The only chance the Democrats have for a "lock" is a Clinton/Obama ticket (the order doesn't matter). I don't believe for an instant too large a group of now Clinton supporters will really vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination, just as I don't believe all the Huckabee/Romney types will vote against McCain... BUT, considering how well she's diminished Obama, and the fact that McCain is half a liberal , he may be more appealing to "Reagan Democrats" (despite the new spin that he's to the right of Gingrich) ... I don't think McCain's chances are all that bad to win this thing.

Predict the storyline for the next few days:

"Obama has failed to increase the size of his base."

I also predict the "only racists vote for someone other than Obama" theme to pick up steam.

VoxOrion wrote:The only chance the Democrats have for a "lock" is a Clinton/Obama ticket (the order doesn't matter). I don't believe for an instant too large a group of now Clinton supporters will really vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination, just as I don't believe all the Huckabee/Romney types will vote against McCain... BUT, considering how well she's diminished Obama, and the fact that McCain is half a liberal , he may be more appealing to "Reagan Democrats" (despite the new spin that he's to the right of Gingrich) ... I don't think McCain's chances are all that bad to win this thing.

Predict the storyline for the next few days:

"Obama has failed to increase the size of his base."

I also predict the "only racists vote for someone other than Obama" theme to pick up steam.

he's 'liberal' on issues many don't like, like immigration, which is one of the only issues i completely agree with him about

they need to end this shit

My point being - if the McCain campaign successfully paints Obama as the very not-center-by-any-means guy he is, I believe McCain is liberal enough for a center-right Democrat to vote for. Eight years of being the press' Favorite Republican (TM) isn't going to wash away in the next six months.

Top three story lines:

1) White people don't like Obama. The Wright controversy and the "clinging" controversy have done some damage. Will McCain dominate among Reagan Democrats and will that cost Democrats the election?

2) Hillary Clinton is po'. Can Hillary raise enough money to remain remotely competitive with Obama in North Carolina and Indiana? If not, when is enough enough?

3) Whither the superdelegates? Will a figure emerge (Gore? Pelosi?) to rally the Dems behind Obama before June to end this crap? We know Gore and Pelosi both sort of support Obama. Will one or both make it official?

Honorable mention: Is Hillary Clinton doing irreparable damage to Bill Clinton's legacy with the Democratic base? Interesting question. Not really as relevant to the 2008 race, though.

Honorable metion (wonk side): How fucking dumb is this delegate apportionment system? Who will solve this, because the Dems will be making real changes because lord knows they're not gonna let this happen again.

jerseyhoya wrote:
2) Hillary Clinton is po'. Can Hillary raise enough money to remain remotely competitive with Obama in North Carolina and Indiana? If not, when is enough enough?

Extra Credit: How come Obama couldn't win spending three times as much as Clinton in PA? How racist are these Pennsylvanians?!?

VoxOrion wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:2) Hillary Clinton is po'. Can Hillary raise enough money to remain remotely competitive with Obama in North Carolina and Indiana? If not, when is enough enough?

Extra Credit: How come Obama couldn't win spending three times as much as Clinton in PA? How racist are these Pennsylvanians?!?

Quit moving the goal posts.

jerseyhoya wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:2) Hillary Clinton is po'. Can Hillary raise enough money to remain remotely competitive with Obama in North Carolina and Indiana? If not, when is enough enough?

Extra Credit: How come Obama couldn't win spending three times as much as Clinton in PA? How racist are these Pennsylvanians?!?

Quit moving the goal posts.

you really don't quit, do you? I explained goalposts. It's fairly simple. They keep extending this primary because they come up with a new 'mark', and then when they miss it, they make a new one.

So... our Republican friends here really don't think race has anything to do with it? Nothing at all?

I know delegates are the things that "count" but at some level they're pretty retarded. She keeps winning, but she isn't getting any closer.

The cognitive dissonance that it takes for someone to be aggrieved that Bush won an election with fewer popular votes due to the Electoral College that has been in place for hundreds of years, but to cling to these pledged delegates as if to overturn their apportioned proportionally by congressional district (in most states, though not in others, and oh, when is that state level convention caucus?) sanctity is to spit on the constitution and everything it stands for is pretty remarkable. I mean, this system has been around for what, three decades? And been seriously tested once? Maybe?

(Mind you, the argument becomes a lot more compelling if she falls short in the popular vote (especially if she does so by a margin that Florida and/or Michigan don't matter).)

Everyone makes fun of Mark Penn for saying some states don't matter, but for as dumb as that argument was, the whole "Florida and Michigan knew what they were doing when they moved their primaries up" is lacking a certain real world practicality as well. Everybody spins, not least of which the ninety odd percent of this board that supports Obama. You all have yourselves worked up in this little Hillary Sux/Bush is the Devil echo chamber, and it's to the point where people keep spouting these truths that are so absurd that I feel bad for Hillary Clinton.

