Obama should concede

It is now mathematically impossible for Obama to go into the convention with a majority, or even a plurality, of the vote cast by Democrats.  Since this is a Democratic Party nominating process, the super delegates should obey the will of the Democratic voters and thus all support Hillary Clinton (yes, that means you, too, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry--where are your Democratic values?)

The only way that Obama could conceivably win at this point is by overturning the will of the Democratic electorate and thus unfairly denying the nomination to the first serious female candidate.  This would tear apart the Democratic Party and deny Obama any chance of victory in the general election, as many of the large number of Democratic voters who have been reached by Hillary will sit out the election or even abandon the party.

Obama must concede now!!

Tags: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

161 Comments

I Think You Got the Names Backwards

That or it's an attempt at snark. Interesting effort.

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-05 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: I Think You Got the Names Backwards

yes, he should.  

As Donna Brazile rightly points out, after having momentum and for him to lose this big, means doubt about Obama.

by LindaSFNM 2008-03-05 06:19AM | 0 recs
Lose "This Big"?

I think Team Obama will happily settle for the single digit delegate loss (or maybe zero) they got last night, which exceeded their spreadsheet forecast. If they had to "lose," that's a wonderful loss.

In the next two states Team Obama will more than make up that minor delegate blip.

And there was "doubt" about McCain as you'll recall when Huckabee won Kansas. Yes, the media had fun with that. Nobody is sending out invitations to President Huckabee's nomination now.

I'm just waiting for everyone to sober up in about 24 hours and look at the basic arithmetic again. Bless Chuck Todd: he's one of the few smart guys.

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-05 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

obama can't afford to have a draw. his campaign is all momentum and no issues, so he's like a water skiier- if he slows down, he'll sink.

by campskunk 2008-03-05 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

Really?  To me it says she was outspent 4-1 in Texas(including the 527's) and 2-1 in Ohio, and she still won both.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-05 07:29AM | 0 recs
Maybe she should raise more money

I always find it strange when Hillary supporters complain she was outspent.  Raise more money, then.  Or stop paying Mark Penn $4 million a month.  

Obama's not Romney, he's not funding his campaign thru his own personal wealth.  

by bosdcla14 2008-03-05 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe she should raise more money

The point is that the wealth disparity will not exist in the general, between the Democratic and Republican candidates, even if it exists between Clinton and Obama right now.

by frankies 2008-03-05 08:08AM | 0 recs
Based on what?

Of course it will exist.  Are you serious?  There are Hillary financial supporters who probably won't donate to Obama and vice versa.

Are you actually contending that they will have the same amount of money for the general?  And that John McCain will have an equal amount?  Come on.  

by bosdcla14 2008-03-05 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Based on what?

Hillary is raising just as much money as Obama - starting about mid Feb. when she started asking for money.

Any monetary advantage for Obama going forward is going to be slim to none, folks.  Especially now that Hillary has the Big MO!!!

by mikes101 2008-03-05 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Based on what?

Clinton already has a huge GE war chest. And now she has a huge number of new, small dollar donors that she has not even begun to ask for donations for the GE.

by LakersFan 2008-03-05 09:37AM | 0 recs
35 millon does not equal 50 million

Both are extremely impressive fundraising for a month.  But one is still much bigger.    

Both are significantly larger than McAin's Feb number (12 million), but Obama still has a significant lead and I believe will continue to do so.

I would bet that Obama raises at least 5 million more in March than Hillary.  I'd put 25 smackers of my own hard-earned cash on that proposition (as a donation to blogpac or Rick Noriega or Progressive Patriots or something).  Would you match to claim that Hillary will raise an amount within 5 million of Obama?

by bosdcla14 2008-03-05 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe she should raise more money
Complaining? Who's complaining? You're the one complaining that even though Obama spent more money he still lost. We're the ones relishing in that fact.
by BrandingIron17 2008-03-05 08:14AM | 0 recs
I'd like him to stay a little longer

