Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.


Previous Open Thread here
New Open Thread here


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 4360   Newer›   Newest»
Aunt Jean said...

Dave I'm tired of leah's lack of respect for Hillary she is always bring up crap that can't be proven or has been dismissed. Just to put down Hillary ,Bill, and their supporters. So evertime she does that I'm going to bring up trash on obama. Fair is fair. You might not think that what she is saying is wrong but I do.The way she says it sometimes and I will say this [no insult to men meant]men might not catch what she does she is very sly sometimes with how she words it. Jean

Aunt Jean said...

Dave she never defended the panthers she was working as a clerk for the lawyers. Jean

Independent Voter said...

Aunt Jean,
Dave most of that stuff can,t be proven. Then some of it is from Years ago and I mean years. Should we start calling obama a drug head he has admitted to taking them. Jean


Jean, you are MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT! It doesn't matter whether he said it yesterday or 10 years ago......there are still people who believe that way! That is the point!

Hippolytus said...

Aunt Jean said:
"I will say this [no insult to men meant]men might not catch what she does she is very sly sometimes with how she words it."

So men lack "slydar"? What a crass stereotype! Must be why I find Leah's comments are straight forward, and generally on the mark.

Aunt Jean said...

Dave all I'm saying is if you look hard enough you can find dirt on anyone. So both obama and clinton because of their position deserves respect or at the least don't get out and out ugly with things that can't be proven are things that happened years and years ago. Just like the time when I said that Hillary was wrong about the sniper and I said that in the last debate she had said that she was wrong and shouldn't have said that. Well needless to say I got called a liar until a obama supporter said that she did say that.Jean

Yamaka said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aunt Jean said...

Hipp to each it's own Jean

Independent Voter said...

Dave she never defended the panthers she was working as a clerk for the lawyers. Jean


Jean do you not know what a "law clerk" does? They do the RESEARCH and provide the background to the attorneys on how to get their clients off. That is ASSISTING with their defense. READ THE ARTICLE!

Hillary Clinton said...

My Fellow Americans:

It has come to my attention that DCW Blogger "Aunt Jean" has publicly endorsed me. Let me say clearly, I have not asked for nor sought out this unwelcome endorsement. I now more want support from “Aunt Jean” than Senator Obama wants from the Black Panthers or Hamas. We cannot control who are supporters are. But we can speak out against the kind of hate and bigotry they represent.

Her repeated attacks on Senator Obama’s supporters does not represent the kind of campaign I’m trying to run and it’s not the sort of, you know, President that I would like to be, you know. It is encouraging to see that the moderator’s of this blog have felt comfortable and compelled to edit or, you know, remove her hateful and racist comments. I believe their actions in this regard are just. I’m hopeful they will continue to exercise this same good judgment where Aunt Jean is concerned.

The political pundits here and elsewhere will certainly try to connect me to this, well, you know, woman. I categorically deny that I’ve ever met her nor would I ever want to. I do not want her support, as her views are not my views.

I would also like to add, by the way, please go to www.hillaryclinton.com and donate your rebate check to my campaign so we can fight the good fight all the way to the finish line!

Thank you,
Senator Hillary Clinton

Independent Voter said...

Hipp - "I'm not as optimistic as you. I think that the "woman's place is in the home" on its own merits might benefit Obama, but it suggests a more broadly held uneducated and backwards view that will cut against him (as the polling data suggests). While I support Obama, I suspect that he'll be creamed in Kentucky, although perhaps not as badly in West Virginia."


Oh trust me, I'm not real optimistic about Kentucky either. I'm just HOPING that there are ALOT of them that turn out tomorrow to pull votes away from her. I'm still almost 100% positive it will be a blowout in KY (in her favor).

Matt said...

Folks, this thread gets hard to read with all the comments deleted. No personal attacks on each other - take it somewhere else.

I would also ask that we keep the comments on Clinton and Obama, to substance, and not nasty attacks that usually the GOP will stoop to. This is a Democratic blog run by Democrats, and there's a lot of stuff here about both Clinton and Obama that I'm not happy with.

Take it somewhere else.

Mike in Maryland said...

Aunt Jean said...
Dave she never defended the panthers she was working as a clerk for the lawyers.

Aunt Jean,

Got a citation for that, or is it just your memory of what you've heard?

I'm not doubting what you say, but there have been times that I'm ready to post information based on what I think are the facts, but when I check out the information, I find the facts are a bit, or totally, different from what I was going to post. I then either don't post, or post something different than what I was originally going to post.

Citation to a site that shows she was a clerk to the attorneys would be appreciated.


Hippolytus said...

Leah for VP!!!

Aunt Jean said...

Hillary you are a joke please.Did you not read what matt said. Jean

Aunt Jean said...

Mike in maryland I will try and find it again. Jean

Mike in Maryland said...

Aunt Jean said...
Hillary you are a joke please.Did you not read what matt said.

Aunt Jean,

Did you check the time stamps? The post by "Hillary Clinton" was at 12:09 AM, the post by Matt was at 12:13 AM.

Details are important. "Hillary Clinton" posted PRIOR to Matt.

Of course, to some people details (such as sequence of posts) and nuance are not important.

Those are the types of people who think, "The rooster crowed, then the sun came up. Ergo, the rooster caused the sun to come up."


Leah Texas4Obama said...

Great leaders of our time under the age of 50

John F. Kennedy was inaugurated when he was 43
Robert F. Kennedy was running for president when he was 43
Martin Luther King when he was assassinated was only 39

Senator Obama will be inaugurated January 2009 when he will be 47

Obama - the candidate with integrity, wisdom, compassion, intelligence, eloquence and grace.

p.s. I think it is pretty awesome that the anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'Dream speech' falls on the day/evening that the Democratic Nominee will be making his acceptance speech!

Independent Voter said...

Sorry Matt/Oreo.....try to keep it to the minimum :(

Independent Voter said...

Rut ROW (in my best Scooby Doo voice)!

Looks like Obama's gonna get at least one more super tomorrow.. :)

DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Democratic Chairman Scott Brennan will announce on Tuesday his endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, The Associated Press has learned.

Judy Bienvenu said...

Oh Leah, first let me say I'm an Obama supporter. Second, wow-when I saw those 3 names you listed I couldn't help but think all 3 were assassinated. Probably not the best 3 to compare Obama to. That's my #1 biggest fear with him if he (when he) gets the Nom in August. I hope they double his protection detail because every home-grown hic and hate group is going to threaten him.

It gives me chills and goosebumps just thinking about it.

Are there 3 other great American's who did something as wonderful as Obama at a young age?????? Let's find some!

Aunt Jean said...

mike in maryland; Here they are;


there were more so if you need more or want it just let me know my computer acted up there and it wouldn't do anything.Jean

tmess2 said...

Well if yall are willing to include a Republican who accomplished things when young, you have Teddy Roosevelt -- the second greatest Republican President (I know damning with faint praise as there were only two great Republican Presidents) -- I think he was 40 or 41 when he became President, younger even than JFK.

Aunt Jean said...

leah sorry but I don't consider obama in the same list as the others. Jean

Aunt Jean said...

leah you mean HER speech

Leah Texas4Obama said...

aunt JUDY-

It worries me too.
I don't even want to say it out loud!

All we can do is pray and hope that all goes well :)

Aunt Jean said...

Dave yes I know what a law clerk my ex sister-in-law is one. They are saying that she defended them and that is not true. She was just doing internship their so that is a lie. Jean

Independent Voter said...

Oh Leah, first let me say I'm an Obama supporter. Second, wow-when I saw those 3 names you listed I couldn't help but think all 3 were assassinated. Probably not the best 3 to compare Obama to. That's my #1 biggest fear with him if he (when he) gets the Nom in August. I hope they double his protection detail because every home-grown hic and hate group is going to threaten him.

It gives me chills and goosebumps just thinking about it.

Are there 3 other great American's who did something as wonderful as Obama at a young age?????? Let's find some!


OUCH! I agree with you. I too fear for his safety.

Judy Bienvenu said...

Leah, Is blogging like saying it out loud??

Maybe it's like bowling a perfect game, or pitching a perfect game.....it may happen until some one says it out loud, then it disappears!


TMess, I have no problem with referencing republicans. A great American is a great American, no matter what their political party.

Independent Voter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunt Jean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Independent Voter said...

Jean, I will take her BOSS' at their word! It's amazing how SHE has one account of events, but EVERYONE else that she worked with has an entirely DIFFERENT recollection of events. I will defer to the GROUP who recall things differently. After all, according to the logic you were using earlier, since they are all older than she they must be wiser too.

Aunt Jean said...

Hipp your 12:14 post made me sick just thinking about it OMG that isn't even funny. I would do everything to not make that happen which there is no way that could happen.THANK GOD Jean

May 20, 2008 12:50 AM

Leah Texas4Obama said...

I was just trying to list some that were around in my life time and it is pretty hard to find many of them. The really 'great' ones are far and few between.

Independent Voter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunt Jean said...

leah doesn't matter if you like it or nor Bill Clinton!!!! He was just as good if not better in some things than JFK but then JFK was better in other things than Clinton.So I guess it evened out Jean

Independent Voter said...

Leah - I was just trying to list some that were around in my life time and it is pretty hard to find many of them. The really 'great' ones are far and few between.


How about we go back to John McCain's lifetime? Abe Lincoln. - I know he was 51 or 52 when he took office - but he was still relatively young - AND A GREAT LEADER.

Independent Voter said...

Ok, ya I know that was a little harsh....but you have to admit it was funny!

Aunt Jean said...

Dave I really don't know where you are coming from please explain.Jean

Judy Bienvenu said...

leah doesn't matter if you like it or nor Bill Clinton!!!! He was just as good if not better in some things than JFK but then JFK was better in other things than Clinton.So I guess it evened out Jean
Interesting comparison Aunt Jean. Both those men were famous for the same thing.....cheating on their wives.

Independent Voter said...

aunt jean? You don't know what I'm talking about as far as Hillary's Bosses at the time? Or John McCain's lifetime?

If you're referring to Hillary's bosses....I will defer to the opinion of her bosses over hers as to what took place while she worked in that law firm. They are literally calling her a hypocrite - All of them.

Aunt Jean said...

dave I'm sorry but thet are full of BS was she not a clerk or better yet an intern. Jean

Aunt Jean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aunt Jean said...

dave besides that I wonder what they want out of saying that? Jean

Hippolytus said...

Independent voter said...
"Rut ROW (in my best Scooby Doo voice)!
'Looks like Obama's gonna get at least one more super tomorrow..'"

"And he'd get even more if it wasn't for those darned [Clinton supporters]!"

Independent Voter said...

Aunt Jean, you are now calling her bosses BS? WOW!

This ENTIRE episode goes back to her credibility or lack thereof. I'm not going to bring up the OTHER episode of her being called out on something and when videotape appeared of something completely different....well I'm not going to go there.

Aunt Jean said...

it's a shame more than a shame the way some people want to smear Hillary and Bill.Hell is to good for them But their day is coming and it's called judgement day.Jean

Hippolytus said...

I asked my dog how Clinton's campaign is going. He said, "Ruff!"

Independent Voter said...

aunt jean, OH PUH LEEEEEEEEEZE! You wonder what they want out of saying that? They are in their 70's and 80's! You really think they are going to lie about something stupid like that? Now I KNOW she would! Hell she lied about something as stupid as sniper fire.

