Skip to main content

This post was inspired by a comment I read earlier yesterday, which I can't find now, so apologies for the unsourced inspiration.

One of the hilarious side-effects of every Obama victory is the spin from Clinton quarters and its surrogates and supporters explaining why said victories "don't matter".

Iowa didn't matter because it was a caucus state, and it's undemocratic. Same goes for every other caucus state including Maine. The only caucus state that mattered was Nevada.

Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alaska, and Utah don't matter because they're small Red states that Democrats won't carry in November.

Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana don't matter because they have black people. Expect the same spin out of DC this Tuesday. Black people don't apparently count.

Washington and Minnesota don't matter because they have educated white people.

In any case, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana didn't matter on Saturday because everyone expected Obama to win them anyway.

Virginia and Maryland, assuming they're won by Obama, will be a combination of the "black people" and "educated people" rationalizations. Throw a little of "Obama was expected to win anyway", and you've got the trifecta.

Illinois doesn't matter because that's Obama's home state. Expect the same spin when Obama wins Hawaii by double-digit margins in two weeks.

Missouri doesn't matter because Clinton sent out a press release claiming she won it.

Colorado was a caucus state, so that leaves Delaware and Connecticut. Those are the only two states that apparently matter, giving Hillary Clinton a commanding 10-2 lead among states that matter.

One final line of attack used to minimize Obama's victories is the notion that "he can't win states without his base", his base of course being African Americans, white yuppies, and Red state Democrats. Yet the corollary of that is what? That Hillary can't win states that

1.) she hasn't lived in recently (New York and Arkansas),

2.) aren't next to states she has lived in (Tennessee, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma),

3.) don't share a media market with states she has lived in (New Hampshire), or

4.) are outside the Southwest with its large Latino population (California, which she won with the strength of her SoCal vote, Arizona, Nevada and probably New Mexico).

Pretty silly game, huh?

Incidentally, if these stupid generalizations were to actually hold true the rest of this primary, the states would fall like this:

Clinton: Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont, Pennsylvania.

Obama: Virginia, DC, Maryland, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Mississippi, Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota.

Neither: Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky

But that's not what the final tally will look like.

p.s. Interestingly enough, other than New Mexico, the only other razor-thin contest thus far was Missouri -- a state which borders both Illinois and Arkansas. So in the battle of "neighboring state contest", Obama won, but only by a hair, and only because the Illinois-Missouri border is longer than the Arkansas-Missouri one.

Update: Good diary with a similar concept here.

Update II: Trix tallies which states "matter" in terms of giving one candidate or another the biggest delegate boosts. Lots of fun ways to parse this data.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:17 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Only (23+ / 0-)

    NY, CA, NJ, and MA --- the states that the corpse of Adlai Stevenson could carry -- truly count.

    Deal with it.

    I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

    by zonk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:19:56 AM PST

  •  How is VA polling? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This information cannot leave this room. Ok? It would devastate my reputation as a dude. Relentless!

    by ablington on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:19:58 AM PST

  •  Maybe it was the recommended diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RobertInWisconsin, theran, Naranjadia

    which I can't find either.

    NetrootNews coming soon!

    by ksh01 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:20:24 AM PST

  •  Was it (11+ / 0-)

    this comment perhaps?  There was also a diary late yesterday (Jeff Lieber, I think) making the same point.

    Indeed, at some point the demographic concern trolls are simply overwhelmed by the weight of the empirical evidence.  Or at least they would be if they were reality-based.

    Anyone who is wavering on whether to support our nominee in November should be tied to a chair and forced to watch the last Republican debate.

    by cardinal on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:20:42 AM PST

  •  I wonder what hypotheses have come up (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to explain the trend of Democratic latinoamericanos to prefer Clinton over Obama in the primaries. I saw a few here but they all seemed pretty silly, pretty offensive, or both. (Doesn't mean they aren't right, but what the hell, I'd prefer something that's neither.)

    Anyway, here's to victory in November, that's what matters more than intra-party candidate battles. :3

    Oh, my friend, how have we come / to trade the fiddle for the drum?

    by Shaviv on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:20:43 AM PST

  •  the only thing that matters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, TrueBlueCT

    is Clinton winnng the nomination.


    "The time will soon come when you must choose between what is right and what is easy." -- Albus Dumbledore

    by cgvjelly on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM PST

  •  Finally... (9+ / 0-)

    a case where Oklahoma "matters."

    GI Rights Hotline - free legal info based on UCMJ re discharges, AWOL, discrimination, et. al.

    by gypsy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:11 AM PST

  •  Kos... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fink, theran

    ...thanks for bringing this up.

    Too weird to live and too rare to die.

    by jds1978 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:16 AM PST

  •  re (12+ / 0-)

    Reminds me of when Lisa made a "chore" bowl and Homer had to pick one out of the bowl. Everytime he pulled one he did not like he said "it was practice" and he got to pull another one out.

    "Steve Holt fired his campaign manager too after losing in NE, LA, WA and ME." - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:28 AM PST

  •  LOL on the last line (9+ / 0-)

    "and only because the Illinois-Missouri border is longer than the Arkansas-Missouri one."

    Clearly, that is the tie breaker.

  •  The alternative is too bleak (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fink, jds1978, MingPicket

    The alternative would be for Clinton to say: "I give up."   So, perhaps, she is doing her best to put a good face on it?.    

    All I know is:


  •  A quantum theory... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, pamelabrown

    If you don't mind, it won't matter. LMAO

    The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay

    by Robinswing on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:50 AM PST

  •  kos, take a look at the percentages (11+ / 0-)

    This is very, very interesting I say.

    Of the 30 states so far Obama has gotten 50% or more in 17, while Clinton has gotten 50% or more in 9.

    Of the 30 states so far Clinton has gotten 40% or less in 16 of them; Obama 40% or less in only 5.

    Even more ominous:  Clinton has gotten 35% or less in 11 of the 30 states so far, while Obama has gotten 35% or less in only 2.

    More stats:  Obama has gotten 60% or more in 10 states so far; Clinton has gotten 60% or more in only 1.

  •  This is all over (0+ / 0-)

    My variant of it here, but I claim no originality.

    Ortiz/Ramírez '08

    by theran on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM PST

  •  I think Obama will win. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skiddie, TheUnknown285, ibinreno

    But, we must remember that the enemy is the Republican.

    Mindless Hillary bashing going back to Jim Carville's 2000 book "Stickin'" is not helping to smash the Republicans or expose the horrifying wrongdoing we see in the US attorney's office in Alabama...for those following the Scott Hoprton story in Harpers.

    It is aiding the Republicans, and that is not good for Senator Obama or any other living thing!

    Today, 2/10/08, 3959 Americans, and untold Iraqis are dead, tens of thousands more maimed. Bush lied and the troops are dying.

    by boilerman10 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:01 AM PST

    •  If it looks like BS, and it smells like BS... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      it is BS. And we have to call it out on our side as well. As kos always says, we have to have "more and better Democrats".

      The Clintons are bad Democrats.


      Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

      by fink on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:35:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't agree with that at all... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mijita, lalato

        Senator Clinton is quite good, and has been very good for New York.

        Let us not get overheated in trying to find edges for Senaor Obama.  The public, many of whom don't come here seem to be convinced already.  And that is a tribute to Obama's staff workers working hard. Carping by bloggers both here and elsewhere in the progressive blogosphere about how they so dislike Senator Clinton amounts to piss on a rock.

        Let's [figuratively] piss on a Republican, not a good Senator who appears to be running a failing campaign for the Presidency.  

        Today, 2/10/08, 3959 Americans, and untold Iraqis are dead, tens of thousands more maimed. Bush lied and the troops are dying.

        by boilerman10 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:45:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  NH (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cookiesandmilk, theran, mspicata

    1.) she hasn't lived in (New York and Arkansas),


    3.) don't share a media market with states she has lived in (New Hampshire),

    New Hampshire doesn't share either Arkansas' or New York's media market.  It shares Massachusetts' media market, which means it shares a media market with a state next to a state that she's lived in.  

    Or it's a state next to a state next to a state that she's lived it.

  •  Obama is turning purples into true blue.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, terra, Rick Winrod

    and red's into toss-ups.. that alone is scary enough.

    He will carry VA, CO in the GE..

    Save the drama for Obama and lets paint the white house Barack!

    by WerdisLife on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:07 AM PST

  •  What states do matter then? (10+ / 0-)

    With logic like Clinton's, we'll never expand the map and thus perennially lose election after election.  When will people ever learn that we need to play in every state, and not slam half the country as being un-winnable.  That is what brought us the drought of the '90's and George W. Bush.

    •  This is why.... (7+ / 0-)

      .....  McAuliffe was wrong (50 + 1) and Dean rules (50 state strategy)

      Personally, I think any spin that essentially tells caucus goers that their votes don't count is stupid... sounds like it's from Mark Penn...

      If you don't like the caucus system, change it...  but it exists in real-time right now.  And people are turning out to caucus...!  That's three cheers for democracy right there...

      Of course, what do I know...  I'm in Florida...  we won't count until we do...  but we had better not count without knowing we are going to count...  ya dig?

      "Set fire to the room. Do it now." CJ Cregg

      by Jen K in FLA on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:39:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We also need to be media smart (5+ / 0-)

      and Obama is nothing if not media smart.

      I've seen very few Obama ads on TV. (To be fair, I haven't seen many of ANY ads on TV, except for EJ Pipkin ads that sounds just like car dealership ads, because I don't watch much TV). I have, however, seen and heard a lot about Obama right before the primary elections here.

      Why? Well, he sent his wife to DE first, both Wilmington and Dover, which got tons of press and TV/radio coverage because nobody ever comes here. Then, right before the primary, Obama went to Wilmington. That got not only the Delmarva press, it got the S. Jersey press (and only DE and NJ were having primaries on SuperTuesday), AND Philly and Salisbury TV, possibly Baltimore too.

      Cost to Obama? Zero (or minimal).

      Now we're looking at the Potomac Primaries. Obama sends his wife to UMES (way out in the boonies on the Eastern Shore), which guarantees TV/press for the entire Eastern Shore and the tip of VA. He also hits Baltimore, which covers the other side of the state, as well as part of the Eastern Shore, AND will get coverage in VA and DC. So again, pretty much the last thing the voters in some not-usually-visited places will see/hear is Obama or Michelle IN PERSON.

      Cost to Obama? Zero (or minimal).

      Value of all this to the campaign? Priceless...because not only will it get him votes in places that tend to Red but it gets him goodwill there, because NOBODY tends to show up in those places and showing up indicates you LISTEN to people and not just big money. It energizes the volunteers, and garners MORE volunteers. And those volunteers will be rested and waiting for the general...

      Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. If you didn't know better, you'd think he was some kind of community organizer or something.

      •  Boonies on the Eastern Shore (0+ / 0-)

        You can get a lot farther into the Boonies on the Eastern Shore than Princess Anne. I mean Princess Anne is on US-13. Now if she'd gone to Washington College in Chestertown or down into southern Dorchester County to either Crapo or Lower Hooper island, that would have been the Boonies...

    •  Uhm... (0+ / 0-)

      kos's post isn't reciting Clinton's logic...  he's taking a pulse of the blogosphere and regurgitating what he thinks he sees out there.

      Personally, I haven't seen it.  What I do see is people trying to minimize Clinton's wins...  and other people trying to minimize Obama's wins.

      It's all part and parcel of politics... especially in this action packed primary.

      The reality is...  

      Obama currently has a small lead.  It looks as though that lead will grow throughout February.  Obama got that lead mostly by winning in states where Dems aren't generally going to win, and by holding his own in Dem strongholds.  He's also pulled off a couple of impressive upsets.

      Clinton was in the lead.  She got in the lead mostly by winning (sometimes big) in Dem strongholds, and picking off a few delegates in places Dems aren't expected do well in.  She's also pulled off at least one upset (though Obama has pulled off more).

      Anything beyond the reality noted above is either speculation or the ravings of political junkies with too much time on their hands.  ;)

      ...he says as he looks at the clock and realizes that he's been looking at dkos for far too long today.


      •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

        this is one of the main arguments out there for disregarding Obama's wins.  It has recently morphed into a "strategy" being put forth by Clinton supporters to convince superdelegates to endorse her candidacy, particlarly at MyDD, and thus put her over the top at the convention.

        The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

        by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:08:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  So what actually does matter? Superdelegates! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fink, cookiesandmilk, LordMike, davidkc


    She voted for the war.

    by Inland on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:34 AM PST

  •  Margins (3+ / 0-)

    I think that a truly interesting point, that many people(including Kos) has brought up is the margins.  When Clinton wins a state, it is not usually more than 10%.  Some of them have been 15%(Arkansas was over 20).  Obama has won a whole range of states with around 20%.  This is huge.  It means Clinton is not just failing to win states, it means she is also failing to limit the losses.

