-shirt in November when I'm right?

Posted by: Pete Hess Timph-Johns | May 15, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

sen.Clinton is clearly a stronger Democrat in four battleground states, i.e. FL, OH, PA and WV. In addition, she is stronger in NY in winning upstates, non-black minorities, Catholics, middle aged or senior citizens etc.

The electoral vote is what counts in the general election, not the caucus or superdelegates which mystify the average 'common' people.
For an educated prediction for the general election participated by McCain, Obama or Clinton,, see the website:
http://www.electoral-vote.com

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

11:19 a.m. post

"Despite all signs of the last week that this thing is over, I still think that the DNC is going to goof this one up.

I really have no idea what the Rules Committee will do, or even what it is. But if it can keep a black man from the White House, I support it 100%."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 15, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Another translator post from Obama headquarters at Michigan & Lake.

Why dont you walk over to the cubicle which has your defense people and ask them, so you actually have some facts to work with ????

I seriously do not want to start name-calling however several choice names would fit you and your pal kreuz_missile who is probably sitting right next to you at Obama headquarters.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I've been tracking the head-to-head matchup polls at realclearpolitics.com since the beginning of March. Here is what I see in the potential battleground states:

AR(6 electoral votes) - favors Clinton (12.3 pts) over McCain, favors McCain (19.8) over Obama

CO(9) - favors McCain (14.0) over Clinton, favors Obama (2.5) over McCain

FL(27) - favors Clinton (3.7) over McCain, favors McCain (6.5) over Obama

IA(7) - favors McCain (3.3) over Clinton, favors Obama (3.8) over McCain

MI(17) - favors McCain over both Clinton (0.1) and Obama (0.7)

MN(10) - favors both Clinton (4.7) and Obama (10.7) over McCain

MO(11) - favors McCain over both Clinton (3.6) and Obama (8.3)

NV(5) - favors McCain over both Clinton (9.2) and Obama (3.1)

NH(4) - favors McCain over both Clinton (3.2) and Obama (7.3)

NM(5) - favors McCain (2.6) over Clinton, favors Obama (3.5) over McCain

NC(15) - favors McCain over both Clinton (8.4) and Obama (5.5)

ND(3) - favors McCain (23.3) over Clinton, favors Obama (0.7) over McCain

OH(20) - favors Clinton (5.4) over McCain, favors McCain (2.8) over Obama

OR(7) - favors both Clinton (5.0) and Obama (13.4) over McCain

PA(21) - favors both Clinton (8.5) and Obama (3.6) over McCain

SC(8) - favors McCain over both Clinton (7.7) and Obama (4.2)

VA(13) - favors McCain over both Clinton (8.7) and Obama (4.4)

WA(11) - favors McCain (2.5) over Clinton, favors Obama (6.6) over McCain

WV(5) - favors Clinton (3.6) over McCain, favors McCain (19.6) over Obama

WI(10) - favors McCain (4.6) over Clinton, favors Obama (0.2) over McCain

Clinton advantage states: AR, FL, MO, NH, OH, PA, WV (94 total)

Obama advantage states: CO, IA, MN, NV, NM, NC, ND, OR, SC, VA, WA, WI (103 total)

toss-up: MI (17)

Posted by: pjf0226 | May 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Yea --

Taxes probably will go up for people earning $250,000 a year and up. But that's not what I'd consider a working class wage.

In fact, working class families probably will see a tax-cut.

Obama's programs make economic sense. When the government built the Federal Highway system in 1956 (Eisenhower) it cost a lot of money, but those roads helped create economic growth, which created jobs, and expanded the tax base.

It was smart policy.

Blowing things up an rebuilding them in Iraq is wasteful spending.

The 6 cents on a dollar that we pay for the interest on our debts is wasteful spending.

When Bill Clinton increased taxes on the top income bracket -- something that both Hillary and Obama have said they are likely to do -- income growth in this country actually increased.

As far as the trade deals go -- thank the GOP. It was the GOP that gutted unions in this country in the 1970s and 1980s (with the help of some working class voters).

The fact that labor unions were eviscerated meant that Big Business was able to shove trade policies down the throat of America's working class.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"WE are not going to tax our way out of this mess which was created by the democrats and their free trade deals."

Well, first off, NAFTA and most free trade deals were Republiican initiatives, they were quite angry with Clinton back in the 1990s for stealing that while many Dems opposed him for it, and second, our biggest problem right now is the result of a weak dollar, which is due in large part to our record debt levels, which stem from the bush tax cuts (even his own Treasury department now concedes that tax cuts don't pay for themselves). A weak dollar means imports cost more, which means oil costs more, and it also means that our raw assets, such as real estate, are devalues which when combined with the complete lack of regularion of thereal estate market due to conservative policies led to the balloon and collapse of the housing market. Try again though if you like (and nevermind that both Obama and Clinton have pledged no tax increases for those earning less than $200,000, but we won't let more facts get in the way of your rhetoric...).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

11:14 a.m. post

"My military credentials are strong. Not so my geography. I mean South Korea. I would name the 100 countries where we have troops, except there aren't really that many. 100 is a nice round number."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

To the poster at 11:14


You are 100% correct On May 31 Hillary will get a bunch of pledged delegates from both Florida and Michigan

Plus the superdelegates from those states will be seated, which DNC rules require.

The rules are the rules you know

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing to me how everyne is so upset about what Obama's preacher has said about white people. Where were all of you and where are all of you when people have and continue to say stuff about blacks, mexicans, and any other nationality BUT white? But of course thats ok isn't it. I have went church since I was a baby the same church at that. Have I always agreed with what the preacher said? NO! But do I continue to go yes. But I think everyone is digging up as much bull crap as possible to discredit Obama, when the bottom line is the color of his skin. It is truly sad that in the year 2008 people are still just as prejudge and racist as they ever were. I knew it was still there hidden under the fake smiles and cunning lies. I am truly glad that the true colors of the people are shining through

Posted by: connie | May 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


You have no idea what you are talking about seriously.


You have no idea what Germany or Korea or Italy or any other country was like.

America has troops in over 100 countries around the world - which ones do you want to withdraw from???

Do you want our troops out of Germany and Korea too.?


Our troops in Korea ARE a source of peace because pulling them out would de-stablize the region.

Calling you a moron would be kind.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"You are a complete jokester - the DNC Rules Committee meets on May 31 and the number of delegates needed for a majority will go up to 2135 or 2208.


So your numbers can take that !!!!"

That includes superdelegates, moron, which Obama also has a lead on and continues to widen with each passing day. And Hillary only has a prayer at being ahead in popular votes if you assume Obama gets 0 votes from Michigan (how realistic is that?) and you ignore several caucus states. Do you think about things before you post?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"WHY would they try to override the will of the voters of Florida and Michigan"
The "will" of the voters? Putting aside FL, where at least all of the Candidates still in the race at that point were on the ballot; MI is not a real win for Hillary, hers was the only Democrat with any real chance at the nom on the ballot, and even so, while she won 55% of the cast votes, a whopping 40% voted for "uncommitted" rather than vote for her. Why don't you people point your anger at the Democratic boobs in MI, and FL that decided to eschew party rules and move their State Primaries up in an attempt to make their contests "more important" (how ironic in view of how this thing turned out.) At any rate, Clinton will get some delegates out of MI and FL, and then can we move on?
====================
"...a liberal candidate completely out of step with the country.."

I have come to the realization that you GOP hacks must be getting your definition of "Liberal" from Hannity and Limbaugh (or should I say rather than getting a "definition" you are picking up the GOP talking point that made this word an "insult." Most who throw it around don't seem to know what they are saying. In fact, Liberalism, in the great 19thc meaning of the word, has a long and honorable History in Making America the equal opportunity democracy that we enjoy today, I urge all of you that insist on seeing Liberalism in a negative light to educate yourself about it.) At any rate is the following "Liberal":

>advocate for the middle-class, and working class instead of favoring the upper-class. Push for economic parity, NOT by punishing the wealthiest Americans, but by repealing tax breaks that overwhelming favor them instead of the other 99% of working Americans. This is especially crucial since income growth for most Americans flat-linned in the last few years while the richest American's income grew a healthy 9%. Generate jobs in the USA by giving tax credits to businesses that keep jobs in this country; give the economic tools to small businesses, the back bone of the economy, low interest loans, and tax credits, to start up and expand.

>Start with the Premise that a Healthy America is the key to maintaining optimum productivity in the Work force, which will help the economy bounce back, and SAVE money in the long term; by making health care available to ALL Americans and not just those lucky enough to have an employer who offers it...a whopping 47 million Americans don't have that privilege, as a result, unfunded health care costs are the number one cause of bankruptcies in this country...and who ends up paying for these bankruptcies? ALL Americans, that's who.

>Start working on the Trillons of dollars of debt this country has taken on under the incompetant, free spending Bush regime. return to the PAYGO system of spending that allowed Clinton to balance the budget by 1999 (no unfunded programs, and no more Bush era "borrow and spend"); leave a strong economy to our children and grand-children, leave our basic Social Safety Nets, Medicare, and Social Security strong and solvent.

>Start seriously developing renewable energy sources such as Nuclear Power to get us off the Oil Teat, meanwhile require stricter mileage standards from US Auto makers.

>Restore our high standards vis a vis environmental laws (i.e., for clean water, etc.) there were gutted by Bush in favor of Big Business whose bottom line is always the money.

>Improve an Educational system that is broken, and is doing a disservice to American children leaving them less able to compete with Foreign workers for good jobs in the USA (Bill Gates was recently in Washington asking for more visas to bring in Engineers and other Techs from India, etc. His argument? Not enough Americans with the needed skills.) And, while the average household pays almost $600 per year to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, a measley $125 (approx) goes for education.
================================
"Personal attacks will get you nowhere"

I urge fellow Obama supporters to cut out the ad hominens vis a vis Hillary since we have FACT on our side, plus we need to get to work "vetting" McBush, Mrs Clinton is irrelevant to the contest at this point, and Johnny Freeride needs to be called out, although Bush's continued bone-head statements, such as he "gave up Golf" in solidarity with the families of dead soldiers, and making the outrageous comparison this morning of Obama to Neville Chamberlin who appeased the Nazis thus allowing them to roll into Poland certainly does no favors for McCoot.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

JP2


Thank you for re-typing Obama's talking points into the computer - very few misspellings, that's good.

ARE YOU KIDDING???


The working class gets hurt by higher taxes more than anyone.


Obama wants to raise your taxes and create more government waste - more government programs because he thinks he is so SMART that he knows better how to spend your money.

The Arrogance - tell him to hold some hearing and maybe to not vote present all the time - Oh and when the voters give him a job, the best thing to do is to NOT GO ON A BOOK TOUR.

WE are not going to tax our way out of this mess which was created by the democrats and their free trade deals.


Posted by: Yea | May 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

"which actually sought to portray US troops as a source of peace for 100 years, not war."

Just as we're a source of peace their now? C'mon, he still can't define the end state or how we will get there. There are ZERO parallels between this war and Korea or Germany, so to assume we can establish a similar presence there is just dumb. Those were both stable nations that practically begged us to remain there to secure their territories from an outside threat, while in Iraq the divides between ethnic, religious, and tribal factions are widespread and deep, and won't be going away anytime soon. Meanwhile, so long as the threat of Islamic Terrorism exists and we maintain a major presence in an Arab Islamic state, we will be a magnet for activity continuing to draw outside forces it both to attack us and to undermine any government that invites us there to stay. This isn't Korea or Germany, nor will it be four years from now.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

To Sue:
If Clinton is such a good manager, then why has her campaign been so mismanaged? Her message has been all over the place, she's massively in debt, and there were regular reports of in-fighting among top people within the campaign.
If Obama is such a poor manager, why has his campaign been such a success? He had to overcome a huge deficit in polling, name recognition, and party bias, but he did it and he stayed with the same message/theme throughout.
Plus, if winning an election is about setting a strategy to win based on the rules and the playing field, then I think that Obama's 150+ delegate lead is a pretty decisive indication that he is the one American's should trust to win the general.
Typical of the losing team though, just say that the voters don't get it.

Posted by: Shawn | May 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Yea --

Obama will do a lot more for the working class period than any Republican. I know that much.

He's talked about rebuilding aging infrastructure (bridges and roads) -- these are the kind of things that make sense during a slow-down and create working class jobs.

The investment in green energies could pay good returns for the American economy down the line -- it's a smart investment.

His foreign policy also doesn't waste $130 billion a year in blowing up and rebuilding bridges in Iraq -- or building a $1 billion dollar embassy with most of the construction done by a Kuwaiti company.

McCain has absolutely nothing to offer America's working class -- except for a one way ticket to Iraq or Afghanistan.

