Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

With 69% of the vote now in, Clinton takes a greater than 2:1 margin lead, 65-31. It's a question whether Obama will be able avoid slipping into the 20's for a second week in a row. In fact, CNN is reporting that, from Kentucky alone, Obama is not yet going to be able to declare enough delegates to put him over the top in pledged-delegates, before the Oregon polls close, according to their projections...

Update [2008-5-20 20:44:4 by Jerome Armstrong]: 65-30 now with 90% reporting. While Clinton was speaking, the Obama campaign dropped their fundraising numbers for April: 93% gave $100 or less while raising $31 million in total. Clinton officials say they raised $22M for the month. McCain raised $18M.

Update [2008-5-20 20:50:45 by Jerome Armstrong]:SUSA does poll both Obama and Clinton in North Carolina today. Obama loses by double-digits, while Clinton defeats McCain:

North Carolina

Clinton     49
McCain      43

McCain      51
Obama       43
Has Markos seen these numbers?

Going strictly by the latest poll shows Clinton leading by a 310-228 EV count over McCain, while the presumptive nominee, Obama, trails McCain by a 285-253 EV margin.

Update [2008-5-20 21:22:24 by Jerome Armstrong]: CNN updates that Obama has 1627 pledged delegates, a majority. The number of 1627, however, is not likely to hold with MI & FL being resolved (so Obama will likely get a groundhog day for this matter June 1st or 3rd). Non-binding, but like the popular vote which Clinton leads, this is a moral argument by Obama for the SD vote.

Update [2008-5-20 22:9:19 by Jerome Armstrong]: 100% of the vote in, Clinton picks up about 250K votes more than Obama in Kentucky. Wow, wow, wow. But Obama does stay out of the 20's, losing to Clinton by 35 percent, 65 - 30.

Update [2008-5-20 22:21:55 by Jerome Armstrong]:Matt, at DCW, quoting GreenPapers, says that Obama is still .5 short of the majority of pledged-delegates, opps... for another 40 minutes.

Update [2008-5-20 22:32:41 by Jerome Armstrong]: Obama has been shut out in one of the CD's in Kentucky, losing 88-9 percent in the 5th CD, where Clinton picks up all 5 delegates. Overall, Clinton will take a 37-14 delegate lead out of Kentucky for a gain of 23 delegates.

Update [2008-5-20 22:39:25 by Jerome Armstrong]: ARG nailed it, polling 65-29, I'm sure we'll hear from Dick Bennett (who needs a real blog) about Poblano's prediction, which didn't exactly nail it (the excellent streak ends).

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

275 Comments

Re: Kentucky for Clinton
Let me guess. Obama can't close the deal so Clinton gets the nomination.
by BlueGAinDC 2008-05-20 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Yep. And only white Americans in Appalachia count.

by wengler 2008-05-20 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

What's funnier is that when you consider the fact that more Obama supporters have said they would vote for Hillary than Hillary supporters saying they'd vote for Obama, the SUSA poll isn't surprising.

Why? Because Obama supporters know he's the nominee and have relatively little issue entertaining the vote for Clinton.

Clinton supporters are still coming to grips with losing the nomination and still have the feelings of bitterness and dislike that she's been beaten, and are less willing to support Obama at this time.

If the tables were turned and Obama were behind I don't doubt it'd be the same way.

And lastly, SUSA got NC waaaaaaaay wrong before the primary, so it's quite plausible that they're way off here too by underrepresenting Obama's support.

by Yalin 2008-05-20 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

I know for the next few months Jerome will be posting polls that have Clinton beating McCain by larger margins than Obama, Kos will do the same for Obama but...

Jerome, you know that Perot was leading Bush who was leading Clinton in May of 1992, right?

Why do you guys gets so excited about this stuff?

by deepee 2008-05-20 05:18PM | 0 recs
Clinton leads in the popular vote?

Really?  What was the vote total in Maine?

How many votes were in certified contests?

What was the vote total in Iowa?

by Rorgg 2008-05-20 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton leads in the popular vote?

Doesn't matter. The number of participants in those caucuses is totally insignificant in the scheme of the whole nominating process. They are, combined dwarfed several times over by just the number of voters in the meaningless Florida exercise. Your point is taken but moot.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-05-20 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton leads in the popular vote?

Actually, you have no way of knowing that. Why? Because the counts that come out of caucuses are for state electors, NOT the popular vote.

A state elector can represent anywhere from 3 - 20 people depending on the state. That means that a caucus where you saw 20,000 total 'vote' was anywhere from 60,000 - 400,000 actual votes.

So if you actually count the caucus states with even the bare minimum typically allocated to a state elector, Obama is even further ahead in the popular vote.

by Yalin 2008-05-20 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton leads in the popular vote?

Really?  How many are they?  What's the ratio?

To claim she's ahead, you must have counted all the votes.

How many were there?

by Rorgg 2008-05-20 06:22PM | 0 recs
Missing votes?

Something weird happened... you've got these results two posts down:    

104,928-vote margin for Clinton

   √ Hillary Clinton: 277,845 votes (59 percent)
    Barack Obama: 172,917 votes (37 percent)

   55 percent reporting as of 8:04 PM Eastern


But shortly after that about 50,000 Obama votes disappeared, and never came back. WTF?

by Victor Laszlo 2008-05-20 04:29PM | 0 recs
Both

Both Hillary and Obama lost about 50000 votes.  I think CNN was counting Jefferson County twice before they corrected the error.

The KY Sec of State never had those numbers.

by DaveOinSF 2008-05-20 04:31PM | 0 recs
I can't get too wound up here.

It's a loss in a state that wouldn't vote for a Democrat if he/she handed out $500 on the street corners.  Oregon, on the other hand, is full of hard-working working class white folks that seem to really like Obama.

I'm not thrilled with the gap, but hey, I can't imagine Clinton's thrilled with the ones she's racked up in pledged delegates, superdelegates, and popular votes.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-20 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

So Kentucky doesn't matter?

Seems Obama supporters have been slamming Hillary's people for supposedly saying the same things about the myriad of states Dems won't win in November that Obama won (Kansas, North and SOuth Carolina, Mississippi etc).

Kinda ironic

by SaveElmer 2008-05-20 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Kinda like Clinton not counting the caucus states or the will of MI voters.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

MI voters voted for Clinton. She is all too willing to take their will into consideration. Obama on the other hand is running scared.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Unlike Gore, Bradley, Edwards & Obama, Clinton did not remove her name from the ballot. However, exit polls show that many who voted for her and who voted uncommitted would have voted for Obama.

As Obama has won this thing he has nothing to be scared of.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

yeah maybe you have a short memory because while Clinton did not campaign in MI, Obama's surrogates actively campaigned for "Uncommitted". John Conyers even endorsed "Uncommitted". But those were the heady days when everyone thought Obama will trounce her in NH and will not give her the satisfaction of MI. As far as you fictional exit polls go, people who wanted Edwards or Obama voted Uncommitted as did the UAW and other unions. I don't remember ever reading anyone voting for Clinton when the actually wanted to vote for Obama. But guess what he still lost. He lost there and he lost BIG in Florida.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

That seems to harm your position. Is that really how you want to present the argument? You seem to be saying that Obama voters intentionally voted for him by voting "uncommitted" as they were instructed. If you take that position you utterly destroy her pop vote argument BS as it is.

Also, you didn't read the exit polls so I suggest that you do so now before you look even more foolish.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

I seriously can't make out anything on you above statement....so I am breaking it down:

In MI:
1. Obama took his name off the ballot...did not campaign

2. HRC had her name on ballot...did not campaign.

3. Obama surrogates campaigned against HRC and asked supporters to vote uncommitted

4. HRC supporters did not campaign

5. Obama/Uncommitted lost by 15 points (roughly 90k votes)

In FL

1. HRC and BO had names on ballot

2. HRC did not campaign

3. BO campaigned by airing ads in Florida through MSNBC

4. BO lost by 17 points (roughly 300k votes)

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

I'm sorry you don't understand but what you're presenting is actually a pathetic showing for the most high profile Dem in America.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

a pathetic showing is when the Obama gets shelled by a 35 point and more than 200000 votes loss on the eve of what he construed to be the day he will crown himself the presumptive nominee.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

You do realize that Obama has beaten Clinton by  more than that margin many times right? No. Of course you don't. And now he's taken an insurmountable pledged delegate lead and unlike Clinton's claim to the pop vote lead, Obama doesn't have to lie about it.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Please post a link or source of these exit polls you are referencing. As much as we'd like to, we can't just take your word for it.

by zenful6219 2008-05-20 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

CNN exit polling data.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

You're right.

Both Obama and Edwards actively campaigned for uncommitted.  Hillary didn't campaign at all and she still gave them a whompin.'

