Update: Obama Up in TWO new Indiana Polls, Beats McCain; Why Doesn't North Carolina Count?

The logic used by the Clinton campaign is quite impressive. Apparently the only way to count the popular vote is to include Florida and Michigan. But the way to count the popular vote doesn't include adding the unpledged votes in Michigan as Obama supporters, or the projected 110,000 votes won by Obama in caucus states that are not included in the popular vote totals. In the general election, Obama would lose California and New Jersey, but Hillary will win Wisconsin and Connecticut. Obama can't win in November without Hillary's base, but Hillary can win without Obama's base (or somehow his base of independents will vote for her but her base of blue collar democrats won't vote for him). And now they have another claim: North Carolina doesn't count because Obama is way ahead. They have repeated this lie so many times that the media accepts the claim as obvious. Yet, Hillary started out with a similar lead in Pennsylvania, and yet it seems to have counted. So I want to ask the Clinton campaign, why again doesn't North Carolina count?

The Clinton campaign has done a masterful job in working the media. Their claims have been seeping into every level of analysis by the media. A few months ago, the media rightly discounted the claim that primary defeats in a particular state could foretell a general election defeat. They rightfully recognized the fact that the base will rally behind the nominee, while the real fight will be over independents (who are now voting heavily for Obama).

They now are asking if Obama can win states like California and Ohio. They ask why Obama isn't winning blue collar democrats or industrial states, even though he has (Wisconsin) by landslide margins. And all the while, they are refusing to ask similar questions about Hillary.

How can she win without Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, or Connecticut? Will Ohio and Florida be enough? What are her chances if we need another state (like Virginia or Colorado) to win? What will happen with all of those disappointed African Americans and young voters? Can democrats take African Americans for granted? Do democrats want to throw away an opportunity to solidify the largest generation in history as the most democratic in history? Why is it that only blue collar democrats matter? Why does she discount the blue collar voters won by Obama in Missouri, Wisconsin and Virginia?

And yet again, the media is playing right into her hands. No one will be surprised if Obama wins North Carolina by a landslide. Therefore, no one will say that such a landslide means that she should get out. A 30% loss in North Carolina, and a 1% win in Indiana, will be seen by the media as a win for Hillary. In politics, it doesn't matter if you win or lose, but rather if you beat expectations.

North Carolina is the largest state remaining. It isn't much smaller than is Pennsylvania. Given its diversity and healthy economy, it is demographically similar to more states than is Pennsylvania. It is in the center of the region that is the very core of republican strength.

So why doesn't North Carolina count? Because Hillary will lose it.

Update According to a new poll, Obama is beating Hillary in Indiana, 48/47. The last time that this poll was taken, about 3 weeks ago, Hillary was ahead of Obama. This is the first poll taken after the Pennsylvania primary.

Second Update According to another Indiana poll taken after Pennsylvania, Obama not only beats Hillary 41/38, but he beats McCain 49/41. Hillary ties McCain 46/46. Which candidate is the most electable again?

•  BHSS

  Because Hillary Said So.

  by Melody Townsel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:29:37 PM PDT

  •  I actually disagree

    Every single reporter is motivated to keep the contest going.  It fits their narrative better.

    They can continue to concern troll and get big ratings.  They supported Obama initially for the same reason...he was undermining the inevitable candidate.

    Now that undermining comes from Hillary against Obama's inevitable candidacy.

    by masterxi43 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:42:31 PM PDT

    •  I actually think we're both right.

      Hillary is in this until the fat lady sits on her chest and crushes her. And the media flip-flops not because of the ratings, but because of the media buy.

      by Melody Townsel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:44:17 PM PDT

      •  You know...

        ... its should have been obvious to me before but it finally dawned on me that, without exception, the stories the media focuses on are only and ever the stories that make the media central to the controversy.

        Health care? Foreign policy? Tanking economy? Torture? The center of those stories lay elsewhere-- out in the real world.

        Pastor Wright, Snipergate, Bowling scores, social engineering-as-poll-analysis? None of those stories even exist without cable news.

        by kingubu on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:57:00 PM PDT

        •  Yeap n/t

          by Shhs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:08:29 PM PDT

          •  PBS did a ditty on Pentagon propaganda and the

            NY TIMES tonight.

            And the Newshour journalist even went into how PBS had a few of these guys on retainer.

            Screw the corporate news.  Just shut it off.

            by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:18:06 PM PDT

            •  Yes, part of getting our government back

              is doing something about the big media monopoly which is interfering in every aspect of our democracy. It's gotta change. I am only watching Countdown, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and Real Time with Bill Maher. The other cable infotainment networks can stick it, and have lost my previously loyal viewership.

              by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:06:27 PM PDT

        •  Follow the money

          and you will find puffed haired anchors sucking up to its source.