And when those veterans come home -- unless they've served 6 to 8 years -- he'd rather create another rich person tax cut, then to pay for good veterans benefits.

McCain even opposed the Webb-Hagel GI bill.

The bill might cost Cindy McCain some of her $200 million fortune and it might mean taxpayers have to pay a little more, but it's the right thing to do.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile


You are a complete jokester - the DNC Rules Committee meets on May 31 and the number of delegates needed for a majority will go up to 2135 or 2208.

So your numbers can take that !!!!

Florida and Michigan are a part of this country. Obama's headquarters is on Michigan Ave. Walk a few blocks east and you are at Lake Michigan.

What a joke - add in Hillary's delegates from Florida and Michigan.

by the way, Hillary is ahead in popular vote and she will be even farther ahead.

I know you latte liberals think that the votes of honest hard working white voters should not count because of Harry Reid and some dispute which has nothing to do with them, but you are wrong.

Let the white vote count !!!!!


.
.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Dear Chris, I found your analysis reassuring. As I read it, you yourself are not arguing that this is a reason for the superdelegates to switch sides, but of course, in essence, this is the Clinton camp's argument.

And this analysis shows that argument won't work. The candidates are in roughly the same position. The slight edge you pointed out in your electoral map is not enough to motivate any superdelegate to "throw" the nomination to Clinton over the presumptive nominee and break the party. The edge may well not exist at all, but the main thing is there isn't much to it even under your analysis -- hardly a huge difference between the two.

Regarding your question about whether the rules have changed and Obama has some amorphous "unique appeal" that throws off your reasoning: as explained below, I do think the electorate has changed across the board, and thus in every one of the states, and that the changes are all to his advantage.

I would love a future column on this, since believe me, you know much more about this state by state, and as you point out, it is the state by state that matters. The three changes to the universe of voters that I see are as follows.

First is the age or generation of the voters, a natural incremental change that occurs every cycle but seems more salient in both the primary and the general this year, where age has been even more of a factor than usual in predicting votes. In the course of nature, we are continually adding more new voters and losing older ones, so any voting history is always slightly out of date on the young/old split. This seems to slightly advantage Obama (now, and more so for the second term general in 2012 -- which would by the same reasoning have been harder for Clinton).

Second are the crossover voters from each party, as well as independents, who have been far more of a force so far in the primaries and may continue to be in the fall for one candidate or the other, skewing conventional patterns.

And third and perhaps most important are the newly registered voters, both those already in hand from the primary season in large numbers in every state, and those to be registered in Vote for Change, the 50-state voter registration drive by the Obama campaign that just started.

To me, all of these changes look better for whoever is the Democrat vs. McCain, but particularly for the Democratic "change" candidate. Your thoughts, Chris, on these changes in the universe of voters? Or did you already factor them in in looking at each state?

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | May 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"I also cannot vote for him because of the way his campaign trashed Sen. Clinton - maybe for the first time I vote Republican."

YEah...you supported Hillary because of your feelings on Healthcare and standing up for peopel and Democratic values, so rather than voting for a candidate who agrees with her on almost every major issue you will vote for a man who has joked about war with Iran, has vowed to put hardline conservatives on the Supreme Court to replace Stevens and Ginsburg, who has admitted he knows very little about the economy but vows to push forward with Bush'economic plans, and who has stated his desire to let the markets solve heathcare and completely opposes new government programs to help provide heathcare. Yes, the Dems supporting Obama are the naive ones...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama may well achieve the 2026 delegate number and win the nomination (based upon existing DNC rules) before Hillary tries to move the goalposts on May 31st before the Rules Committee. What then?

Because Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, and countless Obama supporters in Florida and Michigan didn't vote in the primaries because they were told their votes wouldn't count, there is no way to come up with a fair method for apportioning these delegates. Obama consistently narrows any Clinton lead in states where he actively campaigns, so it's safe to say that he may have beaten her in Michigan (especially if Edwards were not on the ballot - which would have been the case if Michigan had gone to the polls at the designated time). 12,000 Michigan voters turned out yesterday for Obama's announcement of Edwards' endorsement.

Further, if Florida and Michigan delegates are counted despite the rules violations, there will be a free-for-all in four years - when all states keep leapfrogging to get at the head of the primary line-up.

If the DNC wants to recognize the Florida and Michigan delegates, they might consider either dividing the delegates evenly between Obama and Clinton, or giving Clinton the delegates representing her percentage win and giving Obama the rest (based upon his nationwide lead). In this case, the delegates should be given a one-half vote to discourage states from breaking the rules in the future.

Posted by: barbara | May 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Response to Jordan Davies

Most of the responses on this board go directly to the question of who is the better candidate

Well there are alot of crazy people in politics

The democrats are already putting out commericals which are deceptive about McCains comments on the war in Iraq - the 100 years comment - which actually sought to portray US troops as a source of peace for 100 years, not war.

The democrats are a bunch of liars.


Take a look at his dicussion - the Obama campaign is flat out lying to people about the electoral college and hoping people do not notice.


It is a joke, I suspect some of these people are actually in Obama headquarters at Michigan & Lake.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"HAS OBAMA EVER SAT AROUND WHILE RACIST THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID ABOUT WHITES ????"

Was McCain ever around where someone said racist things about blacks? How about referring to Vietnamese as "gooks"? Or Iraqis as "Hajis"?I'd be willing to bet somewhere along the line, but he's probably still a member of the VFW and the American Legion anyways. Great standard you're setting up there, though, make someone else prove a negative. How about you produce evidence where this stff was said and he did just sit around and do nothing? Otherwise, maybe it's you who should take a hike.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe the party I have suppoorted all my life, the Democrats, are chosing Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton. Has anyone noticed that the Junior Senator from Illinois has NO experience in running anything? Not even a Mom and Pop grocery store.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, has tremendous experience in providing health care for kids, trying to get Americans universal health care coverage, being a two term Senator, foreign policy exposure and much more. She is trustworthy, hard-working and not a quitter when things get tough.

Sen. Obama seems to be a Democrat-lite. A whiny, wordy empty suit who can rouse the masses with rhetoric but has little to show for his accomplishments. Once, he says, he was a community organizer. Well. So were a lot of people. Big deal.

Sen. Clinton has shown her solidarity and understanding of working class people - those necessary to win a general election. She understands working stiffs in Michigan and the retired in Florida. She gets the women's vote because she is intellectually astute and a problem-solver who gets things done.

How naive Democrats are this year being taken in by wishful thinking and not looking at the hard facts. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Sen. Obama and his blank resume. I also cannot vote for him because of the way his campaign trashed Sen. Clinton - maybe for the first time I vote Republican.

Posted by: Sue | May 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Misogyny I Won't Miss

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan "Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.


I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York.

Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403090.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Posted by: Marie Cocco | May 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

It's so close between Obama and Clinton that neither can really use the argument.
There is one potential flaw to Clinton's reasoning though. She runs strong in the Rust Belt and the South West states. But that's exactly where McCain was stronger than Romney or Huckabee (plus North Carolina, Virginia or Maryland - where Obama clearly performed better than Clinton). Which suggests that Clinton would be running a traditional electoral college map (and having good competition from McCain with that), while Obama might be looking at a toss-up strategy and could utilize the internal GOP drama much better to his advantage than Clinton could to hers. He also attracts independents and new voters which adds to his advantage with this strategy.

Posted by: tsst | May 15, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

37th&OStreet

The pledged delegate race today:

Obama: 1599
Clinton: 1447

Total available: 3,254
Add FL (185) and MI (128): 3567

Divide by 2: 1784 gives a majority

Apportion per vote in MI (73C-55O) and FL (105C-67O), the new totals:

Obama: 1721
Clinton: 1625

Add to that 50 votes (about half of what's available next Tuesday) and Edward's 18 delegates, Obama is at 1789- a majority of pledged delegates, even before PR, MT, and SD vote where he is favored to win 2 of 3. Is he an affirmative action candidate, or is it just your racist inclinations to make such an assumption? Even playing by Clinton's rules, he wins.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile

Is Rev. Wright a racist?


Is the website for that church which talks about a "Black Values System" racist???


HAS OBAMA EVER SAT AROUND WHILE RACIST THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID ABOUT WHITES ????

Is this the kind of person we want as President.

kreuz_missile take a hike.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

All the predictions of what states will be in play and what states will be in "play" at this point in time reminds me of all the pundits telling us who was would win the nomination last December. The conventional wisdom was that Hillary would win it all and that Barack, although attractive, was not a serious contender. All the pundits tend to repeat what the last pundit said and describe it as "conventional wisdom." Unfortunately, they do not really understand what is going on in America today and fail to consider the social and economic realities of the every day american. There are two huge factors that are driving the change in our politics. First, generational differences. Second, people's real and deep disatisfaction with the Republicans in general and Bush in particular.
The generational difference can be seen in the huge support that Barack gets from young voters, specifically, college kids. Young people are angry and scared about the Iraq war. They are the first generation that grew up in an integrated society where white kids emmulate black rappers and black kids are used to seeing and being around white kids. So, these young white voters, are not as affected by Barack's skin color. Even if younger voters did not attend college, their secondary school experience has exposed them to black kids and they have been used to being around them. The older voters, however, continue to hold on to their views. The more uneducated the voter, the more he or she might hold on to the racial views they had from growing up in a racially separated society. They are the ones that resent the policies such as affirmative action, etc.
The Clintons have gained their support because they subtely painted Barack as the black candidate. Comparing him to Jackson in South Carolina. Saying that she gets "hard working 'white' americans" etc. It all started with Ferarro's comments. And of course, Wright's comments and whilrwind press tour helped crystalize the image that the Clintons needed. Younger voters understand that not all black people are the same and they have more of understanding about prejudices or are more cognizant than older voters. So they can differentiate the two.
The second issue of people's deep disatisfaction with Republicans. In the past 8 years, the Republicans, particularly, Bush, have over reached in their political games. They have ran a political campaign for 8 years but have governed in a very incompetent manner. The bungled up war, the inaction in New Orleans after Katrina, the inability to provide policies to stem back the economic woes we face. The problem is that the Republicans appear to be unable to govern. The Democrats are not free from these problems either. They were elected in the majority to end the war and they have shown that they are unable to do so. They are unable to get anything done. So American voters are sick of inaction. Its no longer just the war, you have the economy and the housing crisis. All these things have people scared.
This means that the political situation today is much different from that of 2004 and 2000 for that matter. The economy was booming in 2000 and in 2004 it was not as bad. There was no housing crisis then. People were not as jittery. The gas prices weren't as high. The electoral map from 2000 and 2004 is not viable anymore. Remember Mississippi. Republicans are loosing bad and their tactics are not working as much because people are looking for policy solutions, they are paying closer attention. Obama can put in play many of the states simply because people want change. He can do so if people forget that he is black, like they did before IOWA. If he does that, and he inspires, the old map won't work. If he reminds people he is half white, he might be able to get older white voters. I think in the end, older white voters will vote for Barack regardless of his race, because they are so thirsty for change and a new direction.

Posted by: Danny | May 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Response to the sick person named kreuz_missile


In case you haven't realized it yet, discrimination against whites is RACISM too


Case rested and won.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The poster at 10:33 should be thrown off the boards for defamation.

Really there has to be some standards here.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

"Clinton won 9 with 151 Electoral Votes as opposed to 9 for Obama with only 84 Electoral votes."

You honestly think Obama wouldn't win California and New York?

"WHY would the democratic party override the will of 48 states? WHY would they try to override the will of the voters of Florida and Michigan. This is actually the perfect example of an affirmative action election - take away two states - that has the effect of overweighting the states in which the black community is strong. AND then PRETEND that the guy won fair and square. Makes sense - it is just like affirmative action, award admissions and jobs to people who are underqualified - AND then pretend that they are the best candidates. This crap is driving down our country. You are all too blind to see it."

Hmm, maybe if you' actually look at the real numbers (you know, the people's actual merits), and not just cry racism whenever a minority gets ahead because you're a pathetic loser (and yes, you sir are the true racist here), you'd see that Obama, even counting FL and MI's delegation, will have a pledged delegate majority by the end of the month, even giving The Clinton campaign the best numbers they could hope for, and they still lose (btw-outweighing the black vote- you don't think there's a lot of black voters in Michigan? Gawd you're an idiot).


"McCain's promise is to win the Iraq war by the end of his term while the D frontrunner vows to begin pullouts regardless of the conditions in the country. I think this is a smart move by McCain to present a time table for withdrawal of the troops."

Ah yes, McCain, after talking about what a bad idea it was to set timetables, now comes up with a fantasyland suggestion that we are going to "win" the war by January of 2013...without defining what constitutes winning (but note-it's not eliminating terrorism, it's reducing the frequency of attacks to an undetermined number, something we've supposedly been doing for the past five years...), how we get there, and what it will require. Maybe he has a "secret plan" for victory in Iraq?