I think this race is energizing and uplifting and it gives voters a chance to feel part of democracy.  She'll win it, but I don't think it hurts anything for him to stay in, as long as he doesn't again suggest his voters won't vote for her.  That's negative stuff. if it comes from pollsters nothing he can do about it, but when he repeats it as if this were a good thing, he's telling his voters that if he loses he wants to take the ticket down as punishment. He'd effectively remove all the interest and good will his candidacy has contributed to our party.  

by anna shane 2008-03-05 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd like him to stay a little longer

We'll see how you feel about this if/when Obama's campaign goes as negative as Hillary's did.  The carnage will bloody the waters.  Hillary won't win the nom, but if by some miracle she does it will only serve to make her unelectable.  So congratz to all you hillary supporters, you have won..  the presidency for McBush.

by Why Not 2008-03-05 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd like him to stay a little longer

I can't wait for the ad that ties her and Mcain together, "Barack Obama believes the American people want fair and open government, that's he;s made public all of his tax records for the last .... years, unfortunately John McCain and Hillary Clinton don't share his commitment, and instead hide behind hollow rhetoric and empty promises, call (give a 1800number that redirects to chosen canidates Campaign headquarters, or better still Senate Office) tell Senators McCain and Clinton that the American demand more." Brought to you by Citizens for Open Government

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

Obama outspent Hillary 4-1, and then 2-1, and yet he still lost.  That says to me that HE is a loser.

by findthesource 2008-03-05 10:09AM | 0 recs
She's already lost

AND he's a loser after taking the pre-crowned nominee Hillary Clinton into April behind?  Shows how you Clinton peoples standard has been lowered by her losing so often.

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

That's a real nice rewrite of history to fit your needs. Obama internals had him up 3 points in texas. Not to mention there was a lot of talk about the african american vote being sooooo much higher. So I doubt they conceded they were going to lose texas.

by apolitik 2008-03-05 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

You forget that BO can't win with pledged delegate math either. I don't know why it is that BO supporters don't understand this. You talk about him winning as though he reaches the 2024 delegate mark and wins. Nope, not without super delegates and he doesn't make a good case for supers anymore (except for AA ones and his, "do you want to stand in front of the brother?" riff."

Hillary's case to the supers is much stronger. Don't you get that democrats in OH, NY, NJ, FL, MI, MA,  and CA will be pissed off if their votes are discounted or supplanted by North and South Dakota? Democrats want to pick their nominee...pure and simple.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-05 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

Neither can hillary which makes this entire Diary a freaking farce.  All you have to do is change names and it is still true, except for one thing, the Democratic Nomination is based on DELEGATES, not popular votes.  And you only count delegates that you agreed to count prior to the fact. HRC wants FL and MICH?  Umm no, you agreed these wouldn't count, so sorry. Yeah I want Obama and Hell Yeah I'll vote HRC over McCain, point being, this diary stinks on principal, makes no sense, and I hope it is a joke, otherwise, stop dropping acid.

by KLRinLA 2008-03-05 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

so i guess from now on we should just let states Hillary likes vote since their the only ones with "important" people in them

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

Well, he lost three out of four states yesterday and that is really BIG.  And I believe they were, in fact, really bigger that Obama's previous eleven states.  So it is HUGE.

by macmcd 2008-03-05 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

YEAH!!!  HELL YEAH!!! She even gained 5-10 delegates, just think at this rate all she'll need is a whole nother country to catch up!!  HELL YEAH, HILLARY IS BACK!!!

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Lose "This Big"?

Wait, wait 3 states are bigger than 11 states? In what Crazy land do you live? Seriously, they were smaller, in basically every possible number.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 01:39PM | 0 recs
what is the color in the sky in your world?

because it seems to be this is a lot smaller of a "loss" for Obama then ELEVEN straight losses in a row for your candidate.

oh right, Hillary won those states so they "matter"

by neutron 2008-03-05 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: what is the color in the sky in your world?

Do you recall how many registered Democrats voted for Obama in his eleven wins?  Look it up, you will be very disappointed at the numbers.

by macmcd 2008-03-05 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I Think You Got the Names Backwards

She netted 187 delegates last night to 183 for Obama. She was down 162, now she's down 158.  At this rate, she'll pull ahead exactly when...?

by Chili Dogg 2008-03-05 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: I Think You Got the Names Backwards

Um, April 22.... 2012?