    •  More detailed (5+ / 0-)

      Ignoring the states with more than 2 candidates(let's ignore Gravel):

      Obama by 20 or more:
      Idaho   80% 17%
      Kansas   74% 26%
      Alaska   74% 25%
      Colorado 67% 32%
      Minnesota 67% 32%
      Georgia 66% 31%
      Illinois 64% 33%
      North Dakota 61% 37%
      Lousiana 57% 36%
      Nebraska 68% 32%
      Washington 68% 31%

      Clinton by 15 or more:
      Arkansas   69% 27%
      New York 57% 40%
      Massachusetts 56% 41%

      Some of these are caucuses, but they should still not be complete blowouts.  I mean, Clinton should be able to keep anything close if she was campaigning and fighting for it.  This isn't even a fair scale, because I waited it in Clinton's direction.  She still loses.  If I include 15% or more on Obama's side, he picks up more races.  I have to say, I think Obama's campaign is doing an amazing job.  They seem to be doing great at resource allocation, strategy, and analysis.

  •  suppose this is exactly why (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    this campaign is so up against the ropes it had to fire, oh, wait, excuse me;  why the campaign's manager "quit" after being informally replaced.....

    "The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government" George Washington

    by brother country on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:42 AM PST

  •  HRC lived in Mass., too. But also Ill. and Conn. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...she did go to Wellesley, didn't she?

    And, wait, she grew up in Ill. (carried by BHO) and Conn. (Yale) which was also carried by BHO. So the only states that matter are the ones where she lived in recent years. Oh, but what about DC...she lived there too.

  •  re:Next (3+ / 0-)

    will be the claim that pledged delegates don't matter.

    We've already heard that DNC rules don't matter when it comes to FL and MI.  Nor did Clinton's declaration last fall that she knew MI wouldn't count matter.

    Ultimately, Clinton's 35 years of experience, the Clinton political machine, the years of planning for 2008, and the long-held belief that Clinton will be our nominee -- these things won't matter.

  •  I'd like to see a tally of margins (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ClaudeB, citizenx

    Not only has Obama won more states, he's winning his by far bigger margins than Clinton is winning hers. Anyone know of an ongoing tally that shows and totals these margins?

    Great stuff, Kos. We look forward to seeing you here in Idaho on March 1 and hearing you rip into the CW and the DLC.

    ... we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests - Barack Obama

    by Red State Rebel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:50 AM PST

    •  Front paged yesterday, scroll down. (0+ / 0-)

      Fake outrage is the best kind of outrage.

      by citizenx on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:24:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Percentages here : (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shaniriver, mjd in florida

      Here are the percentages so far . . .

      State Obama Clinton Margin
      AK 75 25 50
      AL 56 42 14
      AR 27 70 -43
      AZ 42 51 -9
      CA 42 52 -10
      CO 67 32 35
      CT 51 47 4
      DE 53 43 10
      GA 67 31 36
      IA 38 29 9
      ID 79 17 62
      IL 65 33 32
      KS 74 26 48
      LA 57 36 21
      MA 41 56 -15
      ME 59 40 19
      MN 67 32 35
      MO 49 48 1
      ND 61 37 24
      NE 68 32 36
      NH 37 39 -2
      NJ 44 54 -10
      NM 48 49 -1
      NV 45 51 -6
      NY 40 57 -17
      OK 31 55 -24
      SC 55 27 28
      TN 41 54 -13
      UT 57 39 18
      WA 68 31 37

    •  I think the bigger point of interest (0+ / 0-)

      is the huge difference between the numbers of Dems and Rs voting the in the primaries.

      In DE, EITHER Obama or Clinton beat ALL the Rs COMBINED.

      Think about that for a minute. BOTH of them beat ALL the Rs combined.

      That's happened in most of the states so far. Even in states where independents can vote in either primary. Even in states where you don't even declare party affiliation. And the turnout has been unbelievable. DE had 100,000 voters - in a PRIMARY. We only have 500,000 registered voters TOTAL. It was NUTS.

      It really won't matter much WHO gets the nod, if we keep pulling those types of numbers, we're going to win huge in November.

  •  since Obama wins states with large (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978, Norm in Chicago

    black populations such as the deep south, can we hope he could pick off a couple of those states in the general election?

    No one really seems to address that question. Would a very heavy black vote in Mississippi or Louisiana offset the traditional republican vote in those states?  I can only imagine how that would put McCain on defense to have to fight for the south.

    11/7/06. America won. The Republicans lost. Our duty is to earn that trust.

    by Dave from Oregon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM PST

  •  Delegates, not states (0+ / 0-)

    Of course, the whole focus on "winning states" is silly too.  The only thing which matters is delegates, and somehow, that's not what gets played up when election or caucus results come in.

  •  Here we go again (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skiddie, Athena, Hedwig, CanyonWren

    Fire it up, Kos.  

    You must have dug that comment needle out of a haystack somewhere because I haven't seen much here on this site that indicates that Clinton supporters aren't taking all of these states seriously, and that indicates that Clinton supporters aren't worried about losing, with good reason.

    But, since only 90% of the material here supports Obama, may as well stir up some more negative stuff toward the Clinton campaign.  It's only fair, after all.

    "The walls between art and engineering exist only in our minds." --Theo Jansen

    by joanneleon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:23:54 AM PST

    •  Au contraire mon fraire (6+ / 0-)

      After super Tuesday there were many Clinton supporters claiming that the small fly-over states weren't as important as California and New York.

    •  B.C says caucaus goers dont work,Not lookin 4 PRZ (3+ / 0-)

      Bill Clinton claims caucaus goers arent lookin for a president and that they dont work ,, Pathetic Truly Pathetic ,, and hey thanks Hillary for thanking those that voted for u in states that dont matter

      •  I thought HC said that... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and wasn't she speaking to nurses in Washington?

        She was commenting on why she does poorly in caucus states. I don't think she phrased it very well, but pathetic?

        Obama does well in caucus states. Why? If different states that caucused had different results based on their own regional and state political views, I could buy it, but what about the caucus process makes him more successful in those than primaries? Is it just that he has better organization in those states? Is it demographic?

        •  Organization... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Caucuses tend to be won by the people with one of the two...

          1.  The better organization that can train and get out the vote.
          1.  The one with the most volunteers in the area.  Volunteers can essentially bumrush the caucus.

          Generally, #1 goes hand in hand with #2.  The better organization has the most volunteers.  However, it doesn't always work out that way.

          I think what we're seeing is mostly due to Obama focusing some effort at getting these states in the win column and Clinton focusing her resources elsewhere.  Different strategies, and right now Obama's appears to be working better.  However, the contest isn't over yet, and so we march on to the caucus in Puerto Rico (the last chance at delegates in the overall primary).


    •  Clinton's themselves, in their own words (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida, little liberal

      have dismissed caucuses ("My voters work")


      Black voters ("Jesse Jackson won SC too")

      and several other of these excuses.

      So, it only goes to reason her supporters have also (and I've read them a lot lately)

      Daddy, Papa & Me: Two dads, a daughter & the politics of it all.

      by wclathe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:38:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...not really analysis, per se. It's his view of what they are saying.

      He may have some points, as all of that has actually been said here, but what's the point? I can say the same about how people view the Obama campaign and most of that isn't coming from the Clinton campaign.

      Yes, he does quite well in caucus states. So? Does who you support make a difference in how you objectively view how elections differ between caucus states and states that have primaries? I'd hope not. People have preferences. My preference is to not have to go tell my neighbors who I'm voting for. Maybe that's just me.

      Does Obama have a base? Yes. Again, why is it somehow a negative to point how where his strengths are? Is it because of the assumption that says that if you say that Obama does well with African-American voters that it somehow derides that support? I've seen multiple comments jumping all over greater white support in some states with higher than average AA voters. Isn't that doing the same thing?

      I will have to do my research. I need to find where the Clinton Campaign put out a memo that said, "The state of 'X' doesn't/didn't matter". Think I'll be busy for awhile.

    •  You should go to MyDD (0+ / 0-)

      This actually is one of the prevailing arguments and is being advocated by some as a way to convince superdelegates to choose Clinton at the convention.  Of course, kos is being a little more cheeky than those most of those individuals, but not by much.

      The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

      by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kos... (4+ / 0-)

    take a look at this diary of mine comparing the state-by-state margins of victory on the basis of pledged delegates... you can see which states have really "mattered" thus far.

  •  In other words Hillary wins Dem machine states... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    [Except Illinois, where the Machine was working for Obama] and loses everywhere else.

  •  Kos, the United States of America doesn't matter (6+ / 0-)

    ...because the US is full of black people and educated white people -- and of course Obama is expected to win there anyway!

  •  It's called... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Lowering expectations when you know you will fair poorly in a state. I'm pretty sure Clinton is the first one to ever do it. :) Then, she can claim, if she wins the state that she somehow came back or when she does when a state, even if she was expected to, that she's the Comeback Kid Part II.

    Can reverse almost everything you said about what the Obama supporters say about Clinton eh?

    She won't win SC because of the large AA population. She can't win in caucus/red/etc... states.

    I think they call it spin. Or somethin' like that.

    •  Then it's lying. (0+ / 0-)

      If they know blacks and yuppies count, then the "spin" is actually lying. Dishonesty is why the Democrats lost the moral high ground (and Capitol Hill) during the Clinton years.


      Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

      by fink on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Two points and an admission (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lalato, just some lurker guy

        Yes, Bill Clinton was way over the line with the Jesse Jackson comment in SC

        1. Bill Clinton was President. Hillary Clinton was not. They, despite popular opinion, are not Siamese Twins that share the same brain.
        1. All of it is spin...even the true stuff...from both campaigns.

        The argument Kos put forth could just as easily be used, in reverse, to what the Obama campaign's supporters have been doing. If they think they'll win, they'll play it down so 1) they can say later that it was a massive win and 2) so that they don't have voters lying around thinking that it's in the bag and decide they don't need to go vote.

        One campaign's/person's lying is the other campaign's/person's spin. I agree with most of what he said, how the campaigns are seeking advantage, I just don't see it as one-sided as he described.

        •  But you can't have it both ways. (0+ / 0-)

          If Mrs. Clinton is going to claim her husband's Presidential term as experience, she has to defend what happened during that time.


          Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

          by fink on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:09:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This has been diaried (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hedwig, Clipper

    and diaried quite cleverly.

    He's naive...he's idealistic...he's a 'hopemonger'

    by converse on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:25:02 AM PST

  •  states you blow millions on (3+ / 0-)

    Apparently the only states that count are the ones that you piss away millions of dollars on to come out with a tie.  There is a reason Hillary is out of $... she had to spend it to keep from getting beaten in CA and MA.

  •  Nothing matters! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    The states where Obama won are just an illusion. All 20 or so.

    You know, most of the states.

    •  I bet if she could, she would... ;-) (0+ / 0-)

      Let's take a look at the delegate totals.
      You don't need to see the delegate totals.
      We don't need to see the delegate totals.
      These aren't the states you are looking for.
      These aren't the states we're looking for
      Hillary is inevtiable
      Hillary is inevtiable
      Move along.
      Move along... move along.

  •  There were two good diaries on this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, mcfly, leema

    at least, that I saw--SYFP: These are not REAL Obama victories by JeffLieber and States which don't count by NMLib.

    Also earlier there was a short Matthew Iglesias diary on this that was lovely: Maine for Obama (a Feb 10 entry) on

    [-5.50, -8.05] and in good company. FreeRice level: 50 (good guesser)

    by sillia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:25:53 AM PST

    •  Duh... (0+ / 0-)

      In the time it took me to type out my carefully researched response, 60 comments appeared, many of them with these same links! I need to increase my warp factor.

      [-5.50, -8.05] and in good company. FreeRice level: 50 (good guesser)

      by sillia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Utah (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    and where is Utah on your list?


    •  He's wrong and he's right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mjd in florida

      We "don't matter because we're a small red state that Democrats won't carry"

      He's right, we're small and we don't matter.

      But thanks to Vice Presidential Candidate Huckabee's campaign of "Mormons are Apostates that are going straight to Hell", lots of us are going to vote for Obama.

      •  ha! So I heard (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjd in florida

        from a bishop last week. Hillary, no. McCain, no. Huckabee, fetch no! But Obama, probably.

        I'm feeling hopeful, but then the sun is shining today.


        •  The Mitt factor (0+ / 0-)

          Even Heathens in Utah like Mitt.  What's not to like about a guy who made it possible to buy wine at City Hall for 2 weeks?

          I can see Mitt being less than enthusiastic about campaigning for a guy whose vice presidential candidate wants to rewrite the constitution to make Heresy a federal crime.

  •  Gosh Kos, isn't it obvious: Black people and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missreporter, LordMike

    highly educated white people don't count because Democrats always get them anyway. We're the Democratic Party's Get Out Of Jail Free card. So the Clinton's are right...ahem

    Pop-gun president lying with impunity, soundbyte policies and photo opportunities

    by Dave the Wave on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:26:05 AM PST

  •  Made A Similar Comparison To McCain's Victories (0+ / 0-)

    A couple weeks ago there was a similar, and I thought interesting, comparison here about the states that McCain had won.  There was much poo-pooing about the fact that he had only won in "blue" states.

    So, I remain a bit skeptical of this turnaround in attitude.  It is actually an interesting, and important thesis.