          The second oldest profession is advertising.

          by FishOutofWater on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:16:07 PM PDT

  •  I must have missed something.

    When was it said that NC did not count? I, of course, had presumed that it did not count because it had not voted yet. I suppose that after votes are cast we will have something to actually count.

    by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:47:19 PM PDT

•  Because Obama is meant to win there

  and Hillary is meant to not win. Thefore by fact a state that Obama wins does not count because Hillary was never meant to win.

  by AHiddenSaint on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:30:02 PM PDT

  •  All states count

    All states count, regardless of who is polled to win or lose.

    We're talking about real people's votes. Democracy starts from the bottom-up not top-down.

    by PBnJ on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:37:46 PM PDT

    •  silly you are still playing by the rules

      by AHiddenSaint on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:39:16 PM PDT

      •  Only half silly

        The other half is cynical  :-/

        by PBnJ on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:40:37 PM PDT

        •  but haven't you realized that the truth is

          If Clinton says it then it must be true otherwise she will hold her breath till it becomes true.

          by AHiddenSaint on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:42:22 PM PDT

•  Too many black people...

  by OCS89 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:30:09 PM PDT

  •  Let's not forget

    all those pesky caucasian liberals/college kids! (African Americans can be pesky too, but are lumped in under "too many black people")

    by newdem1960 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:32:54 PM PDT

    •  Too many Larry Kissel supporters

      Larry's the former mill worker and present day high school teacher who has the guts to help integrate his small town church and tell the truth about how the Republicans and DLC Dems sold out American workers.

      by FishOutofWater on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:19:35 PM PDT

•  It does not count

  because Hillary has decreed that he cannot win it in November, and she does not need it because she plans on the Kerry - Gore plus FL/OH route.

  Actually, the media is underestimating Obama there using a 10 point win as his expectation, last I heard.

  by newdem1960 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:31:19 PM PDT

  •  The Kerry/Gore

    route to total election failure, you mean?

    by kismet on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:35:55 PM PDT

    •  Yes! Yes! Yes!

      They came sooooooooooooo close and the Dems in OH and FL are "with her"!  Of course the rest of the voters aren't but ... we'll deal with that after the coronation - 'k?

      by newdem1960 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:40:53 PM PDT

•  Because

  it has black people. And latte-sipping liberals. And students. And some people under the age of 60. And some men. And tons of Protestants, few Catholics. And the state has colleges...and beaches...and Norma Rae.

  And statistics show that all of these people are unlikely to vote for Sen. Clinton, thereby rendering them irrelevant.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:31:35 PM PDT

  •  Age

    The Hillbot pundits are already crying the alarm that Indiana is "too young!"

    by newdem1960 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:34:03 PM PDT

    •  On to West Virginia!

      After defeat on May 6, I can just see Hillary Clinton's not-concession speech: "Meet me in West Virginia, Barack Obama, and let's have a real debate about coal!"

      by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:43:46 PM PDT

      •  Hillary will do her Loretta Lynn act n/t

        by beltane on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:45:58 PM PDT

        •  She's the love child of Joe Hill and

          Rosa Luxembourg.

          by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:19:36 PM PDT

•  Because it will go Republican in the

  General. Right? I actually think the CW is right on this btw.

  by jeff in nyc on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:33:03 PM PDT

  •  May I quickly add that I agree it matters in our

    primaries, and I'm hopeful that it will be in play.

    by jeff in nyc on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:34:08 PM PDT

  •  Then what is she doing in Indiana? n/t

    by LauraC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:35:45 PM PDT

  •  I don't know...

    we'll have a whole bunch of competitive races here.  Governor (which people care about immensely, and our current Gov is a Dem), Senate (bye bye Liddy) and of course President.

    People could maybe care enough to push it over the edge.

    I remember watching early 2004 returns for NC that had it looking like it might go for Kerry.  It wasn't all THAT red.  

    by kismet on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:38:05 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, only 400,000 votes...

      Well, 12% wasn't as much the 13% that Gore lost by in 2000.

      Seriously, John McCain is going to win North Carolina. Easily.

      It's great that all sorts of people are registering to vote. It's great that all sorts of people are going to participate in the political process, but roughly 2.5 million people voted in the last Presidential election here. In order to swing 400,000 votes, we need a combination of party swaps and new voters equivalent to 16% of the total voters in the last election, and that's assuming not a single new Republican registration as the population of Fort Bragg has been expanded since the 2005 BRAC findings.

      Maybe in 16 years (I'm not kidding when I say that either) - and no one should not campaign here or write it off, but any electoral vote path to victory that puts NC in play or going blue is purely fantasy.

      by Outlier on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:48:23 PM PDT

      •  Typo

        3.5 million voters, not 2.5 million.

        by Outlier on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:55:15 PM PDT

    •  My first thought when reading jeff in nyc's

      comment was "Heath Shuler."  If we could pick off a CD in '06, why shouldn't the state be in play in the presidential two years later?  And I wasn't even thinking about the state's recent history in electing Dem governors.