Aunt Jean said...

hipp thats funny Jean

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Obama will be in Des Moines, Iowa tomorrow evening for the victory rally. Probably Democratic Chairman Scott Brennan will come on out on the stage and make his official endorsement - he is supposed to be endorsing tomorrow.

Then Wednesday Obama will be in Tampa, Florida - I betcha Al Gore will be endorsing at the Florida rally!

When Obama went to Michigan last Wednesday he told the crowd he had felt bad that he had not spent time with the voters in Michigan - so he told them he brought them a surprise AND IT WAS JOHN EDWARDS!

So I betcha anything he will be bringing Florida - Al Gore!


Aunt Jean said...

Dave lets not go there! Maybe the old farts don't even remember it right. Jean

Independent Voter said...



Aunt Jean said...

I surely hope AL GORE isn't that stupid. Jean

Aunt Jean said...

Hipp that was funny!But the talk is going to the dogs. LOL LOL Jean Jean

Oregon Dem said...

Evening fellow Dems. Long day today - 10:15 and I just back back home from work :(

I am looking forward to a great turnout when the final results come in tomorrow. Just checked the Oregon Sec of State's office this morning and my CD (the 2nd and the only in Oregon where we have a Repub in Congress cut the registration advantage by 17,000 since January. A wonderful bit of news expecially since the Obama campaign is still working hard to move voter registration for the GE.

The Sec of State is also saying we may have record turnout for a primary (70-75%) with higher Dem than Republican turnout but the numbers of ballots in as of last Thursday make me wonder about that - but he tracks that more than I do.

Interesting cross tabs about Oregon in the recent Survey USA poll (I was one of those who was polled on Saturday - which was a first for me). Of those who had already voted Obama was just up by a couple of % points, but of those that had not yet voted Obama was up by over 20%. Lets hope they all get out and vote!

Have another late meeting tomorrow but should be here before the vote starts coming in from Oregon.


Aunt Jean said...

Dave I meant to ask where are they calling Hillary a hypocrite? Jean

Aunt Jean said...

dave I'm heading for bed got a long day tomorrow. Good night Jean

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Oregon Dem -

Right before the Texas election the pollers called me - that was the first time for me too. It was a very long call aprox. 15 minutes. They asked all sorts of things.

Then the day before the election I got two taped automated robo-calls from PAC's or whatever they were - and both calls were ANTI-Obama calls - which really ticked me off!

tmess2 said...

Ok, before going to bed am going to toss a question out their to have fun reading the responses in the morning.

Current polling suggests Obama will win by a little over 10% in Oregon and lose by a little over 30% in Kentucky with a delegate breakdown of around 57 for Clinton and 46 for Obama.

Now for the question, how well does Senator Clinton need to do above expectations to stop the flow of unpledged delegates to Senator Obama? Conversely, how much better than expectations does Senator Obama have to do to have wrapped up the nomination before the RBC meets on May 31st?

Unknown said...

Shut Down the Convention in Denver!


Mike in Maryland said...

Aunt Jean,

You admit that Senator Clinton was a law clerk.

Do you know what a law clerk does?

Try looking it up on the Internet. I'll even save you a lot of trouble. Go to Wikipedia.org, type in 'law clerk' and read the article.

The first couple of paragraphs state:
A law clerk or a judicial clerk is a person who provides assistance to a judge in researching issues before the court and in writing opinions. Law clerks are not court clerks or courtroom deputies, who are secretaries for the court.

Most law clerks are recent law school graduates who were at the very top of their class and graduated from the most prestigious law schools. Various studies have shown clerks to be influential in the formation of case law through their influence on judges' decisions. Working as a law clerk generally opens up career opportunities.

The sentence that says "Various studies have shown clerks to be influential in the formation of case law through their influence on judges' decisions" is indicative that a law clerk is MORE than a steno position. They do the research for the attorneys and judges.

In other words, they participate, and have influence, in the case(s) in which they clerk.

Oh, and if you don't believe what her bosses say about her clerking, then you don't believe them at all when they say she was not a communist.

Communist, you say? Some claim Hillary was a communist. Her bosses say she wasn't.

So, if the bosses are so unreliable about her not being of importance on the Black Panther case, based on what you want to believe, then we shouldn't believe a single thing they say. That means that the bosses are unreliable about her not being a communist, doesn't it?


Aunt Jean,

See what your non-researched, 'because that is what I think'-type responses leads to?

You want us to respect you. But if you don't put any research into your messages, or you just pick and choose specific information that in some manner supports your messages, why should we have any respect for your opinions?


Leah Texas4Obama said...

tmess2 -

Senator Obama needs only 15 1/2 more 'pledged delegates' and he will have the 'majority' of pledged delegates. After that happens you will see a flood of Super Delegates endorsing Obama.

The RBC will not seat MI and FL in a way that will give either candidate the advantage.

It's over.
According to the math there is no way for Hillary to catch up.

Independent Voter said...

aunt jean, you are making it really tough to be nice right about now. You are discrediting her former employers who recall pretty much the exact opposite of what she had claims yet THEY are ALL delusional. I find it VERY odd that at minimum 5 different people say the complete opposite to be true....WOW!

Jean, This is what your argument looks like

Independent Voter said...

Good night Jean.

Independent Voter said...

Jean, had you read the article from the washington post that I posted earlier - you would have seen they were calling her a hypocrite.

Oregon Dem said...

Sorry to read Oreo's post about the spilled Oreo's on the interstate today :(

But very glad to see that Oreo and Matt are enforcing some decorum around here.

Just scrolled through and read most posts and tried to keep track of those Comments "Deleted by Blog Administrator"

So on this new thread:

JAYW had 5 posts removed
Aunt Jean had 3 posts removed
Yamaka had 2 posts removed
Vicki had one
Jpsedona had one as well.
Leah and everyone else had ZERO posts deemed inappropriate.

Lets all shoot for having ZERO of our posts being in such bad taste that Matt or Oreo have to remove them.

Go Dems!

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Anonymus Ny Democrat:

Here is the truth about MI and FL:


Enough said ;)

Independent Voter said...

And here is the "Other White Meat", ok the other real truth about Florida.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Oregon Dem -

This video is for you!

Video of the rally in Portland OREGON:


There are many clips of the rally throughout the video so don't turn it off too soon!

Oregon Dem said...

Does anyone find it interesting that Anonymous NY Democrat kinda follows up on what Yamaka says.

Oh and Yamaka - Yostated that you had answered my question "numerous times" but in reviewing every one of your posts since then you never actually did.

My question was: You have been wrong in your predictions about how the super delegates would break (for Senator Clinton) before so why should we believe you this time on the delegate math. You know the formula you post over and over again multiple times through out the day - though NOT today (have you changed your mind?)

So unless you think: "Go back to your echo chamber" is a reasoned answer. I challenge you to name names and give details of how it works.

PS You have also refused to answer other's questions and in and of itself that is fine, but if you do not answer them just try to stay true and not say you did.

Give us some well reasoned analysis on how your scenario can come true (like matt and oreo do on this site in geneneral and amot, jpsedonia and many others do in this thread).

Help me out - who are the 200 supers that will break for Senator Clinton? If you know something I do not I want to hear it.

Oregon Dem said...


and some pictures for you:


Obama/Leah 08 ;-)

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Oregon Dem-

The photos were even better than the video ;)

It is just so amazing that so many people were there!

I guess that is why there aren't many white workin' folk for Obama in WV - they are all in OREGON! ;)

Kujo said...

Aunt Jean,

You gave up on our previous conversation about Health Care. I assume you realize the Obama's makes more sense on issue.

To repeat the Difference: Clinton states that she will cap cost and mandate everyone to buy insurance. (Capping cost were your words). Cap can mean many things - keep cost stable at a set price could be higher or lower then current cost.

Lets assume for the sake of arguement that she will lower cost like Obama's plan. Then the only difference int the plans is that she will mandate people to buy Insurance.

The current problem is people can not afford Health Care, not that they don't want it. (different then seat belts where it became necessary to mandate it). So if in both cases they reduce cost to make it affordable, why do we need to pay for a government agency to enforce it.

I personally do not care if someone who now can afford it choses not to.

If we assume CAP means keep it the same, then we can see that trying to reduce cost is a much better goal then to give in to the insurance and medical companies (primarily drug companies who sell the same drugs for much cheeper in other countries).

So Aunt Jean I am still waiting on your reply.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

The original link was missing a 'L' at the end.

Here's a tinyurl for the Portland slide show that Oregon Dem posted the link for:



Oregon Dem said...


I cannot say much about West Virgina - I have only been there once for more than just passin through (when my HS girl friend went to school there in (dang that was a long time ago) Hagerstown, WV I believe).

Oregon is different - which is why I see the race out here differently (even in my own CD#2). So where someone unfamiliar with Oregon might "think" the dems in eastern Oregon being more rural of a setting and a traditional republican stronhold (our only Rep in US Congress) would be closer to Clinton than Obama - I can disagree based on who I know they are.

The crowd numbers differed by which news source you listened to. I would guessed 40,000 but everyone else says somewhere between 72 and 75 thousand. The media apparantly said that Obama was late die to being late from another event, but my guess is that it was because the line to get in was a mile long!

Hippolytus said...

Hippolytus said...

I asked my dog how Clinton's campaign is going. He said, "Ruff!"
Maybe those sticking with Hillary should be known as the "Ruff Riders"!

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Polls close at 6pm EDT in Kentucky.

16 1/2 more hours to wait ;(

Oregon votes by mail-in ballot. Ballots must be received at the elections office by 8 PM PDT.

So when will all the ballots be finished being counted in Oregon?

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Oregon Dem-

And FoxNews.com said yesterday that there were 65,000 inside the gate and 15,000 outside the gate = 80,000

No matter the number - Obama holds the world's record now for the BIGGEST political rally ever in the U.S.A.!

Hippolytus said...

Leah said:
"So when will all the ballots be finished being counted in Oregon?"

I seem to recall a post from last week (maybe from Oregon Dem) that explained that the Oregon ballots will be optically scanned, so that they should be tabulated relatively quickly.

Amot said...

Leah, Hipp*,
I think after your Bible discussion you will both agree that Obama will lose voters if he choose woman for VP. BTW I have already read about comments regarding Sebelius as potential VP saying - 'if woman, why not Hillary?' What happened in WV is something noone should be proud of. Obama get a big share of 'woman belong at home' sexist vote. Hillary get enormous share of 'the devil came down from Illinois' vote. And there was anti-Clinton brand vote and a lot more negativism. I don't think that more than 30% of the voters voted 'pro'. They simply voted 'against'. And it turned out there are more people against AA in WH than those against woman in WH! And I don't even want to speculate how the votes of those against both AA and woman in WH were split between the candidates! If it was not WV I could almost believe Aunt Jean that there are no American bigots! My hope is KY will prove to be more positive toward both candidates.

About Obama - did you know that Secret Services, the same that must protect Obama, have serious racial issues? Actually there is a lot more but in USA it never got big publicity (except for some 'rag'&'far left liberal' sources)! I am really worried about his safety and after he secured the nomination that is my biggest fear. I don't want to see him join the other three great names on the list :(

Oregon Dem said...

Leah and others who want to know.