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

That the highest profile Dem and the only name on the ballot didn't do better is pathetic but it's funny that you don't realize that.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Of course you know that Obama is polling higher in MI right now, and that any candidate who runs uncontested and still misses out on nearly half the vote has serious likability issues there.  But who needs facts?

by brathor 2008-05-20 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Of Course he will poll higher now because he is ahead. But both run neck and neck with McCain. Her name was on the ballot but as people forget that there was only one campaign in MI to vote UNCOMMITTED. But then these are the real facts. She won in spite of not campaigning while her opponents campaigned there through their surrogates and still lost.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Or Obama supporters believing it doesn't matter whether he was stupid enough to take his name off the ballot to kiss the ass of Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats...that we should just assume anyone that didn't vote for Hillary voted for Obama...

by SaveElmer 2008-05-20 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

You do realize Al Gore did the same thing in 2000 for the same reason and carried MI? Of course you don't.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

And what Al did has to do with this how?

by SaveElmer 2008-05-20 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Aw that's sad. You don't understand. Well the claim is that Obama did something stupid when in fact he simply did something that has precedent when the state violates the DNC rules. It also shows the Clinton claim, that her name need to stay on the ballot because we needed MI in the fall as well as the claim that taking your name off the ballot will cost you the state, is false.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

If primaries equaled ge victories, then McCain gets NY?

Methinks no.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-20 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Well that's an odd thing to say in response to my comment in response to comments about MI.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

And kinda dumb.

by Tolstoy 2008-05-20 05:56PM | 0 recs
I agree with you 100%...

...More than likely, a Democrat will not carry Kentucky in November.

Just like a Democrat will not carry Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming, or Utah in November.

The difference between my argument and yours is that Sen. Clinton won Kentucky handily and Sen. Obama won those other states in similar fashion.

by Andre Walker 2008-05-20 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree with you 100%...

No disagreement there- except PERHAPS for Wyoming.  Don't underestimate our (Dems, not Obama supporters) ability to make some real inroads out West.  Maybe not this cycle, but soon, my friend, soon.  Beautiful place out there, and if I were running a jaunt through the Big Sky country would be high on the list.

But I don't see what your argument is- it comes down to electors.  And then we've got the problem argument- Obama's got more.  Utah, Georgia, Alabama, and Wyoming may not be voting blue this year, but their electoral votes add up to more than WV and KY.  And that's what matters.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-20 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

They voted for Bill twice.

by msharp 2008-05-20 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Kentucky went blue in '92 and '96

by LDFan 2008-05-20 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

And, they will go blue in '08, but only if we have Clinton as the nominee or at least on the ticket.

by zenful6219 2008-05-20 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I can't get too wound up here.

Things have changed a lot in the past 16 years.  Sorry, but neither Clinton nor Obama is going to win Kentucky.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-21 02:22PM | 0 recs
Is this a decisive victory?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 04:36PM | 0 recs
Obama has a problem...a BIG problem
When you are the frontrunner, when you are about to declare yourself the nominee, when you are outspending your opponent in state, when you have offices in every city in that state for many more months than your opponent and still lose the state by a huge margin you have a problem...and when 70% of registered DEMOCRATS in that state voting for your opponent say that they will not vote for you in November you have BIG problem.
Now the Obama supporters can attribute it to racism like they generally do or take a long hard look and realize that as it stands right now the electoral map is stacked against Obama. He will not win any of the Southern largely GOP states or even the midwest and mountain states. So that leaves the swing states which have gone overwhelmingly for Clinton and where the voters have been disparaged as ignorant racist hicks. If this attitude carries on then the present problem will be compounded many times over and no amount of money will be able to salvage it. If the last several primaries have shown anything is that money is not everything and a campaign with a message that connects to voters can trounce Obama.
by tarheel74 2008-05-20 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Hahahaha. He won't win the midwest?? Comedy. Thanks.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Has he won anything there other than Illinois and Kansas? He will carry his home-state but KS is GOP and MI, a traditionally blue state, is a toss-up. So the joke's on you. Live in denial or face reality, change attitudes.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Yes. He has won other midwestern states. hahahaha

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

States which will not vote for a Democrat in the GE.

by Montague 2008-05-20 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Just like MS-01 wouldn't elect a Democrat - or Denny Hastert seat would fall Democrat.  That's the problem with Clinton supporters - so focused on what you can't do instead of what can be done.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Puhleeze.  We are focused on what CAN be done, which is several key swing states.

by Montague 2008-05-20 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Your current view is completely screwed.  I would suggest you go back on your meds.  She cannot win VA - he can.  She cannot win NM - he can.  She cannot MO - he can.  Why am I even bothering...put your head back in the sand.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Actually, in the general election, Clinton could win all of the states mentioned in this thread.

by zenful6219 2008-05-20 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Put your head back up your ass.

by Montague 2008-05-20 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

ahhh, someone needs a nap.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-21 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

WI, MN, & IA won't vote for a Dem? Comedy.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Iowa isn't exactly a safe state.  Michigan and Wisconsin will be Dem, of course.

by BishopRook 2008-05-20 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

True but not so safe is a far cry from won't.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Minnesota too.  Oops.

by BishopRook 2008-05-20 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Start with Wisconsin perhaps and go from there.....

by Yalin 2008-05-20 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

IA, WS, MO, MN are part of the midwest last I checked

by nwodtuhs 2008-05-20 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Fine here goes:

WI (blue state): Obama 45.3 McCain 45.2

MN (blue state): Obama 51   McCain 51.7

MI (blue state): Obama 43.8 McCain 44.2

IL (blue state): Will go for Obama

OH (red/swing state): Obama 43.9 McCain 44.1

Indiana (swing state): Obama 47 McCain 48

Kansas (red state): Obama 35.3 McCain 54.2

Missouri (red state): Obama 40.4 McCain 50.7

Nebraska (red state): Obama 39  McCain 50

North Dakota (red state): Obama 38 McCain 44

South Dakota (red state): Obama 34 McCain 51

Iowa (red state): Obama 45.8 McCain 42.2

Let the figures speak for themselves. With the exception of Illinois he is running close in all states red or blue. That is a problem.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

That's with a divided democratic party. And that is today in May where the general election has not begun.

The figures have spoken, and they show someone who is going to obliterate McCain in the fall. But hey, believe what you will and go vote Obama in the fall and watch him become the first AA president in the history of this country. :)

by Yalin 2008-05-20 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

"Live in denial or face reality, change attitudes."

Jesus - getting that from a Clinton supporter.  Can I have a second helping of that sweet irony, please?

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

You'll get that second helping when Obama the Uniter surprises the heck out of y'all by losing to McCain.  

by Montague 2008-05-20 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

With your help I assume.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

"If the last several primaries have shown anything is that money is not everything and a campaign with a message that connects to voters can trounce Obama. "

In Appalachia, yes... He can't win in Applachia... Thank goodness the whole country isn't Appalachia...

by LordMike 2008-05-20 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Guess what Appalachia is big. And he lost FL, OH, TX...but then who needs these?

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Hw won more contests than Clinton. You really want to compare?

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

More contests where in the Red south where the GOP will maul him? or the caucuses of Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and Alaska which will never go for him. The man lost the traditional blue states by big margins and all his supporters do is disparage people who voted against him as racist hicks. That's a lot of angry people you have to play nice to if you want to win in November.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Actually the racist hicks admitted they were racist hicks and deserve to be disparaged. As far as your other claims, traditionally blue states are just that, traditionally blue, for a reason. Or do you think that Sen. Clinton would lose IL in the GE? If not, your argument is without merit and really embarrassing to see on a political blog.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

It's impossible to talk to someone who can only disparage other people. But keep up the good work because even if a sizable fraction of 17 million registered Democrats decide to sit out this election Obama will be toast and he will have himself and followers like you to blame. No wonder Dems have lost every general election since the 90s.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Actually they'll have themselves to blame.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

West of the Mississippi is bigger... and she got crushed even worse there!

by LordMike 2008-05-20 06:38PM | 0 recs
Yup - Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Yup - he's has more money than Scrooge McDuck!!

Quack, Quack!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-20 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup - Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

and he is behaving like one given that he has decided he does not reach the internet blogs anymore. But seriously how can you outspend your opponent by 3 or 4 times and still lose? and lose big!!