      Then I ran over to pollster.com to see what the head-to-heads are looking like this far out.  McCain-Clinton is no contest -- he creams her by thirteen points.  McCain-Obama, however, is a lot more interesting.  McCain is still ahead, but Obama cuts the difference down to five points.

      Conclusion?  If Hillary is the candidate, NC is not in play.  GOP doesn't have to spend money there, and McCain coasts.  If Obama is the candidate, however, NC is clearly in play.  McCain may still win the state, but at the cost of resources he won't be able to pour into other swing states, like WI, IA, MO, etc.

      by litho on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:02:32 PM PDT

  •  Billary #1 came within a hair of winning in NC

    . . . the first time around (1992) when they were the "Obama" of
    their generation (before they became the Nader of this generation)

    by post partisan in Cali on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:24:55 PM PDT

    •  That Was Perot; He Gave Him GA That Year

      Those were two states where the Perot affect was legitimate. It pertained in some other states too-MT, NV, CO.

      by Davidsfr on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:09:09 PM PDT

  •  Will they say that about

    KY?  Bets?

    by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:29:11 PM PDT

    •  When HRC Was A Little Girl

      Her daddy took her to watch the Derby, and he let her drink Bourbon and smoke that good ole KY tobacky

      by Empower Ink on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM PDT

•  Too black, too many young educated voters,

  and because HRC will lose there.

  by chicago minx on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:33:41 PM PDT

  •  And remember, blacks aren't "working class."

    They're just... blacks.

    They'll vote for the Democrat, because we told 'em to.  Ha!  Where else are they gonna go?

    (extreme, bitter snark)

    by chumley on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:39:57 PM PDT

    •  Good pt!

      The media never talks about blacks as middle class or blue collar! Geeze. It just reinforces that stereotype that all AA's are on welfare and don't work. Most Americans on food stamps today are eldery or are children. I am a caseworker and most of our TANF clients are working but don't make enough so they have to apply for low cost childcare, etc.

      by ElizabethAM on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:42:32 PM PDT

    •  That snark is so bitter

      it reminds me of Bull Connor and of four little black girls in a Birmingham church...

      by litho on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:08:45 PM PDT

    •  I can't wait for the day when AA's

      feel like we have more than one party to vote for.  I hate how the Dems use us, seriously they know we will always be there bc we don't have a choice.  I'm tired of it, no other group lives this way, heck there's even log Cabin Republicans.  We need to stop being automatic Dem voters.  Never again for me. Never again.

      by Shhs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:11:03 PM PDT

      •  Who else are we going to vote for?

        I mean, really, who?

        Not voting is the only power we have.

        by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:21:27 PM PDT

      •  I feel for you

        however consider that those of us on the left are kind of in the same position...moderates like Bill Clinton (and Hillary were she to get the nom) basically KNOW that we will never vote Repub, so they feel free to take us for granted.

        You're not alone, that's all I'm saying :)

        But hey, why the doom and gloom?  This is our year!!

        by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:33:10 PM PDT

      •  i hear you and i feel you

        i propose that if Hilary steals the nomination that AAs dont vote for president or write in Obama, and vote in progressive democratic congress that will block a John McCain and can overturn vetoes

        by vmm918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:39:01 PM PDT

•  Clinton now leads the popular vote!!! (!!!)

  The 3/5 compromise was agreed upon from the beginning - stop trying to change the rules in the middle of the game, Obamabots!

  by differance on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:35:47 PM PDT

  •  popular or 'popular'

    To Clinton, the popular vote is everyone Hillary is popular among!

    by louisev on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:42:50 PM PDT

  •  3/5 agreement?

    Someone wanna fill me in on what this guy is blathering about?

    by Red Star on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM PDT

    •  snark

      I believe this is snark and a reference to the 3/5 compromise wherein slaves only counted as 3/5.

      by lauramp on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:50:59 PM PDT

    •  Hi. I'm the U.S. Constitution.

      Have we met?

      by differance on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:22 PM PDT

  •  LAME. n/t

    by td on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:46:50 PM PDT

  •  cont'd

    And Obama supporters don't change the game in the middle, that's Hillary's job. That and goalposts, states that matter, whether she likes or dislikes caucuses, or MoveOn. Get real.

    by Red Star on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:47:35 PM PDT

•  As said above: because Hillary will lose there.

  They reverse engineer from that fact, and move to the dubious conclusion that "it doesn't matter."

  Oh, and because Hillary and her campaign are a shameless bunch of liars who love to insult the intelligence of the voters.

  by chumley on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:38:08 PM PDT

  •  'Cause we're gonna send her back to Arkansas

    or Illinois or Pennsylvania or New York or wherever she claims to be from this week.

    by FishOutofWater on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:22:36 PM PDT

    •  We Don't Want HRC in IL

      She can stay in NY, DC or AR, but we don't want her here.