"McCain was right about the surge, right about Rumsfeld, and he's right about planning for our smaller footprint in Iraq."

First, on McCain's judgment on the war:

"ANCHOR TO MCCAIN: ...Many argue the conflict isn't over.
MCCAIN: Well, then why was there a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished' on the aircraft carrier? ... The major conflict is over. The regime change has been accomplished." - June 11, 2003

On timetables:

"MCCAIN: Well, of course, he (Romney) said he wanted a timetable. Before that, we have to understand that we lost the 2006 election and the Democrats thought that they had a mandate. They thought they had a mandate to get us out of Iraq...Governor, the right answer to that question was "no," not what you said, and that was we don't want to have them lay in the weeds until we leave and Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, "timetables."
- Republican Party debate, 30 Jan 2008

On Rumsfeld, he refused, time and again, to join Democrats calling for his resignation:

"But the president has the right and earned the right as the president of the United States to appoint his team--and he has confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld. I will continue to work with Secretary Rumsfeld as much as I can as long as he is secretary of Defense. We have to, because we need to win this war."

As for the surge, the whole purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi government breathing room to work towards political reconciliation which would lead to an overall lowering of our troop presence. Post surge, our troop strength will be hihger than pre-surge because the "situation is too precarious" for us to withdraw more right now. In other words, the surge still hasn't worked. But, McCain wants us to give him four more years, another 800 billion dollars, and probably another 3-4,000 more American lives in the hopes that it will start working at some point. Sorry, not buying it.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I think it is an open question whether we are more like 2000/2004 or, instead, facing something new. I think the answer depends on whether Obama or Clinton is nominated.

If Clinton is nominated, I think the country is more likely to fall into old arguments. If Obama is nominated, I think the country will be more willing to accept, and his campaign will successfully force, a new paradigm.

More to your question, I think Democrats are much more likely to win a new paradigm campaign because the GOP--lacking resources--can't afford to successfully market a new story that overcomes the images of Iraq, Katrina, foreclosures and gas prices.

Posted by: bfulton | May 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I guess it is simply curiosity which prompts me to read these comments if for no other reason than to see the number of vitriolic comments made about Senator Obama. The question asked by Mr Cillizza here is whether or not Hillary Clinton makes a better candidate than Obama in the general election. Why not simply answer that question, based on facts and polls, however uncertain they might be at this time, rather than on insults and innuendo? That serves no useful purpose and demeans the spirit of intelligent dialogue.

Posted by: Jordan Davies | May 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse


Translator has done it again - false charges of racism to intimidate the opponents


I am going to expose you for the sick people you are.

You are the real racists - the ones who hate white people for the supposed slights of the Jim Crow era.


These false charges are nothing more than the ugly philosophy of Black Liberation Theology.

Don't be a hater.

.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama headquarters again - translator has showed its ugly head here again

How is Michigan & Lake today ???

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

At this point, the best thing to do is for Obama and Hillary to agree that whoever wins will take the other as VP. Its what I call the Survivor deal, because someone in Survivor always tells the person if they give up and let them win immunity, they'll choose them for the final 2. How could you go wrong with that honestly? Then supporters for both will vote for that. I honestly don't think McCain would have a chance against both of them together. People are saying Obama should choose Edwards etc., but why? Clearly he wasn't popular! Having Edwards won't automatically get you the votes of Hillary supporters, particularly those working class and swing state ones that could just as easily go McCain.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter. Senator McCain's many statements designed to appeal to the republican base have given him the well earned nickname John McSame. How many independents are going to vote for George Bush with a few less hostile ecological views?

Once the ads start with all McSame's own words calling for continueing bush's surge in Iraq indefinitely and his economic policy's his honeymoon will be over

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Response to JP2

You think that Obama is going to tax us out of this mess???


Obama wants to drag down the white working class that he sees is bitter and clinging .


Obama is a complete disaster as a leader.

I think you should wake up - have a another cup of coffee and think about what you just said.

.


Posted by: Yea | May 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Oh, a Republican telling us that we can win in Iraq. That's groundbreaking. It's been backed up well over the last 5 years. But hey, what's another 5 and a few thousand more American lives?

Posted by: PRB | May 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

AAHHHHHHH


bondjedi has shown up for his shift at Obama headquarters.........

How is Michigan & Lake today ????

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Hoping to change the rules this cycle, when others have failed, is more hype from the Obama campaign. The idea that he can win either Dakota or Nebraska is ridiculous. Montana is a serious stretch. These states are not worth the money for the few delegates they hold and Obama will need that money in New Jersey, a state which will be competitive with Obama heading the ticket.

Clinton is far stronger in NJ, FL, PA and OH. She'd win WV and AR, which are out of reach for Obama, who can put in play Virginia and Colorado. Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine and Iowa are equally attainable by both.

Since when are Minnesota and Oregon considered battlegrounds in November? Either Democrat will take these two in a walk.

As usual, the Democrats will put forth the candidate they fell in love with rather than the stronger general election candidate.

Posted by: ariel | May 15, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Chris! You've redeemed yourself!

As a Democrat, I feel McCain is a decent man stuck with defending Bush policies and blunders of the past 8 years. Sorry, them's the facts. Pick any disaster, natural or man-made and this administration only made things worse.

That President Bush gave up GOLF in honor of our war dead is flabbergasting! (and also very much under-reported)

All any Dem has to ask the voters is, "are you better off today than in 2004? 2000?"

For that task both Obama and HRC have the skills and rhetorical chops. On a debate stage opposite McCain, either will do a great job of gently skewering the GOP.

On the issues, except Iraq, there is little policy difference between the 2 Democrats.

As a centrist, southern, white Democrat with some college education, I think more of the Clintons would just lead to another godawful food fight in Washington, Fox News and talk radio.

Now for the nitty gritty. No one owes Obama or HRC anything. HRC mis-read Super Tuesday and thought it would be all over on that day. Obama's team is very savvy in organization and fund-raising. They consider "what if" and seem to have an ability to plan for it. Obama's team is the kind of thinking we need in the White House. I stood up for the Clintons when they had all their troubles, but it gets me flat-tired thinking about doing that again when we as a party and a nation have a chance to make history...and make it work.

Obama's appeal to new voters, independents and thinking, morally-responsible Republicans is great. The black vote? Don't kid yourself, if Al Gore could have fired up black voters like this in 2000, we'd be having a different conversation today. I think with endorsements like John Edwards yesterday, Obama can start a new dialog with blue collar whites. But I think the press has over-emphasized that group, more known as "Reagan Democrats" for the purposes of a contentious race-based story.

Thanks.

***Now, that said, what can we do about the crackpots who post their idiotic slime to these forums? If we had better health care maybe these people could get their meds and work on their anger issues with therapy.***

Posted by: tony the pitiful copywriter | May 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

No mention is made of the idiot fringe demographic, the one cross-section that Hillary dominates and will likely never lose, unless Lyndon LaRouche makes a comeback.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Yea --

more Americans are going to die this year because of GOP economic policies, our failed health care system, and poverty in this country than because of some poorly thought out war in a Middle East sand-pit.

If you want to see the U.S. economy destroyed over the next 10 to 15 years: vote McCain. That's the bottom line.

Some idiots might mistake inflexibility for strength. But the reality is that the Bush-McCain foreign policy over the past 8 years has been a tremendous gift to America's adversaries.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

All posts this morning:

"Please bear with my identity crisis. As a sock puppet, it sometimes takes a few posts to remember which alter-ego is which. Rest assured, the true essence of my schizophrenia - raw, unfiltered racism and bigotry - will come shining through eventually."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 15, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I think it is so rude of Hussein Obama to be acting like Hillary no longer matters. How do you get away with that and have such a big following? His slogan "change we can beliieve in" is just that. Its a select sentence meant to entice the younger voters and he did accomplish that.If he's elected,what is that saying,"be careful what you wish for". We may wind up with a lot more than we bargained for. I will state for the record that if Hillary is not the nominee I will not vote in November at all!!

Posted by: Angie | May 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Between now and November, more controversies involving Obama will emerge. The media and Repubs will be digger deeper into Obama's Chicago connections and you can bet there will be more revealed in Obama's associations with Rezko/Auchi and Ayers/Dohrn. The Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times have been writing articles about the dirty politics that are still very much alive in Chicago. Obama's rapid rise is suspicious and will not be lost on the voters, the Repub Party and the 527 groups.

So yes, the landscape will change and not in Obama's favor unless McCaine self-implodes or strokes out.

I won't vote for Obama even if he is the last man standing.

Posted by: alee21 | May 15, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse


.

Arrogant Obama Cult

I'll have to remember that one. Not Bad


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Considering the overwhelming support for Obama among African Americans, these states will be interesting in the general election: Mississippi (37%), Louisiana (32%), Georgia (30%), and South Carolina (29%).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Nominating Obama might do something to help the Republicans that Rove couldn't accomplish- it will push many Latino voters into voting for McCain, who sided with them on immigration reform. They are a larger "minority" than African Americans. This is another way that the Democratic Party is being short-sighted in nominating Obama, who has view fans in the Latino community.

2/3 of the country's latinos live in 3 states. CA, TX and FL. The first 2 are hardly battleground states. In FL, the largest single bloc are cuban americans who are among the staunchest republican supporters. Latinos may be the countys largest minority but for now their influence in a national race is miniscule.

Posted by: annie9 | May 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Peter | May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Now that we've dispensed with that, what about John McCain's pledge this morning that the Iraq war can be won and most American troops can come home by 2013 if he is elected president.

McCain's promise is to win the Iraq war by the end of his term while the D frontrunner vows to begin pullouts regardless of the conditions in the country. I think this is a smart move by McCain to present a time table for withdrawal of the troops.
------------------------------
Yea dream on. Bush & Cheney promised the war would pay for itself, that we'd be greated as liberators and 'Mission Accomplished'. Proving that the word of the GOP is nothing to be Proud about.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

To the poster at 10:23


EXCUSE ME HOWEVER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEMOCRATS are the ones who pushed through all these free trade agreements which have COST AMERICA JOBS.


In fact, the dems are still pushing free trade.


So let me get this right: NOW you are blaming the Republicans for the bad effects of YOUR POLICIES.

That one takes the cake.


What a sick liar you are.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it is realized yet how this massive media bias for Obama and the unjust treatment of Hillary Clinton has made it so that Obama could not even win in his own party right now much less the general election. He has not won anything since the Rev. Wright controversy and more and more Dems are finding this Obama force-feeding distasteful and insulting to their intelligence.

The only people who are dumb enough to think Obama can win are suck-ups like Edwards trying to get in a on a piece of Obama's free ticket.

Make no mistake...Hillary supporters have been deeply offended by what has taken place and at this point Obama represents corruption in in the Democratic Party as well as media bias. Obama simply can not win with so many Dems now vehemently opposed to him.

I'm certain the Hill campaign know things are about to turn against the arrogant Obama cult. She stays in it because she will win.

Posted by: g | May 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

BILL CLINTON LOST 13 PRIMARY STATES THAT HE WON IN THE GENERAL ELECTION!NO ONE KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN 6 MONTHS FROM NOW.HILLARY WAS LEADING IN THE POLLS BY 30 POINTS 6 MONTHS AGO!

Posted by: RENEA1 | May 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."
Barack Obama - 2004 Keynote Address at the Democratic National Convention

Posted by: Joyce | May 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

McCain is going to bring the troops home through strength, not weakness

Obama offers us early withdrawl, which will embolden the enemy and cause us to have to go back to the Middle East and fight again.


All you yellow dems - you are actually going to cause more American military casualties.

.

Posted by: Yea | May 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

By JP2

"The alternative in this election -- the GOP -- has proven itself to be a complete unmitigated disaster for America -- especially for the youngest generations and the upcoming generations.

The GOP talks about personal responsibility and morality while dumping trillions of debt on the young; killing good jobs and the middle class; and simply existing to make the rich richer.

All that they have left are the techniques that they use every election -- character assassination and fear. The party itself has no positive vision or tangible achievements to run on -- that includes McCain (who still owes U.S. taxpayers $120 billion from the Savings & Loan bailout).

For many voters that's what this election will come down to. The GOP has not earned the right for a 3rd chance this election cycle."

If you were a politician, I'd vote for you with that dead-on-the-money analysis in a nutshell! You are absolutely right! People will come in the ranks against that.

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 15, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Electoral votes win the presidency.

In States that have gone Demmocrat in the past two Presidentiiol elections, Clinton won 9 with 151 Electoral Votes as opposed to 9 for Obama with only 84 Electoral votes.

If you can count, that would seem to make Hillary a much stronger candidate.

Even in the "Red" states she wins 139-132.