Oregon process:

Ballots received at offical drop sites by 8PM PDT on Tuesday are transported to each individual County Election HQ. The lection HQ is an official drop site but larger county's have "alternate drop sites" (libraries, state office buildings and believe it or not even a McDonald's in one county).

Each county verifies the signature on the ballot envelop when they receive it. So, for example, Hood River County which got my ballot two weeks ago has already done that.

At 8pm PDT (some intimate it is before that) the votes start getting counted. On elections for a national position individual precincts do not count so numbers that will be posted or reported are pretty much up to how often the County election division wants to report them. News agencies can (theoretically) reprort actual running totals that are more up to date than what gets to the SoS office.

Check in at Oregonlive.com or one of our statewide media outlets katutv.com for example if you want the best / quickest numbers.

Amot said...

I don't know if we can trust PPP, but their latest poll shows that Obama won 59% of those who had already voted and they were 74% of the sample. Clinton won 38% of that share. I believe his rally in Portland made this share bigger! So I will not be surprised to see 20% margin at the end! BTW no pollster has regional info because of OR's area codes - only 2 for the whole state!

Hippolytus said...

I share your concern about Obama's safety. As great as the Oregon rally was, that must have been a security nightmare for the Secret Service and local law enforcement. I haven't seen any reporting of those challenges; have you or anyone else? I dunno, maybe the less said, the better.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Thanks to everyone for the results info, article, video, photos, etc.

My head is spinning so I am going to bed now.

It will be a good day tomorrow!!!

I am sending a 'HUGE' Thank You to everyone in Oregon and in Kentucky too that voted for Senator Obama!!!

Goodnight ;)

Amot said...

I don't feel very comfortable knowing that he can be secured by someone who is racial bigot. After all the weakest point is your own security and ... I don't want to even think about it! I hope and pray he will make it till the end.

Oregon Dem said...

Amot: Interesting the difference between the Survey USA poll and the PPP poll - I will have to check the cross tabs on the PPP poll but the Survey USA poll (Saturday) had it much closer on those who have already voted. Those that vote early are in the Senator Clinton demographic - over 55 so the Survey USA poll may not be surprising.

Local pundits are saying Obama by 12 - 15% though I am hoping for larger percentage to pick up a couple more delegates in some key CDs.

The front page of the Oregonian newspaper today was a 1/4 to 1/3 of a page picture of Obama addressing the rally with just part of the massive crowd, but was so impressive.

I have said here and elsewhere. I have never had so much hope for America and our political system since I worked for Robert Kennedy in New Jersey on 1968....

Amot said...

Oregon Dem,
remember when you asked about Lane country? I figured out that they started slowly bud voted huge at the last days of the campaign. So I agree early voters were in Clinton's favor. After that Obama was more favored. And I would say that drop-ins or late voters are huge in Obama's favor since they are more motivated to go and cast their ballot in the local office. And I think Portland made a huge impact on those late voters!

Oregon Dem said...


What we know is this - party affiliation went up for Dems in Oregon statewide. What I can also say, for my own family anyway the votes have been turned in in chronological order.

I voted on the 4th and mailed my ballot. I am 55.

My wife voted the 11th and mailed in her ballot (she is younger than me but it is not appropriate to tell a woman's age... ;-)

My oldest daughter (25) voted and caucused in Washington (so actually she beat us.....)

My middle daughter (22) voted the 14th and mailed her ballot.

My youngest daughter (20) voted tonight and will drive her ballot 14 miles from our house to the county elections division on her way to work tomorrow.

IMO the rally did not convince anyone who was there, but it could have made a number of fence sitters vote for Obama.

The most interesting thing I have seen that is different in Oregon by a pretty good number....

Obama wins the women's vote

Obama has won the four women in my family.

Look for at least one or two surprises tomorrow night in the CDs. There are three that could go for Obama by the percentage needed to nudge him up one pledged delegate more than "conventional wisdom." My guess is that one will and would be thrilled with two.

My projection the night before (well actually it is now after midnight here) CD 3,4,1,6 (3 being the most likely to pick up one extra for Obama - CD 6 being the least likely).

But as I have said all along CD 2 will go 3 Obama and 2 Clinton.

Hope all is well with with you tonight.

As I said earlier - this kinda conversation is why I came to this site and enjoy reading what thinking people have to say here.

Amot said...

I hope surprises will happen in OR. We need some good primary's news! I used to do predictions for the previous contests, but since I can't access OR regional crosstabs I admit I totally rely on your analysis! 20 more hours to go!

Peter said...

I think OR will be interesting. Most polls show Obama with a double digit lead, but both Suffolk and ARG has them within 5%. Both Suffolk and ARG has often Clinton overperforming in polls but still. I would think Obama gets most of the late deciders in OR, he has campaigned there, 75000 people in Portland most have an impact and the tracking polls (Gallup) has shown Obama extending his lead significantally the last three days. He now leads with 16% nationally, thats a huge lead.

I think Clinton will win big in KY, but not sure if it will be as big as in WV. The demographics in KY is a bit better and she hasn`t campaigned as hard in KY as in WV. I`m guessing 65-30 in KY but it might be that KY swings a bit more towards Obama like voters to nationally, then we could see 60-35 or something like that. But I think Clinton will win with 30-35%.

I`m guessing 14% for Obama in Or but it could be that Suffolk and ARG are right and the race is closer than we think in OR. But it would surprise me.

If we look at the "electability" argument there is a factor which you can`t forget. A lot of Clinton voters are bitter at the moment, it is a close race, it looks like she would lose, so they could say that they would vote for McCain or undecided in the fall. I think this factor will be smaller in the coming months and be an none issue in the fall. If you look at states like FL, MI, OH and PA where such "frustrated voters" typically could be a factor. Obama has been behind in all these states against McCain and Clinton ahead, but as time goes, things get better. Now, Obama has a solid lead in PA (near double digits), OH is close (he was 7 points behind a month ago), MI is close (was behind there as well) and the gap in FL is closing. I think this is a trend and it will get better when Clinton is out of the race.

If it had been the other way around I think Clinton would have been behind in states like Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Pennsylvania (because of Philly) and perhapes other states. I think Obama-voters would have been just as frustrated as Clinton-voters but I think this frustration is temporary. That is why Clinton is doing a bit better than McCain nationally in some polls, it is because of frustrated Clinton-voters, but I think this is a temporary thing. We have allready seen some evidence of this being an temporary issues since Obama is doing better in some of these "frustrated"-states.

Amot said...

The problem with Hillary is that she is a sore loser! And she is turning her supporters into such sore losers too. Her negative campaigning and large base of racist voters resulted in such a high percentage saying they will never vote for Obama. On Obama's side there are just a few beside the sexist group and Clinton brand haters that say they would not vote for her. In reality many Clinton backers will not vote Obama at the fall because they are racists or simply greatly uniformed. But the rest of them will vote Dem and yes, I think he can win MI, OH, PA, FL and even TX! Those voters can and will be won back and I don't like the fact Hillary claims she won the popular vote and frustrates them more and more... Time to get them healed can be insufficient!

Peter said...

Yes, I agree, some of the people who voted for Hillary are racist and will not vote for Obama. But at the same time, I think Obama-supporters would have "hated" Clinton more if she had won. I think it is normal that some Clinton-voters say they will vote McCain or undecided at this stage, I`m pretty sure Obama-supporters (not me) would have felt the same way if it was the opposite situation.
Most HRC-voters will support Obama and I think Obama has a "hidden" support nationally of about 3-4% because of this "frustration"-effect, this effect will diminish over time and I think the amount of HRC who will vote other candidates than Obama will approach normal levels in a couple of months.
But, I think "racist"-voters in states like KY and WV probably will vote for McCain instead of Obama in the fall, but to be honest I`m not sure if HRC could have carried any of those states. Yes, she is ahead in WV, but Clinton haven`t been attacked for real yet and McCain haven`t campaigned heavy in WV.

I`m quite confident regarding MI and PA. The margin in PA is between 7% and 9% in the two latest polls and I think the margin could increase to double digits, the "frustration"-effect is probably present in PA.

MI has a double effect, a "frustration"-effect regarding both HRC-voters and because of the delegate-situation. I think some (they shouldn`t) blame Obama-campaign for this situation not being solved, but I think that is something that will be solved quickly. Latest poll have Obama 1%behind McCain which is basically the same as Clinton. But, this poll was taken before Edwards endorsed in MI and before Obama campaigned there. I think he is in front now and that he will win MI by a safe margin of a high single digit.

OH is more difficult, I think this is the states where the "frustration"-effect is biggest, I think there are some racist-voters here as well. But the lates poll was positive, Obama has narrowed the gap and is basically even with McCain. I think he can get a margin of about 5% here and win OH. But this state could be close, I am suspecting racism could play a part here, but think Obama will win.

FL is perhapes the most difficult one, I think Obama needs to campaign heavy here. The double effect is present here as well and demographics is difficult because of the old population. The latest poll (Quinnipiac) is positive with Obama just 1 point behind, but Rasmussen had Obama 15 points behind a month ago, which is a huge margin. But Obama is going to campaign heavy here, he could win, but I think McCain is the favorite in FL.

I don`t think Obama could win Texas, that would be a huge shock. But we have to remember that the election is not only about winning every state, it is about putting states in play. If Obama can keep within single digits, then it would be a huge problem for McCain, he can`t win without Texas and would have to use huge resources in Texas, resources he probably would prefer to use in OH, FL, NH, Iowa, CO, NM etc.

I think Obamas biggest asset, is that he can get a couple of dozens states within single digits. He will probably lose most of them, but he can provide a couple of shocks by winning states like Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina, if things are done the right way. But even if he dosen`t win them, he will give McCain trouble because he have to defend more states than Bush had to.

Amot said...

I agree. Obama can win without OH and FL and TX, but the fact he will put 10 states he doesn't need on the table will not simply drive McCain short of resources, it will drive GOP short of resources. That means for every state McCain has to fight GOP will has less money for Senators, Governors, Representatives, Mayors and all other elected officials! If Obama plays strong GOP will lose 30 or more seats in Congress! And if polls show him leading big in late November, some unexpected states like TX, SC, VA, even AK can join him and make his victory huge...

Richard said...

Oregon Democrat - I've been wondering -- and I think your post explains this but I want to be sure -- ballots must be received no later than 8 p.m. to be counted (barring unusual circumstances like the flooding in '04), right? So we won't have to wait for ballots postmarked today to arrive before we have a final count, as sometimes happens with absentee ballots?

Peter said...


I also think McCain should be worried regarding states like Montana, North-Dakota, Nevada, Iowa etc. Small states, but these 4 have 18 EV combined. Obama is ahead in Iowa and close in the other three (single digits around 5%). I don`t think he will take North Dakota, but he was just 5 points behind in Montana a month ago, in the middle of rev Wright controversy, this story has cooled down. If you add some campaigning I think you will see Montana as a tie in a couple of weeks. Nevada is also quite close.

If you add Obamas lead in CO and NM (almost double digits) it looks promising. I would be worried if my name was McCain.

There are only two "Kerry-states" which you could say is in play (correct me if I am wrong. By play, I mean close to 5 points)
MI, I`m pretty sure Obama will do a lot better in the next polls from MI.
WI, McCain actually have a small lead in the last poll.