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 01:39PM | 0 recs
You want to know who, after having momentum

(for years), lost it BIG?

by NeuvoLiberal 2008-03-05 12:26PM | 0 recs
Hillary could destroy black support

Clinton won't get the votes she needs in the GE. She will not get the historic black turnout that has been critical to Democrats in MI, PA, WI, IL, NJ and elsewhere. If Hillary Clinton steals this nomination without the pledged delegate lead, African Americans will stay home this fall. Count on it. And they may not come back for a long time.

by elrod 2008-03-05 07:37AM | 0 recs
Please, spare me..

Hillary Clinton is about as far from a racist as you will find in America. She is a longterm ally of the interests of all Americans. On the other hand, Obama's folk are trying to sugar coat and agenda that really does not have the interests of working class and poor Americans at heart, and this deception is dangerous in the long run because if he did win, a lot of people would be doubly disenchanted when his agenda looks a lot less 'hopeful' than they had anticipated. Look at his healthcare platform, for example.

It wont bring really affordable healthcare to people. It can't, because it refuses to make it universal, which is going to bring adverse selection into play, which will kill it.

I know people are afraid they wont be able to afford it, but they REALLY wont be able to afford a plan without a mandate. Basically, my state ALREADY HAS Obama's 'plan' and I can't afford it.

You think you will? Do some research, this has all been hased in in Europe, and in many other places. Hillary knows that research inside out. She is the ONLY person who has a chance in hell of being able to pull this off.

by architek 2008-03-05 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Please, spare me..

She was...

But, not after South Carolina...  the Clintons really screwed that one up, big time!

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Please, spare me..

Well, yeah, except for all those racist "coincidences"

by amiches 2008-03-05 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Please, spare me..

Um they didn't she was racist, just like no sane person regards Obama as sexist, its just that much as taking Nom. away from Hill would anger women, taking it away from Obama would anger African Americans, how is this hard to understand

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Please, spare me..

This is the first post I've seen in a long time that's spot on.

by RMC 2008-03-16 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary could destroy black support

And women will follow BO. Give me a break.

by gunner 2008-03-05 08:35AM | 0 recs
Presumptive crap

Assume anything about women at your own peril.

by anna belle 2008-03-05 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary could destroy black support

So you are willing to destroy Hispanic support since Hispanics won't vote for Obama.  ;-)

This is nonsense.  Once Obama is eased out of the race, Hillary will be remembered for the hero to the black community that she has always been.  Only Obama's use of race-victimhood has even gotten him any support.  He is shameless and he will not continue to benefit from these disgusting tactics.

by macmcd 2008-03-05 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary could destroy black support

when exactly is he going to be "eased" out of the race?  Obama: "oh your right i am ahead but i'm going to just quit now because Hillary's voters are just more important, even i can see that".

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary could destroy black support

And once Hillary is eased out Hispanics and Women will back him.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: he can't close the deal

I think your missing an important fact: by this time next week he is going to be as ahead as he was yesterday WITHOUT Ohio and Texas left to point to as places to make it up.  The fact his delegate lead was largely untouched (and the small loss will be regained) she has ZERO chance of catching up if she could only net 10 to 15 last night.  This race is over.  btw i think you just want a women, suck on that.

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: he can't close the deal

the person ahead (and almost certain to remain ahead) should drop out "for the good of the party" fuck that.  We should appoint the loser to keep from pissing of women like their the only ones that matter, fuck that as well.

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 08:46AM | 0 recs
12 of the last 15 since Super Tuesday

that's pretty good.

it will be 14 of 17 by next tuesday night.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: he can't close the deal

And won't it be ironic that this base is what ultimately overturns Roe? When the sleeping Republican base suddenly has the chance to run against their favorite devil, I predict Hillary will run no better than Dukakis. With a more sweeping mandate than GWB ever had, John McCain and his even more conservative successor (in no more than 4 years) will complete the right's complete takeover of the supreme court. Oh, and we'll be in an ever-expanding war. What a future!

by tawinmd 2008-03-05 11:40AM | 0 recs
the problem is

that 1) I think many of the super delegates think Hillary cannot defeat McCain 2) they also think that many of the new/young/indy voters that have aligned themselves with Obama may be reluctant to support Hillary in the general and 3) that if it looks like Obama is asked to step aside even though he has a lead in the pledged delegates, that many AA voters will stay home in November.