    Today is the tomorrow we worried about yesterday.

    by Long Haul on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:26:18 AM PST

  •  Inspired by Yglesias (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mocha Dem

    I remember that comment. I saw it shortly after a similar post was made on Matt Yglesias' blog:

    Back in October 2007, Clinton was beating Obama in Maine by a hilarious 47 to 10 margin, but it seems he's carried the state today, once again by a large margin. My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there. I'm not sure why Delaware and Connecticut don't count, but they definitely don't.

    Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor. Obama has, of course, deployed polarization to his benefit in a number of states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana most notably) but he's also dominated the states with very few black voters.

    For those of you who don't already read it, Matt's blog is excellent.

    The Bush Plan:
    Step 1.: Invade Iraq.
    Step 2.: ???
    Step 3.: Democracy!

    by the good reverend on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:26:38 AM PST

  •  Who could possibly be so racially insensitive (0+ / 0-)

    in the year 2008 that they'd belittle a state's voting population because they have African-Americans, as if they are lesser citizens?

    Perhaps someone who pointed out that "Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primaries in '84 and '88"

    "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'I need to quit drinking!'" - Greasy Grant

    by Greasy Grant on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:26:38 AM PST

  •  Except win Clinton wins (4+ / 0-)

    its because of meaningful and important voters like latinos, women, and people with no education.

    If Obama wins because of blacks, men, and people with education, that doesn't really count.

    I'm black, and therefore automatically vote exclusively for black candidates. You're white and choose only based on the issues.

    by brooklynbadboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:26:43 AM PST

  •  Wow a campaign is spinning their losses, amazing (0+ / 0-)

    stuff, how shameless. and dont matter or don't count is a worse characterization than i've heard for their campaign. its you Kos, it's your spin of their spin, dont ya see it?

  •  was it this comment Kos? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, Shaniriver, mihan, mightymouse, mjkelly

    the excuse is that it's a caucus, if she loses a primary the excuse is there are too many black people participating. If she loses a primary dominated by white voters like Utah and Connecticut  the excuse is that the white voters are "elite" and are voting for a hip black freind.

    I think it was my best ever on this site......tommorow is all primaries so i guess it will black voters and "latte" liberals who will be at fault for outvoting Hillary's voters who really NEED a president.

    Keep you eye on the ball PLEDGED DELEGATES Obama wins those he is the nominee.

    by nevadadem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:27:08 AM PST

  •  my question for Kos (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zagatzz, Hedwig

    If Obama wins the nomination, will you officially stop saying we should kill the Iowa caucuses?

    I think everyone can agree that Obama's campaign would have been dead in the water without the Iowa result this year. He was behind by double digits in almost every other state before Iowa.

    John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

    by desmoinesdem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:27:12 AM PST

    •  With a one-day primary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We wouldn't have to listen to this shit for months.

      Ortiz/Ramírez '08

      by theran on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:29:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  he'd have won a straight primary too (0+ / 0-)

      I've got no doubt about that. His Iowa organization was good enough to get people to the polls, or to get absentee ballots in their hands. The result probably would have been the same.

    •  My opinion is that there shouldn't be a one day (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      primary but I do think that there should be a raffle to see which states goes first.

    •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

      We're seeing Obama's superior organization racking up the caucus wins -- those field offices and those organizers were in place before Iowa.

      I'm all for ending the supremacy of IA and NH -- but a national primary isn't the answer, either.   It benefits the most well-known, best funded, and most acceptable-to-the establishment candidate to such a large degree that we might as well go back to the days of party bosses picking the candidate.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would support getting rid of caucuses (0+ / 0-)

      in principle, but then, I've never participated in a caucus so I have no idea if the perceived drawbacks are real.  I mean, if Iowa doesn't have a problem with them, what are we supposed to do?

      The pleasure of hating...eats into the heart of religion...[and] makes patriotism an excuse for carrying fire, pestilence, and famine into other lands. - W. Haz

      by rfahey22 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is why HIllary will lose Texas (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wclathe, mjkelly

    Other than Illinois, Hillary runs strongest in States with highly developed Democratic party machines. Where she can't on instutional support or the Democratic party is relatively weak, she loses to Obama.

    New Hampshire and Oklahoma are the outliers, to some extent. New Hampshire, though, was an anomaly, and Obama didn't even bother campaigning on Oklahoma.

    •  Hillary will WIN Texas! (0+ / 0-)

      Hillary has a tremendous amount of support in Texas. Our state will be a huge WIN for her!

      •  She had tremendous support in Iowa too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I still remember her staffers saying she was changing to "general election mode" after her Iran vote. I guess she never switched back huh?

      •  Interesting to see (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        They are actually both going to have to campaign in Texas.  I don't think it's a Hillary-lock.

        Texas is a lot of demographic areas rolled into one.  You may see very different results in different areas.  I think my area (Houston) will go for Obama.  But we shall see.

        To quote the great Ann Richards:

        "I thought I knew Texas pretty well, but I had no notion of its size until I campaigned it."

        I think that somehow, we learn who we really are and then live with that decision. -Eleanor Roosevelt

        by dewberry on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:46:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  wait it has a caucaus !! (0+ / 0-)

        Shes set up ,, if she loses , its cause of a caucaus. If she wins ,, she was inevitable, lest we forget .

  •  I love the 'we didn't even try to win there' meme (3+ / 0-)

    that they pushed for awhile. Seems like a great strategy to me.

    Someone must not have told Hillary about this '50 state' thing.

    What I find amazing is that they really do come out and try to marginalize all these Obama victories, rather than just once saying that they lost a fair fight and that they need to do better.

    I used to think Hillary was running a really tight and organized campaign, but this, in addition to the replacement of Solis-Doyle and the backbiting going on with that, and the fact that the candidate didn't even know that the campaign was in financial trouble....wait, where was I?

    Oh yeah, its a mess.

    •  But they won't let Obama say it about FL. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mihan, kilgore2345

      Of course, Hillary can say she didn't even try to win certain states. But let Obama say that about Florida, and Hillary supporters blow a nut.

      •  that whole FL thing was a fiasco (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mjd in florida

        for Clinton...she came off looking a lot worse by jetting down there and holding a big rally like she'd won something. It was really kind of pathetic to me and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking so.

        She won't be allowed to win by seating MI and FL...if that happens her whole candidacy becomes a big joke, along with the Democratic Party for letting it happen.

    •  Hillary Obama virtuallye tied within 5 delegates (0+ / 0-)

      Most of us Hillary supporters also support Obama.
      If you look at the delegate results, you see that they are virtually tied.

      The expectation is she will win TX and Ohio.

      Obama supporters need to STOP BASHING HILLARY. If she is selected as candidate, we all need to support her and win in November. We will support Obama if he is selected. Remember, a Democrat has to win in November!

      •  expectation was she would win Maine (0+ / 0-)

        and Texas is no sure bet. Ohio, well, who knows?

        Your point is taken, although I'm not inclined to support Hillary in the general election at all. I may leave that part blank, who knows?

  •  Markos. Check your in-box. (0+ / 0-)
  •  One needs to ask her Campaign (0+ / 0-)

    "state name they don't matter!"

    Does this statement (silly at best) aid her or harm her in the general election? Does she really want to alienate the voters of these states by saying "They don't matter?"
    Even if it is her supporters and not her campaign directly, the statement does more harm than good and besides it is silly.

  •  Delegates kos delegates. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As the cult leader on this blog, get real about delegates.

    "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush"

    by gotalife on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:30:25 AM PST

  •  Projection (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gotalife, kipzoo

    1.) she hasn't lived in (New York and Arkansas),

    2.) aren't next to states she has lived in (Tennessee, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma),

    3.) don't share a media market with states she has lived in (New Hampshire), or

    4.) are outside the Southwest with its large Latino population (California, which she won with the strength of her SoCal vote, Arizona, Nevada and probably New Mexico).

    You didn't just invent those generalizations, they have appeared repeatedly on this blog, as well of course from the punditocracy. So spare the righteous indignation. Obama really can't take it, I guess. The Hypersensitivity of Hope?

  •  Kos, you should really read... (8+ / 0-)

    ...this site. Its called the Daily Kos.

    Maybe you've heard of it?

    If George Bush didn't exist, we'd have to invent him... and then we'd think, "Why the fuck did we go and do that?"

    by JeffLieber on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:31:05 AM PST

  •  Well---- (0+ / 0-)

    Markos, I'm a graduate of a large southern university and have a reasonable working knowledge of geography; but I'm confused as hell.

    As I sail against the tide, for what I believe is right.

    by Toes on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:31:15 AM PST

  •  You bet your ass Delaware matters. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RichM, mmacdDE, 4jkb4ia

    We are the First State.  

  •  Smart general election strategery Hillary. (0+ / 0-)

    Tell voters in key state that their votes don't matter.

  •  Black people and educated white people (0+ / 0-)

    When it comes down to it, that is pretty much the entire reliable base of the Democratic party.  Without those two groups, the USA really would have a permanent Republican majority.  

    Is the Hillary camp really dismissing these voters?  What is your source?

    It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the intelligent half of the country virulently against him.

    by fizziks on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM PST

    •  Great way to describe (0+ / 0-)

      the Republican party. Uneducated white people.

      Say, didn't Dean get smacked down for saying almost exactly that?

      •  I'm not sure what you are getting at (0+ / 0-)

        Dean said the Republicans were the party for "white Christians" which was somewhat stupid to say because plenty of people like to consider themselves white and Christian and they shouldn't feel like they can't vote for Democrats.  Also there is nothing 'Christian' in what the Republicans stand for.

        On the other hand, not too many people like to consider themselves 'uneducated' so we might as well point out the true fact that the Republican base, in terms of raw numbers of voters, is pretty much uneducated white people.  (In terms of funding of course their base is entirely different - rich MFs)

        So yeah, I'll say it because it is a) true, and b) insulting to people who need to be insulted.

        It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the intelligent half of the country virulently against him.

        by fizziks on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hahah, way to steal the diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I love how he stuffs the "good diary with a similar concept" at the bottom. Kos, this was classless.

    •  Aren't we... (0+ / 0-)

      ...supposed to delete a diary if we find out that another has already been posted on the exact same topic??? LOL

      Ok, I'm in a wise-cracker mood, but rules are rules. Unless they get my candidate elected. :)

  •  Nothing matters - the election will be postponed (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    due to another major terrorist attack on US soil. Martial law will be declared. We'll all exist miserably ever after - unless, of course, the Bush tax cuts were very good news for you. This is a no-brainer.

    These people are so far beyond the law and basic human morality that more death, destruction and bloodshed are just noise to them. As long as they continue to hold the reigns of power they will be satisfied.

    NAAAAAAHHHH!!! Just kidding. They'd never do anything like that. Relax, Obama will be President in 300+ days and we can start purging the Busshies and other assorted true-believers from the ranks of government.

    It's going to be a brand new day. I see skies of blue....

    "He not busy being born is busy dying." R. Zimmerman

    by RUKind on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:31:58 AM PST

  •  Last line about the border length is a keeper (0+ / 0-)


    Gives me a whole bunch of other ideas.

    On the Sunday before Super Tuesday some Hillary supporter here posted a SF Chronicle story regarding an alledged controversy where Barack Obama wasn't going to be seen in a photograph with SF mayor Gavin Newsome. I posted the picture below to prove that Gavin and Barack had already been in the same photo, so why all the controversy???

    As you can see, both Barack Obama and Gavin Newsome are clearly in this photo.

    Barack Obama in 2008! Change We Can Believe In!

    by aj4runner on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:32:15 AM PST

  •  Quote: "WA has educated white people" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I live in Spokane County--a big stronghold for Ron Paul.  Not all of the them are in any way educated!

    The Obama victory was encouraging.  I saw families standing on street corners with giant Obama signs Saturday morning--very inspiring.

    Jesus is not a marketing tool. Anyone who uses religion to sell his/herself is a liar and not to be trusted.

    by marknspokane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:33:09 AM PST

    •  people forget about Spokane (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I remember that the Republicans wanted to split into a new state so that they didn't have to keep dealing with the 'Seattle Liberals(!)'. My impression was that the Republicans out that way aren't the brightest bunch, even for them.

      •  I remember that too... (0+ / 0-)

        There was also the misconception that the West side got all of the state resources while we paid taxes and got nothing--which is absolutely false.

        It makes me proud to be a part of a consistently blue state, but I'm always harshly reminded that I live in an area that makes many red states appear blue by comparison.  It is strangely sickening--Mayor Jim West very accurately represents a majority voting block here...

        Jesus is not a marketing tool. Anyone who uses religion to sell his/herself is a liar and not to be trusted.

        by marknspokane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:55:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ah yes, Jim West (0+ / 0-)

          Mr. Gay Chat himself. What is it with Big Sky Republicans and closet gayness?

          •  I don't know, but (0+ / 0-)

            There are few things more disgusting than a gay/lesbian who would actively advocate anti-gay legislation.  Talk about your waste-of-life nihilists...