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup - Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

The real question is how a former President and 1st lady/Senator can lose to a nobody like Obama. And lose they did. Clinton will not be the nominee and all the bridges she's burning will make her less effective as a Senator.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup - Obama has a problem...a BIG problem
be careful what you wish for. If you disparage HRC too much there 17 million plus people who voted for her and piss them off and you kiss your candidate goodbye. He will make George McGovern look like a champ.
p.s. as of today HRC is ahead in the popular vote.
by tarheel74 2008-05-20 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup - Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Ah but they can disparage Obama and his supporters mercilessly and still expect his supporters to vote for her in the GE if somehow  she's given the nomination despite having less pledged delegates. Another embarrassing argument to see on a political blog.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Yup - Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Except, unlike yourself, most of them are reasonable and will vote for President Obama.

by venician 2008-05-20 06:12PM | 0 recs
Money does not assure victories

Whether Obama spends more than Hillary is not as predictive of victory than the demographics and partisan composition of a state.  Hillary's 2000 Senate opponent outspent her but did not win, largely because it was New York.  At the same time, if Hillary outspent Obama in Oregon, I still would not predict her to win based on the ideology of Oregon voters.  Campaigning is more important in my opinion.

by Mr DC 2008-05-20 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

Relax, it'll be okay. Obama has won by large margins, and he's lost by large margins.  He'll win where he needs to in the GE.

by obscurant 2008-05-20 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has a problem...a BIG problem

That would be difficult when Hillary is the nominee.

by Demogrunt 2008-05-21 01:13AM | 0 recs
CD 5

I think Obama's going to get less than 15% in Congressional District 5, making him "unviable".

by DaveOinSF 2008-05-20 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Big congrats to HRC for her win in Kentucky tonight.  She worked hard in the state and deserved it.

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-20 04:47PM | 0 recs
BREAKING: McSain losing 30% of the vote

Unopposed republican nominee, John McSame has lost 30% of the vote in they Kentucky primary!!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-20 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: BREAKING: McSain losing 30% of the vote

You sig is classic.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-20 04:51PM | 0 recs
Gracias!

You are getting sleepy....sleeepy!

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-20 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Gracias!

As funny as I used to think that was, apparently they have a teleprompter with the text of the speech right in front of their lap.

by matchles 2008-05-20 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

When you are the frontrunner, when you are about to declare yourself the nominee, when you are outspending your opponent in state, when you have offices in every city in that state for many more months than your opponent and still lose the state by a huge margin you have a problem...and when 70% of registered DEMOCRATS in that state voting for your opponent say that they will not vote for you in November you have BIG problem.

Obama doesn't have a problem; Appalachia does. It's about time they left the 19th century.

He will not win any of the Southern largely GOP states or even the midwest and mountain states.

He's more likely than Clinton to win VA, CO, NV, NM, WA, OR, MT, ND, MN, IA, and WI.

So that leaves the swing states which have gone overwhelmingly for Clinton and where the voters have been disparaged as ignorant racist hicks.

Well, a lot of people in Appalachia and the South are ignorant hicks -- I don't think that comes as much of a surprise to many people. But what swing states are you referring to and who's disparaging them (besides me)? As far as I can tell, the areas in which Senator Clinton significantly outperforms Senator Obama are all backwater Republican strongholds -- not swing states.

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-20 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

RP, you do realize that statements like the above are a bannable offense, right?
by Crookd River Progressive 2008-05-20 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

MSNBC exit poll: 20% of KY voters said race was important, 90% of them voted for Hillary Clinton. If Jerome wants to ban me for stating the obvious, he can make by day -- but denial isn't just a river in Africa.

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-20 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Many admitted they were racist and also stated that they wouldn't even vote for the black guy in the GE. So either they're racist or they're closet/or not so closet Republicans. Either way they deserve to be ridiculed.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

So, going by your logic, all the AAs who vote for Obama are also racist, right?

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

No. Because they vote for white candidates all of the time. Sorry. Ask Al and Alan.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-20 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Bella, don't expect consistency or logic here.

It's a personality cult.

by dembluestates 2008-05-20 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Bella, don't expect consistency or logic here.

It's a personality cult.

Hahahaha. A personality cult, eh? The race has been over since February, but the supporters of a certain NY Senator won't accept the result and now cling to the most specious and hypocritical arguments imaginable but it's the supporters of her opponent that are "cultists". Riiiiiight....

And with respect to Bella's point: Those same African Americans who are voting for Barack Obama by 90% margins have been voting for the white Democratic nominee for president by those same margins for more than 40 years (white voters in the South and Appalachia have been voting against the Democratic nominee for president for about the same amount of time. Strange coincidence, eh?). Moreover, I've got to tell ya, I'm getting real sick of the whining over "reverse-racism". The folks pursuing this line of argument remind me more and more of Republicans every day.....  

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-20 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

You're making a false argument. All anyone could vote for was a white guy, not just the A/A voting bloc. However, when given the choice between a white woman with an established history of fighting for the interests of A/A and a black guy most people really don't know much about, the A/A voting bloc voted color over experience, and you say that's NOT racist?!! If women voted for Hillary the way A/A have voted for Obama, he'd never have won a state and you'd be screaming Hillary's voters are sexist.

by SoCalHillMan 2008-05-20 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Your grasp of history is poor. African-Americans have chosen white candidates over African-American candidates.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-21 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Logic is looking at how other African-American candidates and white candidates have fared with African-American voters. Your grasp of history is very bad.

by heresjohnny 2008-05-21 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

That is the most bullshit reason I heard. Carry on disparaging people and Obama will come down in flames. People vote for competent people no matter what the color of skin. In 2003 Bobby Jindal lost to Katherine Blanco in the Louisiana pan-handle because of his race which Blanco, a Democrat, played up many times. That area is the racist south, so racist that they even voted for David Duke as governor. What did Jindal do? He went back to the panhandle door to door introducing himself. In 2007 when he ran for governor again the same race-card was played against him but he won the entire state including panhandle by a huge margin. Moral of story people are afraid of anything that is not like them but you have to win them over. Obama did not do that. To the contrary he and his supporters have disparaged anyone who did not vote for him as racists. Sure there are people who do not like him for his race but the majority did not vote for him because they do not like him and his policies and his elitism.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

That is the most bullshit reason I heard. Carry on disparaging people and Obama will come down in flames. People vote for competent people no matter what the color of skin.

Bullshit. There are parts of Appalachia and the South than no black candidate could ever win. Who do you think you're kidding?

In 2003 Bobby Jindal lost to Katherine Blanco in the Louisiana pan-handle because of his race which Blanco, a Democrat, played up many times.

I wasn't aware of that, but I find it sickening. Sometimes I wish the South had succeeding in seceding. We wouldn't have had all these problems all these years.....;)

What did Jindal do? He went back to the panhandle door to door introducing himself. In 2007 when he ran for governor again the same race-card was played against him but he won the entire state including panhandle by a huge margin. Moral of story people are afraid of anything that is not like them but you have to win them over.

So, in other words, these voters are racists until you talk to them? That's an interesting theory, but I'd like to inject some reality: 1. Jindal isn't black. 2. Jindal is a Catholic, and there are many Catholic voters in that part of Louisiana. 3. There was this little thing called "Hurricane Katrina." I'm not sure if you remember it, but it sunk the Democratic governor and significantly changed the partisan composition of the state.

Obama did not do that. To the contrary he and his supporters have disparaged anyone who did not vote for him as racists.

You just jumped the shark. Obama has never disparaged anyone as a racist -- not even those who deserve the title, such as Geraldine Ferraro. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, you need to withdraw that remark and formulate your comments more carefully. And his supporters, myself included, have never characterized the majority of anti-Obama/pro-Clinton voting as racially-biased. I certainly don't think Senator Clinton's wins on the Eastern seaboard or in California or Nevada have anything to do with race. Appalachia and the South are another story, however. Both of these regions have a history and a reputation of racially-backward thinking. According to the CNN exit polls, 20% of KY voters voted on race, and 90% of them voted for Senator Clinton. I don't even want to contemplate the number that were uncomfortable discussing their racism with complete strangers.

Sure there are people who do not like him for his race but the majority did not vote for him because they do not like him and his policies and his elitism.

His policies are by and large the same as Hillary Clinton's and he's far less "elite" than she is. Moreover, due to the correlation between education and knowledge of current events, these Appalachian voters that keep handing Senator Clinton huge victories are far less likely to know anything about policy or to have heard anything about "bittergate" than voters in Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, or Washington. So what gives?

by RP McMurphy 2008-05-20 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Bella, don't expect consistency or logic here.

It's a personality cult.

It definately is.

"Sometimes I wish the South had succeeding in seceding. We wouldn't have had all these problems all these years.....;)"

BS.  The South founded the Democratic Party, ever heard of Jefferon and Jackson.

by TheBlueWarriors 2008-05-20 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Youve never been to WV, or lived there so you should shut your latte liberal mouth.

by TheBlueWarriors 2008-05-20 09:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

I am enjoying my retirement, but I want people to watch as Clinton supporters tonight become hard to tell what is a snark and what is a real clinton supporter. TONIGHT is the Night when the magic happens.

by Hillarywillwin 2008-05-20 04:49PM | 0 recs
That NC poll

tells us nothing except that Obama has been attacked nonstop for weeks now while Hillary has been given a pass. Of course her numbers look better. It doesn't tell us anything about how either of them would perform in November.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-20 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

This is the single most ridiculous comment I've read here.

Obama's been attacked?  Hillary has been attacked since the beginning of this primary.  The media's been playing "gotcha" with every statement she's made; she's never gotten the benefit of the doubt.

