Guam recount was certified as a 7-vote win for Obama, per TPM.

Cheers

http://www.kuam-media.com/news/pdf/27745 .pdf

is running in the only district Obama lost in the state. If he wins despite being tied to Obama is bigger news than if he loses because of Obama.

I don't expect either candidate to be particulary helpful downballot in someplace like Northern Mississippi, then it really does mean Obama doesn't hurt downballot and the party is in a good position.

It may also mean that Childers is just a hell of a good candidate here. He's going to win this with Democrats who voted Hillary in March.

Even with the Childers thing, the first real "Obama effect" race was the Cazayoux race in Lousiana, where Cazayoux upset the GOP'er in a special election.

As for Nebraska, I don't think it matters much. I think since it's smarter fiscally for red states to hold Democratic caucuses instead of primaries, that should be the way it goes, since they're most likely not going blue anytime soon and really don't have a ton of delegates. However, larger bluer states like Minnesota and Washington should be running primaries, IMO.

I think Nebraska may give us a better feel for SD and Montana, however. Kind of new territory since they are actually primaries instead of caucuses in the Mountain West. Hopefully Hillary can keep them competitive, but I don't think Barack will see as large of a victory there as he did in some of his previous Moutain West states, simply because it's a primary.

you forgot about the gas tax cut ALREADY??

Shame. Shame.

I thought the issue was a WINNNER!!!

[Sniffle]

I don't think that Childers will have a problem related to Obama. Childers will have a problem related to Mississippi- I know, I've been there many times (most notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina). If the GOP wants to keep trying to associate people with Obama, let 'em. It's a stupid way to run a campaign, and while it may have worked in the past (like against Kerry in 2004), it's not going to work this year- at least, not overall or nearly as well.

As far as caucuses, I know you don't like 'em because Obama dominated them- but there's pros and cons to caucuses. I was born and raised a dumb 'ole Iowa farmboy, so maybe I'm a little prejudiced there, but anyway.

Rev. Wright is rather an issue of diminishing returns... I think we will be increasingly done hearing about him.

Obama blew out Clinton in the low attended WA caucus  but won by 3 in the more heavily attended primary.

Obama lost by around 4 in the huge TX primary but won by 12 in the low turnout caucus.

There is no such thing as a general election caucus and the two results above are obvious evidence that the caucuses are not representative of outcomes from more traditional voting venues.

What possible advantage can come of having less representative forums used to select party nominees?  

I've participated in caucuses, too.  Sure, they're fun but they may not mirror results of all-day straight voting procedures.

I think turnout will be high in the democratic primary in nebraska.  there is a real opportunity to turn both a senate and house seat blue in nebraska, and there are highly contested primary fights surrounding these.  Netroots darling Scott Kleeb is running to be the dem nominee for chuck hagel's senate seat.  The race for the second congressional district is very close as well.

I was just visiting my home town of omaha last weekend and the democratic party is energized in a way i have not ever experienced before.

say what you will about caucuses, but i think the recent experience really grew the democratic party.  my parents and my high school friends are far more involved in politics than ever before.  

and now were talking about having both senate seats from nebraska (!) being dem....