            This scumbag made a legislative career out of promoting those good old republican family values about which they drone when they're trolling for stupid voters.  He was very successful with it in my legislative district.  I have to sign out now to go puke...pardon me...

            Jesus is not a marketing tool. Anyone who uses religion to sell his/herself is a liar and not to be trusted.

            by marknspokane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:15:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  So if that holds up, and Obama (0+ / 0-)

    wins 30 some states to Clinton's mid-teens... would the system somehow producing Clinton as a nominee result in an outright collapse of the Democratic party, or just large swaths ignoring the general election in disgust?

    Really, the more I think about it, the more I can't believe that Clinton has completely ignored how state wins illustrate general support for a candidate.  A candidate that won based on a few big states and superdelegates is a recipe for disaster.

  •  Reports of Hillarys Demise Vastly Exaggerated! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    We should not write Hillary off so quickly. According to Real Politics, there is only a 5 vote spread. We here in TX are voting for Hillary. We hear she will win Ohio too!

    New York, MA, NJ, California are states to be proud!

    Personally I am ok with either Hillary or Obama as our candidate. My only wish is for the Obama supporters to STOP BASHING HILLARY! Either will be a very good candidate!

  •  Connecticut and Delaware don't matter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, pamelabrown, Norm in Chicago

    because they are the home states of Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Hillary didn't try for those states out of politeness. Obama was very rude to capaign in those states and win. Obviously.

  •  LMAO!!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ClaudeB, 4jkb4ia, Hedwig

    p.s. Interestingly enough, other than New Mexico, the only other razor-thin contest thus far was Missouri -- a state which borders both Illinois and Arkansas. So in the battle of "neighboring state contest", Obama won, but only by a hair, and only because the Illinois-Missouri border is longer than the Arkansas-Missouri one.

  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

    We've got to stop dismissing the supporters of the candidates.  We need Obama's people and their demogrpahics (independents, disenchanted Republicans, young people, blacks, middle and upper class voters, etc.)  And we need Clinton's people and their demographics (women, Latinos, working class people, etc.)

  •  So, apparently having a coalition of... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Black folks from all walks of life and economic backgrounds, white men, college educated latte sipping liberals, and Under-30 folks from all walks of life and economic backgrounds nets a lot of states and a nice chunk of the popular vote nation wide.

    Too bad, he' such a niche candidate.

    BTW, I think my state of Georgia should count because he got a large percentage of the white vote in a primary race. Though is is in the south, which is a mark against it.

    Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Go do some politics. - Barack Obama

    by 28th Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:34:20 AM PST

  •  Wouldn't it be nice if.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    all States mattered?

  •  Glad to have my vote in ME count yesterday. (0+ / 0-)

    No matter what Clinton says.

    We're proof she's wrong, 'cause she was SUPPOSED to win here.

    I think voters are tired of being told what they're supposed to do.

    It felt really good to count yesterday.

    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

    by zic on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:36:04 AM PST

  •  I think that when the post mortem (0+ / 0-)

    is written of this, perhaps the most exciting Democratic nominating process ever, the Clintons will not look very good.

    As a friend said, "I think their strategy is basically to hope that no one is paying attention."

    I can't believe that they have been spinning record caucus turnout and energy as negative and undemocratic, since it didn't help their cause.  And if i had a dime for every time someone quotes the state convention delegate numbers as caucus participants on blogs I could give way more to the Donor Bomb.

  •  it seems that every day... (0+ / 0-)

    ...hillary's campaign seems to find a new way to insult voters who don't live in new york or california.

  •  Caucuses are fair (0+ / 0-)

    in the sense that all candidates have the same chance to organize and motivate supporters to attend them. On the other hand if you're looking for a fully democratic process, they fall short, mostly areas around access which we all know about.

    If Jimmy Carter were called in, I wonder what he would say about an election in a country that was determined by caucuses.

    Re-elect Bush. Vote for McCain.

    by Red Bean on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:37:48 AM PST

  •  To clarify from one of the guilty... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wclathe, Shaniriver

    I have started my comments with all primaries matter...and Barack Obama out organized Hillary in most (if not all) of the caucus states and he deserves kudos for that and Hillary's campaign team should be fired for not realizing the importance of that (oh wait she did that already).

    The only point I have made about MO is that it was won by only winning basically 3 counties that contain St Louis, Kansas City and Columbia (college town) and that Hillary's support was much broader and included all of the subarbs, exhurbs and rural counties...Barack and/or Hillary will not win MO in the GE without at least winning the there is a cautionary note in Barack's win there.

    In terms of small Red states, great that he won so convincingly, lets see some evidence that it can translate into an electoral victory in November...

    Both NY and IL are respective home states and will be won by either as nominee so yes they BOTH do not matter...

    WA, CT and MN do matter and I believe that Barack has an edge in the GE in these states (although except for CT, I would expect them all to be blue in the GE)

    In general, as I have been guilty of, I believe that both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of supporting voting blocs and demographics...that is why they need each other...

    Remember, at least I said it...Barack Obama is running a great campaign, rhetorically and strategically, nothing about this analysis should take that away from him...Congratulations to Barack Obama for a job well done...regardless of the final outcome.

    Peace...Go Democrats!!!

    Clinton - Obama '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:38:06 AM PST

    •  Nitpick (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The city of St. Louis and St. Louis County are two different places (although next to each other) and I think Obama won both /nitpick

      Sometimes I just can't help myself (born in St. Louis County, but lived on Florida the last 38 years)

    •  Suburbs (0+ / 0-)

      St. Louis County put Obama over the top. That is suburbs! All of it! Also Obama was very close in St. Charles County which has many fewer black people.
      (This poster did not argue that Obama was able to get much greater black turnout in St. Louis County than usual, so it doesn't count :) )  

      -4.00, -5.33 If you are what you say you are, a superstar, then have no fear

      by 4jkb4ia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:14:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Heh. (0+ / 0-)

    DE and CT don't count either, because of their messed-up borders -- DE has the 12-mile circle, and CT, of course, has the Southwick Jog.

  •  Ben smith at poltico (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    has had enough of this spin too.

    Also, to the extent Hillary is beating him with less affluent whites, it may not matter: African-Americans plus "wine-track" whites is a pretty good coalition in the Democratic primary; he doesn't have to win other groups, just to do well enough.

    It's going to be ugly but we are going to win.

    Keep you eye on the ball PLEDGED DELEGATES Obama wins those he is the nominee.

    by nevadadem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:38:32 AM PST

  •  I love these (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delaware Dem

    Diary posts and front-paged pieces that claim that the Clinton campaign is having to spin itself into more complex and elaborate knots in order to explain its loses.  There are two explanations that are NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT to explain her defeats:

    1. she was outspent in caucus states
    1. she simply can't compete with a 90/10 African-American split.

    Missouri was a TIE (not an Obama victory).  Alabama was a CLINTON VICTORY.  This is a delegate race remember and she came away with more.  

    We don't need to front anymore theories other than the above two.  Done deal.

    The only outlier is CT.  I'll give ya that.

    •  ((sigh)) (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peacemom, mtjohnson, Tulle, fangthang

      You have one thing right in your comment.  Just one.  MO was a delegate tie.  AL was not - Obama won the delegates.  You also omit a few relevant facts, ones you should have included given your argument.  The first is that OBAMA WON NEVADA.  The second is that OBAMA TIED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

      Source.  Delegate counts for primary and caucuses states through 2/9/2008 (no estimates yet for Maine).

      AL: 25 - Obama; 23 - Clinton
      AS: 9 - Obama; 4 - Clinton
      AZ: 31- - Clinton; 25 - Obama
      AK: 25 - Clinton; 8 - Obama
      CA: 207 - Clinton; 163 - Obama
      CO: 19 - Obama; 9 - Clinton
      CT: 26 - Obama; 22 - Clinton
      DE: 9 - Obama; 6 - Clinton
      GA: 50 - Obama; 24 - Clinton
      ID: 15 - Obama; 3 - Clinton
      IL: 99 - Obama; 48 - Clinton
      IA: 16 - Obama; 15 - Clinton
      KS: 23 - Obama; 9 - Clinton
      LA: 28 - Obama; 20 - Clinton
      MA: 55 - Clinton; 38 - Obama
      MN: 48 - Obama; 24 - Clinton
      MO: 36 - Obama; 36 - Clinton
      NE: 16 - Obama; 8 - Clinton
      NV: 13 - Obama; 12 - Clinton
      NH: 9 - Obama; 9 - Clinton
      NJ: 59 - Clinton; 48 - Obama
      NM: 13 - Clinton; 12 - Obama
      NY: 138 - Clinton; 93 - Obama
      ND: 8 - Obama; 5 - Clinton
      OK: 24 - Clinton; 14 - Obama
      SC: 25 - Obama; 12 - Clinton
      TN: 33 - Clinton; 29 - Obama
      UT: 14 - Obama; 9 - Clinton
      WA: 25 - Obama; 12 - Clinton

      At least apply some rigor when you make such a claim so that it can't be so easily refuted.

  •  How hard would it have been (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    To find Jeff Lieber's diary and build off that?  

  •  The 10-State Strategy: (6+ / 0-)

    Brought to you by the Clinton campaign.

  •  The diary yesterday... (0+ / 0-)

    That discussed this was borderline surreal. I made a comment that if you read it backwards - you can see Hillary's strategy of devision and destruction.  Not a good long term strategy and not a good strategy when your opponents central message is 'unity'.  The Clinton went Sista Souljah on the black community in order to deliver a knock out blow in SC.  That has back-fired.  Now, they are left with Napoleon's march outta Russia.

    kakistocracy - Elections have consequences, but capitulation has its price.

    by RichM on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:39:57 AM PST

  •  Credit where credit is due (7+ / 0-)

    Obama was dealt the same hand as Hillary in terms of the election schedule and rules. Each of them laid out a strategy for the election they would have to contend in Primaries, Caucasus's and all. Obama picked an effective strategy, Hilary not so much. She has been out thought and out organized by the 'inexperienced' novice and as a result a candidate who should not have had a chance against her is threatening to take the nomination that she has been planning and preparing for years to win.

    Same deal with the press. Obama did not start out with any advantage in the press. He was not Black enough, Hillary was inevitable, he was not aggressive enough but again he has come from behind and seized control of the media narrative.

    Now we have supporters of Clinton saying the process isn't fair because they did not get the results they expected. They want to change the rules to fit the failed strategy Hilary chose.

    If you want to win go out and get people to vote for you.

  •  Obama's going to have 6 weeks in PA (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theran, Zagatzz, bluegrass50

    Theres almost 6 weeks of nothingness before PA's primary. I think writing that off as a good thing for hillary is wrong. Obama has shown that where he spends time he does well as people listen to him.

    Also, being from PA, I can tell you that a lot of Philadelphians hate ed rendell, our governor who came out for clinton. That can definitely work against her down there where most of our democrats are. They really hate him there.

    •  Rendell (0+ / 0-)

      I can't say that I agree. Rendell did extremely well not only in the city but in Bucks, Chester, and Montgomery Counties.

      "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

      by InsultComicDog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:53:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not what ive been told (0+ / 0-)

        Really? Im not from philly but what i understand is that he cut a lot of the citys services such as fire and police dept budgets. I know for a fact that he slashed the dept of transportations budget last year then blamed the dept of transportation for the inadequate snow removal last spring. Our local news station here ran that story over and over for 2 weeks showing exactly how many plows we had the year before and then the following year how it was decreased by almost half to cut costs.

        •  If Rendell had to run (0+ / 0-)

          for re-election as governor today, he would have no trouble carrying Philadelphia and surrounding counties, by a huge margin.

          I won't go as far as to say he's "Teflon" but he is still a very well-liked guy and one of the best old-fashioned campaigners there is.

          "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

          by InsultComicDog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  didn't Rendell win two terms as Philly mayor (0+ / 0-)

      prior to being elected governor?  I'm from Philly myself and I know that while there is often a love-hate relationship with the mayor of the city, I don't think it's as cut and dry as you seem to suggest.

  •  Obama built his own machine. (7+ / 0-)

    Hillary relied upon the existing Democratic machines in various states.

    Thus, Obama wins in states where there is a weak Democratic party structure or machine, and Hillary either wins or is competitive in those states.

    This is why I think Hillary may wind up having some problems in Texas and possibly Ohio. The Dem machine in Texas is pretty moribund. And in Ohio, until very recently, it was getting its brains beat in regularly.

    Pennsylania is more of a Hillary state, but the race may be decided before that point. I don't see Ed Rendell being the guy who prolongs the race after Obama takes Texas and splits delegates in Ohio. I thknk he frees up his machine to be free agents.

    •  very interesting statement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      And I think you're right, the more I think about it; Obama is performing best where there was not a strong existing Democratic machine to begin with.

      But how strong will the machine in PA come out for Hillary if Obama has momentum coming in?

      "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

      by InsultComicDog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What an excellent comment. (0+ / 0-)

      None of that had occurred to me, yet it makes completely clear sense.

      Being an advocate for Obama, I do want one of those two large states to break for him.  You just gave me a glimmer of hope that that's more possible for more reasons than I might have otherwise considered.