Obama? Obama's been treated like he can do no wrong. He's been compared to JFK and MLK, Mandela, etc., since the beginning.  Even when he does get caught up in a bit of a scandal, the media covers for him.  

I've never seen this level of bias in any campaign.  Never.

by bellarose 2008-05-20 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

It's the simple truth. Obama has not been attacking Hillary because he wants to reach out to her supporters; Hillary doesn't have that problem because she knows she's not likely to win the nomination (though to her credit, she seems to have dialed back her attacks since the NC and IN primaries).

As for the GOP, they've been ignoring Hillary in order to focus all their attacks on Obama. See for yourself:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/040 8/9964.html

Hillary has not been attacked at all recently; Obama has been attacked nonstop. As a result, Hillary's numbers look better than Obama's do right now. But it tells us nothing about how either one would do in November.

And you are completely disconnected from reality if you think that the same media that ranted on and on about Jeremiah Wright 24/7 for weeks is in the tank for Obama. Completely.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-20 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

Hillary has been ridiculed every day by the MSM since Ohio for staying in this race.  

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

Ridiculed?

Pointing out that the delegate math is insurmountable for her is not ridicule.

And like I said, she has not been attacked at all. That's why here GE numbers look better now.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-20 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

Oh, and the Wright thing.   Yes, besides FOX news, the nets have bent over backwards to help Obama out of that.  They played his "race" speech on prime time.  They couldn't gush over it enough, never once acknowledging the point of the speech.

They've done specials explaining Black Liberation theology, inviting every Barack ally they could on the air.  After Wright gave his speech to the National Press Club, they accused him of "stabbing" Obama in the back.  

Yes, they've done all they can to protect him.  

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

Okay.

You are completely disconnected from reality.

Good to know. Have a nice day.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

Ah, as soon as you're confronted with the truth, you resort to name calling.

True to form.

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

Ah, as soon as you're confronted with the truth, you resort to name calling.

Hey! You made a joke. Funny!

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-20 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

I can smell the unity already.  

You can't even admit the media has shown bias against Hillary and for Obama?

If you can see it, you're delusional.

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

Whoops, "can't see it"

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

You might want to have someone read over your comments before you post, seriously.  

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

Well, I am full of flu meds.  Sorry if my posts aren't up to scratch, teach.

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

I didn't know 11AM was prime time. Go figure. But I'm glad you provide such a nuanced and well-balanced look at the issue, it makes your point much more credible.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

It was played all freakin' day.  Matthews said students would be studying it for years to come.

They went crazy over it.  They hyperbole was insane.

I never heard one commentator admit he had to give the speech to give himself cover.  They acted like he did it for the good of the nation or something-- please.

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

So a pollster who got North Carolina wrong has a poll out today. This poll has more weight than a primary that happened 2 weeks ago in which Obama beat Hillary by 14 points?

I don't understand.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-20 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

That and, while I may be wrong, a quick glance at the back end numbers doesn't look right at all. Only 22% of the sample in the 18-34 age group, and they went to Obama only 52-42? Blacks only 20% of the sample? McCain wins women?

SUSA has done well overall, but they haven't exactly been knocking it out of the park the last few weeks.

by werehippy 2008-05-20 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

From 2000 to 2004, the black turnout went up from 14% to 26%. And there has been a huge registration drive since then.

But SUSA's sample only polled black turnout at 20%. That may be low-balling Obama's results a bit....

by Victor Laszlo 2008-05-20 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: That NC poll

And I'm expecting significantly higher young voter turn out. Between the issues I have with the sample choice and what I assume is NARAL blowback among female voters I'm not putting a whole lot of stock in these results.

by werehippy 2008-05-20 05:28PM | 0 recs
SUSA has bad track record in NC

their final NC poll had Obama 50-45, which needless to say, was off the actual mark of 56-42..

they underestimated Obama's final number and overestimated Clinton's number.

their NC methodology has no basis.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-20 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Never miss a chance to be an idiot, do you Armstrong?

by unionfield 2008-05-20 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

this is his final chance to be himself. From here on out, it's pretty much all Obama, through November.

by alex100 2008-05-20 06:42PM | 0 recs
Fuzzy Math ...
apparently winning by 8 = double digits these days.
by DailyKingFish 2008-05-20 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Fuzzy Math ...

"Math" is a word used by obamabots and the obamabiased MSM.  They don't cotton to usin elitist words like that.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Fuzzy Math ...

That cracked me up. The fact that Jerome thinks that 8 is a double digit, explains a lot about him. Of course, that 8 pt. margin assumes only a 20% turnout for African Americans. Not likely.

by jadegirl 2008-05-20 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

WOW!

Hillary's rockin' the EV map!

by bellarose 2008-05-20 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

lol - that's the 2nd joke you've made tonight.  Good job!

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I'll remember to laugh come November.

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
Wow. Obama's supporters are trying to do something that was inconceivable a year ago.
Electing a Republican President post-Bush. The very thought was laughable a year ago. No More. Congratulations.
by Ky Dem 2008-05-20 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I have no idea how that makes any sense.

by rfahey22 2008-05-20 04:57PM | 0 recs
Really, I thought it was Ferraro...

...who is threatening to vote for McCain.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-20 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Yes, but they'll have their "moral" victory over the Clintons.  

So they'll spin that as a win.

by bellarose 2008-05-20 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Where have you gone, Jerome Armstrong, our nation...

In any event, I loved your book.

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-20 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

The Superdelegates had better WAKE UP NOW! Before the landslide begins.

by Ky Dem 2008-05-20 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

They've woken up over the past month or so, and just wait until tomorrow. They'll be so awake you'll think they're on speed.

by Pat Flatley 2008-05-20 04:59PM | 0 recs
You're on a roll, Jerome

Thanks for keeping it lively.

by Coldblue 2008-05-20 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

51 - 43 > 9?

You're not helping the "Clinton people don't understand math" argument.

by tedit 2008-05-20 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Has to do with rounding.

by Montague 2008-05-20 05:17PM | 0 recs
Just look at the MY DD maps

North Carolina is a red state.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-05-20 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Sen Obama raised $30mil
Sen.Clinton $20mil
Hopefully this will help retire a portion of her debt...

On a side note SurveyUSA had a poll in PA..
Obama by 8 over McCain..interesting match-ups in the VP choices...
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e65 8e86c5

by nogo postal 2008-05-20 04:57PM | 0 recs
Do we have a link on clinton's take?

any link on clinton's finances?

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-20 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Do we have a link on clinton's take?

Not out yet but I think $20M is optimistic.  Couple of the pundits are saying its closer to $15-17M (for whatever their opinion is worth)

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Should also keep Obama riding on nice planes and staying in fancy hotel rooms.

by Montague 2008-05-20 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Being the winner has it's perks :-)

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Well, did you enjoy digging deep so he could live like a king?

by Montague 2008-05-20 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

I did.  In fact, I am going to send him another $250 in your honor.  

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Politico reported that McAuliffe said that April was Clinton's third-best fund raising month. I half heard McAuliffe say something to a teevee reporter tonight that HRC has raised almost $20M not sure if that includes the loan or not.

by grlpatriot 2008-05-20 04:58PM | 0 recs
Hmmmm - I don't know

if it was that good, they would have released it early, if only to generate positive coverage.

In other words, you don't sit on good news.

by Al Rodgers 2008-05-20 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton
She raised 22M including the loan. Between 15 and 16M per se.
And if we are to believe she raised 10M in the 24 hours after PA, that means she raised 6M for the following three weeks.
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-20 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky for Clinton

Not too shabby, I'd say.  I hope it'll keep Obamabots and Keith Olbermann from showing soooo much concern for the Clintons' finances after the Convention.

Now answer why Obama, with unlimited resources, the best talent money can buy, and ample time can lose by such enormous margins in these places?

Oh yeah, yeah, right.  Racist Appalachian hillbillies in Pennsylvania.  That must be it.

by dembluestates 2008-05-20 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
Well Jerome, it looks like we have a lot of work to do to get him nominated, don't we?
Jeez ...
by stryan 2008-05-20 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

ZZZZzzzzzzz.

(crickets chirping...)

by watchgeek868 2008-05-20 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Jerome:

This North Carolina poll is a perfect example of why you should not be basing those electoral-vote maps on the most recent poll available.

That is an astounding and absurd outlier, given the history of the NC polling so far in this race.

by BishopRook 2008-05-20 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

The EV map with a bad methodology and slow-to-update positive Obama polls but quick-to-update anything that helps Clinton?

Yes, she is.

by KyleJRM 2008-05-20 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Is it just me or is Armstrong becoming more and more of an idiot everyday?

by unionfield 2008-05-20 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
Is it just me or is Armstrong becoming more and more of an idiot everyday?

No he is not!  Shame on you.
by obscurant 2008-05-20 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

It's just you, twit.

by Montague 2008-05-20 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Those NC numbers are the oddest thing I've seen this campaign cycle (and there have been plenty of oddities!).