Posted by: Louie | May 15, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Of course Clinton is the stronger candidate, but the Democrat party has been pulled to the far left and has decided to kick the first viable woman candidate for president to the curb.

Now that we've dispensed with that, what about John McCain's pledge this morning that the Iraq war can be won and most American troops can come home by 2013 if he is elected president.

McCain's promise is to win the Iraq war by the end of his term while the D frontrunner vows to begin pullouts regardless of the conditions in the country. I think this is a smart move by McCain to present a time table for withdrawal of the troops.

McCain was right about the surge, right about Rumsfeld, and he's right about planning for our smaller footprint in Iraq.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Bottom line is that both Dems have paths to general election victory (albeit different ones).

The alternative in this election -- the GOP -- has proven itself to be a complete unmitigated disaster for America -- especially for the youngest generations and the upcoming generations.

The GOP talks about personal responsibility and morality while dumping trillions of debt on the young; killing good jobs and the middle class; and simply existing to make the rich richer.

All that they have left are the techniques that they use every election -- character assassination and fear. The party itself has no positive vision or tangible achievements to run on -- that includes McCain (who still owes U.S. taxpayers $120 billion from the Savings & Loan bailout).

For many voters that's what this election will come down to. The GOP has not earned the right for a 3rd chance this election cycle.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse


.

argh

That is how the Electoral College is set up - which planet are you on ?????


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile has signed on - that means Obama headquarters is here now at Michigan and Lake

hhmmmm funny that even though their address says Michigan Ave, they still do not want Michigan to count at the Convention.


Oh, the office is actually between Michigan Ave and Lake Michigan - somehow they think Michigan should not be counted.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Nominating Obama might do something to help the Republicans that Rove couldn't accomplish- it will push many Latino voters into voting for McCain, who sided with them on immigration reform. They are a larger "minority" than African Americans. This is another way that the Democratic Party is being short-sighted in nominating Obama, who has view fans in the Latino community.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 15, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton thinks the path to victory is the same one that led Vice Pres. Gore and Sen. Kerry to defeat: playing to the Democratic strongholds, while picking off enough purple states to beat the Republicans. This strategy is a twice-proven loser for the Democrats.

Sen. Obama hopes to change the rules of the game and bring new voters to the polls in a more diverse array of states. This is the healthier strategy for the party, has a better chance of victory, and good implications for the future of American politics.

Posted by: argh | May 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I've been looking at this for weeks (since Clinton's surrogates began making the claims that she did better than Obama in the Electoral College) and after a small dip in the state head-to-head polls, especially in the swing states, Obama continues to do better than Clinton does versus McCain.

Here's how the maps have changed between the end of March and last week:
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamas-slide-revisited.html

And here is how the map look yesterday after an update to include the most recent polls:
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/05/did-innc-deal-clinton-death-blow-in.html

The claim that she does better in the electoral college than does Obama just doesn't hold water. And he brings many more states into play.

Posted by: Josh Putnam | May 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Hmmm...I believe both candidates are strong and have potential against McCain. I definitely wouldn't undermine Obama, given the way he has energized mass support like I've not seen before! I expect that in the White House. For a "new" person, he's definitely competent and able. For the sake of our country, rest assured, the ranks of us will move this country forward. Good luck McCain. Prepare for competition!

IF given the nod: Obama '08 (United)

Thank You John Edwards!!

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Chris left out one crucial deciding factor: GEORGE W. BUSH. All any Democratic candidate has to do is show the photo of McCain embracing Dubya. McCain will protest that he spoke out against Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war - but he didn't speak out against the Commander in Chief who is, after all, the DECIDER.
I have no doubt, when the choice comes down to More-of-the-same McCain and CHANGE-WE-CAN-BELIEVE-IN Obama, the majority will choose Barack Obama.

Posted by: Joyce | May 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

To the poster at 10:01


What exactly do you propose ?? The democrats have already decided to get rid of Florida and Michigan.


Are you proposing that they add Ohio to the list of states that do not count at the democratic convention?

Why don't you eliminate any state that voted for Hillary - just say that the voters were "racist" - that some "offensive remarks" were made - and then eliminate their votes completely.

It would be really easy that way.

Obama and his campaign are dragging down race relations in this country - it is really stupid to nominate a guy who is so closely aligned with Black Liberation Theology and the terrorist William Ayers.


---

Did you read the founding statement of William Ayers group - it mentions Black Liberation - clearly Obama has aligned himself with these people.

Birds of a feather flock together.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

"On the second, it's difficult to predict whether Obama's inability to win primaries in Ohio, Pennylvania and West Virginia against Clinton will translate into weakness in a general election when voters are faced with the choice between the Illinois senator and McCain."

CC, you hit the flaw in her agrument on the head. You cannot compare primaries to the general. Obama is a far stronger candidate in the general because he brings more voters, in particular the youth vote, who won't vote for Hillary. Also, he doesn't bring out the Republican base the way Hillary would. Nothing except a Clinton candidacy could mobilize the Republican base this year.

Posted by: JNoel002 | May 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

McCain would indeed have a harder time beating Hillary Clinton simply because the Clintons play dirty. McCain wouldn't be able to handle the Clinton machine. He might still win, but it would be harder. But Hillary's pride is in tailspin right now, so who knows how much dirtier things are going to get.

Posted by: dcp | May 15, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

crazyv


You have some really good points there -

WHY would the democratic party override the will of 48 states?


WHY would they try to override the will of the voters of Florida and Michigan.

This is actually the perfect example of an affirmative action election - take away two states - that has the effect of overweighting the states in which the black community is strong.

AND then PRETEND that the guy won fair and square. Makes sense - it is just like affirmative action, award admissions and jobs to people who are underqualified - AND then pretend that they are the best candidates. This crap is driving down our country. You are all too blind to see it.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

What are you doing posting on this board, you actually make some sense.

))))))))))))))
Most of Clinton's supporters are pro-choice women. It doesn't matter if theses pro-choice women in Ohio and Florida prefer Clinton over Obama. They won't be voting for pro-life McCain. Obama is strongest among the independent voters who don't automatically vote red or blue. Blues have been turning out in twice the numbers as red voters in the primaries/caucuses before the Republican primary campaign was decided. Blues will come home to Obama in the Fall.

Posted by: Robert* | May 15, 2008 9:59 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza... unfortunately I think you're wrong. Clinton is the weaker candidate. If you're tunnel-visioning on current polling and Hillary's "plus 1" strategy, the Dems are bound to lose. The media has woefully underestimated the real resentment of voters towards Clinton -- especially independents who left the party during and after the Clinton years as part of Contract With America shift. Clinton would not run a 50 state campaign. Lost opportunities abound. Simply looking at the crappy campaign she has run this -- with the so-called best political machine at her beck and call -- is evidence enough.

The strongest candidate this election year is Barack Obama. Period.

Posted by: Jade7243 Hussein | May 15, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

I think that we need to get rid of FL and OH. They are the reason that we are in such a mess.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

She is going to charge you $265 to campaign for her. Thats different.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Most of Clinton's supporters are pro-choice women. It doesn't matter if theses pro-choice women in Ohio and Florida prefer Clinton over Obama. They won't be voting for pro-life McCain. Obama is strongest among the independent voters who don't automatically vote red or blue. Blues have been turning out in twice the numbers as red voters in the primaries/caucuses before the Republican primary campaign was decided. Blues will come home to Obama in the Fall.

Posted by: Robert* | May 15, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse


Max

You are 100% correct, this year will not be a replay of Gore or Kerry who actually won a whole bunch of states - this year will be more like McGovern or Mondale - a liberal candidate completely out of step with the country.

hhhmm

We use to have a dog named Max.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse


If you want to put a bumper sticker on your car she wants to sell it to you. I have never seen that is all my life of watching political campaigns.

+++++++++++
http://www.hillarystore.com/specials.htm

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I think you need to stop being a hack for the Clinton's.

The simple question is are the super delegates willing to override the will of the voters in 48 states and possessions? If not then whether she would make a better candidate or not is irrelevant because the bottom line is nobody knows and guess what nobody will find out.

Are the NE Patriots a better team than the NY Giants? Doesn't matter the trophy is in Rutherford NJ because they won the game that counted? Or are you suggesting that the trophy should go the Patriots?

Posted by: crazyv | May 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

novamatt


Personal attacks will get you nowhere

It is sort of like the Obama campaign, if you are not for their candidate, you are immediately at risk of trumped up charges of "offensive remarks" or false charges of being a "racist."

Take that crap somewhere else, it might work on the feminists, but it won't anymore.


The feminists might not recognize hypocrisy right away, but America does.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is a very good candidate. Obama is better. The nomination fight is a good indicator of the candidate's ability to put together a winning team and plan. Obama clearly outshone Hillary in this regard.

I expect the democrats will line up behind their candidate at the end of the nomination fight. I also believe that the damage to the Republican brand is so deep that McCain will have difficulty vs. either candidate. Obama's rhetorical skills should allow him to frame his argument against "Bush's third term" effectively enough to grab a polling lead and keep it. If McCain is foolish enough to participate in the idea of a rolling forum, I expect Obama would have even more of an advantage.

Many worry that 2008 will be some sort of replay of Dukakis, Gore or Kerry. Obama is a far stronger candidate and it's hard to believe those comparisons apply this year.

Posted by: Max | May 15, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Great column CC.

I think the one true thing this year is most bets are off. The Dems are left with two strong canidates and the GOP limped home with McShame. While most think that Hillary is done, I for one never under estimate a Clinton.

The one true loser is the DNC for allowing the primary/caucus mess to happen. I never knew how screwed up the whole caucus fiasco was until this year. That said it is hard to judge how those states will go when you have one vote one person in play.

Polls are not a good judge as has been seen but Obama's biggest strength is the number of new people he brought into the process, that and the Clintons will both work for him. Final plus, the GOP Congress. With the last three special races as a test they are going to bring McSame down.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 15, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
Forgetting one thing. All of the strength that you attribute to HRC state by state must be haircut (by whatever percentage, however small you deem appropriate) by her significantly diminished support from african americans. Under any scenario that at this point has HRC as the nominee the defection will be absolutely unprecedented.

Some of the states that you give to her would be true under normal circumstances - her nomination, at this point, and given what she is doing and has done would engender a loss of the black vote to abstention to the tune of 60-75%.

Posted by: dab,NY | May 15, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary's the stronger candidate, why did she lose to an "inexperience, empty suit"?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

"However, you refuse to believe that few people in the center want an inexperience guy.."

Good thing that that sort of thinking did not fly in the Presidential election of 1861. Abraham Lincoln, country Lawyer, & fantastic Orator, had roughly the same experience as Obama in the ILL Legislation, the election of the "inexperienced" Lincoln proved to be the privotal turn in saving Our Republic.
=============
"Get real people if the Dems are smart (which I am seriously beginning to doubt) a unified ticket wins the nation and the GOP will lose"
=============

Yes Hillary has plenty of fans, but she also brings plenty of baggage to the ticket, along with high negatives. Personally I'd rather see a centerist VEEP with military experience; Wesley Clark or Jim Webb, or how about another worthy female politican? I know that Sebilius sp? Has been much discussed, but I think that Christine Gregoire the Gov of WA State would also be a good choice.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

novamatt


You have no idea what you are in for

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

If we are to 'select' Hillary Clinton because we deem her to be more 'electable', why have a primary process at all? Barack Obama has more pledged delegates. He will have more pledged delegates on June 3rd. He will probably have 2025 delegates with the commitment of superdelegates (which is why the Clinton campaign is now trying to change that number, too). If the Clintons were in his position, they would be screaming for him to quit being a sore loser and concede the race.

We are at the end of a basketball game, where the losing team is arguing that they should have received 4 points a basket because they are the more likely team to win in the next round even though they are currently behind in points as time expires.

Does no one in this country give a darn about the rules anymore? Has the Bush Administration convinced us that rules are for suckers?

Posted by: Bob Malone | May 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

breaking news.

obama named to people for his VP.please let michelle obamawho do you think is HE BEST VP FOR MR HUSSIEN.

1- OBAMA/ DON KING ONLY IN AMERICA
2-OBAMA/ FLAVER FLAV THEY LOOK A LIKE

Posted by: newsof the day | May 15, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Who will be elected like it or not.

++++++++++++
Hold_That_Tiger


Obama is an empty suit if I have ever seen one.


Seriously.

The visual of Edwards standing next to Obama was horrible - sort of like the sum of the parts adds up to LESS - they make each other look bad.


.
Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:39 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

McCain Sells Sudan Investments


Cindy McCain, the wife of the Republican presumptive nominee for president, has sold off at least $2 million she held in funds with investments in Sudan businesses.