But there are at least a dozen "bush-states" where Obama is either in front or only behind by close to 5 points. This is encouraging, since he only needs to improve by 18 EV compared to Kerry.
I think New Mexico look pretty safe at the moment, so he allready has "stolen" 5 EV, the other 13 could be several combinations, OH alone is 20 EV. CO and IO is 16 EV combined and Obama leads in both of those states.

A lot can happen between now and november, but we should remember that Obama probably will get a boost in the polls when the nomination is 100% secured and Clinton endorse him (that will happen). I also think the Convention will give him a boost.

GOP on the other hand, has several problems. Bob Barr could steal a lot of voters and Ron Paul is making a lot of problems for them. Ron Paul got 8% of the votes in IN and 7% of the votes in NC. Ron Paul endorsing Barr or Obama, could cause HUGE problems for McCain. I`m not saying that every Paul voter would go to Obama or Barr if Paul endorse one of them, but some of them will. I also think GOPs convention could get messy.
So all in all, things look promising, but A LOT could happen between now and november, so we should be prepared!

UUbuntu said...

A quick comment about the assassination concerns that surround Barack Obama. First the concerns have been around for a long time, and Obama has had secret service protection for over a year now. Like many other things, this is unprecedented (and expensive) -- and could have only come after the service determined that there may be a credible threat to his well-being. Ordinarily, a candidate does not receive SS protection until AFTER (s)he secures the nomination. None of the other candidates (except Clinton, who receives it automatically due to her former first-lady status) for President, Democrat or Republican, received SS protection until McCain's recent protection.

So the threat is there, and the SS is doing its job.

As to the racist allegations against the secret service (also here), they may or may not be true. However, I believe that the conspiracy fears against the SS are completely without merit. While there may be tasteless and racist jokes passed around, I also believe that the SS is an extremely professional organization that takes the job of protecting its clients very seriously. The days of a lone gunman (or conspiracy) successfully assassinating a candidate with SS protection today are quite small.

Yes, I hear the whispered concerns about BO's safety. But at this point in time, I don't share the view that he is in any graver danger than any other candidate for President.

Amot said...

I agree that it is too early to worry. But if he makes a wrong VP choice he can endanger himself. I hope all things about racial issues in SS are just rumors and harmless jokes. Glad to see you active on serious topics!

UUbuntu said...

Peter -- Good posts. Thank you.

It goes back to Dean's 50-state strategy, which seems to have been adopted (and very effectively) as a primary strategy by the Obama campaign. Our last two general elections have been so close, (and the 2 elections before them were so divided-country oriented) that we forget that Reagan won 40 states in 1980 and 49 states in 1984. We forget that Bush (41) won 40 states in 1988. We forget that LBJ won 44 states in 1964. (Links available upon request)

Buying into the idea that some states are simply off the table for Democrats moves the election into a state-by-state contest way too early in the process, and will allow the Republicans to wage (and win) a regional campaign.

Clinton (Bill) won because he played the red-state/blue-state game very well, and turned a national election into a regional one. While that strategy may have been necessary in 1992 (after the Republicans had won 129/150 states in the previous 3 elections), it should never have been seen as a blueprint for long-term electoral success.

With large turnouts and enthusiastic support for candidates across the spectrum, Dean's 50-state strategy should bring the Democratic Party back to relevance. The expectation is that by running competitively in a wide variety of states, the Democratic Party will limit the ability to concentrate resources into "swing districts" by the RNC.

This election will not simply be about the success of Barack Obama's candidacy. It'll be about changing the national dialog away from the RNC's platform, where it's been for almost 30 years.

UUbuntu said...

Thank you Amot. While I generally agreed with your VP analysis (do you have a link to your original post?), I also think that the choice of VP is highly overrated as an election issue (see the 1988 election -- Dukakis/Bentsen v. Bush/Quayle(!) for a good example of this).

I think that most of the good (and already mentioned) VP possibilities (Sebelius, Webb, Strickland, Richardson) will reflect well on Obama's character but will not make a significant difference to his electoral prospects other than attracting a particular regional or ethnic group. Al Gore might make a significant difference, but he is unlikely to take the job.

Peter said...

I completly agree. I think there are som states where Obama probably will give up, that include WV, KY, LA and OK. But I do think he will visit these states at least one time before november.

There are some states like Idaho, South-Dakota and Nebraska where I don`t think Obama have a chance, but I do think it is important to get the margin in a state like Idaho from 39 in 04 to a possible low teen which it was in the lates poll (52-39). A result like that probably don`t seem that important to most people, but going from 69-39 to 52-39 would be an amazing result and it could be a step towards winning the state in 2012.
This election is not only about winning the race for president, senate and house, it also important to think long-term. I think Howard Dean has been brilliant with his tactics there.

Predicting how this election will go, is difficult at this stage, a lot can happen. But I am extremly optimistic at this point.

ed iglehart said...

Looks like no early-risers here. It's another lovely sunny afternoon here at North Glen.

I hope those of y'all who can don't fail to get out and vote.

Salaam, etc.

UUbuntu said...

A correction on my previous post:
Reagan won 44 states (not 40) in the 1980 election, making the Republican presidential electoral record in the 1980s (1980, 1984 and 1988) 133 wins and 17 losses.

Aunt Jean said...

Mike in maryland the reason I don't think anything about it is it happened what 37 years ago people change I would hate to know that I was judged by what I did back then. People do grow up. So obama should be considered a drug head because he took drugs in college that is so stupid move on it's not worth talking about. Jean

Aunt Jean said...

to all the bloggers just 3 of my post got deleted as I knew they would but my point still got across. Besides that I see there are several that the posters deleted.I wonder how many of those would have been deleted. so please that doesn't bother and quit trying to make a case out of it.It does give me a good laugh that someone could be so petty. LOL LOL LOL LOL Jean

Aunt Jean said...

Amot once again Hillary does have the pop vote. Jean

Aunt Jean said...

oregon dem the reason leah didn't have any deleted is probable because she had deleted them herself lol lol Jean

countjellybean said...

I went through the numbers at GreenPapers.

Their current vote count is:
Clinton 16,729,284
Obama 16,714,158

However, these numbers omit the votes from the following states:

Idaho - The numbers given are the State Convention Delegates
Iowa - County Delegates
Maine - State Convention Delegates
Nevada - County Delegates
Washington - Precinct Delegates

Thus the totals at GreenPapers do not include all of the votes.

They do include the votes of Michigan, which are 328,309 for Clinton, zero for Obama.

As has been noted by others, there is a better analysis of the popular vote at RealClearPolitics.com.

Unknown said...

Aunt Jean said...
Amot once again Hillary does have the pop vote. Jean
Aunt Jean,
Surely you know that some legally cast votes do not count based simply on Obama Logic.
Places where he didn't really campaign or the demographics were unfavorable to him and places where he was not on the ballot don't count.
Obama logic evolved from the Republican logic which was developed in 2000 to deal with Chads and used in 2004 to deal with
provisional ballots and voting irregularities.
The fact that every measure of election success (Electoral Votes and Delegate Selection)is a direct result of legally cast popular votes.
I personally believe that any process which trumps the popular choice of the people is unconscionable including the Electoral College.

If by some chance Obama gets the nomination, wins the popular vote by millions and gets whacked by electoral count, you will here huge

Aunt Jean said...

countjellybean I said that she was ahead in pop vote I don't want to know what the delegate count is. The voters were counted. Jean

Richard said...

The thing is, many delegates were chosen in caucuses which don't report the number of their participants. Why should all those people who came out to vote for Clinton and Obama be ignored when discussing popular vote? And what about those who chose "undeclared" as the only way of expressing their preference for Obama? If we're so keen that every vote should count, shouldn't those too? The whole thing becomes ridiculously complicated and even unknowable. In the end the only really knowable metric and the only one that matters is total number of delegates.

Aunt Jean said...

Jim that doesn't make since at all. So what you are saying is if the state or place wouldn't vote for obama it doesn't count. There were places that Hillary didn't campaign either doesn't mean that their vote should be thrown out like obama wants it oh excuse me he wants it split 50 - 50 what a joke. Jean

Unknown said...

countjellybean said...

However, these numbers omit the votes from the following states:

Idaho - The numbers given are the State Convention Delegates
Iowa - County Delegates
Maine - State Convention Delegates
Nevada - County Delegates
Washington - Precinct Delegates

Thus the totals at GreenPapers do not include all of the votes.

All votes legally cast, counted, certified, and reported for these states have been counted.
Where do you find an election report of pop vote that is not included?

jpsedona said...


As you've heard many times, the FL & MI contests were flawed because the DNC imposed a 100% penalty on those states for moving up their primaries. If the party had an ounce of wisdom, they would have realized that they were creating a huge issue should there be a close nomination process. The states (FL & MI) and the DNC (that included Obama & Hillary supporters) are to blame for the mess.

If the DNC had imposed a proportional penalty and allowed the contests to be conducted including full-scale campaigning, the standings in the nomination process might be different. But as things stand today, the DNC / RBC will impose some type of penalty and the results of the contests will have little or no affect on the nomination.

The DNC established a set of rules and now they are going to change them. Independent of the candidate that you support, the inclusion of FL & MI does nothing but cause considerable division within the party.

As for the popular vote replacing the Electoral College. It's never going to be changed. In order to pass, it would need the considerable support of the smaller population states. That's just not going to happen in our lifetimes.

Unknown said...

Aunt Jean said...
Jim that doesn't make since at all.
Aunt Jean,
But that is Obama Logic.

Unknown said...

"The DNC established a set of rules and now they are going to change them. Independent of the candidate that you support, the inclusion of FL & MI does nothing but cause considerable division within the party."

And you think exclusion will not?

countjellybean said...

Aunt Jean, you cited GreenPapers as the source for your contention that Hillary Clinton has received more votes.

Here are the numbers from GreenPapers:

State - Obama Votes - Clinton Votes

Alabama - 300,319 - 223,089
Alaska - 6,674 - 2,194
Arizona - 193,126 - 229,501
Arkansas - 82,476 - 220,136
California - 2,186,662 - 2,608,184
Colorado - 80,113 - 38,839
Connecticut - 179,742 - 165,426
Delaware - 51,148 - 40,760
Florida - 576,214 - 870,986
Georgia - 704,247 - 330,026
Hawaii - 28,472 - 8,846
Idaho - 16,880 - 3,655
Illinois - 1,318,234 - 667,930
Indiana - 630,946 - 645,365
Iowa - 940 - 737
Kansas - 27,172 - 9,462
Louisiana - 220,632 - 136,925
Maine - 2,079 - 1,397
Maryland - 532,665 - 314,211
Massachusetts - 511,680 - 705,185
Michigan - 0 - 328,309
Minnesota - 142,109 - 68,994
Mississippi - 265,502 - 159,221
Missouri - 406,917 - 395,185
Nebraska - 25,986 - 12,396
Nevada - 4,805 - 5,407
New Hampshire - 104,815 - 112,404
New Jersey - 501,372 - 613,500
New Mexico - 71,396 - 73,105
New York - 751,019 - 1,068,496
North Carolina - 887,412 - 657,676
North Dakota - 11,625 - 6,948
Ohio - 1,055,769 - 1,259,620
Oklahoma - 130,087 - 228,425
Pennsylvania - 1,046,822 - 1,260,937
Rhode Island - 75,316 - 108,949
South Carolina - 294,898 - 140,990
South Dakota
Tennessee - 252,874 - 336,245
Texas - 1,362,476 - 1,462,734
Utah - 74,538 - 51,333
Vermont - 91,901 - 59,806
Virginia - 627,820 - 349,766
Washington - 21,629 - 9,992
West Virginia - 91,663 - 239,187
Wisconsin - 646,851 - 453,954
Wyoming - 5,378 - 3,311
DC - 93,386 - 29,470
Am Samoa - 121 - 163
Dems Abroad - 15,214 - 7,501
Guam - 2,264 - 2,257
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands - 1,772 - 149

Total - 16,714,158 - 16,729,284

The source that you cite omits the popular vote from five states.