It will definitely be an interesting next couple of weeks/months.    

by highgrade 2008-03-05 06:18AM | 0 recs
And the problem with that is...

1. Many more superdelegates now think that Obama has "electability" problems against McCain.

2. They must also be looking at the Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island returns and noticing that Obama has a continuing problem attracting the blue-collar "lunch bucket Democrats" that we MUST attract to win in November.

3. Oh yes, and they must be thinking about what happens if Hillary continues to win MORE Democratic votes than Obama only to lose the nomination on the backs of Republican crossovers... And how so many Democratic WOMEN won't be happy if that happens.

Just a thought. ;-)

by atdleft 2008-03-05 06:26AM | 0 recs
Problems all around!

LOL, You are definitely right that Obama has issues with attracting the blue collar types. But I don't know, maybe you do, if that is a function of them rejecting him outright, or if they just prefer Hillary.

Regarding the super delegates, which have mentioned his electability against McCain?

Your last point is also valid. My thinking is that those in the Obama camp and his institutional supporters, probably think that Democratic women are less likely to cross over - but I can't say that that's a particularly valid assumption.

by highgrade 2008-03-05 06:42AM | 0 recs
Right you are...

1.  I think it's clear that the overwhelming majority of Republicans think Obama is the weaker opponent.  Of course, I know that some of this happens the other way too, but Obama has been winning in states that will not go Democratic in November, many of them crossover states.  He probably would not have nearly so many delegates without the votes of Republicans who hope to run against him in November.  

2. Obama's strategy of snubbing Florida will hurt the party in November.

3. Obama's strategy of having his surrogates attack the Clintons as racists has hurt him with women, and we have long memories.

4.  Hillary is winning the states that matter most.  I believe it's true (can we check this?) that no Democrat has won the White House in recent history without winning Ohio.

5.  Finally, Obama is getting some scrutiny, and he doesn't look so good.  See Joseph Wilson, "Obama's Hollow 'Judgment' and Empty Record," at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson /obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html, for example.  And then there is the flap over NAFTA.  There will be more, as people start to look at his record.

by PlainWords 2008-03-05 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Right you are...

I think it's clear that the overwhelming majority of Republicans think Obama is the weaker opponent.

I've seen several articles written in conservative blogs and press where they prefer Clinton. Republicans have been using the specter of her candidacy to raise money for 8 years now. No one can galvanize their disenchanted base like she can.

And then there is the flap over NAFTA.

A completely debunked conservative smear.  It was a well-executed one, but if you buy into it now, you've been suckered by Howard's conservative government giving an assist to McCain.

by mattw 2008-03-05 07:26AM | 0 recs
Harper

Not Howard.

Hillary's people will ramping up the spin the next day or so. And then reality will settle in. They're done.

by elrod 2008-03-05 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Harper

My bad. I'm confusing my repulsive conservative foreign leaders.

by mattw 2008-03-05 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Where's Obama's Argument

I think his argument is that he has the most votes, the most states, and the most delegates, therefore he is winning. I think the idea is that when the nominating process is over (come June) he will still have the most votes, the most states and the most delegates, and therefore will win.

by mattw 2008-03-05 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Where's Obama's Argument

What's Hillary's I won the big states I can be John Kerry part deux? I mean that's not exactly a winner either.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Right you are...

What do you have to say about Joseph Wilson's piece?

by JustJennifer 2008-03-05 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Right you are...

I think that the criticism that Obama should have held a hearing is, to some extent, a fair one. I mean, realistically, I can't get my hackles up too high over a historically inactive subcommittee not meeting while we're fighting to stop bad FISA laws and trying to pass SCHIP and whatnot.

Also, the link from Obama to Afghanistan is a bit tenuous. Yes, the European Subcommittee does have some good measure of oversight over NATO, but obviously, our involvement in Afghanistan is much more the purvey of Armed Services and the larger Foreign Relations committee.