The mutual funds -- American Funds Europacific Growth and American Funds Capital World Growth and Income -- have investments in companies with business in the Sudan, according to the Sudan Divestment Task Force, an advocacy organization that has been working to persuade states, universities and other organizations to divest.

Both of the funds were listed by her husband, Senator John McCain, on his financial disclosure forms. The investments and the divestiture were first reported by The Associated Press.


Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the campaign, confirmed the sale on Wednesday.

"As soon as she was made aware, she sold it," Mr. Rogers said. "Senator and Mrs. McCain are committed to doing everything possible to end the genocide in Darfur."

Humanitarian groups, and some politicians -- including Senator Sam Brownback -- have taken aim at organizations and government entities like pension funds that had investments in companies doing business in the Sudan for quite awhile.

Several Democratic and Republican candidates sold off similar investments during the primary season. In Senator McCain's home state of Arizona, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed into law a bill that would "divest pension funds from those targeted corporations that materially assist the Sudanese government in carrying out the genocide in Darfur. The bill targets foreign companies involved in mineral extraction, weapon sales, and the oil industry."

Last week, Mrs. McCain, the heiress to the Phoenix-based distributorship of the Anheuser-Busch beer company, said she would never release her tax returns -- which are filed separately from that of her husband's -- in part to protect her children.

Our colleague Elisabeth Bumiller tells us that, despite calls from Democrats and some editorial boards for her returns to be released, Mr. McCain said today in Columbus, Ohio: "I respectfully disagree.''

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Hold_That_Tiger


Obama is an empty suit if I have ever seen one.


Seriously.

The visual of Edwards standing next to Obama was horrible - sort of like the sum of the parts adds up to LESS - they make each other look bad.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Two quick points to ponder:

First, if the traditional battleground is Hillary's strength, is that not also running against McCain's strength, given his smaller resources and depressed enthusiasm? Wouldn't it be easier for him to just stick to the same OH/PA/FL subset of battlegrounds and campaign/advertise there vs. having to fight Obama off in places he wouldn't normally have to fight for (VA/NC/CO/etc.) in addition to those states?

Second, the MSM continues to repeat something that is not correct -- that Obama has a problem with white, working-class Democrats. This is not factual...his problem surfaces in certain geographic areas with the voters (PA/WV/OH/KY/TN), but not nationwide. He did just fine with this group in earlier, non-Applachia contests.

Posted by: Joe G. | May 15, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR PEEPING TOM
BUT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA

Posted by: JOJO MEAN | May 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Several issues:
DO voters in FL, OH and PA among other places really believe they will be better off with McBush III ? Really?
If Rendell and Strickland are the leaders they seem to be, they will be working their butts off to elect Obama and thus enjoy some very favorable standing for the future. Finally, and so many people seem to forget, nothing,NOTHING would galvanize Republicans more than going out to beat a Clinton--especially one who only 39% of the public believes is honest and trustworthy. What do you think Operation Chaos was all about?

Posted by: jmsbh | May 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

"Makes you see all the emptiness of Obama."

You WISH. Why don't you go back to stumping for McBush he is going to need all the gullible "true believers" he can muster....

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Hold_That_Tiger


You have some very good points there - however the same principle applies to Obama.

Seriously.

These two canidates appeal to the left side of the political spectrum - the center is much different.

You seem to understand that.

However, you refuse to believe that few people in the center want an inexperience guy who hasn't held a congressional hearing in his life and loves to dodge issues by voting present.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is going to have problems in nearly any head to head matchup because she starts off with over half the country having an unfavorable rating of her (54% according to an April 20 poll). At the beginning of this election cycle, she was the clear front runner because the other candidates were splitting the "people-who-don't-like-Hillary" vote multiple ways. As the race consolidated down to her and Sen. Obama, those voters with an unfavorable opinion of her only had one candidate to choose from, so she fell behind.

It would also be silly to assume that she wouldn't have similar problems against McCain and to think that all of Obama's supporters would vote for her in November if she wins the nomination despite losing primary/caucus cycle. Would anyone seriously blame the African American community if they took that as a slap in the face and decided not to show up for her in November?

Without a path to the nomination that passes the smell test, I don't see how she could be the stronger candidate.

Posted by: Mike | May 15, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

"Is Clinton Right That She's the Stronger Candidate?"

Probably not, for the many reasons mainly offered by other posters:

HRC's high negatives only went higher during the campaign, she has a high floor and a low ceiling, so to speak;

HRC and BHO appeal to somewhat different but numerically offsetting electoral maps;

and my four adult children will actually vote for BHO, without regard to my inclinations.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 15, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

37th&O, sorry, I was just trying to provide cover for your poor reasoning skills. Carry on with the pathetically transparent spin that convinces absolutely no one.

Posted by: novamatt | May 15, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR O.J ALL SHARPTON,FLAVER FLAV,REV WRIGHT,FAT COW OPRAH FAT COW BILL RICHARDSON, GAY MEN EDWARD,KILLER KENNDAY
KING KONG, ECT.

BUT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA HUSSEIN

Posted by: NOVOTE | May 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

The only way the Dems can insure a win in the electoral college is a joint ticket. Divisiveness gets the Dems no where and if these two candidates can't come together on behalf of our nation. Neither one deserve to be president. This isn't about Clinton or Obama this is about what's happening in our country. The Dems aren't going to win anything if they don't start acting like adults, both candidates have baggage. As an independent I've supported Clinton, but I understand that Obama has got the delegates, but if he's not smart enough to ask Clinton to be his second in command. He is not a leader just a rock star playing a tune only he listens too. There are 17 million people who voted for Clinton and 17 million who voter for Obama. Get real people if the Dems are smart (which I am seriously beginning to doubt) a unified ticket wins the nation and the GOP will lose. If the Dems can't get it together welcome Pres. McCain.

Posted by: makim | May 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Does it matter? How long are you going to discuss this fantasy campaign? You need to actually begin writing a column, what do they pay you for?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

How is Hillary going to win the "swing" states if the black vote decides to underperform in places like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania?

Posted by: AB68 | May 15, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I'm voting for McCain, but to say that the Edwards nomination is meaningless is absurd. He has some devoted followers and is a pretty good politician with a suitcase full of cash. It was a strong answer to W. Va.

Posted by: BobMoses | May 15, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

novamatt


Finished decades ago

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR REV- WRIGHT
BUT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA

Posted by: SMITH | May 15, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"To wit - the anti-Clinton forces have not yet been heard, because we're not in a general. They will, however, come out of the woodwork and vote against Clinton"

Right on the money. Although Mrs Clinton claims that she has been vetted, I think that she is fooling herself; every case she tried as a lawyer (defending members of the Black Panther Party,) every "fib" she has been caught telling ("sniper-gate"), every faulty promise she made (her "gas tax Holiday" will be further exposed as a sham, despite the fact that McSame suggested it first), every aspect of her Campaign financing (Lobbyists, special interests; the 1.2 million in PAC contributions used in the current campaign compared to Obama's zero) will be discussed; expect that disgusting criminal Mark Rich to be exhumed as evidence "pardon buying" (no matter that this was Bill's gaffe...Hillary takes credit for the good things done during the Bill years, and she will be dinged for the miscalculations he made), expect more questions about the suspicious financing on the Clinton Libary and more. No Mrs Clinton has not been "vetted" by half.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

torontojane has it right - the visual from this endorsement was jarring - who are these guys - two elitists who should be shown the door.


Amazing how John Edwards makes Obama look bad just by standing next to him.


Makes you see all the emptiness of Obama

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Hey, 37th & O, how are finals going there at Georgetown?

Posted by: novamatt | May 15, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

A zillion new Democrats have registered, right? That's got to change the picture for '08 vs. '04, no?

Posted by: gringo | May 15, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter whether Hillary's a stronger candidate. What you have to remember is that the Clintons feel they're entitled to the White House.
-Wm Tate,
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: Wm Tate | May 15, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

I am beginning to think of the Obama campaign as a bunch of brainless wonders.


Seriously.

How in the world do they think that John Edwards is an adequate foil to the voters of West Virginia?? Anyone who thinks about it for a second, has to come to the conclusion that this scheduling was dumb.

The Obama's message is: I do not need the working class whites, I have John Edwards, slick lawyer who claims he cares.


Stepping on Hillary's media spotlight is NOT the way to end this race. It is a stupid move. I don't know who comes up with this stuff at Michigan & Lake, however they should be fired.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"They showed their hand last night and the visual effect of the $400 Haircut & the Empty Suit on Stage proved it."

Some of my friends say an Obama / Edwards 08 ticket is their dream ticket. I just laugh.

Like yourself, I imagined the Breck boy and Obambi on stage and thought "Crocket and Tubbs." Last night's photos drove it home.

Posted by: torontojane | May 15, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

I WOULD VOTE FOR O.J
BUTI WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA

Posted by: lilahenna | May 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

i think the most compelling argument or flaw in your logic, is the one you rather threw in as an after-thought. giving one state or another, based on a primary between two democratic contenders, in the general against mccain seems incorrect. if ed rendell is the strong democratic leader he is touted to be(and by the outcome in pennsylvania for clinton he supported it would seem to be true)i can not imagine him not working as hard for obama in the general; same for ted strickland in ohio.

Posted by: sbv | May 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

This kind of analysis is fun to read, but it ... just ... doesn't ... matter. The winner of the process is the nominee. Do you really want to pick a Democratic nominee using guesses and analyses reminiscent of how college football used to pick its number one ranked team at the end of the year (power rankings, common opponents, etc)??? Game on ... and the winner is the winner (and his initials are Barack Obama).

Posted by: Charles | May 15, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

"We're loyal democrats but with his very liberal views, Rev Wright, the BITTER COMMENTS, the Rezco and the Ayers associations, etc. I don't see any chance of him winning.

We're voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination."

On the off chance that you are not a GOP troll, could you please outline What "Liberal" means? And please don't site his association with "NOT the Candidate Wright" and "Just an Aquaintence Ayers" as "proof" of whatever.

Meantime, you'll vote for McSame? OK, but I'd like to see you explain to the family of the first young person Killed in Iraq after a McCoot victory that you didn't vote for the Candidate who was opposed to the War from the get-go and plans to get us out of it, that you voted for pro-War McCain because you didn't get your way. I double-dog DARE you.

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Here's one way to think about Obama: senate races where his presence at the top of the ticket could push the D candidate into the win column.

I'm going to assume that all of the D incumbents are safe. I'm going to further assume that Virginia and New Mexico would go D regardless (although Obama's presence might help turn big wins into big blowout wins).

State where Obama will be a hindrance: Kentucky

State where Obama's influence will be, on balance, neither a positive nor a negative: Tennessee

States where Obama will help, but not enough to win (but I'd like to be wrong about that): Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi Class II, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, both Wyoming seats

States where Obama will help enough to make it really close: Mississippi Class III, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas

States where Obama's presence might be the determining factor: Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire

That's pretty good for a non-incumbent presidential candidate, pushing a two-seat pickup into maybe an eight-seat pickup.

Posted by: novamatt | May 15, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Just as generals are always fighting the last war, so too are politicians always fighting the last election (or four.) I think that a different group of states will come into play this year, and that will favor Obama. Without going into a state by state breakdown, keep in mind that there is a huhe uptick in voter registration in a lot of parts of the country, and that this has been spearheaded by the Obama campaign. Add to this the larger than usual turnout and involvement of young voters, and some changing nationwide demographics, and I believe that it all adds up to a stronger campaign from Obama.
Also, keep in mind that despite the much vaunted "Clinton Machine," Bill Clinto did not get over 50% of the vote in either of his elections. In fact, the first time, he barely got 40%. Ross Perot was as much responsible for Billl Clinton's first victory as he was.

Posted by: kenhighcountry | May 15, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Flawed premise. Nomination goes to the candidate with the most delegates. THAT is how we have always judged "electability." In 1992, Clinton was losing ground to a late-surging Jerry Brown. BUT -- it was too late.

Clinton ran. Clinton's lost. Dem's the rules. No tickee, no washee. But hey, CC's carried Hillary's water all campaign long. No surprise he thinks discussing Hillary's suitability -- a matter primary voters passed on long ago -- is worthy of discussion as if the past four months never occurred. Beats reporting. Reporting's hard work.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 15, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

No, no, and no. I believe Clinton would make a wonderful president under other circumstances, following, perhaps, another Democratic president with a strong performance. But one thing this country desperately needs right now is a healer, and as good a candidate as she would be, as good a president as she would be, a healer she's not. I believe that aspect of Obama's personality will come to the fore before November and will overcome any of the "politics as usual" scorched-earth tactics coming from McCain or his water carriers.

I expect numbers like 1964.

Posted by: stevew | May 15, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Words:
Obama may have high negatives in Appalachia, but Clinton has super high negatives EVERYWHERE. People forget this, especially since she has almost surely lost. But if she had won the nom, this would come back and be a big factor.