If you wish to cite a different source, I am perfectly happy to plug those numbers into my spreadsheet.

Counting voters and delegates is easiers than counting beans, and more interesting.

jpsedona said...

Aunt Jean,

Let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary does have a lead in popular vote.

The question is, so what? who's going to care other than people already supporting Hillary?

The current Dem party process of proportional delegate allocation is a fair a method of allocating delegates unless you go to statewide proportional allocations (getting it closer to the popular vote).

The fact that SD's make up such a large portion of the convention delegates runs directly counter to any type of proportional allocation process. If the SD's were tied to the results in a state (pledged PLEO's), then you would eliminate the smoke filled room concerns.

So, if Hillary comes out ahead in popular vote using any combination of criteria (e.g. include MI, exclude caucuses, include, PR, etc.), so what? Who will care?

If there were SD's that wanted to support Hillary at this point, they could use the outcome of their state or districts as a reason to support her (e.g. Shuler in NC). So, who's going to endorse her if after the next 2 weeks, Obama leads in: contests, pledged delegates, superdelegates and total delegates?

Yamaka said...

Dear Democrats, Good Morning.

Another hot and humid day in Houston.

This DCW site is largely becoming the Propaganda Machine infested with the mosquitoes of Goebell's & Co to boost the dull tobacco-tainted image of BARack Hussin Obama Jr!

Why BARack the Minority Candidate can not win the GE?

(Yes, he is the Minority Candidate because his constituency is smaller and shallower with just Blacks, college kids and semi-literate "affluent" Whites - 45% than Hillary's 55%, most White women, White working men, older folks and most Latinos)

1. He is least vetted by the MSM.

2. He is least experienced of the three Candidates in the race.

3. He is a bleeding Liberal of the type of Carter, Mondale, Dukakkis, McGovern and Kerry, the demigods of Tax and Spend Heritage.

4. Since the disaster days of Carter, the vast American Electorate has moved to the Center liking either Left leaning Hillary or Right leaning McCain.

5. He has not won the large MUST win Primary States for a Democrat: NJ, PA, OH, MI, FL, AR, CA etc.

6. He has mostly won small Red Caucus States, which will never vote for a Democrat in the GE.

Caucuses are NOT the ideal format to include ALL voters. Many of Hillary's supporter, women, working and older folks were structurally eliminated by the Caucus format, which is long, time consuming and terribly boring type, which is banned in GE.

7. BArack is an elitist who cannot understand the working White voters, who are the backbone of GE. He lost pathetically in PA, OH and WV, probably in KY.

8. He is being supported by BigMoneyBags. Inspite of spending 3:1 he is still losing major elections.

There are 9 Edward Ds still left, plus 246 undeclared SDs.

Hillary can easily win the Nomination as per the Math:

1912 + 102 + 20 = 2214. The Real Hurdle is only 2209.

Today will be another blowout win for Hillary.

The Propaganda Machine of BHO is aiming to swift-boat her by some nonsense of "Pledged Delegate Majority" which is not enough to clinch the Nomination.

Folks, don't sweat for the Minority Candidate who will NOT get the Nomination - if he somehow steals it, he will be beaten in the GE, like his comrades were: Kerry and Co.

Save your energy, and channel it to a Majority Candidate who can win the GE, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a name reverberating in all corners of America, and the World.

Or, go to a Choir or an Echo Chamber and recite,

"Oooossabama...Ooom..Ossabama..Omm" which will save your tormented souls!

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Until we know the POPULAR VOTE count from


There is NO WAY to know the total of votes that have been cast.

(countjellybean did not mean the five states that have not yet voted - the list he posted could be interpreted wrongly, since there are actually 10 contests that the pop. vote totals are not yet accounted for at the moment)

jpsedona said...


Relative to FL & MI, I think the pledged delegtaes should count.

I think that the uncommitted pledged delegates in MI should be contested (which they were and Obama received less than 100% at the district convention) and the MI central committe will pick the rest. In accordance with their party rules. In MI, I would penalize the SD's by 1/2 vote per delegate.

In FL, the Republican legislature moved up the primary with the help of many Dems. I think the pledged delegates as occurred in the contest should be seated in accordance with the results. The SD's should, like MI, be penalized a half vote.

It's the politicians (DNC & State officials) that got into the mess, they should be the ones paying the price.

That's how I think it should be done.

But I think that the DNC will apply a penalty to the pledged delegates from each state (1/2 vote per delegate in MI & FL) and seat the SD's with full votes. In MI, I think they will approve the 69-59 compromise.

If the DNC follows either scenario, I do not think Hillary will not be able to make up the difference in delegates. I suspect that although the RBC meets on 5/31, that the decision about FL&MI may not be voted on until after 6/3. They will give the other SD's additional time to make their selection first.

Unknown said...

On electability...HRC's only remaining claim to the nomination is that she holds the better chance of being elected in November. To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked at the current RCP general election polling in the twelve 2004 battleground states (won by 5% or less). Obama wins five of those states by a solid margin (4% or more): Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. McCain wins 2: Florida and New Hampshire. The rest are within the margin of error. Obama wins the electoral vote in the battleground states 86-56. Colorado and Iowa are states won by Bush in 2004 (New Hampshire was won by Kerry). Reach your own conclusions.

Yamaka said...


According to BHO's Propaganda Machine, the two most influential persons in the Democratic Party:

John Edwards, who could not get NC/SC in 2004 GE, and could not get SC in this Primary!

Tom Daschele, who lost his Senate seat pathetically.

See the logic of these perennial losers!

According to ABC News:

Hillary got 16,691,283 votes
BHO 16,647,926 votes including MI and FL.

She leads in PV by 43.3K, which will swell by the end of June 3.

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary, the First Woman POTUS.

BHO's Propaganda Machine, Math is a Math is a Math. Still 9 Ed's Ds left, as I predicted!


jpsedona said...


When you say: "Folks, don't sweat for the Minority Candidate who will NOT get the Nomination - if he somehow steals it, he will be beaten in the GE, like his comrades were: Kerry and Co"

How exactly is he going to "steal it"? Don't the delegate totals for each include both pledged & SD's? Haven't you used a majority of remaining SD's as the method of putting her over the top?

Since neither candidate will clinch the nomination with pledged delegates, unfortunately it comes down to SD's. Whoever the nominee is, they will needs SD's. The party cannot be happy with a process where the decision comes down to career politicians and party insiders. And it's that reason, and that reason alone, that the majority of SD's will end up endorsing the pledged delegate leader.

IMO, any appearance of overturning the candidate who received the most delegates based on all actual contests (incl. MI & FL), as determined by the voters in those contests, will cause irreparable harm.

All arguments about who's the better candidate, who can win the GE and who's more experienced are moot.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Nat'l RCP Average

OBAMA 50.8
Clinton 41.3

Obama +9.5

OBAMA - America's next POTUS!

Roadkill Books said...

I don't understand this Math:

"Hillary can easily win the Nomination as per the Math:

1912 + 102 + 20 = 2214. The Real Hurdle is only 2209."

What are those numbers? They don't even add up correctly.

I must add that the vicious and racist comments. As well as the fake hysteria creating Hillary into some kind of Evita for the misnomer white working class..has completely turned me off. It has reminded me why at 38 years old I have yet to vote in any elections for democrats or republicans. I did cast my vote as a white guy in the south for Obama. The idea of change is not that the government is going to hand it too you..or that we will all drink "world's great kool-aid"...Obama opens the door for the next generation, people include early teens are seeing that they have to demand change..fight for it. Luckily the younger generation is in general more open to all kinds of differences and similarities between people.
Although I am a pessimist and I have bet about $400 that McCain will win the election (3:2) odds are really high. I am hoping that I will lose that money. (If I win-the money goes to support more library projects).

I fear McCain might win but I am hoping he will be crushed. He will definately be crushed by the under 40 vote...and little by little the yesterday politics will slowly dissappear.

gotta go

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Number of pledged delegates needed to win the 'majority of pledged delegates' Obama 15 1/2

Number of total delegates needed to secure the nomination:

Obama 108
Clinton 306

This is a DELEGATE race.
There is no way that HRC can catch up in delegates.
Obama has won!
No 'ands', 'ifs', or 'butts' about it ;)

Obama '08

Amot said...

Well, that is exactly what I was talking about! You, folks, argue about the popular vote for 3 hours or more. How we can reach unity? I don't say Clinton won or did not won the vote (though I have an opinion)! I am saying she should not make official statement that she won it when 5 out of 6 different counts of the vote say she did not! Actually GP do not have the final results for NC, they will be announced 22nd of May. If you count the other sources results for NC Hillary is behind in every count! That is why she should not make such a divisive statement. If she gains 100K today and 500K on 1st of June, she will have the right to claim the populat vote since 4 out of 6 counts will say she won it! Not now, not today!

Leah Texas4Obama said...

HRC can claim that she has won the popular vote all she wants even when she hasn't - the fact remains THIS IS A DELEGATE RACE. The only thing that matters is who has the most 'delegates'.

The person with the most delegates WINS ;)

HRC is not setting a good example for the youth of America! She does not like playing by the rules and she is a very sore loser ;)


themann1086 said...

In the interest of promoting Dem unity, I'm going to try and shift the conversation a bit.

What local races are y'all interested in? Any exciting House/Senate races, or maybe some Governor action?

On my end, my representative, Joe Sestak, is running his first reelection campaign. He should be fine, especially with this being another Democratic year. No Senate races in PA, but there will be something interesting next door in PA-06, where the Democrats will try, again, to unseat out-of-touch Republican Jim Gerlach. Hopefully we can get him this time and bring a clean sweep to the Philly suburbs!

Peter said...

So, some Clinton supporters think we should count the popular vote including Michigan which didn`t count and where Obama wasn`t on the ballot and undecided got 40% of the votes. Do you actually think that reflects the view of the voters in MI?
You also think we should not include valid votes from 5 caucus-states? Sorry, but i don`t see your logic at all.

Obama is ahead in popular vote, but it doesn`t matter, because popular vote is not what decides the primary or GE, delegates decide the primary and EV the GE.

By the way, the only popular vote that actually counts is without FL and MI, those states didn`t have a valid primary, so the votes don`t reflect the view of the people in those states at all. Do you think Michigan, a state with 10 million people would have only 600 000 people voting if it was a valid contest? As an example, Ohio has a population of about 11,5 million. The turnout in Ohio was about 2,3 million.

There are about 15% more people in Ohio compared to michigan. The turnout in Ohio was around 4 times the turnout in michigan. Do you actually think the voting in Michigan was a reflection of the view of the people in michigan or do you think the turnout could have been affected by the fact that all delegates was stripped and only clinton (of the major candidates) was on the ballot.