  •  Is this Kos campaigning for Obama again? (0+ / 0-)

    Or just simply making fun of Hillary?

    I couldn't tell which?

    The more people on this site berate, belittle or worse, use profanity against Senator Clinton, the worse we will be as a party.

    Senators Obama and Clinton have roughly the same number f votes, the same number of delegates, and......

    Neither will be able to win the nomination without Superdelegates

    How about we begin to unite the party behind a joint ticket?

    But, on this site (which has become an official arm of the Obama campaign), Hillary is now the female equivalent of Darth Vader!

    too bad.  I happen to like them both.

    •  kos is calling it like it is (0+ / 0-)

      as usual.

    •  then you tell Bill to shut up !! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Dont blame Kos for pointing out the truth ,, maybe the Clinton campaign should rethink their divide and conquer strategy ..everytime they diminish the voters of this country ,the more support they lose . I heard Hillary refering to getting votes as "Harvesting " votes .

      •  Wow, maybe we're living in the Matrix ;) (0+ / 0-)

        I just want unity.

        I think both camps have been beating each other over the head.

        Senator Obama has talked extensively about not going negative.  I truly admire him for that.

        I wish most of his ardent supporters on this site (including Kos) would follow his example.

        The last thing we want is his supporters turning off Hillary's so they sit out the election.

        I don't buy the line: I can get her voters, she can't get mine.

        Either should be able to achieve that, if we remain civil to each other.

        •  Civility will (0+ / 0-)

          help generally speaking but I look at that argument as fundamentally true.

          You have to first disregard the idea that Kossacks are "average" voters - in that I mean that we are VERY politically engaged here regardless of whom we support.  In this we aren't exactly typical.

          Second, you have to consider the likely GE competitor, John McCain.  A lot of Obama's argument, the way I read it, is that Hillary Clinton can't compete effectively for independent voters against John McCain.  Obama also appears to almost sympathize with Hillary Clinton as he drives that point home.  When you start out with such high negatives outside of the Democratic party, it's difficult to attract independents.  Although this isn't empirically provable prior to the GE, I find it fundamentally compelling as arguments go.

          Finally, there's evidence that Obama does attract voters who have never before engaged in the process, particularly young voters.  It's difficult for me to link you to one area that talks about the breakdown of young voters and how they voted (Obama v. Clinton), but here's an article about this in SC and one about it in IA.  The conventional wisdom is that these types of voters don't have the same propensity to back the not-Obama candidate - in other words, if it's not Obama, they simply stay home.

          This is, of course, anecdotal.  I can't "prove" that what I assert is true or refute that what you assert is true.  I simply wanted to provide my impression of the thinking behind that particular statement and why I personally tend to find it believable.

        •  Voters vote for who they want ,, dont spin this ! (0+ / 0-)

          Id be glad to support a canidate who respects all the voters in the party ,, not just the ones who vote for them . People all over the country are starting to see what the Clintons motive is ,, win , at any cost .Why didnt Hillary thank those who stood in the cold for her , or the ones who took time off from work , she didnt even dignify them with a thank you ..

    •  huh... (0+ / 0-)

      ...i assume you've been on mydd and taylor marsh and various other obama-bashing websites preaching your message of STFU unity?

      (-2.75, -4.92) | Barack Obama: Best chance in a long time

      by Addison on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:55:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Subtle Coopting of Obama by Clinton (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Has anyone noticed her use of phrases like this:

    "I can't do this alone, I need all of your help."

    I see this as a subtle attempt to coopt Obama's message of bottom up change.  Problem is she's flubbing it.  It is still all about her in her phrasing.

  •  What we really need to know about Obama... (0+ / 0-)

    My comment comes more of a question to all the Obama Supporters on DKos...

    When will we learn about Obama's past? This isn't a trick question. But it has been tricky to get an answer. The fact is the only thing we know about Senator Obama are the good things his campaign and his family has been willing to show us as an example of his abilities.

    What I want to know then is "when will we know" what he really is?

    Like a candy bar that claims to have the greatest taste, but has enough sugar and fat in it that you will be paying for that "taste" for many weeks to come on that treadmill you bought last year. We need to know what Sen. Obama is all about.

    Does he have an ex-wife that no one ever talks about?
    Does he have stock in a company in China that puts the lead in our Mattel toys?
    Did he really only try weed and cocaine when he was young? Or did he experiment in other drugs?
    Is he a closet homophobe?
    Does he have a mistress on his payroll? And will he be divorcing his wife in the next year then marry that mistress?

    I know this sounds insulting and it should. But these are the nasty little things that we need to know in our tiny repulsive world today if we are to really get to know our "democratic product" we are trying to sell to the country.

    When you watch an advertisement on television, do you actually believe them when they say "it gets out tough stains on contact" or "take this pill and you are guaranteed to lose 15 pounds in five days or your money back". The reality is that if we do then we are buying into a lie. I am not saying Obama couldn't be the real deal his campaign claims he is. But wouldn't it be nice to at least see all the faults he might have first before drinking the koolaid?

    Just saying,

    "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

    by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:43:28 AM PST

    •  Try reading his books, Wynter. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      floundericiousMI, mjkelly, fangthang

      I suppose I basically buy the idea that it's better if damaging secrets surface as early in the process as possible, but that knife cuts both ways.

      When we learn if Hillary Clinton had an affair after finding out about her husband's affair?  When will it be disclosed how many boyfriends she had prior to marrying Bill and with how many of those boyfriends did she engage in sexual intercourse?  When will we know the level, duration, and extent, if any, of drugs that Hillary Clinton tried as a younger person?  When will we know what kinds of prescription drugs she is taking today and for what?

      Or perhaps less fanciful - when will she release her records from her time as First Lady?  And why won't she and Bill Clinton share their tax returns with the public during this race?  Is there some logic behind keeping it private as long as legally possible?  What does this tell us?

      Likely nothing.  In much the same way as your comment leads to likely nothing.

      •  You miss the point entirely... (0+ / 0-)

        It's nice that you fully support your candidate...

        BUT, the fact is we know very little about the Obama that everyone raves on and on about. Of course I read books. The problem is the guy is too perfect to believe. Give me the "second coming" of Christ and I might have a better chance of believing that he doesn't have some hidden skeleton in his closet that will leave us all wondering "Where the hell did that come from?" and "Why the hell didn't anyone find this out earlier?!!"

        You cutesy lampooning on Clinton is trite and less funny than your blindness is when it comes to what I am pointing out.

        We really don't know this man of hope. And the media doesn't seem to care to look any deeper than his campaign brochures and his speeches to figure out anything more about him.

        I am not saying the guy is a mass murdererer with deep seated hatred of his mother. He may simply not be the poster child perfect candidate you think he is when all is said and done.

        The problem is that we need to find this out before the general election before the republican thugs do.

        Simply saying,

        "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

        by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And my point back to YOU (0+ / 0-)

          (and I really didn't miss your point - I just didn't think it was a valid point) was that he is only a man of mystery to you because you have not gone out to find out the information.  Both have information out there about themselves, and it's accessible.  So to ask the question in the first place, to me, seems as though you'd rather kind of kvetch as opposed to locate some comfort level with respect to your questions on your own.

          I mean no disrespect to you specifically - it's just that this particular complaint ("Who IS he?" "He hasn't been vetted!") is repeatedly made and falls on deaf ears even when answered.  It seems it is the go-to argument against Obama and frankly (and this is not directed specifically at you - I will assume your questions were genuine rather than rhetorical) it's easily addressed with a simple investment of time and a dose of intellectual curiosity.

          Just sayin'.

          •  Just call me a cynic then... (0+ / 0-)

            I always try to find the catch in anything labeled "free" or "guaranteed". As they typically, if not always, come at a price somewhere down the line. And politics is the "Big Sale" where you have to buy your choice of large appliances that will last your four years (and no you don't get your money back if it fails to meet your expectations.)

            This is a critical moment when we have to do more than kick the tires and take him for a test drive. And I am not talking "vetted" as in endorsed by the DNC like its some sort of Public Testing Service. I am saying that I want to take him out onto the highway of life, through the potholes, ditches, and traffic jams and see how he runs. I want to take him off-road and see if he gets stuck in a bog or washes up without a hitch. Speaking of hitches, I want to see how much he can haul and pack his trunk to the ceiling and take him on a weeklong camping trip to see if he will get me there and back in comfort.

            The problem is we can do that to a car at a dealership (well mostly!). But we can't test drive a candidate. And I for one feel that the next four years are critical to having a dependable, tested, well-worn version under me than a nice, shiny, new model that has leather interior and cool chrome alloy wheels.

            Cynically saying,

            "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

            by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:13:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really think... (0+ / 0-)

      that there is some major dirt in his past that clinton hasn't found? You have to be kidding me. Mark Penn would have worked that dirt into their campaign one way or another by now.

      The best thing clinton found was how he said in Kindergarten about how he wanted to be president then called obama a liar because the previous week he said he never planned to be president. Give me a break.

      I mean even yesterday the NYT ran a story indirectly calling obama a liar for overstating his drug use because they looked into his past and his acquaintances said he was "deeply motivated" and "a great listener". I mean the best dirt hillarys lapdog could come up with was obama didn't really use those drugs. Give me a break.

      The fact of the matter is that obama has been a champion of social rights since the day he left harvard. I mean he could have come out of the law school making tens of millions dollars a year and instead he decides to organize voters on chicagos southside and fight for steel workers who lost their jobs.

      If you enjoy reading, i HIGHLY recommend his book "The Audacity of Hope". It's a really good read and the fact that he wrote the book himself means something. I mean most politicians get someone else to write it for them and put their name on it, but not obama. It's a good read and it really give you a good insight into how he really feels about some issues. After he gives his side of an issue he goes into how he can understand others disagree. Trust me its a good read.

    •  You left out a few things, didn't you? (0+ / 0-)

      You left out "could be a muslim", and "can you prove that he DIDN'T sneak in the country illegally"?

      Seems to me the Clinton smear machine has done its worst. If they haven't found anything, the McCainiacs won't either, 'cause it's not there.

      Won't stop them from just making shit up, of course, but they'd do that about Clinton, too. In fact they already have. Over and over again.

      "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

      by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I just cynical of anyone that perfect. (0+ / 0-)

        Just saying that "it" (eg. the proverbial nail in the coffin) could be anything. I would rather have it known up front before the elections than afterwards.

        I hate smear tactics as much as the next person. Especially, those that the GOP makes up and pretends it to be true (eg. the muslim/koran crap). But I know at some point, in either the election or afterwards, that the shit will hit the fan and leave us wondering how we could have missed it all this time.

        I see so many people that have drunk the "koolaid", so to speak, that don't have a clue other than they like the guy as to why they will vote for him. This blind allure to a candidate ain't always a great thing.

        And I don't think enough investigation has been done into the facts surrounding Obama's past or his positions to claim he is the "real deal". With Clinton at least I know all that is there. And I still find her campaign worth backing. The only reason I don't want to switch is that I don't beleive he is as genuine as his campaign boasts.

        I've heard the speeches, read the background information on him and still am left looking for that last chapter in his life where he fucked up somewhere. We all have those chapters in our lives that we would rather forget and move on. Where is his is all I am asking.

        Simply saying,

        "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

        by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:58:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's a good thing you're looking out for us! (0+ / 0-)

      This sort of oh-so-innocent, I'm-just-curious, just-askin'-a-question-over-here is repulsive.  

  •  AMEN. How the spin continues... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    none of Obama's wins are valid.  Because Clinton, says so.  All her wins are vaild, because Clinton says so.  All the rest of the contests this month are ignored, because Clinton will do so.  All that matters is March 4th, because Clinton says so.

    Screw em....

  •  And yet Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In spite of all these drubbings, she still leads Obama by several points in the daily national tracking polls and in almost every other national poll that has been done. I think those of you who think that Obama is the clear leader have to be able to explain that as well.

    I'll give you that Obama is second to none in generating enthusiasm, but cut some slack for those of us who were the enthusiastic young turks for McGovern, when we're a little less excited about Obama's prospects than you are.

    "The more they spoke of honor, the more I checked my wallet."

    by bankbane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:45:37 AM PST

    •  Polls mean nothing anymore (0+ / 0-)

      And, why?  My theory is the polling companies are missing some elements in the Obama dynamic.  A lot of polls only call land lines.  People under the age of 35 don't have land lines anymore.  Hell I know people my age (47) who don't own land lines.  Most polls also only calling "Likely Dem Voters", Obama is winning Independents 2-1 in some states.  The national polls aren't picking up the new dynamics.

      "Hope is that thing inside us that insists...that something better awaits us if we have the courage to fight for it." --Barack Obama

      by loree920 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:50:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        These polls are very heavily skewed to people who stay at home and have phone lines.  I have not had a home phone line for several years and don't respond to automated phone messages (usually hang up in the first few seconds).  I bet there are many like that.

      •  Land lines - I wish this were the case (0+ / 0-)

        In the '04 election, when poles were showing Bush slightly ahead of Kerry, I was sure that Kerry would pull it out because neither myself or anyone I know under 35 has a land line.  I was wrong then.  