You want to talk about absurdly moving goal posts: making a 10% loss in a key swing state a win. Yes, he's still going to win the nomination, but doesn't tonight say there's something fundamentally flawed with the Obama campaign? He spent $20 million dollars in the damn state to win 45% of the vote. McCain's campaign has the Bush anchor dragging it down, and him being 95 years old, and you guys are still 50/50 to lose this election some how. We're gonna lose another dozen House seats and maybe a half dozen in the Senate, and somehow are right there to keep the White House. Seriously, it's amazing to watch. At this point I am completely serious when I say I think Hillary would be a tougher nominee for us to beat.

dajafi wrote:So... our Republican friends here really don't think race has anything to do with it? Nothing at all?

Race has plenty to do with voting behavior in this race. I was the one who you all kept yelling at for posting the racial breakdowns from the exit polls back in South Carolina and such. Obama is hurt in a lot of places by being black. And he won 90% of the black vote by being black.

"Incomplete returns from Pennsylvania showed Mrs. Clinton leading 55 percent to 45 percent, with her victory propelled by her strong performance among women, older voters and less affluent and less educated voters; among white union members with no college education, she won almost three-quarters of the vote, polling showed."

...nope, no possible racism there. Who's more egalitarian than the elderly and the less educated?

That said, I have to concede that Obama has a serious problem. Whether it's the black thing, the Stevenson/Dukakis/Kerry thing, the Howard Dean thing (older/more culturally conservative Democrats turned off in backlash by his young supporters), his own unwillingness to wallow in the bullpucky of the campaign (think Chris Matthews bleating that "he's not good in a diner" because he doesn't make the right face when he orders coffee), or something else, he isn't reaching the voters he needs to finish this thing.

My guess is he wins Indiana and that drives a stake through Hillcula's evil heart, but I also never thought it would go on for this long.

Also, since this is the "only" politics thread, I guess I post it here:

A Knox College student, John Ashcroft, and torture

I think she pretty much nails it with the "banality of evil" comparison. I remember reading a couple years ago that Ashcroft does really good "Simpsons" voices, including Monty Burns; he's also capable of countenancing monstrous and disgraceful acts.

jerseyhoya wrote:You want to talk about absurdly moving goal posts: making a 10% loss in a key swing state a win. Yes, he's still going to win the nomination, but doesn't tonight say there's something fundamentally flawed with the Obama campaign? He spent $20 million dollars in the damn state to win 45% of the vote.

your football analogy is apt.

Professional football teams verging on victories lapse into 'prevent' defense with astonishing regularity, despite plenty of evidence (so I understand; I'm not familiar with the particulars of said evidence) that the strategy is unsound. Good teams, bad teams, and in-between teams do it; teams with lots of $ & reputations at stake do it. Even the best outfits play down to their opposition at times.

So I'd aver that $20 mils of prevent defense is probably nothing for you to get all Begala about.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:So... our Republican friends here really don't think race has anything to do with it? Nothing at all?

Race has plenty to do with voting behavior in this race. I was the one who you all kept yelling at for posting the racial breakdowns from the exit polls back in South Carolina and such. Obama is hurt in a lot of places by being black. And he won 90% of the black vote by being black.

They were saying on the TV it was around 94% in PA. He got around 35% of the white vote (45% of white males).

meatball wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Not true. A very real part of the story is more than half of the Democratic base in one of the three or four most important states electorally in the whole country prefers someone who is not going to be the nominee of their party.

Edit - Re: Bakestar's point.

But does that mean they wouldn't support Obama in November, especially since he was competitive in those states?

(Real question...I'm a political n00b. Just doesn't seem like a logical argument to me.)

The exit polls showed that 50% of Clinton PA voters said they would support Obama if he is the nominee, the rest will either vote McCain or not vote at all. 67% of Obama voters said they would support Clinton if she's the nominee.

So Obama loses 50% of the Clintonians while HRC loses 33% of the Obamies.

jerseyhoya wrote:I know delegates are the things that "count" but at some level they're pretty retarded. She keeps winning, but she isn't getting any closer.

The cognitive dissonance that it takes for someone to be aggrieved that Bush won an election with fewer popular votes due to the Electoral College that has been in place for hundreds of years, but to cling to these pledged delegates as if to overturn their apportioned proportionally by congressional district (in most states, though not in others, and oh, when is that state level convention caucus?) sanctity is to spit on the constitution and everything it stands for is pretty remarkable. I mean, this system has been around for what, three decades? And been seriously tested once? Maybe?

(Mind you, the argument becomes a lot more compelling if she falls short in the popular vote (especially if she does so by a margin that Florida and/or Michigan don't matter).