Counting popular votes including Michigan is just foolish and I actually think it is a pathetic attempt from Clintin. She knew the rules, she actually said in 2007, and i quote HILLARY CLINTON:

"Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

So stop this idiotic nonesense about including Michigan in the popular vote, even HRC herself said that their election IS NOT GOING TO COUNT FOR ANYTHING. That was her OWN words...

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Another Super Delegate endorsed!

DNC Scott Brennan (IA) added for OBAMA


Amot said...

last time I checked there were 3 seats in PA - 2 Dems and 1 GOP that can shift... Do you really think any of these changes is possible, and will Barack influence any of the 3 districts?

Yamaka said...

"IMO, any appearance of overturning the candidate who received the most delegates based on all actual contests (incl. MI & FL), as determined by the voters in those contests, will cause irreparable harm."


What irreparable harm?

Then tell me why the SDs were created in the first place?

In order to prevent an irreparable harm to the Party, SDs were given votes to cast for the most Electable Candidate in the GE, IMO.

Assume, Hillary has a clear lead in the PV (which is quite possible), and about 200-210 of the remaining 246 undeclared SDs believe that She is quite Electable and not BHO because of all the Scandals (Wright, Ayers, Rezko, U of Chicago, Michelles views etc), what's wrong in Nominating her?

I strongly believe that BHO is the least vetted, least experienced and most risky for the GE. McCain will beat him like a drum. He will be God's gift to the Republican Party!

Most probably, the Dems will lose both the WH and the Congress, if BHO is the Nominee.


jpsedona said...


The reason for discussions about popular vote is because that's the ONLY metric of any significance (however invalid) that Hillary stands a decent chance of winning (using her math).

Although it's mathematically possible that she could win the nomination, the probability of that happening will be less than 1 in 250 after today.

UUbuntu said...

Peter and roadkill -- Last week, I tried explaining why Clinton has lost and and then tried move the discussion onto why she lost -- where her campaign went wrong. That discussion didn't go far. There are several people here who won't acknowledge the possibility that the nominating race is over until Sen. Clinton verbally concedes the nomination to Sen. Obama.

Her concession will probably happen in the first week of June, a day or two after the SD/MT primaries. IMO, that's when she should do it anyway -- let all the primaries happen, wait for the results, and then concede. She will be able to exit the stage with some honor and return to being the excellent senator she is.

We should all realize that despite the campaigns' styles, Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have virtually identical stances on issues. Their difference is one of style, not substance.

Yamaka said...

"Obama is ahead in popular vote, but it doesn`t matter, because popular vote is not what decides the primary or GE, delegates decide the primary and EV the GE."


PV argument is valid for the remaining 246 undeclared SDs and 9 Ed's Ds to consider as to who will be the most Electable in the GE. The electability is very very important, as the Primary is meant to produce the most electable candidate.

We don't want to repeat the Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry situation, since 1980.

They will cast the votes as they fit appropriate like this:

1912 + 102 + 200 = 2214 to HRC to clinch the Nomination which requires 2209.


UUbuntu said...

Themann1086: "In the interest of promoting Dem unity, I'm going to try and shift the conversation a bit."

Good luck with that :-)

I think that most of the regular posters here would rather argue over Clinton's deserving of the nomination than to consider Dean's 50-state strategy of running competitively in every district.

For what it's worth though, the MN senatorial race looks interesting, since Al Franken is in it. He's entertaining, and he seems to have a good handle on political issues. Most polls there have him well behind Norm Coleman though.

judyob said...

Themann1086, good subject. In Washington state, we are having a rematch of the 2004 governor's race: Christine Gregoire (D), the incumbent, running against the Republican Dino Rossi. She beat him in 2004 by 129 votes. Should be interesting.

JayW said...

First... for all of the HRC supporters on here that think she has the popular vote lead, you are just insane. Wanting to count FL and MI is just an embarrassment to yourselves.

But, in any event...
do any of you REALLY think she will get the nomination?

IF you really do... put some money on it. I would love to make some easy money and I will cover any amount that you would like to bet.

If you don’t want to bet, and I cant blame you if you don’t, it just proves that you have no actual faith in HRC winning and are just talking smack.

countjellybean said...

ABC News reports these votes totals:

MI and FL Included:
Clinton - 16,691,639
Obama - 16,648,060

MI and FL Excluded:
Clinton - 15,492,344
Obama - 16,071,846

As with the GreenPapers, the ABC News numbers exclude the popular votes in ID, WA, ME, IA, and NV.

jpsedona said...


Based on the contests to date, both are electable (competitive) in GE. You believe that Hillary is better vetted than Obama, that could certainly be true.

You also believe, based on all your postings, that Hillary has a long track record and more experience. This may also be true. However, as far as scandals are concerned, Hillary is going to be the poster child of the conservative right; nothing will energize the Rep base more than having Hillary as the nominee. And the soft Obama attacks on her are not going to be the approach of the Rep's and 527's.

As far as losing the WH, I think either Dem candidate could possibly lose. As far as losing Congress, there's not a chance of the Dems losing. They are likely to get healthy gains in both the House and Senate.

The real reason not to nominate Hillary is that she hasn't won enough delegates of any type. The reason that the contests continue on has more to do with SD's who don't want to be the deciding factor than anything to do with who's the better candidate.

The underlying reasons that the Dems will nominate Obama: 1) new party registrations (down ticket wins) 2) Can raise money for the empty DNC coffers 3) It's easier for a SD to use the 'will of the voters' argument than to make an unpopular decision and overturn the pledged delegate leader (i.e. SD's are chickenhearted)

Martin said...

Yamaka said (2 days ago): "At this minute, there are still 251 SDs undeclared, most probably all of them are Hillary leaning moderates. Most of the Liberal gang is already committed to our Suicidal Sect."

In the time since this was posted, Obama has gained seven more superdelegates. Clinton... big fat ZERO. How does it feel to ALWAYS be wrong, Yamaka?

Leah Texas4Obama said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leah Texas4Obama said...

Regarding the 'fully vetted' issue.

Hillary is NOT fully vetted.
She has not released last year's tax return, her Senate ear-marks, or the Clinton Library Donor list. And the current lawsuit in California involving the Clintons is not getting any media coverage.

So, don't think for one minute that if she were the nominee that all of these things would not be major liabilities for her. I would say much much more but I am going to respect Matt's request that we play nice ;)

*Edited to correct errors.

UUbuntu said...

Right now, I'm listening to an interview with Jim Webb on NPR (Fresh Air). He certainly sounds like he'll make an excellent VP nominee.

I recommend listening to the interview. The audio should be on line in a couple of hours.

JayW said...

Not surprising at all.

No one wants to put money on their claims that HRC will win the nomination?

I will cover any bet amount.

I understand it is just easier for you guys to talk smack...
by not putting your money where your mouth is you basically prove that you really dont believe the trash you are talking.


Unknown said...

To All,
Does anyone have a count on the pledged and unpledged non-delegates
including the Super non-delegates (those would be bloggers of course).

This count would be equally as important, because at this point their endorsement carries the same power as Real delegates and SD's.

I believe the Rules say a majority of seated delegates to the Democratic National Convention will
determine the Nominee.

Until then, opinions are King.

JayW said...

Bum deal about Ted Kennedy.

Ver sad and I wish him well.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Sad news...

AP has reported that Senator Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor:



Emit R Detsaw said...

And the bottom line on the Popular Vote arguements:

Neither the Primaries nor the General Election use the Popular Vote to determine the winner.

Primary - only Delegates count
General Election - only Electorial College counts.

Popular vote is only relevant at the State, District, or County level. They can not, nor should they ever be combined in the Primaries. Due to different ways the States run their Delegate selection process, a person's vote in one State is not equal to a similar person's vote in a different State. It is truely Apples and Oranges. Both fruity, but different.

You really don't want the States with the dense population to be able to rule the entire process now would you? That wouldn't give the Urban candidate any chance at all.


UUbuntu said...

I share the hope of every blog poster here in my hope that Sen. Kennedy is able to recover from this.

Yamaka said...

"And the soft Obama attacks on her are not going to be the approach of the Rep's and 527's."


And you forgot that Hillary gave a feather-touch on BHO!

How BHO liked Michelle campaigning for him! But when the Repubs attack her "for being not proud of an American" he is annoyed! He wants it both ways. He is very naive and terribly inexperienced.

On Dems losing the Congress:

I thought in 2006 Pelosi and Reed came to power by promising to solve the "War". What did they do? Practically nothing.

Their approval rating 20% is far worse than Dumb Dubya's 30%!

I believe at least the Senate will leave the Dems if they field a very weak candidate in the Fall.

"(i.e. SD's are chickenhearted)"

My hope is they will stand up and see the "Big Picture".

1. They have to ask why in the past 30 years no FAR LEFT candidate has won the WH?

2. Why Clinton is the only Democrat who won the WH twice since FDR?

The answer is written on the Wall everywhere. BHO is untested, unvetted and terribly naive and inexperienced!

HRC has been there for 8 years as the "Co-President" working shoulder to shoulder with Bill. She is ready to do the Job from Day One.

I understand there is a virulent anti-Women under current in American culture. When Indians, Israelis, Germans etc can have the Chief Executive Woman, some Americans are wandering in the backwaters of anti-women anarchy!

In spite of the PV lead and a clear win with the EV methodology, if she loses the Nomination, the death knell for the Democratic Party will be heard in far away lands, for sure!


Cat said...

I have a serious question. I am asking for facts not opinion please. Does Barak Obama qualify for a Top Secret Security Clearance? I don't think so based on his background and associations in the past. How can he be Commander In Chief if does not qualify or will they simple ignore the rules for him? I am serious.

themann1086 said...

Amot said:
last time I checked there were 3 seats in PA - 2 Dems and 1 GOP that can shift... Do you really think any of these changes is possible, and will Barack influence any of the 3 districts?

The "vulnerable" Democrats, if you can call them that, are Chris Carney and Jason Altmire, both of whom were unexpected upsets in 2006. I don't have a feel on those races, as I don't live near those districts, but as far as I know, neither have a particularly strong challenger at the moment. I could be wrong though.

As for the Republicans... well, there's Jim Gerlach, who has squeaked out victories in 04 and 06. I think his time is now though. He will lose. If you're looking for longshots, check out Phil English (PA-03), John Peterson (05), Charlie Dent (15), and Tim Murphy (18). I've heard rumblings about good challengers to them, but it's too early to get a feel for those races.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

catherine said: "I don't think so based on his background and associations in the past. \"

What background are you vaguely referring to?

Senator Obama IS a SENATOR of the United States of America - of course he qualifies!

dsimon said...

It's a little late at this point, but...


- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First president’s wife/first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund
- First president to be held in contempt of court

I have to say I think these points are unfair.

Impeachment does not mean guilt.

If Clinton was guilty of something, one should come up with something that applies to him, not by association to friends or associates (unless one wants to attribute Reverend Wright's statements to Obama).

Any cabinet official can be investigated; the question is whether wrongdoing was found. (And let's not forget that there was a Republican Congress at the time that was fond of investigating.)

Anyone can sue anybody; it's not evidence of guilt.

That his wife was investigated is again not evidence of guilt. Anyone can be investigated. And again I don't think people should engage in guilt by association.

Innocent people can have legal defense funds; defending lawsuits can be expensive, whether or not one is found guilty.

The contempt charge was, I believe, on a minor and technical point.