        I think this effect is negated somehow, and here is my theory:  For every young person who doesn't have a land line and therefore doesn't get polled, there is a senior who is hard of hearing and doesn't get polled either.  

        It turns out that Bush IS a uniter... he united the intelligent half of the country virulently against him.

        by fizziks on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:05:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Eh? (0+ / 0-)

          Speak up when you talk! LOL Not a senior, just thought the "hard of hearing" line was funny.

          And, I always want to know the makeup of who answers the questions. If more males answer, wouldn't that raise Obama's numbers. Women, Clinton's? All those pesky, little demographics that few polls post in their results to show if they're getting a wide range of opinion.

      •  And they especially seem to miss those voters (0+ / 0-)

        in caucus states? On the Clinton side people will claim that the polls also are missing all the extra unmarried women that she brings out. And the overall popular vote in the primaries so far is still about even. In almost all the big states on Super Tuesday Clinton exceeded the final poll predictons as well.

        Gallup naitonal tracking poll started adding cell phones on January 1 and they currently have Clinton ahead 48-43. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of polls and that Obama isn't pulling in a lot of new people; if he sustains this through Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania I might become a believer yet. Right now I still think he's a fad that will fade once a real media counter reaction sets in.

        "The more they spoke of honor, the more I checked my wallet."

        by bankbane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Only Half the Country Left (0+ / 0-)

      National polling means nothing ,, If they polled only those states left , then you can say it means something ..

  •  VT--guess HRC won't blame our large black pop... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So we pale-faced smarty pants must get ready to take the fall. I'll go dust off my diplomas--they've got to be buried in a box somewhere. So HRC knows where to aim her wrath.

    And I'll also make sure my snowboots are in good shape. Because if I have to trudge the two and a half miles to Town Hall to vote, walking through three feet of snow, then that's what I'll do.

    Nobody bothers to poll us here, so I'll just venture a wild guess: 70/30, BO over HRC.

    Sweet are the uses of adversity...[Find] tongues in trees, books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones, and good in everything. -Shakespeare, As You Like It

    by earicicle on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM PST

  •  Wisconsin? Forget it McCain (0+ / 0-)

    Wisconsin has not elected a Republican President since 1984.

    Blue Cheeseheads.

  •  Please give me a single comment (0+ / 0-)

    By a Clinton spokesman or surrogate saying that states with a large black population don't count.

    I'll be shocked if you come up with one.

    •  jesse jackson won south carolina. (6+ / 0-)

      (-2.75, -4.92) | Barack Obama: Best chance in a long time

      by Addison on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't he? (0+ / 0-)

        I asked for an example of a statement that states with a large black population don't count.

        I don't think this cuts it.

        I am for Obama.  I am going to vote for him next Tuesday.  But it really annoys me to see everyone jumping on Clinton.  There is irrational Clinton hatred.  No matter what she does, it is interpreted in the worst possible way.

        She could still end up being our nominee, and she'd be a far better choice than McCain.  Let's not damage her before the election.

        Kos made an inflammatory and unfounded charge, or at least an implication, that Clinton or her representatives said winning a state with a large black population doesn't count.  She never said or suggested any such thing.  Let's stick to the facts.

        Frankly, this sounds more like something I'd hear from Sean Hannity than a Democratic blog.

  •  So if I read this correctly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What you are really trying to say is Barack is up 2-0!!!!

    I kid, I kid.

  •  Well, it depends on your view of the constitution (0+ / 0-)

    Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana don't matter because they have black people. Expect the same spin out of DC this Tuesday. Black people don't apparently count.

    I guess that's what a 'strict constructionist' would argue, since the original Constitution says they don't count as full people for population and aren't guaranteed the right to actually VOTE at all...

    It is amazing how much can be accomplished when you don't care who gets the credit - Harry Truman
    PoliticalCompass Scale: -2.13, -2.97

    by floundericiousMI on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:55:14 AM PST

  •  Hillary win Vermont???? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peacemom, earicicle

    Wash your mouth out with Lava, dude.

    Vermonters, unite, and let's kick some Clinton BUTT!!!!

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! - President Merkin Muffley

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:56:08 AM PST

  •  Obama only wins among Obama supporters... (0+ / 0-)

    who do not count.  Only Clinton supporters count.  And he has only won approximately 0.1% of them because they filled out their ballot incorrectly.  So with 99.9% support, Clinton deserves the nomination.

    "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

    by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM PST

  •  Dems usualy get about 80% of the black vote.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    anyway..the dirty secret the clintons don't want to talk about that if the dem nominee doesn't get 80% in the general, then he/she doesn't have a chance anyway!

  •  Hillary's States Don't Count (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Arkansas and New York don't count, because they're her home states.

    New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and New Hampshire don't count because they are solid blue states that any Democrat will win anyway.

    Oklahoma doesn't count because no Democrat will carry it anyway.

    Arizona doesn't count because it is John McCain's home state and therefore not expected to be competitive.

    Nevada doesn't count because it is a caucus state, and Clinton already said caucus states don't count.

    That leaves Tennessee as the only Clinton state that counts. And she only won that one by running an underhanded "call me" ad.

    "...And I woulda got away with it, if it hadn't been for that meddling Kos!" ---attributed to Tom DeLay

    by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:01:54 AM PST

  •  This diary is uncalled for... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Go ahead, dismiss all of Hillary's supporters.  Basically, what you're saying is that the big states don't matter because Obama would carry them anyways!  I don't really see how this argument is any better than Hillary's!

    So, please tell me Kos...If and when Hillary wins Ohio, Texas & Pennsylvania and Hillary's delegate count ends up being slightly more than Obama's, where will you stand?  Where will Obama's supporters stand if Hillary has a slight lead in the delegates?

    I want to know, because apparently, those of us in the big states don't matter to Obama, he'd get us anyways...

  •  Markos humor! Not bad. nt (0+ / 0-)


  •  new hampshire has a media market (0+ / 0-)

    driven by massachusetts

    or tha'ts how i remember it.

    Vermont lives off the new york upstate markets  

    but The mass-NH market connection was why Kerry and Dukakis
    did well up there

    George Bush i sLiving proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM PST

  •  could someone please tell me (0+ / 0-)

    Exactly what Obama will have to win to get the magic number of delegates?  I have this fear of the popular vote going to mean shit due to super delegates picking clinton... for some reason our party for the last 50 years has just been stupid...just plain stupid.

    To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. -Sun Tzu

    by wargolem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:04:55 AM PST

  •  That's not accurate Kos (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DigDug, Hedwig, jwalker13

    What we Hillary supporters point out is that Obama's wins, though impressive, do not make a clear and convincing case for him as a general election candidate.

    Here are a few things that the small number of Clinton supporters on this site have pointed out:

    - Caucuses are not the same as primaries and do not reflect what will happen in the general election.  Obama's support among anti-war liberal activists, the educated and the affluent favor him and disfavor Hillary's base of support, the working class, in this particular format.

    - Contrary to popular perception, Obama isn't bringing in independents and Republicans.  He is winning demographics and counties that vote Democrat in every general election, no matter who the candidate is.  Hillary is winning the key swing voter groups, working class white americans and hispanics.  His victory in MO is a perfect example.  He won 4 counties that Dems always win.  He lost virtually everything inbewteen STL and KC.  That's not a good sign for the general election.

    - Contrary to popular perception, Obama isn't bringing in any more new or unlikely voters than Hillary.  Hillary beat him soundly in primary states on Feb. 5 and was the big beneficiary of large turnout.

    - It is also true that Hillary is winning key purple states where Democrats are competitive and Barack is not.  We have no chance in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina.  We have a great shot in Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, especially with Hillary who wins the swing demographics.

    That's all we're saying.    

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM PST

    •  You should publish this thesis (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in an academic journal after Obama wins the nomination next month.

      "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

      by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:16:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Intelligent points. (0+ / 0-)

      But this is Daily Kos, so unless they're for Obama then they're not interested.

      I happen to agree with you, but it won't be heard like more pro-Obama voices.

      "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

      by jwalker13 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:38:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm... (0+ / 0-)

      ...a Clinton supporter and agree with you except on the "new voter" idea. I think he has brought more people into the process and that is all to the good no matter who wins the nomination. Not just for the party but for the country.

      Now, whether he can keep them into Nov, if he wins the nomination, or what will be gained and lost over a convention fight...remains to be seen.

      I don't like the idea that people dismiss the Clinton wins. I keep asking if anyone has a breakdown of the head-to-head National polls by state to see how either candidate would do in the General Election (Electoral College) against McCain. I haven't seen anything on this yet. Just the "Obama does better against McCain than Clinton". This from a group that was, as of a month ago, trying to persuade me that the GOP was dead this year.

      You should use that info and write and diary with graphs/tables showing your numbers. And, what they would mean in the fall.

  •  Who cares what rationales losers give? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    •  THANK YOU!!! (0+ / 0-)

      Nothing succeeds like success.  And whining about losing and the reasons why do nothing to change the outcome.  So please keep wrining your hands while we keep building the delegates.

      "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

      by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:17:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama extends lead in VA (0+ / 0-)

    Hard to believe the gap is this wide, but we've seen just how accurate Survey USA is this cycle.  If he does win by this large a margin and keeps winning by such margins, it's hard to imagine how HRC stays in this much longer.  

  •  FWIW Recent Intrade Stats (0+ / 0-)

    Texas - 58% Obama
    Ohio - 55% Obama

    "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

    by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:11:10 AM PST

  •  kos (0+ / 0-)

    You continue to bust a nut with each successive Obama victory. But the fact of the matter is that caucuses are not as pure a form of democracy as primaries. I for one am loath to believe that a primary victory in Washington state would have netted Obama 70 percent of the vote. Caucuses are feeding frenzies, which naturally lend themselves to the Obama phenomenon. The fact that Clinton carried the largest state republic, California, with a clear majority of the vote and by a ten point margin, suggests that she alone has the winning coalition in her camp.

    California has consistently voted Democratic in presidential general elections since who ran for president--oh, yeah, Bill, her husband. Party registration is an all-time low for both parties in California which means that independents determine who gets California's electoral votes. The only independents Obama has proven himself capable of attracting are people who don't usually vote. The true independents, who comprise 40% of the California electorate, may very well side with McCain in a match up with Obama.

    I don't make geographical arguments when comparing Clinton and Obama; I make demographic arguments. Succinctly, Clinton has won Democratic states with clear majorities of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters. Obama won the Deep South and other states where blacks make up a majority of the Democratic electorate. Clinton also won the Upper South rural areas like outstate Missouri, Arkansas and Tennessee. Obama won the Interior West and Great Plains in caucuses where the Democratic electorate is so meager that voting for Obama is their opportunity to make a statement about the direction in which Washington should go: away from Bush.

    The true test between Obama and Clinton will be Virginia, with its collection of Southern, white rural voters who should favor Clinton, government workers who should favor Clinton a little more than Obama, high-tech, educated workers who favor Obama and black voters who favor Obama. Looking at the winning numbers here should give us some indication about where this race is going. And, it's a primary, which is fairer in my estimation than a caucus.

  •  Not just sour grapes... (0+ / 0-)

    ...I can prove I held this opinion long before John Edwards dropped just prior to the CA Primaries... so here goes.

    Iowa, New Hampshire...on and on, ARE irrelevant. But for a bigger reason than that stated in this diary.

    They are irrelevant because that don't contribute to the GDP in amounts anywhere near to that of California. California is a world class economy and a HUGE chunk of the US economy.

    California should be the First Primary state, followed by New York. We would be seeing the best candidates winning the nominations if it were so.

    If class war is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning... - Warren Buffett

    by dj angst on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:18:03 AM PST

    •  So voters in California matter more than voters (0+ / 0-)

      Iowa and other small states because California is bigger and has a bigger economy? And I thought this was a democracy where every vote counts. But I guess I was wrong because people in California are better at picking a nominee than anyone else. Maybe only Ca should vote in the GE too.

      You know, I rather like this God fellow. He's very theatrical. A little pestilence here, a plague there... to get me some of that.

      by ryan81 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:38:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So voters in Iowa matter more than voters in CA? (0+ / 0-)

        Or is it the first because of "dibs"?

        Explain your POV, please?

        If class war is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning... - Warren Buffett

        by dj angst on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No I think the system needs to be fixed (0+ / 0-)

          But what you said is that California matters more because they have a large economy and they pick the best candidates. Letting California pick the candidate is just as bad as letting Iowa pick it. Thats all I am saying. No ones vote (except mine of course) matters more than anyone else's.

          You know, I rather like this God fellow. He's very theatrical. A little pestilence here, a plague there... to get me some of that.

          by ryan81 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:24:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess, then, that I'm asking you... (0+ / 0-)

            Upon what criterion does whomever get to go first?

            If class war is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning... - Warren Buffett

            by dj angst on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:29:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I honestly don't know (0+ / 0-)

              theres obviously a problem with letting one small state go first every time (most of that has to do with the Media IMO). But there is a problem with letting everyone vote on the same day as well. If you did that candidates that do not have a big name or a lot of money to begin with, would not have a chance. Also little states (mostly in the midwest) would get almost no attention at all from the candidates.