Besides these Applachain states, the large majority of Clinton voters will vote for Obama. But a much more sizable chunk of Obama voters will not vote for Clinton (black, many will not vote, independents will go to McCain).
Obama therefore=stronger.
Also, Obama poll #'s will increase substantially again, when not being attacked constantly by his rival in the same party. To many middle of road voters, attacks by Clinton make them take notice, but attacks by McCAin will be seen as simply partisan, and more easily dismissed (except by those who are Republicans already).

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
I don't need to tell you that there are a LOT of variables in play this year and nearly all of them are breaking for the Democratic candidate.
We could see a tidal wave year-- in which case, all bets are off.
Your analysis seems sound: if this was a conventional year, Clinton would be the stronger candidate. But it isn't. Everything we're seeing suggests this could be a once-in-a-lifetime contest... and I don't like McCain's odds in these circumstances.
DB in DC

Posted by: DB | May 15, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I think, after looking at the article 3 times, I did not see Wisconsin. Wisconsin was a very strong state for Sen. Obama in the primary by a hugh margin. He will take the state from Sen. McCain also in the general election.

NO DOUBT!

Posted by: jerry rubin | May 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Let us use some basic commonsense (also, ignore the mainstream media)-

Consider the worst case scenario where just under 35% of the current Clinton supporters vote for Obama in November, then Obama surely will win Ohio and Pennslyvania though he will lose Florida and may lose Indiana. Thats fine.

And on top of this, Obama will win Wisconsin, Michigan and will make it hyper competitive in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Missouri thus changing the electoral map in 2008 than the one's in 2000 and 2004.

He can afford to lose in West Virginia, Tennesse, Arkansas, Oklahoma.

Obama has to work a bit harder to get Independent and Hispanic voters.

Final conclusion -
Obama will be the President.

Posted by: john kojs | May 15, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Now that people have started to realize what's behind Obama, the traditional map is what is used. I am 90% sure, that should a re-run of the states that Obama has one, would yield very different numbers today (and guess which way!). The truth is that Obama WILL ONLY change the traditional map in places that the Black vote counts significantly to change the outcome, a similar effect could also be seen where younger voters could also play in (but this is not as clear as the first). I really believe that if Obama wins the nomination, most Latinos, which could really change the traditional map, will change the traditional map to go Republican. This could very well be the case of FL and CA, for example.

Hillary Clinton has won the Latino vote in over 90% of the primaries and in most by average exceeding 65%. I doubt very much that Latinos will vote for Obama in the numbers needed for him carry any of the states that the Latino vote counts. In fact, I sence there will be a Latino vote against Obama and not so much in favor of McCain.

So I hope Democrats come to their sences and do not force 4 more years of Republicans on the American people. So study this saying Democrats, which could become popular to many of us "you win by losing".

Posted by: Anoymous | May 15, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Edwards' endorsement was "right-on-time"! Earlier it would have been nice, but Hillary would have won PA and WV anyway. But now that media has highlighted this false assertion that Barack cannot win white votes, as if there are no white people in the 30+ states Barack has already won, is absurd, so for Edward's -- Mr. Blue Collar -- to come out at this time to halt Hillary's momentum and re-engergize Barack in this way is masterful and will be a great aid going foward as these two together have "chemistry".

And there have been many endorsements (helpers/angels) every step of the way for Barack. A major endorsement were - Ted Kennedy & Caroline Kennedy who helped to introduce Barack to many who really did not know him and stamp him with authenticity and Caroline passed her father's torch. Endorsements do matter that is why they are so highly sought after. Don't let anyone tell you different! They matter!

Posted by: Angellight | May 15, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Nothing can stack up to Obama hate.

If Obama's supporters are a reflection of him and his campaign, watch out America.

There will continue to be strong opposition to a candidate who clearly has not tried to win over the embittered and the antipathetic..

A candidate, who even according to CNN pundits has not laid out his policies to the American people..yet and it's mid-May..

A candidate who's values aren't in sync with millions of Americans..

For some people it's about race, for many others it's about an inexplicable quality that translates into a lack of trust..

What people see is a campaign strategy to win, not a candidate who truly cares about all the American people..

Unfortunately this lack has not translated over to Obama, his campaign or to his supporters who continue to be euphoric and oblvious to what the polling is telling them...

Posted by: VAMMAP | May 15, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Short answer, NO. Why? She started the race with all of the advantages, name recognition, popular Democratic leader as supporter (her husband), and lots of money. The fact that she was not able to use these advantages to develop an overwhelming win shows her weakness. The fact that Obama started with a good message and now has those advantages of name recognition, popular Democratic leaders as supporters (Richardson, Edwards, etc) and lots of money shows his strength.

Posted by: Jimbo | May 15, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

No matter how anybody hypes it Obama will not win in '08. Edwards or not, he is toast.

We're loyal democrats but with his very liberal views, Rev Wright, the BITTER COMMENTS, the Rezco and the Ayers associations, etc. I don't see any chance of him winning.

We're voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

Mitt Romney is right, the Presidency is not an Intership Proposition.

The guy is not HONEST and TRUSTWORTHY.

Posted by: No Obama in '08 | May 15, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Any discussion of the merits of either candidate in the general needs to take into account the likely voter turnout and their voting tendencies. Despite Clinton's newfound connection with the "hardworking, white voters," she still has a lot of detractors out there. These people are largely in the GOP, but are also independents and, sadly, a good number of Democrats. And they hate Clinton. Irrationally, yes, but with an amount of vitriol like that we've not seen in this primary season. These people are also, it turns out, generally lukewarm at best to McCain because they don't view him as a "real conservative." These two factors have real implications for voter turnout in the general, and suggest why Clinton is still a weaker candidate despite her apparent strength among Democrats in the primaries. To wit - the anti-Clinton forces have not yet been heard, because we're not in a general. They will, however, come out of the woodwork and vote against Clinton, and therefore for McCain, were she the Dem's nominee. These same people are more likely to stay home in the general if Obama is the nominee. By helping to keep the GOP voter turnout low simply by virtue of not being a Clinton, Obama is more electable in the general, despite enthusiasm for Clinton by Democrats in the primaries.

Posted by: alterego1 | May 15, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

All of this intellectual diddling presupposes that McCain is a strong candidate and that Obama, in this case, has nothing in his arsenal to bring McBush down in the general....yes even in those "traditionally Republican" States; yes even among those small town "blue collar" white folks of Hillary Clinton's "wet dreams"; in the general, when the choice is made crystal clear, I truly believe that for once in the last 8 years these people will finally wake up and vote in their self-interest, instead of the rich white guy's.

And As "special" Elections keep netting the Democrats House Seats in the deep South (Despite the GOP's attempts to twin those Candidates with Obama), I think that the pundits underestimate the level of dissatifaction among Americans. I guess it is more "sexy time" for the punditry to harp on Obama's purported "disconnect" with blue collar white folk, despite the fact that millions of Obama's votes HAVE come from that demo...so the drumbeat goes on (Obama supporters the end is near, then the real work begins.)

(ps, latest figures out today show that jobless claims for manufacturing jobs in NY State just went up; Mrs Clinton I think that it is time for you to get back to your "Day Job.")

Posted by: Hold_That_Tiger | May 15, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

I feel like I'm watching a democratic party train wreck. again.

Posted by: Amy | May 15, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

The idea that North Dakota, Kansas, Montana and North Carolina are in play is a joke. There is simply no way these states will vote democratic for the first time in over 45 years. The Obama campaign is dreaming.
I perfer Clintons chances in Arkansas, West Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky.
Against McCain, Clinton is up by 10 in Penn, Up by 5 in Ohio and up by 3 in Florida.
If Obama loses 2 of those 3 states, he can win Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Nevada and still lose.
There is no question about it. Does the Democratis Party want to nominate another 70s and 80s nominee or do they want to WIN in November. Clinton is the strongest.

Posted by: No caucuses in November! | May 15, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

This post is as helpful as a discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The November election will be about change. Generational change, change from conservative to liberal, change from old politics to 21st century politics.

As I wrote in a prior comment, months ago, I do not forsee Sen. Obama losing. I do not forsee Sen. Clinton winning.

On the subject of McCain having a chance at all, well, no, he does not have a chance at all. He is McBush, age 72.

Posted by: piktor | May 15, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

The Elitist Democrat 'Club' is doing evreything they can to beat her.

I'd say she is so strong they are scared and pulling out all stops.

They showed their hand last night and the visual effect of the $400 Haircut & the Empty Suit on Stage proved it.

Obviously she is the stronger candidate.

Posted by: ztormtra | May 15, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Obama would like to say hhe has another path to the nomination but that is risky bet for nobody knows whether this can be done or not. It's a risky play.

According to Karl Rove, no matter how anybody spins it, the battleground states will remain OH, FL, PA, NH and WV.

Bottomline it all boils down to whoever gets 2 of the 3 (OH, FL, PA) wins.

From looking at the polls, and the fact that Hillary have already won most or even all of these states in the primaries it's very obvious she's the safest bet.

Don't go for the salesman, go with somebody who just doesn't talk and make promises, go with somebody who delivers...

As the saying goes, "Action is louder than words."

Posted by: Theory is Good but Real Action is Better | May 15, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"Go ahead, blame Obama's race - then maybe he can go to the Senate and actually try to ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING."

He's run a 50-state campaign that over a year and a half long campaign beat the biggest name in Democratic Party politics. That's quite an accomplishment for a guy with no experience who thinks he doesn't have to work for anything (nice of you to say it's not about race, then say he's a product of affirmative action- I'm sure that's what got him editor of law review at Harvard...).

"this comment, part of the main idea of this column, is inherently faulty! Look, that fact that Clinton narrowly won Ohio and PA, does NOT mean that Obama wont win them in the general. He will. And the fact is, is doesnt matter in the general if Obama Wins PA by 5 points, or Clinton wins by 15."

The point here, and I'll concede it, is she is stronger, not that he can't win, and that is Hillary's biggest problem. She's stronger in those states, he's stronger in Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Wisconsin, Michigan, and several others. Their maps are different, but both are in strong positions to win. Also, most of Hillary's general election negatives are taking a back seat now with the spotlight on Obama and calls for illary to get out because she's losing, rather than actual attacks on her and her positions, so I think some of her numbers are a tad inflated.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 15, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Whatever you call them - blue collar, non college, hard working, white - everyone seems to agree with Hillary's argument that Obama can't win Pennsylvania and Ohio because he can't win these voters. But, beneath this argument there are numbers, and if you look at these, Hillary's argument falls apart.

In Pennsylvania, she got 1,260,000 votes in the primary; he got 1,050,000. Meanwhile, McCain got 590,000 and the rest of the Republican field got 220,000, for a total of 810,000. Let's give these all to McCain, even though some were Ron Paul voters who can't stand him. Now let's suppose that, as the polls suggest, 50% of Clinton voters won't vote for Obama; in fact, let's suppose they all vote for McCain and none of them just stay home. That's a total of 630,000 more votes for McCain, giving him a total of 1,440,000. But the rest of her voters, being good Democrats, vote for Obama, giving him a total of 1,680,000. So, in the worst case scenario (50% defection of Clinton voters), Obama still wins Pennsylvania by 240,000 votes. And the reality is that the real worst case scenario would be 25% defection, resulting in Obama beating McCain 1,995,000 to 1,122,000, or by 873,000. And in Ohio, the worst case scenario has Obama winning 1,880,000 to 1,360,000, or by 520,000 votes. And none of this takes into account the combined power of the Rendell and Casey machines in Pennsylvania, working to keep those Hillary voters in the Democratic column.

So, those are the worst case scenarios, both of which hand Pennsylvania and Ohio comfortably to Obama. If most Democrats, confronted with a choice between a candidate who wants to end the war, bring universal health care and change the economy, and a candidate who doesn't, vote for the former, then the two states are even bigger blowouts. And if he wins Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama doesn't need Florida and he certainly doesn't need West Virginia. So much for Hillary's last argument.

Posted by: frb | May 15, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

My wife's a long-time Democrat. You'd think she'd be on the Clinton bandwagon. Not a chance. She cannot stand Clinton. Dislikes her more than I do, and I am a Republican (who is voting for Obama this time around).

Clinton is weak! She will lose to the strong upstart Obama.

Posted by: Obamaaaaaaaaaaaaa! | May 15, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

The only relevant point in the FIX doctrine is the traditional mapping. You can throw that out with yesterdays newspapers. America has evolved, things have changed, and the ones who did not recognize this are still spouting yesterdays message and losing. And as for teh pundits, all have been wrong about who the people will get behind.

Based on traditional thought and "mapping" Hillary should have closed this race out in February - that was the traditional campaign that failed badly. And now they are trying to sell you a traditional general election argument that does not exist anymore. Sorry FIX, but that is the bold breaking news you should be reporting.