I have no problem with people criticizing Clinton. But I think the arguments should more behind them than accusations, associations, and investigations that don't turn up wrongdoing.

UUbuntu said...

Catherine --

The answer is yes. All US senators and congresspeople (along with a lot of other people) have a Top Secret security clearance -- but it's on a need-to-know basis as determined by the DOD. TS clearance is not difficult to get if you have a professional need for it (it's just a pretty detailed FBI background check), and Obama (and Clinton and McCain) have nothing in their backgrounds that would cause problems in this area.

However, your point is moot. There is nothing about security clearance in the requirements for election to the office of the presidency.

Frankly, one of the beauties of our democracy (and all modern first-world democracies) is that we have an elected civilian in charge of the armed forces. We the people get to determine whether or not the candidate is qualified to act in such a capacity. Not some anonymous governmental bureaucratic agency under the guise of "security clearance".

Hope this helps.

Emit R Detsaw said...

And on the security clearence question. Anyone can get a security clearence. Even if you have items in your past....

When it comes to Top Secret Clearence, they have a process where you are briefed to that clearence (need to know) level. With that briefing they tell you the penalties for breaking that level of secret. Highest I ever had was where they could wiretap my phone without cause, and I could be executed for saying what I knew. When you leave such a program they debrief you. The debrief is mainly another round of the punishments.

The current administration is a case however where they violated that and should be punished.

Impeach Bush and Cheney Now!!!

dsimon said...

Yamaka: Then tell me why the SDs were created in the first place?

I believe that it was to prevent an activist base from nominating someone who was clearly unelectable in the general election. But polls show Obama and Clinton doing about the same against McCain, so on the data neither one is clearly more unelectable than the other. On that basis, the result of the pledged delegate contest should be respected by the superdelegates.

PV argument is valid for the remaining 246 undeclared SDs and 9 Ed's Ds to consider as to who will be the most Electable in the GE.

If both candidates were competing for the popular vote, then it might make sense for superdelegates to consider it. But it seems to me that no reasonable candidate would spend resources going after popular votes that did not lead to more pledged delegates. Since the contest inevitably becomes one over delegates, it seems that the popular vote would be an irrelevant measure. Sure, superdelegates could consider it, but it wouldn't make sense if it wasn't what the candidates were competing over.

In spite of the PV lead and a clear win with the EV methodology

Two more arguments that don't fly in fact or logic. The only way Clinton gets a popular vote lead is to count zero votes for Obama in Michigan--as if that really represents the will of the people in Michigan--and omitting vote estimates from four caucus states that don't report raw vote totals. So even her claim about leading the popular vote, if the popular vote were relevant, is a result of manipulation.

The electoral college vote claim fails on three counts. First, it's not the system Democrats have for deciding the nomination. Second, it wrongly assumes that primary results will apply in the general election; they will not, as Obama has comfortable leads against McCain in many states Clinton won in the primaries (NY, CA, NJ).

And most absurdly, the electoral college claim is directly in opposition to the popular vote claim. Delegates roughly approximate the vote distribution, but the winner-take-all electoral vote system gives 100% of the award to the person with 50% + 1 votes. That's not a good representation of the election results. Clinton can't have it both ways.

But it sure seems like the campaign doesn't care about justifying its reasoning or calculations; the only thing that seems to matter is making the candidate come out ahead, regardless of logic. I expected better from her, frankly.

Unknown said...

This bears repeating.
Jim said...
To All,
Does anyone have a count on the pledged and unpledged non-delegates
including the Super non-delegates (those would be bloggers of course).

This count would be equally as important, because at this point their endorsement carries the same power as Real delegates and SD's.

I believe the Rules say a majority of seated delegates to the Democratic National Convention will
determine the Nominee.

Until then, opinions are King.

UUbuntu said...

Jim -- I don't understand your request. What is a "non-delegate"? Isn't that a "voter"? Like you and me an the 30 million others who've participated in the primary process so far?

Essentially, the only thing that matters in the DNC (and RNC) nominating process is the delegate count. Whoever gets the majority of the delegates at the convention gets the nomination. Nothing else matters. Not votes, not money, not popularity. Just delegates.

jpsedona said...


The race is over when, and if, she concedes. It's possible that she fights all the way to the convention. To me, that seems highly unlikely.

Let's assume a scenario where she gets her way with FL & MI, Obama eeks out a slim number from remaining contests and SD's putting him over the top for the nomination by even just a few votes.

Should she then decide not to concede, many SD's, and in particular her Senate colleagues that currently support her, will force her to the sidelines by switching endorsements to Obama.

If she has any aspirations following the nomination process, she will not want to return to the Senate if her own superdelegates from the Senate turn on her. She would not want to suffer the humiliation of being forced out once Obama reaches the magic number (whatever that number turns out to be).

Unknown said...

Tyler said...
Jim -- I don't understand your request.

Actually you do understand.

Your second paragraph is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Unknown said...

jpsedona said...

The race is over when, and if, she concedes. It's possible that she fights all the way to the convention. To me, that seems highly unlikely.

Seems likely to me she will not
Pledged is not "bound"
If Barack implodes, his pledged delegates could switch in a heartbeat.
This is not likely, but possible.

buonarotti said...

realclearpolitics has polls for 18 "battleground states" (Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Oregon, Washington, California).
if have taken these polls and counted the electoral votes for Obama resp. for Clinton taking the polls as fictious results in the presidential election.
in this moment (2008-05-20) Obama leads 163 vs. 124 against Clinton.

if you find that interesting i could provide you with the change of that numbers from day to day.

michael, innsbruck, austria

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Jim said: "If Barack implodes, his pledged delegates could switch in a heartbeat.
This is not likely, but possible."


The world could come to and end. This is not likely, but possible.

If Hillary's reason for staying in the race is that Obama might implode then she is being unrealistic.

If Hillary supporters are hoping for Obama to implode in the last minutes of this nomination race then they are being unrealistic.

If the Clinton Machine has not found anything to bring Senator Obama down by now then they aren't going to - and if the Clinton Machine hasn't found anything then the Republicans are going to be able to find anything either.

Vote for HOPE
Vote for Change
Vote for Obama ;)

jpsedona said...


With repect to Obama imploding before the convention, I see two general scenarios (there are other variations). But an implosion would have to be something that causes him to want to withdraw.

I think the more likely one plays out like this:

- Hillary concedes before 6/15 (being the good soldier she is).
- Hillary gets all types kudos for being a team player.
- Sometime before the convention, some scandal (that we haven't heard about) makes Obama completely unsuitable.
- Obama would likely resign leaving Hillary an opportunity to pick up the pieces.

The less likely scenario goes:

- Hillary refuses to concede after Obama reaches the magic number
- Hillary vows to take FL & MI to credentials committee and/or floor of convention
- Party insiders are angry at her and throw significant support behind Obama (many anti-clinton sound bites from her own party leaders)
- Hillary proves herself correct about Obama, Obama implodes and resigns
- Hillary goes to the convention; insiders place John Edwards name in nomination (who's viewed perhaps as the good team player); or, possibly it turns into a draft Gore convention.
- Under no circumstance do I see the party leadership supporting Hillary once she pulls the pin out of the grenade.

Cat said...

Thank you for the responses regarding the Security Clearance. I am just trying to get the facts straight. In his book Mr, Obama admits to using drugs years ago. On a government website it states:

b. Illegal Drug Use

(2) Applicants who are found, through investigation or personal admission, to have experimented with or used narcotics or dangerous drugs, except those medically prescribed, may not be considered for employment on a DEA contract/order. Disclosed drug use will be decided on a case-by-case basis. Experimental use or use of any narcotic, dangerous drug or marijuana, except medically prescribed, after employment on a DEA contract/order is cause for removal. "

Having read this made me wonder if Mr. Obama would quality for a Security Clearance, That would be an important consideration, but apparently there are different laws applied to elected officials so I guess I won't worry about it.

Unknown said...

Prediction for the evening.

Clinton wins KY 31 to 20 PDs
Obama wins OR 28 to 24 PDs

Clinton nets 7.

Obama picks up an additional 10 Supers. (Let them come out this evening between the KY results in early evening and OR results after midnight.)

With those numbers at the end of the evening, Obama will be at 1975 (50 to go) and be 200 ahead of Clinton, who 1775 will still need 250 to 2024.5

15 is the magic number of SDs. Here's why.

For Clinton, even a blow out in PR would net her less than 50 PDs in PR/SD/MT.

If she starts tomorrow needing 250 delegates and can only pick up 50 in PDs, a pick up by Obama of 15 PDs would knock the current pool (at 214) down below 200.

Unknown said...

As I said,
This is not likely, but possible."
Good work on your two general scenarios .
Your "grade" is lower, but partly correct and I quote,AND CAPITALIZE YOUR KEYWORD.
"then the Republicans ARE going to be able to find anything either.

Unknown said...

Oops, an error on that post. The highlight is the change

If she starts tomorrow needing 250 delegates and can only pick up 50 in PDs, a pick up by Obama of 15 SDs would knock the current pool (at 214) down below 200.

Ariane said...

dsimon I agree with you that the list of things about Clinton does not seem quite fair. I think I have seen & heard a similar list from right wing sites and Rush Limbaugh types.

That is one of the most disappointing things in this campaign, the readiness of Democrats on both sides to repeat typical right-wing rhetoric.

Thanks for being logical and evenhanded. I have appreciated other posts of yours such as pointing out the lack of evidence that Obama is on the far left. It's ironic that this Republican type BS is repeated by some on the Clinton side while other dedicated Hillary supporters insist that SHE is more progressive than Obama.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

Jim -

Good try but no cigar ;)

I typed that sentence in my previous post incorrectly.

It should have read:

...and if the Clinton Machine hasn't found anything then the Republicans are NOT going to be able to find anything either.

Ciao ;)


UUbuntu said...

buanarotti -- I wouldn't put too much credence in state-by-state general election analysis at this point in the process. The "battleground" states won't start emerging until after the conventions and we see where the candidates stand, and then statewide polls should start to matter. For now, the overall poll numbers are a better indication of the candidacies' status. At this point, national polls for the general election are more frequent and more reliable.

Catherine -- glad to help. If illegal drug use from decades ago were a security clearance issue, than a lot more candidates -- including the current and former presidents (Bush and Clinton) and former vice presidents (Gore and Quayle) would have been disqualified long ago. All of them had credible evidence regarding their use of illegal drugs during their youth. Links provided upon request.

Basically, the security issue would be whether or not someone's judgment could be compromised or whether they could be coerced due to past "experimentation" that was previously undisclosed. If there were evidence of Obama's (or McCain's) current or recent illegal drug use, then that would be a major red flag in this election. Security clearance would be the least of their problems.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

dsimon and ariane-

Okay perhaps I should not have posted that post - BUT there is nothing in it that is not true the 'way it is worded'.

Why is it that when something about Bill or Hillary's past comes up we shouldn't discuss it but the Obama-bashers say things everyday here on this thread over and over (some of which is true although unflattering i.e. Obama's admission of experimental drug use).

In the comment in question I did not accuse anyone of 'guilt' - I only stated some facts.

The original post was not even on this page and would have been forgotten if it had not been copied and pasted on a response on this page.