How in the world does Obama beat Clinton by 15ish head to head and then, two weeks later, trail McCain heads-up by a significant margin while Clinton leads McCain?

I think SUSA has some explaining to do--

--or the aliens just landed.

Or it's just 2008 and everything we ever thought we knew about politics, from the most cynical old-school phone-banker to the soccer mom to the NASCAR dad to the idealistic college kids blogging and GOTV, can all be cheerfully thrown out the window because this year it JUST DOESN'T APPLY.

by AK Democrat 2008-05-20 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Or it's just an outlier.  That happens about one out of every twenty polls.

The SUSA poll in NC has Clinton leading Obama by 20 points among registered Democrats and by 14 points among Independents.  Compare that to the primary just two weeks ago where Obama blew out Clinton by around 15%.

Nothing but nothing that's happened in the past two weeks can account for that, not a damn thing.  It's an outlier.  Which is why we should be looking at reputable polling COMPOSITES for the electoral maps in the corners of this site.

by BishopRook 2008-05-20 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Didn't SUSA have abysmal polling in North Carolina?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-20 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Shhhh, don't be such a downer!  

And keep letting Jerome think it's a double digit gap in NC for Obama.  Let it be a magical night for Clinton supporters.

by obscurant 2008-05-20 05:13PM | 0 recs
Quick! Stop counting!

Hillary's ahead, even if you count those states that she and her supporters believe shouldn't count - Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine.

Of course, in two hours, things may change.

by Drew 2008-05-20 05:02PM | 0 recs
Double Digits?

SUSA does poll both Obama and Clinton in North Carolina today. Obama loses by double-digits, while Clinton defeats McCain:

North Carolina

Clinton     49
McCain      43

McCain      51
Obama       43

Double digits, Jerome? 51 - 43 = 8. I mean, I make mistakes too, but this comes across as an amateur rush to spin everything as bad for Obama.

Yeah, I admire Clinton's strength and think it would be a good sign for her if she had any chance at winning the nomination. This poll might have meant something to me in February, when electability arguments mattered.

Instead, I'm going to focus on the McCain-Obama 51-43. Is it as good as a win? No. But considering that Kerry only managed 43 percent with a North Carolina native on his ticket, and McCain is currently under-performing Bush, I'd say that Obama is in a good position for some upward movement if he campaigns there.

by Fitzy 2008-05-20 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Double Digits?

hahaha, good look, i was going to comment the same, fuzzy math by jerome.

by aaaa05 2008-05-20 05:26PM | 0 recs
Clearly an outlier

that Jerome is using to further divide Dems with. I'm starting to question your party bona fides, Jerome. I saw where McCain was trying to recruit trolls for Kos. Did he get to you first?

by bookish 2008-05-20 05:35PM | 0 recs
SUSA track record in the South is not great

They blew the South Carolina race by a wide margin. They blew North Carolina by widely underestimating Obama's support. Give me a more reliable pollster who knows how to poll southern states, please.

by richochet 2008-05-20 05:04PM | 0 recs
No: damn your reasonableness,

if a poll is negative for Obama, it's true!  Them's your orders.  Now, back to barracks.  

by kellogg 2008-05-20 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Those SUSA NC numbers are odd, and considering they were off by almost double-digits in their primary numbers, I think we can safely say they have it wrong.

Regardless, it's way too early to look at GE matchups right now.  Does anyone HONESTLY believe that a Democrat will lose MI and WI?

Ohio is probably safe as well.

The Democrats have plenty of time to unit around Obama, even though the MyDD community doesn't want that to happen.

by RussTC3 2008-05-20 05:05PM | 0 recs
No Math, No Map

hold on to your knickers...

1 pledged delegate away per NBC, 8 KY delegates to be allocated;

3.5 pledged delegates away per DCW, 18 KY delegates to be allocated.

by mboehm 2008-05-20 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: No Math, No Map

After 491 days since we started, CNN is reporting that we have won with 1,627 pledged delegates.  

by mboehm 2008-05-20 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: No Math, No Map

??

You've won nothing.  Pledged delegate count is a partial result, just like Popular votes won, and primaries won, and caucuses won.

Mewaningless, unless you're an Obamabot looking to celebrate SOMETHING, in the face of a HUUUGE embarrassing loss.

by dembluestates 2008-05-20 06:46PM | 0 recs
I am an Obamabot...

and damn proud of being one since day one.  

by mboehm 2008-05-21 01:51AM | 0 recs
wow

that is really surprising as well as quite damning on Obama.  I would have never expected that.

by Robert Oak 2008-05-20 05:07PM | 0 recs
SUSA numbers for NC are shocking

Chris Matthews says Obama has little margin of error in GE.

Obama is in danger of dropping below 30% in KY in the popular vote.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-20 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA numbers for NC are shocking

Absolutely, this is of special concern for everyone. President Perot took the lead in May and never let it go.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA numbers for NC are shocking

Sorry, I don't speak sarcasm after closing time.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-20 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA numbers for NC are shocking

Sorry, I don't speak sarcasm after closing time ever

Fixed that for ya.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA numbers for NC are shocking

I just commented about Perot above.  I don't get the excitement around here about any poll that has McCain beating Obama.

by deepee 2008-05-20 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

It's so ridiculous to have all this heavy breathing about Electoral votes and a poll about North Carolina in the GE, FIVE MONTHS BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION!

Hillary had a great win tonight, in a primary between two Democrats. Congratulations to your preferred candidate, Jerome!

But, sheesh, I'm embarrassed to quote you, "Has Markos seen these numbers?"
You have a terrific blog here, Jerome. You don't have to have an inferiority complex about Daily Kos.

Enjoy the successes of your own website. You don't have to take shots at the bully down the street.

by toyomama 2008-05-20 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

It's not an inferiority thing, it's a dig. Kos quotes Jerome frequently....

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-20 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

There seems to be a pervasive inferiority complex about Kos around here, though. I never got into Kos; MyDD is more closeknit and easier to have a conversation on, but so many people rail against Kos. I always say, who gives a fuck about Kos? But it never stops 'em.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I thought this was interesting.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

So one poll shows Clinton winning North Carolina and, despite the state's red history, the electoral map is updated to give her the state... but one poll shows Obama losing Wisconsin out of five in the last month, and the state goes to McCain.

Jesus, Armstrong, can you hide your ethical problems at all?

by unionfield 2008-05-20 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

You're kidding, right?

(goes to check)

Yikes.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Well, we've seen in the past (with situations like Armstrong's corrupt stock trading practices), he really doesn't have scruples.

by unionfield 2008-05-20 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Oh, dude, it was nice knowing you. ;)

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC)

Hey, I'm just speaking the truth. He's been caught gaming the stock market at the expense of main-street traders and he's been caught using his blog as a platform to promote Dean's candidacy without disclosing that he was being paid to do it. He's a guy no better than Sean Hannity.

by unionfield 2008-05-20 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

It's just you, trust me.

by Montague 2008-05-20 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Jerome and others here need to start accepting the fact that Hillary won't be our nominee (she might be our VP nominee though).  I don't understand this enthusiasm for trying to tear Obama down.  It isn't going to accomplish anything, and I can't imagine it makes anyone feel better.

by deepee 2008-05-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I guess in lieu of a victory party, Obama released his fundraising numbers.  Anything to try to steal Hillary's show.  

Jerome -- did you see that Hillary added about 220,000 votes to her total?

Apparently 650,000 Kentuckians didn't get the "race is over" memo.

by TexasDarlin 2008-05-20 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I didn't realize this was grade school, and we have to share storytime with the class. Because Senator Clinton would never, you know, try and spin something to her political benefit. Hmm.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Since there's no transparency on the maps, no one can see what poll you used to assign the state.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
Wait a second. I am confused. I thought you wanted to argue that winning a state in the primaries mean winning it in the GE.
Has the spin changed ?
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

SUSA is crap in the south. As seen in N.C. actual results. They haven't been able to poll well at all.

and very classy move of you to bring in Markos on the discussion. Obviously, he's getting to you. Being wrong time in and time out while he's been right time in and time out has finally taken its toll on you.

by alex100 2008-05-20 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
Oh and I thought we were arguing that NC was not a swing state and did not matter but that we should focus on traditional states like FL and PA.
Well Susa also shows him winning PA by 9 today.
So you are right. HE doesnt need NC !
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-20 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
Oh and I thought we were arguing that NC was not a swing state and did not matter but that we should focus on traditional states like FL and PA.
Well Susa also shows him winning PA by 9 today.
So you are right. HE doesnt need NC !
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-20 05:25PM | 0 recs
Being down 8 in a SUSA poll

in a southern state means that Obama is up by 5.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-20 05:25PM | 0 recs
Your candidate lost, Jerome, get over it

You can be as smirky as you want to be, it doesn't change the facts.

I don't see you getting behind Obama even after Clinton drops out. You are too much of a blowhard and your ego enforces your delusions.