              Letting a big state like California go first has all the same problems as letting Iowa go first plus again it would be about who has the most money and name recognition.

              Maybe there should be a rolling "first vote" where every 4 years a different state gets to go first.

              I don't know.

              You know, I rather like this God fellow. He's very theatrical. A little pestilence here, a plague there... to get me some of that.

              by ryan81 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:39:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Iowa has one big problem. (0+ / 0-)

                California at least has a diversity of problems, which will give the candidates a chance to display their chops on a myriad of issues,

                In Iowa, every candidate has to chant the mantras of Agribusiness Subsidy and sing the praises of Ethanol when the facts are that those are failed economic & energy policies that are bad for real farmers, not-sustainable farming practices, bad for US Energy reform and bad for the environment.

                I feel like the country is being held hostage to a very sad and very isolated special interest.

                If class war is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning... - Warren Buffett

                by dj angst on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting arguments... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kilgore2345, Melchuck29

        Being from Kaalifornia, I reject the idea that we should vote first because we are the largest economy. In a democracy, it is often the minority voices that perform the most important check and balance on the progress of the nation. I came from India, where the process of democracy is extremely noisy because of a highly fractured electorate and multi-party system. And historically, when India gained independence, there was a huge angst amongst the cognoscenti that India would fall apart because of two reasons - 1) the fissiparious tendencies of the different states (then called presidencies), and 2) the vast majority of the populace being illiterate.

        In two of the most critical elections, the illiterate polity, primarily in the villages, showed how much collective wisdom can suppress some of the base tendencies of the more learned sections. In the late 70s, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi promulgated an emergency, jailing many opposition leaders, and running the country with an iron hand, many in the cities breathed a sigh of relief. Trains were running on time for the first time, incidences of graft in daily life was reducing, and in general life was smoother, with occasional brushes against the law. But the villagers saw it differently. They were forcibly sterilized by Gandhi's younger son, who also was usurping power through the back door. So when Mrs. Gandhi, being in a bubble not unlike Bush's, called for elections, they voted en masse to turn her out of office.

        More recently, the right-of-center BJP was in power, and improving the country's infrastructure dramatically after years of socialistic command economy model had led to ruinous conditions. Their electoral slogan was India Shining. But they had somewhat neglected the rural hinterland, where the vast majorities lived. City folks were happy. The villagers threw the party out at the hustings. As a BJP supporter, I was shocked, but now have come to view this as the right decision, as a majority of Indians also have. The BJP party was building infrastructure, but they were also flaming the fires of religious intolerance. And that needed to be checked. Even though there is one western state (Gujarat) where they have held on to power (because of complex reasons), in general the party seems chastened about their religious bigotry. If and when they come back to power, I expect them to moderate their stance.

        I give these two examples to show that in a democracy, the minority vote is critically important to keep a check on the natural tendencies of the majority to usurp power. Whether they be the population and economic minorities of Iowa and New Hampshire, or some other.

        Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

        by Suvro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This reminds me of the Superbowl (0+ / 0-)

    that the Pittsburgh Steelers won a few years back. Detractors said that the Steelers didn't play as good a game as the Seahawks and the officials were generous in their decisions that tended to favor the Steelers.

    To which I responded, "The Seahawks failed to move the ball over the goal line."  Nuff said.

    I love Hillary C. and if she wins the nom (as my wife Hilary is hoping), then I will support her with all my heart and soul and strength ... but until that unlikely outcome comes to pass, Barrack is my man.

    The likes of FDR, JFK (forgive me, RWR) and BHO only come around once in a very great while.

    BTW, I am thrilled that my primary vote in PA might matter ;-)

    Kill them with kindness. If that fails, just kill them.

    by JesusQ on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:19:18 AM PST

  •  People who don't matter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    At our caucus yesterday I recognized several educated blacks. The trifecta. Could these people matter less vioa the Clinton spin?

  •  Posts like this and others... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    are why we need reform to make this process less of a mess.

    There should be no caucuses to devalue Obama's victory, but there should never be a doubt that a state's vote is its own so we don't see Obama's fans screaming about Clinton only winning in states she's lived in.

    Howard Dean needs to urge states to drop this archaic voting system of caucuses, the press needs to grow the hell up and cover the candidates instead of the candidate's problems, and our electorate needs to stop making these elections about who can "gotcha" who else.

    I'm just about fed up with this election, and it's because there's very few to no respectful voters anymore -- Kos included.

    "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

    by jwalker13 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:28:16 AM PST

  •  Has Hillary opened her Whine Cellar again? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  I might've missed this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Has dailykos endorsed Obama?

    by Robster Craw on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:35:44 AM PST

  •  Kansas is sort of a home state for Obama (0+ / 0-)

    His mother lived there.  Maybe that's what tipped the balance in Missouri?  This kind of reasoning is so tailor-made for TDS and CR.  

  •  the argument about minority voters (0+ / 0-)

    is ludicrous.  I posted a few comments earlier saying that such logic leads to:

    Clinton's win in any state where a majority of the primary voters are women "does not matter".  

    •  Except women count for 51% of America. (0+ / 0-)

      Men count for 49%. Women are not a minority.

      "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

      by jwalker13 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:41:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the "logic" I heard was (0+ / 0-)

        in a state like GA, there are more African American primary voters than in the general population, therefore we would "expect" Obama to win, so it does not really mean he won.

        That is patently absurd.  I could make the same argument in any state where women are 60%+ of Dem primary voters would be expected to be a win for Clinton and therefore does not really matter.  This builds on the point Kos is trying to make.

        •  The logic is sound by the data. (0+ / 0-)

          The problem is, from your example, not all white women vote for Clinton. Unlike the black population, whites are not backing a single candidate en mass.

          Blacks in every state so far have supported Obama 80% or so. Whites usually split between the two.

          So when you have an electorate where almost half the voters are black, and 80% support them, it's a logical conclusion that Obama should do well or win. Half the electorate is supporting him based upon trends.

          Kos' point is shit, and he knows it. He's trying to play tit-for-tat and ignore the data because he feels it makes Obama weaker. You shouldn't ignore polling information just because it doesn't favor your candidate.

          There's a reason Kos chooses to publish only number of states won (Obama's ahead here), but mocks delegate counts with super delegates that show Clinton ahead. He won't mock caucuses, in which the delegates aren't assigned until state conventions.

          Kos' only point here is that he'll gladly cherry pick his information because if he doesn't, the data sends conflicting information or information that doesn't make Obama look like a clear victor.

          "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

          by jwalker13 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:03:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  just because 80% of African Americans vote for (0+ / 0-)

            Obama does not discount his wins. That is the absurdity that Kos and many others are calling out.  It all started with Bill Clinton's comment that "well, Jesse Jackson won SC twice".  What was the point of that comment?

            Your argument above makes my point.  It is as absurd to "discount" wins based on a high proportion of African American voters as it would be to "discount" a win based on a high proportion of women voters.  

  •  It's amazing how the media downplays Obama (0+ / 0-)

    On Saturday night I was watching CNN and it was amazing how unenthused and downright gloomy most of the commentators and "journalists" looked, especially folks like Campbell Brown and Gloria Borger.  It seemed like the only thing they wanted to talk about was what Hillary needed to do next.  "Well, she needs to start winning states," was the pearls of wisdom that John King offered.

  •  SoCal for Hillary?? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Kos sez:

    California, which she won with the strength of her SoCal vote

    LA Times in Criticism of L.A. County's voting system grows is reporting that

    Michael Nola, a poll worker in Claremont, went to two training sessions before election day ...

    What he never learned in class was that in addition to selecting a candidate, these voters were required to mark a bubble on their ballots indicating which party primary they were voting in. . . . It wasn't until midafternoon on election day that he and his fellow poll workers learned of the extra bubble, but by then it was too late. Many nonpartisan voters had already cast their ballots, including Nola himself.

    "Both my wife and I lost our votes by this needless oversight."

    Based on the margins of victory on a district by district basis, the article states that it is unlikely that the results would have changed materially. BUT I am still amazed that far less sophisticated democracies can ensure proper vote counting (though thuggery and other ballot piracies do occur in some like India), whereas we have not been able to straighten our system after 8 years of intense national focus on this problem! I hope this is one area that will change with the next Democratic administration and Congress.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by Suvro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM PST

  •  Kos you forgot the Virgin Islands (0+ / 0-)

    They don't matter as well for several reasons

    1. Too many blacks
    1. Nobody is working, that favors Obama
    1. Too hot so the elderly Clinton ladies stayed indoors to protect their skin
    1. All Clinton voters (except the elderly ladies) were enjoying their day on the beach
    1. A cruise ship came in
    1. Virgin Islands? Where the heck are they anyway?

    Barack Obama will be President, John Edwards will send George W Bush to The Hague

    by vanguardia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM PST

  •  The convention doesn't matter.... (0+ / 0-)

    it's full of black people and educated white people ... and the delegates vote openly like in a (gasp) caucus!

    Get ready for the America for Clinton party!

  •  Why so much anger from the Obama Supporters? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Why is it that many Obama Supporters are so loud and obnoxious when they respond to a Clinton Supporter? I have seen it so much this year I would really like to know why that is?

    When I approach an Obama Supporter I tend to agree on most points and don't get irate with them for their choice. But many times during the primary process, in person and on DKos, it seems civility goes right out the window when you oppose the Obama machine.

    Why is that? We are both democrats looking for many of the same types of change in our government. So why all the venom when faced with a Clinton Supporter?


    "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

    by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:08:26 AM PST

    •  mmm... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      In my experience that's gone both ways.  I don't like it--we need to make sure we get rid of these neocons, and turning on ourselves is certainly counter-productive...

      Want to get nasty?  Go after a Repuke supporter.  They actually deserve it!

      Jesus is not a marketing tool. Anyone who uses religion to sell his/herself is a liar and not to be trusted.

      by marknspokane on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:24:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  For a lot of us it was when the "fun part" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      of the campaign began, according to Hillary, and the deliberate race-baiting by them starting in SC.  That and lying about his consistent opposition to Iraq.  That really pushed a lot of us to the wall.  I think when they lose the nomination that will be viewed as the turning point and a major blunder on their part.

      "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

      by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:41:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What was so inaccurate? (0+ / 0-)

        I still ask myself what in the hell was so wrong in what Bill Clinton said of Obama?

        He found a quote on Obama that showed he actually wasn't sure how he would have voted given the choice. What was so unsettling about that? If it was "said" then its something to talk about.

        And the race card, (aka race-baiting whatever*) was not played by Clinton. It was the media that harps on it. Clinton "talked" about it. And did he say anything "untrue"? Not really. He said the basic interpretation of how the electorate in SC would likely react. It's not Racism or Race-Whatever. It was simply stating a situation he perceived as the reason for the vote tallies.

        People keep screaming that Race was called into question by the Clintons in SC. I do not agree, as the MSM has been doing it almost on a daily basis for months. They have been foaming at the mouth for a sound bite they could point to. Why is it that when a white man talks about the black electorate voting for a black candidate, that somehow he is being racist? It doesn't wash.

        Simply saying,

        "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

        by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:53:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

          You asked why and I gave you an answer.  You may not like it but it is what it is.  Defend it all you like but I think it's too late for that.

          "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

          by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Dont buy the fun part... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        inanna9, RenMin

        I think the "fun part" as you call it was the school yard equivalent of poking fun at the weakest kid in class. What are we like twelve? We need to get back to the issues and the fight for our men and women that are dying overseas for the Bush Administration. Not kick sand in each others eyes, just because the other democratic candidate said "booger".

        We aren't inanely stupid repugnuts that worship George Dubya. We are supposed to be concerned about the issues, and getting the presidency into the hands of a democrat. I will back Obama if he gets the ticket. But I prefer Clinton. But claiming Race was injected into the race when it wasnt doesn't make the democratic party look any more civilized than a pack of wolves eating their own.


        "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

        by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:59:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  All Clinton supporters overgeneralize... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Obama supporters are not all angry. Maybe you're confusing us with the Ron Paul zombies?

      •  Nope... maybe with rabid squirrels. ;) (0+ / 0-)

        Many of the Obama supporters I have met are more than a little aggressive about their candidate. I just want to know why all tha angst over a candidate? Is it because so many youth are coming out that it generates a "us vs. them" attitude? Or are there just a good many fanatics poisoning the well this year?

        I just want to see good enthusiastic support for either candidate. And lively discussion of the issues around each campaign. Having someone swing a sign at me for not agreeing with them seems a bit wrong. But thats roughly the attitude I see.

        "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

        by Wynter on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:31:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary's campaign of race-baiting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Key paragraphs:

    But the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have "not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates." Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was "making a historical statement."

    It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to "undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types."

    "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

    by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:09:51 AM PST

    •  Race-whatever? (0+ / 0-)

      Gee, so they found an example where this was not the case. It doesn't make the statement by a campaign pollster that deals with demographics that INCLUDE RACE not historically untrue.