Let's move on to something more important ;)


Independent Voter said...

buonaratti - realclearpolitics has polls for 18 "battleground states" (Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Oregon, Washington, California)


What I find absolutely hillaryous (yes I know it's spelled hilarious) is that RCP is calling Oregon, Washington and California as "battleground states". That is such a JOKE! These are three of the most liberal states in the country and if they think that ANY of them are in play in November they are SADLY mistaken. McCain has NO shot in CA, especially since Arnie is hated by the right-wingers in this state because he is not supporting the "marriage amendment" as they want him to.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

RCP does NOT call them 'battleground states'

The heading on the side bar says Battleground Polls.

Then when you click on one of the states it says 'Head-to-Head Polls'

RobH said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Independent Voter said...


Thank you for the clarification. I didn't actually go over there to see what the polls said, I took buo's word for it when he/she said they posted 18 "battleground states" in his/her post.

RobH said...

My hope is that Obama will not declare himself the presumptive nominee tonight, and I’m guessing he won’t. I hope he’ll say something like: “We’ve reached an important milestone tonight, and that is that by the rules AS THEY EXIST, and that we BOTH agreed to, we have an unassailable lead. But we both recognize that a solution must be found for FL and MI, and that will likely change some numbers. And since I believe all the contests should count, I look forward to competing all the way through June 3.”

Regarding FL & MI, I (RobH) would like the DNC to do the following (with full understanding of the penalty that should be meted out to dissuade this kind of behavior in the future):

Go ahead and seat FL as is, or w/ half delegates (I don’t care), but strip the SD’s due to the FL Dem party’s complicity in the foul-up. I’ve seen enough to know, they’re responsible, not the voters. But let HRC count the 300K vote edge she gets; Obama’s overall pop vote lead will shrink from 600K to 300K (or 400K w/ caucus state estimates.) Tonight will end up a wash (14% Obama win of 1M OR votes, vs a 28% Clinton win of 500K KY votes.) She might pick up 150K votes between PR, MT, and SD. Bottom line is, he wins pop vote as of June 3rd, too, EXCEPTING MICHIGAN.

I want to seat FL, so that we can isolate the Clinton argument, and it’s fundamental flaw, in Michigan. With Florida seated, Obama wins pledged delegates, superdelegates, popular vote. He’s the nominee, period. And Clinton’s only path is to insist on SEATING MICHIGAN AS IS, a stance that no sane, honest Democrat could abide by. If she forces it and wins in the RBC, I believe uncommitted superdelegates will flock to, and plenty of pledged delegates will switch to, Obama, as the raw cravenness of her strategy/argument is revealed. And if she pushes it in the RBC and loses, then it’s over on June 3rd and nobody is disenfranchised.


UUbuntu said...

We should keep in mind that the creators of RealClearPolitics.com have an ideology. They lean conservative and created the site in an effort to counteract "liberal bias" in election reporting. They wanted to adopt a "just the facts" approach and to supply links to a wide variety of columnists, including their own contributors.

While their numerical and polling information is always correct and up to date (they are not Fox News, for example) and they do link to a wide variety of leftist and rightist sources of opinion, I approach their site with some caution, especially on more ideological matters.

I can't put my finger on it, but somehow my "subtle bias paranoia detector" seems to buzz when visiting. It may be me, but then again...

Richard said...

This will be the real status of the nomination race tomorrow morning:

After tonight, Obama will probably have a total of 1967, just 58 short of clinching the nomination. He will pick up 37 pledged delegates in the remaining contests, meaning he needs just 21 supers to put him over the top. Since there are now 214 superdelegates remaining, he needs less than 10% of the remaining supers to win.

Clinton, on the other hand, will have just 1773 total delegates, 252 short of clinching the nomination. She will pick up perhaps 49 delegates in the remaining contests, for a total of 1822. This means she will need 203 of the remaining 214 superdelegates, or nearly 95%, to win. That's NINETY-FIVE percent.

Alternatively, if Clinton can get 194 superdelegates (or just under 91%) she can deny him a clear majority and force a floor fight with the nine uncommitted Edwards delegates deciding the nomination.

Face it, folks, it's over.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

RobH -

Yesterday the Obama campaign said - and Obama said today on TV - that he is NOT going to claim 'presumptive nominee' status this evening. He is only going to point out that they have crossed the hurdle of obtaining the majority of the pledged delegates.

Leah Texas4Obama said...


I haven't read the article yet but the title is hilarious!

"Why don't those hillbillies like Obama?"



jpsedona said...

Interesting, in KY today, Bill was asked if he was ready for the campaign to end. He said “No, because there are three more left. Then I’ll be ready for it to be over.”

Bill Clinton in KY

This is just plain strange. Why wouldn't Bill say something like "we've got a long way to go until the convention and GE"???

jpsedona said...


It's possible that it plays out as you say, provided the RBC doesn't seat FL & MI. I personally believe that there's 0.00001% of the delgations not being seated in some fashion. In fashion or other, those two delegations will be part of the total number. I think any claim of an Obama nomination victory that leaves out FL & MI could prove embarassing.

I think the better strategy would be to let the MSM tout that he has an insurmountable lead. Obama can then work in that "...it's not a victory until we include FL & MI... and we do need to seat those delegations". He can then endorse the plans from the states and say that he's in support of whatever the states decide in combination with the RBC/DNC. Hillary's only choice at that point would be to insist on an outcome that she promotes and is beneficial to her.

themann1086 said...

Totally off-topic post incoming!

Today, the US Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit ruled that the current currency system of the US is discriminatory against the vision-impaired. I recommend Adam B's dissection at Daily Kos. So, question for the hive mind: what do you think?

Ariane said...

Catharine, I had a cousin who had a Top Secret Clearance and she had used drugs as a teenager, as Obama did.

I can understand the issue of previous drug use being important to the DEA, as you reference, since they might end up having access to large hauls of confiscated drugs and could be tempted.

Not that I would want a president who was currently getting wasted on drugs (or alcohol for that matter, since it impairs your brain too). Or one that at any point was doing massive amounts of mind altering drugs.

Bill Clinton also admitted trying marijuana although he said he didn't inhale (but few believed that part!)

Actually in his book, written ca. 20 years ago, Obama may have been self dramatizing a bit about his drug use to make a dramatic point about how he could have been headed down a bad road. At least I have read where his friends don't remember him being a big drug user. In any case, the drug use in his teens left his brain intact to graduate Magna Cum Laude at Harvard Law School and have the well known law professor Lawrence Tribe say Obama was the most brilliant student he'd ever had.

As for other stuff he already went through the FBI background check. I think if there were serious problems they would have uncovered it.

Peter said...

I`m just thinking. Obama is in Florida tomorrow, could it be possible to do something similar as with Edwards? Revealing a major endorsement in a crucial battleground state?

I`m thinking Al Gore in Florida. I am just thinking at loud...

But it has a nice symbolic ring to it and it could help him in Florida the same way I think Edwards endorsing in MI has helped him in MI

Mike in Maryland said...

catharine said...
I have a serious question. I am asking for facts not opinion please. Does Barak Obama qualify for a Top Secret Security Clearance?

It's an entirely moot question.

By the fact that someone has been sworn into the Office of the President of the United States of America AUTOMATICALLY qualifies them for EVERY security clearance in the United States government. Otherwise the President would not have access to all information he or she would need to make an informed decision.

BTW - Top Secret is NOT the highest security clearance. Apparently there are several levels of security clearance above and beyond Top Secret, but those security clearances are classified, and thus are not 'officially' known by the public.

The qualifications for President of the United States is spelled out in the Constitution Article II, Section 1, 5th paragraph). There are three criteria:
1. Natural born citizen of the US
2. At least 35 years of age
3. Been a resident of the US for at least 14 years.

Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain meet those criteria, as did all the other candidates for President.

AND, why is it so important for you to know if he qualifies for Top Secret clearance? Just tying to stir the pot?


Independent Voter said...

theman86-Totally off-topic post incoming!

Today, the US Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit ruled that the current currency system of the US is discriminatory against the vision-impaired. I recommend Adam B's dissection at Daily Kos. So, question for the hive mind: what do you think?


I say it's about time. I have felt this way for a very long time. I use to work with someone - while I was in high school - who was a cashier. I watched him, in total disgust as he stole from a blind man by giving him less change and pocketing the rest than was due to the man. I also chased the man down and let him know what had happened. Of course I also turned my fellow employee in to the boss, but it just made me wonder how often this actually took place.

I say get rid of the "in god we trust" and replace it with braille.

suzihussein22 said...

For what it's worth:


Independent Voter said...

Mike, I don't think she was trying to "stir the pot". I simply think it was a serious concern that she had.

Catherine it really isn't much of a question about clearance because it would have also applied to Bill Clinton (smoking pot - but didn't inhale - yeah right - as Obama said, that was the purpose), and to George Bush (and his cocaine use).

RobH said...

Yes, Richard,

My calcs are similar to yours. I'm guessing you've got 55:45 spreads for MT and SD resulting in 7:7, 8:7 respectively. But I think PR will be closer than you must, as I predict he will pick up 42, not 37, in the last three. (I used 45:55, but I think it's a crapshoot, there.)

Net, I have him needing 18 of 215, thus 8%, and her needing 206 of 215, thus 96% !!

But, hold on, 6 of those 18 are add-ons for Alaska, Hawaii, Georgia, Wyoming, and Maine between 5/23 and 6/1. So he really needs, at this count, just 12 more SD's, period (6%). Should happen by the weekend.

RobH said...

Sorry, make that 9:7 for MT.

RobH said...


Get pumped! Fired up, ready to go!
GOnna be a long, and good, night.

(BTW, you can imagine my disappointment when I discoverd this AM that you abandoned your post at 2:50AM this morning instead of 3AM. Short-shifting?)

Mike in Maryland said...

Independent voter said...
Mike, I don't think she was trying to "stir the pot".

I always get a bad vibe about anyone who brings up the 'security clearance' question for a couple of reasons.

One is that it is an indication that the person doesn't want to do any research on their own. Or they know the answer to their question, but want others to do the research, then laugh, and make disruptive posts, when there are differing opinions. I've seen this tactic used on several Internet posting sites.

The other reason is just after President Clinton was sworn in as President on Jan 20, 1993, a caller to C-SPAN (not surprisingly on the 'Republican' phone line) 'declared' that Clinton couldn't be President because he didn't qualify for 'top secret' security clearance because of his prior drug use. The announcer on C-SPAN (in what may be the only time this happened) immediately informed the caller they were incorrect, as the person who occupies the Office of the President automatically gets all security clearances, otherwise they wouldn't be able to consider all the information on which to make decisions.

That is why I'm suspicious of any person who asks an easily researchable question, claims it is an 'innocent question', then follows up with more comments that shows their intent was not to get an answer, but to stir the pot.


Leah Texas4Obama said...


Look at my post

May 20, 2008 1:18 AM

I've been saying that ;)

jean said...

Check out the new Head to Head Poll on RealClearPolitics in North Carolina.
It is very surprising.
It makes me wonder if there are going to be a lot more surprises.
If Hillary can carry North Carolina and Obama can't that really does throw something in the mix.

Leah Texas4Obama said...

RobH -


What an awesome tonight will be!

On a side note - I think Obama's speech tonight will be toned down, but a very important speech to hear. He has probably rewrote what he was going to say due to Senator Kennedy's bad news today.

Oh, and I live in Texas so the time here is one hour earlier than the time-stamps on the DCW blogs ;)


«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 4360   Newer› Newest»