Just admit your real feelings, your coy hints on the front page just make you look silly.

by DaveDial 2008-05-20 05:26PM | 0 recs
Quite divorced from reality.

1. This is a delegate race.

2. Obama has the most delegates.

3. Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic party.

4. Get over it.

by Firewall 2008-05-20 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

unless I'm missing something with what Jerome posted, 51-43 is an extension of Hillary Math® when talking about 8% being double digits.

Jerome is on a torrid losing streak lately. I'm amazed.

by alex100 2008-05-20 05:28PM | 0 recs
Clinton does not lead the popular vote.

That is a ridiculous misrepresentation.  Jerome, you should be ashamed.

by Ramo 2008-05-20 05:28PM | 0 recs
NC 'double digits'

How is eight points 'double digits'?

Are you using Clintsylvania math?

by lojasmo 2008-05-20 05:30PM | 0 recs
"Obama loses NC by double digits"

How?

McCain      51
Obama       43

by Bush Bites 2008-05-20 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
Btw Jerome. If Obama secures 30 delegates in OR, he will have a majority of the SDs even if you include FL and MI.
Just saying.
by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-20 05:31PM | 0 recs
PD not SD

by Benjaminomeara 2008-05-20 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Jerome wrote:
"but like the popular vote which Clinton leads"
Um, even including tonight's results out of Kentucky, Obama is ahead of Clinton by nearly 500,000 votes.

What is wrong with you?  If you want to say that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote if, and ONLY if, you add Florida AND Michigan, than say it.

Stop lying.

And by the way it's a fact that Obama now has the pledged delegate majority.

by RussTC3 2008-05-20 05:31PM | 0 recs
Peter Hart's View
"Barack Obama definitely has a problem coming out of the primaries," says veteran Democratic pollster Peter Hart. "You can look at Pennsylvania, you can look at Ohio, you can look at West Virginia and it tells you he has a lot of work to do with older voters, with white working class. ... A lot of work has to be done by the Obama campaign -- has to be done very, very quickly."  Hart has many influential Democrats as clients.
 http://www.hartresearch.com/clients/
by katmandu1 2008-05-20 05:32PM | 0 recs
SUSA overstates Clinton's support

SUSA claimed Obama would win NC 50-45.

Obama won it 56-42. Throw in women who claim they won't vote for Obama because they want McCain to end abortion rights for them (it's in the internals), and there's your difference.

by kos 2008-05-20 05:35PM | 0 recs
p.s.

To be clear, on the popular vote, you don't think Nevada, Iowa, Maine and Washington count, right?

And it really is something that Michigan didn't have a single Obama supporter. They hate him there!

Funny definition of a "moral" argument.

by kos 2008-05-20 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: p.s.

Heh. I guess if you plug your ears and shout "I'M PLEADING THE POPULAR VOTE, LALALALALALA!" they figure people'll eventually give in and go, "FINE! JESUS CHRIST, YOU'RE LEADING IN THE POPULAR VOTE ALREADY!"

Here, I'll throw you some invisible mojo, since I'm unable to do otherwise.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA overstates Clinton's support

Come, now, Kos. We all know you're full of nothing but hate, vitriol, and false information. If it says something positive about Clinton, it's obviously true. Get with it, will ya?

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA overstates Clinton's support

Yeah go back to your big orange satan.  Your facts and logic have no place here.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-05-20 05:41PM | 0 recs
Ahh, there's more

The poll's white-black breakdown is 76-20. In 2004, it was 71-26. And this year should feature even stronger african american turnout.

This is a deeply flawed poll.

by kos 2008-05-20 06:07PM | 0 recs
Floor fight at the convention? WTFBBQ??!?

Am I mistaken, or did Clinton just vow to take this fight to the convention floor?

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I am a little confused. If Hillary wants every vote counted, why does she (and by many here by proxie) continue to say that she leads in popular vote---yet is not counting some of the states who caucused  in that total?

Strange...i guess thats politics as usual! However, congrats on HRC win tonight.

by helo 2008-05-20 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

She never said that.  The problem is that those states did not release official totals of votes cast.

You can't just close your eyes and clairvoyantly "divine" vote totals and then throw them into a popular vote tally.

Either way, the four unreported caucuses were estimated to be about +115,000 Obama, a figure that Hillary just wiped out with her landslide win in Kentucky.  

by BPK80 2008-05-20 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Ahh, but it's still okay to count zero votes in Michigan. Thanks for explaining it to us so elegantly.

By the way, why didn't those four caucus states worry about the raw number of attendees? Didn't someone tell them it would matter?

by ragekage 2008-05-20 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Sorry but you can't take your name off of the ballot in contests you're expected to lose and then attempt to delegitimize them after the fact.

If Hillary took her name off of the North Carolina ballot and then said, "oh we shouldn't count that state," people would be giving her hell, and probably calling her "racist" to boot.

Obama voluntarily gambled away Michigan to avert a crushing loss there and to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire.  Accordingly, he received zero votes from the state.  When we see the final popular vote after Oregon, SD, MT, and PR weigh in, maybe we can have fun playing "what if" games regarding Michigan.  Until then, it's obvious that Hillary won the certified popular vote.  

Obama craftily gamed the system and used clever strategies to accumulate more delegates.  But more actual voters cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.  It's just a fact.  I'm sorry it bothers you so much.

by BPK80 2008-05-20 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky

Wow, I'm amazed. You read about cognitive dissonance in clinical pysch class, but to see displayed so blatantly takes your breath away.

Funny he's beating McCain in Michigan's polls right now, whereas Clinton's not. I guess Clinton's statements about Michigan not counting doesn't matter here, either. Hmm. I wonder why Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, et all, endorsed Obama and not Clinton? Certainly, it couldn't have been this attitude- obviously, they were all in on it. Because Obama planned in August to have been in the position he was in during early January, and instead of honoring the DNC pledge, decided to take his name off the ballot in some sort of Machiavellian scheme to screw with Clinton.

I applaud, you, sir. Your intellectual dishonesty truly knows no bounds.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky

"I applaud, you, sir. Your intellectual dishonesty truly knows no bounds."

You know as well as many readers here that what you write above is simply your pejorative spin on an opinion with which you disagree.

You seem to have a bloated misunderstanding of the breadth and applicability of this "pledge."  It made no requirement that anyone remove their names from the ballot.  It was not enforceable in any tangible sense but was rather a ceremonial statement.  Further, Obama breached the pledge by campaigning in Florida so as anyone familiar with contract theory could tell you, any obligation that Hillary may have had under the pledge was discharged by Obama's breach.  That, "sir," is plain intellectual honesty.

You hyperbolize my assertions on the Michigan gambit as a "Machiavellian scheme."  It was no such thing.  Rather, it was a simple tactical ploy to gamble away the votes of Michigan to avert a stunning well-publicized loss there.  The guise of "rules compliance" was a flimsy decoy intended only for people with a crude and inexact understanding of how the rules regarding the primary actually operated.  

Clinton's statements about Michigan do not matter today; that is correct.  While she advocates for their inclusion, she is not a party to the hearing on May 31st.  It's an appeal by the states of Florida and Michigan.  Nothing Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama said last year has any bearing on the outcome.  

by BPK80 2008-05-20 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

You mean like you just did?

by helo 2008-05-22 11:10AM | 0 recs
Can't people just get along?

I don't get why people here seem to treat Clinton/Obama as mutually exclusive.

I mean really. There are several analyses that show Clinton leading if the election were held today, no question.

But there are as many paths to the win for Obama -- more in some ways.

For example, if we look at electoral-vote.com, we see that it looks like Obama would lose in Michigan and Wisconsin. But at the same time he makes Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida competitive. He also polls well (tied) in Indiana, which would be a huge Democratic win. He is competitive in Ohio as well, and wins Colorado and New Mexico where Clinton gets NM only.

This means that realistically, Obama could carry the Kerry states plus Iowa and NM, which would have won the election in 2004. Electoral votes have moved since then so that won't do it -- he'd have to carry CO for good measure. But that map leaves out the places where he forces the GOP to fight, such as Ohio, and even Nebraska and Indiana. He's within the MoE in many more states than Clinton.

Clinton has much stronger support in many areas, and carries Ohio and Florida, but note that the places she loses to the GOP she loses by a bigger margin. Essentially, Clinton would HAVE to carry Ohio, as well as Arkansas. It isn't clear to me that realistically West Virginia would change radically to the Dem camp but it could happen. Same is true in the other direction for Wisconsin and Michigan. So if Clinton could guarantee an Ohio win and a Florida win she would have it. The problem for Clinton is that with her strong support comes just as many strong detractors. She's a second-term Senator, and that doesn't bode well either.

The point is these are different paths. Both are quite possible, and Obama's I think has the advantage of putting the GOP on the defensive in more places. The Dems wrote off the South and West for too damn long and look what it got them.

Anyhow, there are paths for both, and both have chances that are just as good.