Last summer, this was supposed to be a Guiliani / Hillary contest - what happened to that traditional thought. Both of those campaigns were crippled by this thinking. And the media in my opinion still does not get it, and thats why they are so surprised by what is happening. Why are we consistently wrong?

The MSM is not the network news anymore, it is the WWW. The networks and some of the cable news programs will go the way of the newspaper soon. Its unfortunate, but its happening - the new generation of folks are not buying the news as preached to them, they are participating and letting you know that your articles, and news programs are out of touch.

My ramble was only to point out that the primary has already answered this question - so it is moot. But the question should have been who ran the better and more modern campaign. To have this argument based on a few final races and discount everthing in the past is silly.

Rendell and Stickland could deliver their respective states for a bullfrog. FIX, please save your article for November - so you will see how wrong the old maps are. America is no longer static, the boomers are done and one the way out. Their kids are about to take over (19-35 year olds). In a nutshell - this is not your Dad or Moms map anymore.

Posted by: Huh | May 15, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Chris - thanks for the thoughful analysis. This is exactly why I keep coming back to this blog. However, I have a minor quibble. Please add DC to the "sure Democrat" list. While we don't get much respect in national politics, we do have 3 electoral votes that will be in Obama's column in November.

Posted by: Greg in DC | May 15, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

This is an exercise in futility. How many times do people need to be reminded that Obama's campaign thesis is to get rid of this red versus blue concept? Whether he succeeds or not in convincing people to try his way cannot be judged based on this old analysis method. It will be more of an indication of how desperately individual Americans will be willing to risk things NOT done as usual. For example, people in WV clearly overwhelmingly want to have nothing to do with change. But regardless, democratic America will ultimately get the president that it deserves.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

People ignore the fact that the candidates who have been around longer have better name recognition...
Clinton has strong name recognition..as does McCain...Obama is not only new..he sounds foreign..
Barack "Hussein" Obama..can't forget the "hussein" part...
It's scaring the crap out of the seniors..that black man will steal our white women and make us white folks slaves ..(sarcasm...but partly true)
The electoral map is not the same as in 2000/ or 04..
Yes they still have the same votes but we've had a lot of changes in our country..for the most part they are not good changes..as are reflected by the polling on whether or not America believes the country is on the right track..Last I read it was at 81%...placing only 19% of the population thinking everything is A-Okay.
Back in 2000 consumer confidence was still fairly high..people were more optimistic..but then we got GWB and then we started a war..can't change horses in mid stream..(what my Dad used to say..rest his soul)...
We average Jane and Joe's' want change..
Clinton would be easily defeated in the fall because "Swiftboaters" will go after all of her old baggage..she'd be easy to defeat..it would energize the now lame GOP base to come out against Bill Clinton..whom they still despise with a passion..
I see this November as what will be a huge surprise to all of the spinners out there..and that includes you too CC

Posted by: goddesscon2001 | May 15, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Response to posting of Joe Imhof


Joe Im sure you are a good guy, and you mean well - I can tell you that you do have a firm grasp of what is important in the November election.

However, you have to run your numbers again.


Take a look at the state-by-state match-ups - compare McCain-Obama to McCain-Hillary.

You clearly understand the basic ideas - not like many of the wackos on this blog - however, if you examine the numbers more closely, you may change your mind.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Of course it's a changed landscape. Just look at what happened to the Republicans in Mississippi!! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/us/politics/15repubs.html?hp

Posted by: 2008, baby | May 15, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Resonse to pvogel88


Obama is not going to lose because he is black Obama is going to lose because he has no experience and affirmative action has taught him that he does not have to be qualified for any position that he has ever had.

So he figures let's try the highest position.

Obama has no experience. Very little legislative experience. No foreign policy experience. No military experience.

They gave him the Chairmanship of a foreign policy committee - AND he never held hearings.

NOT only does he NOT have any experience he has a history of not doing his jobs.


He gets elected to the Senate, what does he do? He goes on a book tour.

He gets elected to Springfield what does he do? He votes present instead of taking positions on issues.

Besides gettng the terrorist William Ayers to get him the inside track on a State Senate position, what has he accomplished in his life?

I for one do NOT want to hear about ANYTHING Obama has gotten on his resume as a result of any affirmative action program - those results say NOTHING about the person and CREATE more doubt than they are worth.

Obama is going to lose too because he is too liberal for this country - something the democratic party is too blind to realize until it is too late.

Go ahead, blame Obama's race - then maybe he can go to the Senate and actually try to ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 15, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

The special elections this year definitely seem to point towards the dynamic map.

I'd also note that Nebraska's split electoral vote may be a Democratic target in the Fall.

Posted by: JP2 | May 15, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

No way, the majority of americans can't stand her irregardless of party ID. As a conservative, I will be more than happy to vote for Obama due to my disdain of McCain, but if Hillary is on the ticket even as VP, I will have to hold my nose and vote for that angry old man. Only she can save McCain by getting on the ticket and galvanizing Hillary haters.

Posted by: bhoomes | May 15, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

"A glance at these 14 states -- and the polling to date in each -- suggests that Clinton is clearly the stronger Democrat in three: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania"
-- this comment, part of the main idea of this column, is inherently faulty! Look, that fact that Clinton narrowly won Ohio and PA, does NOT mean that Obama wont win them in the general. He will. And the fact is, is doesnt matter in the general if Obama Wins PA by 5 points, or Clinton wins by 15. In both cases, Dems get all the electoral votes.
So the whole premise of this is wrong! The way to see who is the STRONGER candidate, is to see how many electoral votes the candidate has a GOOD CHANCE of winning (NOT should win by a higher margin, or have a slightly better chance of winning).

in this scenario I laid out, Obama is the strongest candidate, and thats without the faulty media logic

Posted by: Joe Imhof | May 15, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

The poster at 7:34 is correct - Wisconsin is a state in Obama's favor - however pretty much the ONLY one that matters much.

Obama's numbers in some of the other states are messed up.


I'm not going to go state-by-state and describe why I believe we are being lied to - the Obama people are basically attempting to pull another fraud this time on the superdelegates.


Sorry.

It is exactly like that whisper campaign that they were so "offended" about Bill Clinton's remarks - a campaign which made a mockery of their own post-racial themes - it was probably planned all along to trump up some charges against some rather innocent remark -


mmmmmmmmm ......

Chris, the headline of your question today should have been "Is Obama's story about the Mountain West a fraud against the Superdelegates ?"


NOW that is a question.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

"Is Clinton the stronger candidate?"

You betcha! That's why she's losing. This is GOOD NEWS! For HILLARY!

Posted by: Helena Montana | May 15, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

This site has had a fairly objective look using various polling, etc. His predicitions in the primaries have been pretty good.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

A lot will change between now and November but he shows both Clinton & Obama currently behind with Obama gaining more electoral votes.

I'm sure there is other analysis on the web. The point is that there is not a clear cut electoral argument for either candidate as the Clinton campaign is trying to maintain.

The last three Republican losses including Mississippi last Tuesday underscore that.

Clinton may present a decent case when the map and the election is looked at traditionally. But that is in fact a key reason why she won't be the nominee - because her competitor looked at the primary problem with a broader view and is continuing that operation in preparation for November that I think he's going to win handily.

Posted by: CWatson1 | May 15, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Great analysis, per usual, but its exclusive focus on the stronger Dem cedes one crucial argument that only Obama can claim: Only he will get a fair hearing from independent voters. The entire Clinton campaign is premised on the static map, playing the same election we've played for 20 years one more time. The GOP base will not be that enthused about McCain or, more importantly, their down ballot prospects. Social conservatives are dis-spirited, many moderates in the GOP are tired of the over-emphasis on social issues to the exclusion of others, and while McCain holds personal appeal for them, everyone knows it's enthusiasm that drives turnout. The assumption that GOP enthusiasm will be as high as it has been in 00/04, and thus their built-in advantage will deliver their base presumes too much. Given this, the advantage has to fall to the candidate that has proven s/he can move beyond the Dems base and play in places the GOP expects to hold, and in this case I don't mean the reddest of red states, but the ability to take more swings and purples -- that is clearly Obama, by math, organization, execution of the campaign strategy, message, and candidate. It is obvious in the three special elections where Obama (not Clinton) has been a factor in each, and the Dems won, even when they weren't running "with" him.

Posted by: DCSven | May 15, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Interesting idea, but way too early.

I think Georgia could be in play this year, btw, for Obama only.

Posted by: lostintranslation | May 15, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone but this observer impressed by the sudden number of Post bloggers who no longer seem buffaloed by the fatuous Obama candidacy and its big-time media sycophants? It's time for reality, and the hard cold facts are that no one can predict with any certainty what may happen in Nov...especially since no one can begin to know what situations will develop in the economy and on international fronts till then. Six months is at least 180 eternities. This much we do know. Each candidate (Cinton, Obama, McCain) trots a huge amount of baggage into the fall. Hillary is absolute anathema to a hard core of voters; McCain's age, Bush ties and general disgust with the GOP are huge burdens; but, Obama's disabilites until recently are not discussed or are dismissed(when they are discussed) as the rants of racists (which they are not.) One can easily discern some true racism in some of the recent Post blogs; but, more and more are simply realistic assessments of a black candidate whose early appeal mimicked the Pied Piper and who now is willing to bend any way he can to pick up a vote here and a vote there. For example, the "change artist" who eschewed lapel pins and flag displays on the podium (in fact, the original colour scheme was pure green)now wraps himself in red white and blue like every red-necked candidate running for sheriff in the most backwater good ol' boy county. Many of us know a charade when we see it. But what wonders the Wright affair have caused! If I were a Democratic operative, I would pay keen attention to what Post bloggers (again, usually very liberal) are ominously writing. I would think long and hard about how strong a candidate in the general a "change" artist can be when the "change" is ill-defined or simply unclarified. Remember, this man all too rarely, and with studied cynicism, casts a vote. But when he has, the far left record is undeniable. The operatives must understand that voters rarely tell pollsters their true racial feelings and their numbers will swell if he runs against McCain. This candidate whose connections have excoriated the Clinton folks for all mention of a "white base" are quick to rhapsodize their 90% black vote and threaten the party with black stay-at-homes in Nov. if he is denied the nomination. We hear endlessly about party rules and delegates, but silence on the rationale for super-delegates (which is to stop an autumn disaster.) Let's ask this over-arching question: if the GOP were in better shape, would the Dems ever risk an Obama candidacy? You know the answer. The entire rationale appears to be that in putting him up now, the country will be purged of its racist past. But if he loses, then we'll hear endlessly that it was because of his race. Even worse, if he wins and is President Empty-Suit, then the black cause will be really diminished, and sadly, because there is an ever-growing number of attractive black candidates with the kind of centrist records that are necessary for victory. Harold Ford learned a lot of lessons since his narrow loss, for one. And Philadelphia Mayor Nutter is another who can emerge. I don't know who can win in the fall, but I do know (from the independent middle) which of the three is the least appealing. And, frankly, a good deal of my distaste for Obama ---I'm not afraid to say it---is because if he were not black, he would not be the likely Democratic nominee. This is an important election for America. Too bad we cannot have Bloomberg, Webb, Schwarzenegger or five or six other genuine centrists on the ballot. But the choice for the middle (which is usually the choice in the end) is clearly between Clinton and McCain.

Posted by: j | May 15, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Chris:


Call me Old School however the traditional way of the electoral college is not going to change very much.

What I have been hearing over the past few days from Obama's people is nuts.

What they are trying to do is fool people by pulling a head-fake towards the mountain west - I wish I had a really good sarcastic remark to make her however if anyone believes that Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio are not important in the November election, that person either doesnt know what they are talking about or is lying to you.

This term "mountain west" is basically a fraud - designed to distract democrats from Obama's really bad poll numbers in the east.


What Obama's people are attempting to do is try to assure superdelegates that are concerned that Obama is weak in the electoral college to believe that Obama can "make-up" the electoral votes somewhere else on the map.


mmmmmmmmmm......

The truth is the superdelegates who are supposed to be able to evaluate a statement like that do not have polling data available from the "mountain west" so they either believe Obama or not - sounds like a cult meeting.

Let me just say this - the southern half of the "mountain west" - the part that most of us call the "southwest" has a large hispanic population - and those people are going with McCain.

Obama is almost a non-starter in the southwest, and quite possibly Colorado as well - I realize that Obama's people believe they will win Boulder, however the rest of the state is different demographically.

Obama's weakness is downticket in the close races in blue states - the superdelegates are afraid of this - many are holding back because they want more time to see how the Obama popularity shakes out, how much will stick around until the fall election and how much will fade.


