We all know that Senator Clinton cannot overcome Obama's advantage in pledged delegates. And we know she knows it. She doesn't care. She's playing a dangerous but canny game, trying to weaken Obama in voters' eyes while making a claim that she has the momentum. Ultimately, she's going to try to make her case for the nomination through a combination of the following:
* Obama is untested and unready
* His delegate lead has come from a lot of red state caucuses and small state primaries
* She has won the big states that "matter"
* It's perfectly fine for superdelegates to support her for the nomination, because they're free to support the "best" candidate, and that candidate is her.
Follow me over the hump for my thoughts on what Obama should be doing right now and what he should be saying from now on.
I posted this diary as a comment in dmsilev's "Clinton Superdelegates 'Wavering'" diary, and with the encouragement of one kind soul I'm making a whole stinking diary out of it. I too felt the keen absence of candidate diaries tonight.
Nature abhors a vacuum. We all know this, and just the other day I saw a bunch of trees kicking the crap out of an Electrolux. Now that John McCain is the de facto Republican nominee, we're going to see increasing pressure, fomented by our restless, adolescent media, to clarify his Democratic opponent in the General Election.
Follow me down for my analysis. Why? Because I've been predicting since late summer that McCain would be the Republican nominee, and I therefore must be right about everything else.
Remember primary day back in August, when Kos's tubes got all clogged up with everyone wanting the latest numbers from precinct 23 in Dingleberry, CT, or whatever? Well, what's going to happen come Tuesday night? If Kos's tubes aren't up to snuff, none of us are going to be able to get our Internets. And it's not like we can just dump it all in a truck. You can try, but it won't work.
People around here were so kind to that Republican who's all fed up, and so I'm hoping you'll all be open to my perspective, too!
I've spent a lot of time reading diaries and posts since the Mark Foley scandal broke, and I'm starting to get the sense that some people feel that, just maybe, Dennis Hastert is in some teensy way culpable. Some posters have even said he should resign! I think that would be a terrible mistake, and so I am circulating this petition in support of Hastert, which I hope you will all take the time to read.
Now obviously, you can't sign your names here (the tubes aren't made to handle ink, and besides, you don't want to go writing on your screens!!!). So instead, I have added a poll, and I'll forward the results.
My first reaction to Lieberman's obnoxious concession speech was anger: This bastard really thinks it's all about him! Screw Connecticut Democrats! Screw the need to turn attention from a safe seat and help our many outstanding Democratic challengers across the country! It's about me, me, me!
And being a bit self-righteous, I wanted us all to get in Joe's face, call him names, and shame him into accepting yesterday's results. Not surprisingly, I was taken aback and put off when I heard Jim Dean on C-SPAN deflect a question about Joe's Indy bid . . . until I got to thinking about the Buddhist principle of skillful means.
This is it, Kos. I've had it. Hear that? HAD IT. WITH YOU. DAMN, HOW DO I MAKE THESE ALL CAPS GO AWAY. MAKE THEM GO AWAY, KOs. Hey, did you do that, or did I? If you did it, then you can damned well change the spelling of my name.
I've seen many, many diaries discussing current poll numbers, quite often offering cogent criticism of likely voter models and their effects on the percentages. But I haven't seen any diaries discussing how a huge influx of Kerry-leaning new voters would affect those percentages.
If I've simply missed such diaries, let me know and I'll delete this one. Otherwise, I think this element needs to be aired. Bush is at 48% in some polls now, but he may fall well below that number in the one poll that matters.
One week from right now, I'm going to be exulting. We all will be. I'm confident--not overconfident. But let's face it: Everything is going against Bush:
380 tons of high-grade explosives.
Consumer confidence down for the third straight month.
Poll numbers below 50 almost everywhere it matters.
Newspapers changing from their Bush 2000 endorsements to Kerry 2004 endorsements.
Hundreds of thousands of activist Democrats.
Millions of new voters and the expectation of a huge turnout.
Here's what I think we'll be seeing one week from right now:
Many of us here at dKos share mixed feelings about the current state of the presidential race: We're thrilled by Kerry's leads in polls and Bush's terrible re-elect numbers. More importantly, we're excited by the energy generated by the Kerry-Edwards campaign, particularly those wonderful photos from their Southwest whistle stops.
Ah, it's summer in America, and the smell of flop sweat is in the air. Confidence in Chimpy McFlightsuit is dwindling, and the Republicans are getting desperate and angry.
ARG has a new poll of Oregon voters showing Kerry beating Bush 50% to 42%, with Nader drawing 4%. In a two-man race, Kerry wins 50% to 43%. The poll was conducted July 19-22 and has a 4% margin of error.
With polls showing Kerry beating Bush nationally and, more importantly, leading in many of the battleground states that were supposed to favor Bush, we're commonly seeing electoral projections based upon current data of Kerry winning with 327 electoral votes. These projections, and the general good news for Kerry, have led some to crow about an impending landslide, some to warn about the dangers of triumphalism, and still others to fret that Bushco will find a way to steal the election.
We all know the dangers presented by paperless voting machines, and many of us fear the effects of a suspiciously-timed terrorist attack or warning. I want to focus on the dangers presented by attempts to remove registered voters from voting rolls or to prevent them from voting. More specifically, I want to initiate a discussion about what we--and others--can do to discover, prevent, and/or undo these attempts.
I caught a late segment on Hardball, with Matthews questioning a Democratic and a Republican strategists--two that I hadn't seen before (and sorry, I don't remember their names). Anyway, they were of course debating the relative abilities of Edwards and Cheney to assume the Presidency, and the Republican said this:
In times of danger, Cheney has had a steady hand on the till.
I got a call last night from Al Weed, who as many of you know is trying to unseat Virgil Goode in Virginia's 5th District. He wanted money--no surprise--but when I told him I had none to contribute at the moment, he kept the conversation going.
I went for a haircut today, at the old barber shop in town. Its six chairs stay busy all day every day, with a long line of customers waiting for a cut from barbers who seem to range in age from 45 to 75. It's very much an establishment place.