Primary dynamics don't mean much, IMO. THere are to my mind too many variables left out and the formats differ too much state to state. After all, if I went by the primary results Kerry should have whomped GW Bush in parts of the Rust Belt. He didn't.

What primaries do tell us is that there are a lot more self-ID'd Dems out there this time. And I ran some numbers-- even if half the voters for the losing candidate (either Clinton or Obama) stayed home, some states still have more Dems voting than last time, no bad thing. I assumed that ONLY primary voters even came to the polls. You'd be amazed how many states look better than in 2004.

I also realistically can't see a bunch of energized Dems voting for McCain out of spite. If they do that we deserve the GOP.

A little perspective, folks, please?

by camaxtli 2008-05-20 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't people just get along?

This.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't people just get along?

Bless you and your rational take.

Nothing lese needs to be said.

by pattonbt 2008-05-20 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't people just get along?

Sorry, typo there, hit post to quick.....

Meant 'else' not 'lese'.

But again, thanks for the spot on post.

by pattonbt 2008-05-20 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Obama will run better in NC than Clinton would have. Regardless of how that one poll turned out. Why? Demographics favor Obama and judging from the recent primary November's vote will only reinforce that. Obama won big in the big growing urban counties like Mecklenburg (Charlotte) 70-29% Wake (Raleigh) 65-35% and others. The fact of the matter is regardless of whether the Dems carry NC in the fall - there are more Obama type voters than Clinton. In the general 2/3 of all voters will be within 1 hour of Interstate 85 and Obama won those areas by 22 points in the primary.

Again regardless of who actually wins NC in the fall - Obama helps Dems do well across the board. In 2000 & 2004 Gov. Easley had to run 8-12 points ahead of the Democratic presidential candidate in his win. For the first time since 1992 (with Bill Clinton ironically) the Presidential candidate will be competitive with the state candidates.

by southerndemnut 2008-05-20 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

In Virginia, this is much the same story. NOVA and Charlottesville/Ablemarle will go heavily for Obama, and Richmond, Norfolk/Hampton Roads, and Roanoke will, as well. He picked up heavy support in Danville and Martinsville, too, smaller cities, but all of that combined makes him awfully competitive in Virginia.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Absolutely none of this makes any sense whatsoever.

Demographics do NOT favor Obama in NC one bit. And certainly not based on your evidence. You're talking totally different electorates! What he "won" was in the Democratic primary ... that's got nothing to do with whether he will do as well in those places in the Fall. Nothing whatsoever. Another way to say it: If Obama takes with him to November everyone who voted for him in the primary, and McCain gets everyone else, McCain wins by 40 points or something. Obviously an exaggeration to make the point.

I know NC a bit. The real growing demographic is not African Americans or liberal creative class types in the Research Triangle. It's Latinos. And Barack does crappily with Latinos.

And finally, there is no direct evidence I've ever seen that suggests Obama helps down ballot Democrats. None. If you've seen some let me know. This is just a myth that appears to have  become "fact" based on mere repetition. In fact -- and this is verifiable -- there has very little pattern suggesting either candidate does better in higher or lower turnout scenarios, and what pattern does exist has tended to suggest Hillary does better pulling out unlikely Dems, meaning downballot Dems would do better with her.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-05-20 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Incredible.  After all of the excitement about Obama making North Carolina competitive, it turns out that Hillary runs 14 points ahead of Obama in the McCain matchup.

Jerome and all of Hillary's supporters will be vindicated when Barack Obama, the loser of the de facto certified popular vote, is coronated nominee of the Democratic party only to lose a close (?) election with John McSame in the fall.  I don't want a McCain presidency but I've resigned myself to accepting Obama will be nominated and McCain will prevail.  People will be holding their noses and running away from Obama like he's last year's fashion fad--OUT OF STYLE.  

My enthusiasm for the Democratic party and principles will make me passionate about the down-ticket races that will be critical to making McCain's presidency as weak as possible.  Then, hopefully with the embarrassment of the 2008 primary + GE, the party will regain sanity and have a competent nominee in 2012.  

by BPK80 2008-05-20 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Yawn. Troll. Next, please.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:48PM | 0 recs
LOL

You're totally unable to keep up with me in debate.  Drive-by insults like the above only further support this.  

by BPK80 2008-05-20 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

Debate? This is like having a battle of the wits, except there's nowhere to stand. You couldn't saddle up to a real debate, me bucko, elseways you wouldn't be parsing Clinton propaganda nonsense.

by ragekage 2008-05-20 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

Aw, now that's silly.  When the dialogue becomes complex, you sign off with an insult and pursue greener pastures.  Case in point: your comment here.  

by BPK80 2008-05-20 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

Heh. If you say so, buddy, but guess what- I'm still here, ready to debate any issue you'd care to. Wait- where'd you go?

by ragekage 2008-05-20 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL

Hysterical.  "Wait-where'd you go?"

This isn't Instant Messenger.

If you want a debate, start a thread on electability.  You can even put an "Attn: BPK80" tag in the title.  

by BPK80 2008-05-20 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

While I agree that Hillary Clinton has a much better shot against McCain than does Obama, I won't write Obama off in the general and neither should you.

I don't think many Clinton supporters do either. Obviously we'd rather our candidate be the nominee and we worry that Obama won't be able to hold his own against the vast right wing conspiracy. But let's not give up so easily. The same as we haven't given up on HRC.

I think that Obama will be the nominee, unfortunately. And I think that he is less likely to win the general than Hillary would be. Still, we can't just give up. An Obama victory in the general would be a Democratic victory, which is what we all want, in the end.

by carrieboberry 2008-05-21 02:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I agree.

I don't think Obama's 100% unelectable.  He just has a much harder road.  And it bothers me that we're taking this gamble rather than going with a sure-win like Hillary.  

by BPK80 2008-05-21 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

--------------
Update [2008-5-20 21:22:24 by Jerome Armstrong]: CNN updates that Obama has 1627 pledged delegates, a majority. The number of 1627, however, is not likely to hold with MI & FL being resolved (so Obama will likely get a groundhog day for this matter June 1st or 3rd). Non-binding, but like the popular vote which Clinton leads, this is a moral argument by Obama for the SD vote.
--------------

1) Clinton only holds the popular vote lead if you hold the intellectually dishonest notion that Michigan is counted without a single vote going to Obama.

2) Clinton only holds the popular vote lead if you hold the intellectually dishonest notion that caucus 'votes' are actually popular vote and not state electors. State electors typically represent anywhere from 3 - 20 actual votes.

So if you count all of the caucuses and allocate even the minimum representation, you widen Obama's lead even further, even to the point where if you give all those votes to Clinton and none to Obama, he STILL wins the popular vote.

So please, stop this dishonesty Jerome. You do no one any favors by continuing this kind of talk that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in reality.

by Yalin 2008-05-20 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Dude, if they had to make intellectually honest arguments, this would've been over long ago. What d'you expect? We have the honest to God Clinton supporters who are caught in the middle of all this, and I feel sorry for them. They're the ones who convinced me to vote for Clinton if Obama didn't get the nod; and then these wahoos come along and say "If you don't count a bunch of votes, we're winning! Yay!"

by ragekage 2008-05-20 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

go to RCP and do the math. Even if you do not count MI she is winning the popular vote. You have to count FL because both candidate had their name on the ballot and Obama even broke his pledge and campaigned there.

by tarheel74 2008-05-20 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Uhh, I went there and did the math. Let's see.

Obama +52,150    +0.2%

Who has the math problem?

by ragekage 2008-05-20 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

You've got to be kidding.

1) Florida would net her 300,000 votes. On top of the 249,000 votes she netted out of Kentucky tonight, that would bring her to within 200,000 votes of Obama.

Remember, going into tonight she was 750,000 votes behind Obama.

There is NO WAY for her to be ahead unless you count Michigan.

2) That total doesn't take into consideration Obama's net coming out of Oregon tonight, which will post in about an hour or so.

3) Obama DID NOT campaign in Florida. His campaign purchased a national ad buy in which they COULD NOT exclude Florida because the cable companies would not let him. They received clearance from the DNC to push forward with the ad buy nonetheless.

4) If you count the TRUE popular vote of the caucuses with the bare minimum allocation of a typical state elector, Obama is ahead by an additional 600,000 votes.

So even if you give Michigan to Hillary with no votes to Obama, she is STILL behind him by half a million votes.

Caucus counts taken from http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/candidates/#1746 and http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/candidates/#1918

by Yalin 2008-05-20 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

If the caucus states had been true primaries, not odd things where only people available to be somewhere at a specified time for a few hours could vote, Hillary would have done much, much better, there.

by demmonty 2008-05-20 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

This canard has been debunked enough times already. Caucuses in most states have windows of anywhere from 6-12 hours, most in the late day/early evening.