The democratic party has destroyed itself - this is something that has been going on since the early 90s - the coalition of the democrats does not work anymore and the targeting of white males has made things much much worse - the party is bound to break -


This is a long-term problem of the party and it is difficult to see them getting out of it.


Right now, either way they go, half the party is not going to be happy - and the halves are pretty well drawn out.

The portions of each half which are the activists are simply not interested in the objectives of the other parts of the coalition - there is little to unite them - they are not going to unite in sufficient numbers or energy.

Either way, there is absolutely no tolerance in the middle of the political spectrum for a liberal candidate - and what do the democrats do ? They go with the two most liberal candidates.

There were more moderates on the stage at the democrats' debates this year - they just could not raise any money from the democrats.


The democrats destroyed the democratic party.


How could a party be so tone-deaf to the center of the political spectrum in this country as to throw all their fundraising efforts at these two candidates.

It really really takes some doing to make Hillary look like a moderate - Obama is so far left, he has accomplished that.

If you really believe that these people belong anywhere near the White House, near the decision-making of this nation, you need your head examined.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 15, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Is Clinton Right That She's the Stronger Candidate?

Actually, Obama appears to be the strongest against McCain in the fall. Reason so, is because Obama's agenda does not include self centered techniques to equate himself alone in strength, it includes the unity and the strength of the American people pulling together for a worthy cause. The strength lies in the sum of the whole to focus and together stand and work towards the forwarding and aiding in a better tommorrow. Hillary is basically speaking about strength that she as an individual adheres to , somewhat of a physical strength like Rocky , not a unity strength. In a democracy, as both democratic candidates should be aware of, they both needs to be a candidate of the people, for the people and by the people, not one whom is of themselves, for themselves or by themselves. America is not built on one person's ability to force their physical and negative overtones, then have to yell to say "I am the strongest"., as that's how Hillary tends to equate strength. It's obvious in Obama's ability to conclude that he is the strongest because he has strength in numbers including him and the people as a whole, which to me concludes that 'the sum of the whole is equal to the sum of the parts', a solid strength and union bond to together to work together on one accord to forward a better tommorrow for all, including generations to come.

Posted by: Nisey01 | May 15, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

this is a convincing analysis. but i wonder how you factor in party affiliation. the amount of people who have been excited by the democratic race far outweighs those who have been excited by the republican one. even if a little under half of clinton's voters come home to obama (and the other half splits between McCain, third parties and staying home), obama has a shot at ohio, pennsylvania and florida.

the other X factor is the power of surrogates. do people in missouri love claire mcgaskill as much as people in indiana love evan bayh?

Posted by: against the DLC | May 15, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Chris: you forgot Wisconsin which should be listed among those six states in which Obama has the edge. Toss in WI's 11 electoral votes and this seems to tip the balance slightly toward Obama.

Posted by: David | May 15, 2008 7:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure any comparisons to 2000 or 2004 are valid anymore. Voters seem in the mood for something different and all 3 candidates (McCain, Clinton and Obama) are not the typical candidates nominated by these parties.

I think people are tired of politicians and the political games that are played during campaigns and once elected. The Republicans have had no luck in the 3 special congressional elections so far by using tired and stale tactics. They don't sway voters anymore.

If this is indeed a change election, then Obama is the stronger of the candidates. If the public decides that they would prefer to remain with what's come before then McCain is stronger. (I don't think Clinton figures in this equation anymore as Obama is nearly the nominee.)

Posted by: RickJ | May 15, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

I think this is a good debate.

However, I think Obama ill defeat Mccain, overcoming the "race" handicap because once again, he is astonishingly lucky, running in what ill be a distasterous year for republicans.

However, if he loses by being black, that will actually force the nation to carefully examine its racists and its history. The new generation of voters will continue to grow, and the older eacists will continue to die off

Posted by: pvogel88 | May 15, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Several other factors:

1. Obama conects to young people in ways that Hillary can only imagine. They care enough to vote. This grandparent is impressed.

2. The African American vote is much discussed, but suffice it to say that the turnout looks to be huge for Obama.

3. The blowout post-Watergate was largely driven by Republicans being so sick about it that they stayed home. The same forces are at work this year.

The Obama folks may be correct that conventional analysis is ignorant of the ways that the world has changed. How many "analysts" actually understand what is happening on the Internet this year?

Posted by: Bill | May 15, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

I am so happy you are talking about electoral counts, because most Americans cannot see for forest for the trees in the Democratic campaign.

Hillary is the stronger candidate to take on McCain in November.

Look at the numbers.

Currently -looking at it from a November vote standpoint - Hillary has 261 electoral votes. Only 270 are needed for November. This includes Florida and Michigan.

Hillary has won every MEGA State, which is California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, and the BIG state of TEXAS.

Hillary has PROVED that she is the right candidate to beat McCain. Then look at her numbers. Her vote counts were higher than the combined totals of the republicans in these states by a margin of two to 1.So case closed.

Hillary should be the democratic nominee.

Posted by: DRPolitics | May 15, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Why Clinton is still in the picture? She has lost the nomination. Her tenacity against a fellow Dem who had won by all accounts is nothing to be praised. She has acted as if she is sleepwalking or living in a different planet. Her campaign even declared she won popular votes for the second time (the first was after PA) knowing full well that Obama had none of the vote in MI. That is why she only wins if she cheats and people who don't look carefully would be fooled. The surprising thing is the media went along with it with all the data they had at their fingertips to check it out. Fortunately, voters see through that and they rejected her to vote for Obama even though she was the "inevitable" at the beginning.

Posted by: justobserve | May 15, 2008 7:24 AM | Report abuse

I unserstand the point here but if she truely were the stronger candidate would she not be winning. Everone seems to be making a big deal out of her wins but what about the fact she has not won over 30 states and won mainly in states that are blue anyway. If she were the best then one would think she would win and be the nominee. regardless of polls the fact she is looosing implies she has a problem with the democtratic base as the nominee. Not news to anyone but no one seems to point out the simple fact that she has lost the nomination even with trying to change the rules every second to benefit her in a different scenario....

Posted by: Peter Kelly from NY, NY | May 15, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Disagree with Jason- Running against "two candidates" has not hurt Obama's ratings in the swing states vs. McCain to date, and may have helped him have an artificially high number now, because Clinton had to play by Marquis of Queensbury rules against Obama, but now McCain can take off the gloves. Also, the Democratic race has sucked up all the oxygen. Now the Republican media machine can do its work on Obama, who has so many chinks in his armor that each arrow hurled in his direction will find a vulernable target.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 15, 2008 7:21 AM | Report abuse

I hear Hillary will win Texas in the General Election, at least according to her.

Posted by: Sally Duchess | May 15, 2008 7:20 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

You cannot ignore Hillary's high negatives and the fact that she would mobilize Republicans like no other candidate. Once you take those two factors into consideration, there is no question that Obama is the stronger candidate.

Posted by: dnbraggs | May 15, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is so February. I'd rather talk about House and Senate races.

Posted by: novamatt | May 15, 2008 7:17 AM | Report abuse

I think this analysis is missing a great deal-- if current polling can't predict how the map in November, look at influences on how things might change between now and then:

Obama will simply dominate the change argument, and compete with McCain on character issues, unlike Clinton who (1) voted for Iraq and (2) has been a national figure for 15 years with baggage a mile long. Obama's roots in poverty and community organizing, his stance on Iraq, make his message, and his delivery, by far the strongest. If Clinton became the nominee she'd have to pivot, no longer be the one with "experience", and McCain would trounce her on the character argument.

Posted by: Chris G | May 15, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Glad to see you're finally analyzing the situation rather than taking the normal press position that Senator Obama is going to win everything and the birds will be singing and the flowers will begin to bloom again.

He will not pick up more support from middle class non-African American voters, even less in the general than in the primaries. He won caucus states because of the system dynamics and not because he was popular with middle class voters. Only the activists participate in the caucuses and a lot of those participants were moveon.org and democracy for america workers. Amazing how some states have nearly zero requirements for residency in the primary/caucus phase.

Senator Clinton would be the far better candidate but I feel the Democratic party and the press have dug in their heels to support Senator Obama and have made the Obama supporters feel this is a done deal. It will be very difficult to reverse that thinking.

They have not only done a disservice to Senator Clinton but they have done a disservice to this country and the election process. Neither will be rewarded for this.

The result will be a republican in the white house in 2009.

Posted by: hazwalnut | May 15, 2008 7:12 AM | Report abuse

Dear CC
At a first very brief glance hopping from the one blog here to the other and reading the comments about fleas, whiter than white, and possessing the X factor,I misread the headline and thought you were writing about a deodorant problem!?.
Unfortunately with all their policies, attitudes and faux pas that each and every candidate has made I think it's more us, the voters and supporters who are getting in a sweat.
Stay cool folks and pray it is over soon!

Posted by: noparticularaxetogrind | May 15, 2008 7:11 AM | Report abuse

This is one of clearest pieces on what might happen in the fall I've read yet. Thank you.

I think there are three things that will put a dent in the old equation and offset some of the liability of Obama being the first black candidate.

1. He's got one of the if not the best organization ever and they are registering new voters in every state.

2. He's likely to announce choices for his administration that go across the aisle.

3. Bush and the republicans are not done damaging themselves and this may be the worst damage the Republican party has ever sustained (witness Mississippi).

I'm hopeful but your analysis does make things real. Time will tell and I've got every digit crossed for Obama.

Posted by: Richard | May 15, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

You may be right that the hope that ND and NC may be in play is delusional, but as a Democrat that has seen us fall in OH and FL the last two elections (and a belief that FL is a lost cause no matter the nominee and that states like WV are trending red), I am willing to chance it on a campaign that is going to campaign in VA, CO, and be slightly better in states like MN, IA, WA, and WI. If we play the same map for the third time in a row, we're likely to get the same result.

Posted by: timfry | May 15, 2008 6:47 AM | Report abuse

The political realignment you mention is in progress. Obama will generate so much enthusiasm among African-Americans that the deep South will be in play. He will lose pockets where pervasive racism perists, but so be it. The Democratic party has grown up enough to reject the divisive politics of the Clintons. We will see if the country as a whole has matured enough as well.

Posted by: DEfarmer | May 15, 2008 6:46 AM | Report abuse

I think what also should be mentioned is that Obama has, for the last month, been essentially running against 2 candidates. The McCain camp has ignored HRC as they have made the assumption that Obama will be the nominee and have focused their fire on him. Therefore, it is no surprise that Clinton's poll numbers would be slightly higher. If HRC had been facing a 2 on 1 situation she would in all likelihood be polling lower. Once she leaves the stage and democrats rally behind their nominee, realizing that McCain will push an agenda similar to Bush, Barack's numbers will go up.


Posted by: Jason | May 15, 2008 6:41 AM | Report abuse

Good analysis. It appears that Obama is selling the Democratic party a "faith based candidacy", based on his belief that his candidacy is so unique, so awe-inspiring in its Obama-ness, that the old rules no longer apply.

It appears he is closing this deal with the Democratic leadership, who always preferred fantasy to reality.

After November, presumably he'll have plenty of time, as the loser, to turn his talents to selling cars or vacuum cleaners.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | May 15, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

Of course Clinton's argument doesn't much matter since she clearly won't be the nominee. Obama is and we need to make sure he beats McCain.

Posted by: Brendan | May 15, 2008 6:37 AM | Report abuse

So far Hillary's based her campaign on being white and being experienced. McCain actually is experienced, and he's as white if not whiter than Hillary. So Hillary's strengths, which weren't enough to win against Obama, will be utterly ineffective against McCain.

Posted by: aleks | May 15, 2008 6:30 AM | Report abuse

Wow, excellent work by the Fix. Theory is that the Presumptive Republican nominee and Clinton Camp have been running that same race from the get go. Was told to me that it is really the President Clinton strategy and was adopted by the competition early on. The X factor here maybe delusional because of a political marketing strategy which implies, "Stick with the winners". Got some major networks throwing up smoke-n-mirrors too. I think we all know the republicans want Obama to win. Right now I think it does not matter even if Congress pulled all nighters doing the will of the people 24/7, too late. Margins of victory are much wider than 2000 and 2004. I think it is the "If you sleep with dogs you will get fleas" factor.

Posted by: Mark W. | May 15, 2008 6:28 AM | Report abuse

Barring a major faux pas or other McBush catastrophe, neither Clinton nor Obama have any chance in Florida.

And why is there no mention of the high negatives that Clinton brought into the campaign? When 50% of the GE electorate doesn't like you going in, the margin for error is that much less. Of course, thanks to the MSM picking up on Hannity's lunatic ravings on Wright and Ayers, corporate media's done a good job for their "rich white people" patrons in building up Obama's negatives as well.

Posted by: flarrfan | May 15, 2008 6:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company