Everyone makes fun of Mark Penn for saying some states don't matter, but for as dumb as that argument was, the whole "Florida and Michigan knew what they were doing when they moved their primaries up" is lacking a certain real world practicality as well.

Down here in Florida, it was the state Republicans that moved it up so early as to invoke the wrath of Dean. The state Dems only wanted to move the primary up to Super Tuesday, but the R's outnumber the D's here. From what I understand, according to DNC rules, we were to only lose half our delegates because of the move. It was Dean that took them all away because he wanted to make a point. I still believe that stripping Florida and Michigan of all their D delegates will bite the Dems in the hiney come November.

jerseyhoya wrote:I feel bad for Hillary Clinton.

jerseyhoya wrote:You want to talk about absurdly moving goal posts: making a 10% loss in a key swing state a win. Yes, he's still going to win the nomination, but doesn't tonight say there's something fundamentally flawed with the Obama campaign? He spent $20 million dollars in the damn state to win 45% of the vote. McCain's campaign has the Bush anchor dragging it down, and him being 95 years old, and you guys are still 50/50 to lose this election some how. We're gonna lose another dozen House seats and maybe a half dozen in the Senate, and somehow are right there to keep the White House. Seriously, it's amazing to watch. At this point I am completely serious when I say I think Hillary would be a tougher nominee for us to beat.

HRC won PA, OH, and NJ by 10% each. That is a very a big deal, something the Dems should be very concerned about come the general election.

Obama's losing the blue collar vote 70-30. Another very big deal.

jerseyhoya wrote:I know delegates are the things that "count" but at some level they're pretty retarded. She keeps winning, but she isn't getting any closer.

The cognitive dissonance that it takes for someone to be aggrieved that Bush won an election with fewer popular votes due to the Electoral College that has been in place for hundreds of years, but to cling to these pledged delegates as if to overturn their apportioned proportionally by congressional district (in most states, though not in others, and oh, when is that state level convention caucus?) sanctity is to spit on the constitution and everything it stands for is pretty remarkable. I mean, this system has been around for what, three decades? And been seriously tested once? Maybe?

(Mind you, the argument becomes a lot more compelling if she falls short in the popular vote (especially if she does so by a margin that Florida and/or Michigan don't matter).)

Everyone makes fun of Mark Penn for saying some states don't matter, but for as dumb as that argument was, the whole "Florida and Michigan knew what they were doing when they moved their primaries up" is lacking a certain real world practicality as well. Everybody spins, not least of which the ninety odd percent of this board that supports Obama. You all have yourselves worked up in this little Hillary Sux/Bush is the Devil echo chamber, and it's to the point where people keep spouting these truths that are so absurd that I feel bad for Hillary Clinton.

You want to talk about absurdly moving goal posts: making a 10% loss in a key swing state a win. Yes, he's still going to win the nomination, but doesn't tonight say there's something fundamentally flawed with the Obama campaign? He spent $20 million dollars in the damn state to win 45% of the vote. McCain's campaign has the Bush anchor dragging it down, and him being 95 years old, and you guys are still 50/50 to lose this election some how. We're gonna lose another dozen House seats and maybe a half dozen in the Senate, and somehow are right there to keep the White House. Seriously, it's amazing to watch. At this point I am completely serious when I say I think Hillary would be a tougher nominee for us to beat.

This entire post is spin. The rules were put in place. They are to be followed, no? Do we just ignore those states moving up their primaries? Obama wasn't on the ballot in a state he's polling ahead of Clinton in...so her votes count there? How does that make sense?

Whatever.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:So... our Republican friends here really don't think race has anything to do with it? Nothing at all?

Race has plenty to do with voting behavior in this race. I was the one who you all kept yelling at for posting the racial breakdowns from the exit polls back in South Carolina and such. Obama is hurt in a lot of places by being black. And he won 90% of the black vote by being black.

a Democrat gets 90% of blacks to vote for him...surprise.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

meatball wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Not true. A very real part of the story is more than half of the Democratic base in one of the three or four most important states electorally in the whole country prefers someone who is not going to be the nominee of their party.

Edit - Re: Bakestar's point.

But does that mean they wouldn't support Obama in November, especially since he was competitive in those states?

(Real question...I'm a political n00b. Just doesn't seem like a logical argument to me.)

The exit polls showed that 50% of Clinton PA voters said they would support Obama if he is the nominee, the rest will either vote McCain or not vote at all. 67% of Obama voters said they would support Clinton if she's the nominee.

So Obama loses 50% of the Clintonians while HRC loses 33% of the Obamies.

These numbers aren't truthful. Voters polled are being spiteful during a primary the Clinton campaign turned ugly. Voters will back whoever is the Democratic nominee.