      Can we stop injecting scandal and so called "race baiting" (whatever the hell that really means) into the primary race? You can turn almost any statement into a case of racial attack. I'm just saying it's a simple case of talking to a pollster of a campaign. And that they were stating something correctly. Whether there are anomalies for or against the conclusion doesn't make it "race-whatever-you-call-it". Give it a label and "it must be true". What are we? A Tabloid Rag now?

      Just saying,

      "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

      by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:17:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The New York Times which endorsed Clinton... (0+ / 0-)

        is a tabloid rag?  If you say so.  And you still claim the statement is true despite no evidence vs. the statistics presented.  So how many sides of your mouth are you talking out of?  

        Just saying.

        "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

        by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:25:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not the NYT... read again... (0+ / 0-)

          The statement was "What are we, now? A Tabloid Rag." That was speaking of DKos, not the NYT. But if they want the mantle of punditry, they can have it.

          The fact is that the NYT article was just citing an instance where this "historical fact" was not so accurate. That does not dispute the veracity of the account that we are talking to pollsters here and the types of information they deal with. (ie. no race-whatever-you-want-to-call-it present).

          The other point I was making was simply that, what the fuck is race-baiting anyways? Do I have to put some fried chicken on hook (or in my case, a bagel with cream cheese) to get someone of a specific race? This trendy effort to invent a name for something that wasn't even an issue in this case is simply inventing a news article.

          Where is the news in this instance? And what is the definition of Race-Whatever. I have asked others before but no one cares to put a definition to this vague term.


          "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

          by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So citing an article in the NYT on DK (0+ / 0-)

            is turning this into a tabloid.  Huh?  The twists in logic here make no sense.

            Here's a handy definition of race-baiting:
            a term for an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests.

            Clinton is highlighting the fact Obama is the "black candidate" a la Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in an effort to peel off white and Latino voters.

            I can't believe you really need this explained to you.  I think you are being as disengenuous as the Clintons.  Bill at least has made some attempt to acknowledge what he was doing although it is not really an apology.

            "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

            by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:09:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for the Defn., but... (0+ / 0-)

              I think you are reading more into things than is necessary. And yes, if bringing in something the NYT wrote up that sounds like the equivalent of "political trash talking" rates the Rag Tabloid label, then so be it. It's not that twisted of logic.

              I just dislike anyone, even regulars in DKos, that spread accusations of racial hatred, which have already been explained as nothing of the sort and act as though they have found a rat. There is no news in this article from the NYT. Just rehashing old news with a new light.

              And the term, "race-baiting" is nothing but a trendy term that is being used too much in this election cycle. We are all democrats in this primary race. And we look like the GOP when we use this term against each other. It's over the top.

              Myself, I am a white male from New Hampshire that supports Hillary because I feel she can get things done. I don't support Obama, but would if he were our candidate. I don't like racists. And I don't like those that easily label people one way or the other. I am your typical democratic ticket voter.

              I judge things when I get all the facts. And thus far I don't see the racial arguement with SC. I think claiming Race Baiting is more of a label to put on the MSM than either candidate.

              No offense taken or implied,

              "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Hitchhiker's Guide

              by Wynter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:27:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, they're making sense. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          They want you to stop this negative politicking. That makes much more sense than your insane need to make everything Clinton does a conspiracy.

          Maybe you should start living by the principles you supposedly support in Obama. Put your actions where your mouth is, and start acting like you actually want to unite everyone.

          Instead of dividing Clinton supporters from Obama supporters.

          "Without alienation, there can be no politics" ~ Arthur Miller

          by jwalker13 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:46:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "They" being who? (0+ / 0-)

            These citations are from independent media sources.  Just because you don't like them doesn't make them invalid or negative.  By the way, how is calling me "insane" or using the "f-word" uniting us?

            "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?". - J.M. Keynes

            by Beauregard on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:14:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary didn't lead in CT (0+ / 0-)

    Obama won CT hands down.  As did McCain on the rep side.  

    Hillary is trying to diminish the whole primary/caucus process, now that she's losing it! Remember before all this began, she waltzed around every opportunity intimating she was inevitable.  She was superwoman, super smart with 35 years of experience.  

    Why, she's the smartest woman ever born.  And she's vetted too.  

  •  Contest after OH/TX (0+ / 0-)

    After Obama's strong Feb, it's clear that Clinton needs to respond with significant 10+ point wins in OH and TX. If that doesn't happen, the nomination is his.  If it does, than this will be tight again.  Looking ahead past March 5, the states seem to be pretty even for the two candidates.

    Here are states that I think will lean Obama (304 delegates):

    WY (18)
    MS (40)
    NC (134)
    OR (65)
    MT (24)
    SD (23)

    States lean Clinton (311 delegates):

    PA (188)
    IN (84)
    WV (39)
    KY (60)

    If he continues to win by 15-20 point margins, and she can only win by 10 point pargins, there will be a 150 or so gap in his favor.

    FL/MI could be put forth  as an argument to close this gap, but that will be a tough and divisive argument.

    Edwards endorsement could be important in NC.

  •  Here is where the Media gets it wrong.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ME - I am a white woman, probably a little older than the rest of you, living in So. Florida, who only has 1 year of college behind her....but I do like an occasional glass of red wine with my spaghetti and meatballs and yes...I did vote for Obama in the early voting..when everyone was voting for Hillary down here.  Obama broke even down here the day of the primary....

  •  Large heterogeneous states with primaries (0+ / 0-)

    is a real argument IMHO. Yglesias cast it as snark when he said, "Clinton can't win anywhere where she can't exploit racial polarization in her favor", and I thought that was great.  
    However, not counting WA which was horribly screwed up, the states Obama has won are states where he can either bring out the white vote or bring out the black vote and win. If he cannot use the "unity pony" to bring out different racial groups, superdelegates may look at this very unfavorably. The race factor is also influenced by Hillary's huge advantage among white women. Superdelegates may also think that female voters and traditional Dems are enough to give Hillary 50%+1.

    -4.00, -5.33 If you are what you say you are, a superstar, then have no fear

    by 4jkb4ia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:33:50 AM PST

  •  KOS for Minister of Information (0+ / 0-)

    He is spinmeister in chief for Obama, bending reality on a daily basis, so he would be a perfect Minister of Information for the new President.  Night becomes day, good is bad, up is down, etc.

    California, the biggest state in the union, where Hillary won decisively despite the polls and Obamania, becomes a footnote in the KOS alternative universe.  The two are at a dead heat in delegates, with Obama obtaining a slight edge now, but KOS is already dancing in the end-zone.

  •  California/Latino (0+ / 0-)

    There's a line pushed in the press, subtly echoed by the Clintons and their campaign, which insinuates that Latinos will not turn out for a Black candidate.  Hence, Clinton took CA.  One imagines that some people who benefit from any kind of social division intentionally push this line, but it seems to fit a lot of people's racialized view of things.  I heard a good report on if memory serves NPR (of all places) that pointed out that while indeed the Latino vote in CA did go to Clinton, if you disaggregate by age the younger trended toward, though not to, Obama.  This makes a lot of sense if one bears in mind that for a good percentage of Latino people not born in this country, it was under Clinton that people got the right to vote.  There are a lot of fond memories of that Presidency among Latinos of a certain age.  My housemate's two parents, mother from El Salvador and father from Mexico, both voted Clinton, while our 35 yr old housemate voted Obama, or would have if the damn absentee ballot had arrived in time.


    by teacherwithphone on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:40:56 AM PST

  •  Check this out. (0+ / 0-)

    You'll cry when you see how spot-on Kos was.


    Al Gore didn't lose in 2000. America did.

    by fink on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:13:03 PM PST

  •  what matters (0+ / 0-)

    I don't understand why kos hates Clinton so much?  I thought he said (earlier) that he was happy with all three top Dem candidates....but now that its coming down to a neck and neck horse race between Clinton and Obama, the tone of kos's posts gets more and more virulently anti-Clinton.

    I am still happy with either Clinton or Obama.  It bothers me that some people seem to be forgetting that eventually one of them will win and we'll need to coalesce around that person.

    •  I haven't seen the hate by kos. (0+ / 0-)

      Kos has a right to say he disagrees with the Clinton campaign spin. I think he is (and was) happy with Obama, Edwards and Hillary.
      We can all put our own spin here without hate. I do agree there's sometimes too much talk about Hillary hate, and Hillary and Bill are evil or racist, here in Dkos. And I also agree "that eventually one of them will win and we'll need to coalesce around that person".

  •  great thread (0+ / 0-)

    LOL, great thread.

  •  Another reason Missouri Doesn't Matter (0+ / 0-)

    It shares a long border with two of Obama's home states Kansas AND Illinois.  

    Ain't no time to hate.

    by howardpark on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:50:24 PM PST

  •  Camp Hillary is panicing (0+ / 0-)

    That much is clear.

  •  Don't assume Texas will go for HRC (0+ / 0-)

    I've said this before, but I think Obama would be wise to visit the colonias along the border and talk about how these people deserve better -- and the government needs to do more. Thousands of people are living without electricity or running water. In Texas. Right now. How can that be?

    What I'd really like to see is, during this appearance, for Obama to bring forth John Edwards to announce his endorsement. With Edwards' passion for helping those in poverty, there's no better place to bring attention to the fact that we do indeed have a problem...

    And if you don't know much about colonias, check out

  •  I wish someone would dissect Clinton's wins (0+ / 0-)

    It's not surprising that a losing team would spin their losses.

    As for the news networks, I think a lot of it is just, nobody expected Obama to win, or if they did, not with such huge margins. So they dissect his wins, study the demographics, study his ground game, etc. Sometimes they sound like complete asses in their attempts to understand it.

    I wish someone (more clever than me) would dissect Clinton's wins. She's just expected to win, like that's just natural -- but I don't know why she should win MA and not CT. Why AZ and not CO. Arkansas and New York, I get. But the rest... I don't get, because her campaign has been terrible.

    "She's a walking, talking, breathing target. What better place for Americans to put their fragile hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow." --Stephen Colbert

    by Oothoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM PST

  •  Clinton = Unparalleled Sophistry (0+ / 0-)

    Can't wait for them to spin Obabma's securing the nomination at the convention as a combination of undemocratically selected caucus delegates and superdelgates, plus those "proud" african-americans and silly educated white folks.

    The Clintons are like the 30-year old slacker who keeps coming up with daily excuses why he shouldn't move out of his parents' basement and get a real job (other than taking out the garbage and walking the dog).

  •  Obama's base (0+ / 0-)

    CNN just said that the so-called latte liberals and young people were Obama's base.  That makes me sick.  

    •  I don't drink Lattes (0+ / 0-)

      OK, an occasional mocha, but rarely a latte.  I prefer my drinks a little more potent.  Give me a good Mojito or a caiparina any time.

      Yes, I admit I am under 40, my partner and I are well into the top 2-3% income wise, we've been to graduate school, we live in a red state, I drive a hybrid.  So I don't count.

      For all the sniping back and forth, I have yet to see Obama call out Hillary's supporters as not counting.  I find it amazing that she says we can never win Kansas (don't tell Gov. Sibelius), but is claiming Texas is easily up for grabs.   If she keeps saying it, it will be true.  Why should Red State democrats vote at all this fall?  According to Hillary, I might as well stay home.

      Anyway, the main thing I was going to add is that I have looked at some other sites today, and for all teh sniping and vitriol, it seems that site is a modicum for decorum.   The 'discussion' on other sites seems to have gone downhill much more deeply and more personally.

      If this thing is not settled by March 5, it is not going to be a good thing for us.   If these two are still within 100 (pledged) delegates of each other after Ohio and Texas it is going to get very ugly.  The problem is the next race is too far out.  

  •  This was funny (0+ / 0-)

    too funny for words.

  •  Threads so thin you can see through them (0+ / 0-)

    Doesn't this sound like MSM sound bites to anyone?  Spin from Clinton "quarters and its surrogates and supporters."  Give me a break.  Surely this must be a test of our sense of humor:  "Obama won, but only because the Illinois-Missouri border is longer than the Arkansas-Missouri one."  I can just see certain academics poring over the primary statistics and factoring in the "border" theory.  Lots of laughs, Kos.
    Thanks.  And most people think this was a hit piece. You gotta wonder.

  •  Anytime Clinton (0+ / 0-)

      wants to complain or spin that these states don't count....there's really one easy response.

      In terms of margin of victory...Barack Obama's home state ranks 9th on the list...meaning he finished with a higher MOE in EIGHT states than his home state. And in ONLY ONE of those eight states was there a majority of African American voters (or close to it).

      Hillary's getting beaten from pillar to post...all over the country. White Democrats in MN, WA, AK and ND all gave him resounding victories. Clinton's spin should go nowhere. It's ridiculous.

  •  And I apologize for the redundancy... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but isn't this exactly what John Kerry did back in 2004? Winning "only the important states...?"

    What is wrong with the Clinton camp? All of this goes to prove to me that Bill is really the nominee here. Only HE could cook up such a stupid plan -- build a "firewall" and go 0-10 into March.

    Brilliant idea, Mr. Bill!!!

    - Sammy

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site