      If I never have to hear her voice again, I'll be a very happy old woman.

      by Empower Ink on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:10:58 PM PDT

•  Check this out!

  Just posted on the website:

  Barack Obama in Chapel Hill, NC
  Join Barack Obama at a One-Stop Early Vote Rally in Chapel Hill on Monday, April 28th.

  One-Stop Early Vote Rally with Barack Obama The University of North Carolina
  Dean E. Smith Center
  300 Skipper Bowles Drive
  Chapel Hill, NC 27514

  Public Entrance: Entries A and B

  Monday, April 28th, 2008
  Doors Open: 7:00 p.m.
  Program Begins: 9:30 p.m.

  by ElizabethAM on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:40:21 PM PDT

•  You NOTICED that too huh?

  The pundits are now SKIPPING North Carolina, like they did Mississippi, Louisana, Illinois, etc..

  Why didn't they give Obama 2 straight days of PRAISE for being a very good politician for winning in Illinois and Missouri?  Hillary was BORN in Illinois -- why did she LOSE to something like 73-27?

  Why don't we hear those analysis's?

  by cscmm on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:41:00 PM PDT

  •  Obama did better in Illinois

    than Hillary did in New York. His approval rating in New York is also higher than hers. Why don't the pundits ever mention the low approval ratings in her own state?

    by beltane on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:48:05 PM PDT

    •  And that was with 69 or so AA districts giving

      him zero votes, too!

      by Fonsia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:46:17 PM PDT

•  Don't be silly.

  Of course it doesn't count:

  1.  lots of black folk

  2.  full of elitist, Prius-driving white folk

  3.  too many college students and well-educated folks

  This is obviously a state that fails to represent the true electorate.

  by Mother of Zeus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:50:23 PM PDT

  •  Not salt-of-the-earthy enough NT

    Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

    by InsultComicDog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:51:27 PM PDT

•  Because black people only count three fifths.

  Like in the Constitution.

  Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

  by InsultComicDog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:50:36 PM PDT

  •  Not even that much!

    by leevank on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:46 PM PDT

•  NC does count...

  and Hillary must win or be very close to stay competitive...it cannot be a 20 point blowout...She has to keep it to +-5%...IMHO...The Republicans are helping in NC with the negative ads against Obama that Hillary has nothing to do with and even John McBush asked them to take the ads off the air...

  by dvogel001 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:09:22 PM PDT

  •  Last I checked

    Hillary needs to win the rest of the states by 40 points.

    What's a 5-point victory going to do for her?

    by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:27:52 PM PDT

    •  Exactly right

      I'm sick of people helping her narrative. She has to RUN THE TABLE to have a chance at convincing SDs to overturn a democractic process involving millions of Democrats and Independents. And ALL those wins need to be MASSIVE. Nothing else. No more excuses. If she's so electable she needs to, you know, actually win!

      by Joe Willy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:53:01 PM PDT

      •  Funny...I did not know you were...

        a SD...I am not saying it is right, but if Barack does not get some significant wins in the last few races, Hillary will use that as an argument to the SD's...you may not agree...but that is MHO...I am not trying to help Hillary's narrative just trying to keep this a reality community...

        Peace...Go Democrats!!!

        by dvogel001 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:53:28 AM PDT

    •  Keep her campaigning and getting money...

      from new supporters...

      Peace...Go Democrats!!!

      by dvogel001 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:50:31 AM PDT

•  It is a boutique state, after all n/t

  by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:26:22 PM PDT

•  Obama up 49-41 against McCain? in INDIANA?!

  Woah.  That's amazing.

  Even Clinton tying McCain is impressive.

  by BlueEngineerInOhio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:06:36 PM PDT

•  I'm sorry, but someone should burst out

  laughing hysterically in her next press conference when she comes out with her ridiculous spins on the realities of this race. If you count up all the votes, including the ones that don't count, and don't count the caucuses or Obama's FL and MI (uncommitted) votes, then I am ahead in the popular vote and should therefore be the nominee!

  Are you f'ing kidding me?!!! BWAAHHHAAHAAAAA!!!!

  Why won't someone just laugh in her face when she comes out with this total B.S.? It's now bordering on sociopathic (if not already there). I mean, really, this is getting kinda sad to witness.

  Oh, and I've won the big states that "matter" (even though the Democrat will likely win those states anyway in the General Election), so I should be the nominee!

  Oh my God, she's just lost it completely. Please, somebody stop her from herself.

  by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:16:08 PM PDT

  •  Oh, I forgot. The media has their own interests

    to think of before the country's....

    silly me!

    by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:18:11 PM PDT