Please, stop this false line. Seriously.

by Yalin 2008-05-20 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I'm with you on Michigan ... that's just silly to count MI as "0" for Obama. But the "count the caucus goers" argument is equally silly. Take all the caucus goers in the whole friggin country, add them up, and you won't get half the number who voted in just one primary that didn't even friggin count, in Florida. And that's sort of the whole point: Caucuses are perfectly legal and traditional ways to settle these things, but they didn't represent anything like a measurement of the "will of the people." So count the caucus goers or don't count them. It doesn't matter.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-05-20 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

1) Please see what I wrote regarding the caucus #s which are actually state electors/delegates, not popular vote.

2) Please see my follow up post here: http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/5/20/2 0245/8946/219#219

It explains further.

by Yalin 2008-05-20 07:05PM | 0 recs
The ayes have it on both counts: exit polls

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#KYDEM

Was Gender of candidate important to you?

Yes 16 -- 79C, 19O
No 82 -- 63C, 33O

Was Race of candidate important to you?

Yes 21 -- 81C, 16O
No 78 -- 61C, 35O

by Tenafly Viper 2008-05-20 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I wonder if Armstrong was similarly surprised by any of Obama's many, many blowouts.

by unionfield 2008-05-20 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Dude, those don't count, remember?

by ragekage 2008-05-20 06:41PM | 0 recs
Obama 1627 - majority of Pledged Delegates

According to CNN - Senator now has 1627 pledged delegates.

So, before Oregon, Senator Obama has won more than half of the delegates that are intended to determine the majority winner of the Democratic primay.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-20 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama 1627 - majority of Pledged Delegates

If only it were that simple.

Obama has won more than half of the pledged delegates. They are not intended, as you seem to argue, to determine the nomination. They are only a part of a complicated constellation of pledged delegates, superdelegates, add-on delegates, etc.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-05-20 06:32PM | 0 recs
Yes, if only it were that simple... ;~)

But, the part the pledged delegates play is to determine the winner as chosen by the voters.  This is the only metric by which the public opinion is counted under the rules set at the beginning of the contest.

Just to answer the Popular Vote response - it is uncountable (literally, not just ethically), and if the race were being run that way both candidates would have campaigned differently from the beginning.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-21 05:58AM | 0 recs
Obama praises Clinton strongly

Crowd cheers.

by chrisblask 2008-05-20 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Wound up? No, not now. But folks, if the DNC has any smarts at all, it's polling anything that moves. And if, come time of the convention, the EV map looks anything like the MyDD front page, it would be beyond stupidity to nominate someone we know is unlikely to close the deal. So says an original Edwards supporter.

by Bob Miller 2008-05-20 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Change is coming to America.

by xdem 2008-05-20 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Those NC numbers are amazing! Hillary is looking more and more like the candidate that could change the map. Obama's map looks a lot like Kerry's- just with fewer electoral votes.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-05-20 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Actually, he currently has 253 or one more than Kerry. Sorry about that. I always deduct Indiana from the totals of both. I just deeply believe that Indiana is not going to flip- unless maybe if Evan Bayh is on a Clinton or Obama ticket.

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-05-20 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

pablano didn't necessarily endorse his own numbers this time around. He knew he would be way off and took the time to say why in his blog.

by alex100 2008-05-20 06:44PM | 0 recs
Remember how SUSA nailed NC two weeks ago?
oh, wait. Never mind.
by JJE 2008-05-20 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

I just cant stand this. We're going to nominate a guy whose ego pushed him into running for President one year into his Senate career. As long as Hillary is in it, Im willing to go to the convention floor with her.

by NJDEM1 2008-05-20 06:50PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the updates

How will Mark Blumenthal spin the Poblano goof?

by Coldblue 2008-05-20 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Nice Try Jerome, but as you have been shown and choose to ignore which is total BS, HILLARY DOES NOT LEAD THE POPULAR VOTE.  Not when the Caucuses and the Intended Votes in Mich for Obama are counted... Only with that BS George Bush type math of Saying Obama has 0% of the vote in Michigan is she leading... and if you say that, then you advocate ignoring the will of the voters.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-20 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

First of all I just joined MyDD and would like to know how I can start my own thread on this. I've tried to find out how but haven't found the answer yet.

As far as election goes, as a Clinton supporter,
I think it's very dishonest that Obama is claiming the nomination because he has won a majority of the number of total delegates. If you include Florida and Michigan then he hasn't won a majority of the delegates. Also winning a majority of delegates doesn't mean he's going to get the 2025 he thinks he needs to get nominated. Also Clinton will win the popular vote which is a good reason for her to be the nominee of her party. In addition, no one can win the nomination unless they get help from the superdelgates and not all have pledged their support for a candidate yet. Anyway superdelegates can change their mind at any time so having pledged superdelegates doesn't mean they are going to vote for you. The whole purpose of the superdelgates is to vote for the candidate they think has the best chance to win. The superdelgates started when Democrats were nominating sure losers in the General Election so Democrats needed a way to pick the nominee who has the best chance to win. I think that Hillary has the best chance to beat McCain. She has beaten Obama in most of the big swing states that Democrats need to win in the election in November. I hope she stays in the race until the convention which will have a vote for the nominee and hopefully the Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated there with Hillary getting her fair share of these delegates. What's the rush to pick a nominee before the convention? I remember when they had conventions where no one knew who the winner would be. That's what the conventions are for instead of becoming the boring coronations which they have become now. Also Obama should be more sensitive and fair to Hillary or a lot of her supporters will not vote for him and he will lose the general election.

by larry5101 2008-05-20 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

"Clinton will win the popular vote which is a good reason for her to the nominee of 'her' party."

Are you one of the John McCain bloggers? Because a real Democrat, wouldn't say "her" party.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-05-20 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Give a first time commenter a break.

It is her party. It's also his party. And it's my party. And I'm guessing it's your party as well.

Welcome to Mydd Larry.

by carrieboberry 2008-05-21 01:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
It's too bad that NC is a moot poll.
Let's see the SD turnout tomorrow....
You know the Obama campaign has them cued up.
I figure Obama will get 10 for every one for Clinton.
Both are going to FL..
Any one not believe  all the Clinton rallies combined won't equal one of Obama's...
by nogo postal 2008-05-20 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

It's over.  Time to rally behind Senator Obama.  Unless you want President McCain. Those are your 2 options.  Time to wake up.  Your ClintDream is over.

by Democrat in Chicago 2008-05-20 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Just what we need in the White House... a Chicago style politician.  It gives many of us much concern.  There won't be much rallying from real Dems to your choice.

by Demogrunt 2008-05-21 01:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton
Tonight when Obama all but declared himself the winner of the nomination and acted like he's the nominee, I, a Hillary supporter, felt very offended.
He has not won the nomination. He doen't count all the delegates from Florida and Michigan. He's going to lose the popular vote. Hillary has won most of the big swing states, Obama has run up his delegate total by winning caucuses in small states with very few voters voting. There are facts about him that are going to come out that are going to make the superdelagates feel like fools to vote for him. Hillary is right to stay in this race. I hope she stays in the race until the convention when the delegates vote. Democrats are voting for Hillary and expressing their desire for her to continue running because Obama is such a a new figure in public life and has very little experience in national politics and in dealing with the issues he needs to know as President. Like I said there are things that are going to come up about him that will doom his candidacy. Hillary, stay in the race until the convention has voted with the Florida and Michigan delegates seated.
by larry5101 2008-05-21 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

That was funny.  Barack shows up in Iowa to declare victory in a race that he has not won, and on a night that he had his arse handed to him on a silver platter in Kentucky.  It made him look foolish, and that is why I liked it.

by Demogrunt 2008-05-21 01:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

Poor Jerome, he swallows the "winning the popular vote"  story with no critical examination of how those numbers are selectively applied by the Clinton dreamers.  Ad Oh Boy, she wins the white racist vote (have the pundits lost any moral courage to call appalachian white voters for what they are???  I have lived there and it is mouth droppingly normal to hear these folks speak of 'niggers' and 'porch monkeys') If it takes nailing the white racist vote to  shout about the 'win', then the Clintons deserve no respect at all

by cenpendem 2008-05-21 04:26AM | 0 recs
Yet another thread dedicated to nothing but...

Taking a swipe at Obama and his supporters.  And Kos.  Well done Jerome, that's just what this site and the party needs!

by SpanishFly 2008-05-21 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Kentucky (& NC) for Clinton

This post had lots of good info, food for thought and concern, etc.

Until I read the bit where Jerome uncritically tosses in "but like the popular vote which Clinton leads".

Really Jerome?  Really?  I don't require that you be a math major, but do you not understand how stuff like this damages your credibility as a thoughtful analyst of Democratic politics?  

I don't mind that Hillary supporters have adopted that argument.  It's a bit Soviet to my way of thinking, but I understand the desire to make your candidate look more winning than they are.  However, based on your background, writings, and leadership position here you are justifiably held to a higher standard, and an uncritical acceptance of an argument that is almost universally discounted (outside of hard-core Clintonland), just makes we skeptical about everything else you say.

by travelerkaty 2008-05-21 10:02AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------