As for the issue of judgement, I find Wilson's argument lacking. And it isn't because of Obama's political position at the time of his anti-war speech. To me, the content of the speech is what makes it important. Obama predicted with a fair amount of specificity, especially for a rally speech, exactly what we faced in Iraq. It wasn't that he opposed the war; it was that he said why. Anyone could have been opposed to the war based on the Just War doctrine not being met, but Obama had specific issues with an invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein which proved in retrospect to be remarkably insightful. At the time, people were raving about how Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. I'd suggest reading the full text of Obama's speech, if you haven't. If you rewind mentally to 2002, I think you'll find the speech is insightful. Now, it feels like an argument that has been made a hundred times... but it wasn't then.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

And here we are. Fallen from grace on the world stage, mired in a civil conflict after our easy removal of Saddam Hussein spawned an intercine war and then drew Al-Qaeda into the country like moths to a flame. He also said:

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

For a state senator, he sure called that dead on. In a climate of "forced patriotism", where everyone was afraid to contradict Bush for fear of sounding like a "liberal" or a traitor, Obama's war speech was incisive - it hit at the heart of the Neocon agenda and the dangers of the invasion, while admitting there were valid reasons to want Saddam gone.

Ultimately, I can only shrug at Wilson's accusal that Obama's judgement was empty. This speech, however, is why I maintain that the whole "Obama admits he doesn't know how he would have voted" point is largely irrelevent. In the rush to war, who in congress or the executive branch raised these issues? Who stabbed at the neocon armchair warmonger agenda, or predicted an extended conflict? It isn't really the vote that matters - it is the insight.

I don't think Wilson's piece was written in bad faith, but I think he took a tenuous conclusion and drove it further than it deserved because of partisan motivations. I still respect him, though.

by mattw 2008-03-05 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Right you are...

I agree with you.. the speech was good and he was definitely brave for standing up.  But.. as he himself has stated he doesn't know what he would have done had he been in the position to act on the issue in Congress.  Do you remember what he said at the last debate about not standing up and objecting to the Terri Schaivo thing in Congress?  Well... if he didn't feel comfortable, as a constitutional lawyer no less.. being the outsider in that scenerio what makes you so sure he would have done so regarding Iraq?

by JustJennifer 2008-03-05 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Right you are...

Maybe, maybe not. I like to think so, but it's pure speculation. What matters to me isn't his opposition to the war, brave or not, it is how well he knew what agenda was driving the march to war, and what the consequences would be. It's scary. NIE aside, did all our congressional leadership voting for the AUMF really not have those kind of qualms?

And he has publically said he wasn't there, and didn't know how he'd vote. But judgement doesn't come down to just a vote... it comes down to knowing why. Obama knew why Iraq was a bad idea. I think it's safe to say that if he had been faced with the vote, the level of evidence required for him to vote, given his insight, would at least have been higher.

(As a side note, my first choice for President would have been Russ Feingold, the only one of them to stand up to the ill-conceived fear-pandering PATRIOT Act. I was disappointed when he said he wouldn't run.)

by mattw 2008-03-05 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Right you are...

Sorry, but the "he didn't know what he would've done" line is tired and omits the context from the quote. What he was trying to express was understanding why someone would've voted the way they did, not ambivalence about his own position. And I think his record of working with culpable Democrats to find a solution to the war has been consistent with that. But he'd be crazy not to make the distinction in a head-to-head race with someone else.

We can attempt to rewrite history, casting people in different roles, all we want. We can argue the theoreticals like "what if he was in Congress" until the cows come home, but if there's one serious difference between our candidates, it's that Iraq war vote, and Barack is simply on the right side of that argument. Hillary may have expressed regret over that vote, but she's never said she was wrong, and in fact made a similar vote in Kyl-Lieberman.

My concern with a Hillary presidency (and candidacy, for that matter) is that she's going to face pressure from the media and from Republicans, who are already used to casting Democratic men as effeminate, to "show her balls" to put it crudely. In other words, they will try and bully her into their foreign policy positions by questioning her toughness. And looking back on the political career of Hillary Clinton, I don't see any time in that she hasn't taken that bait.

by amiches 2008-03-05 11:53AM | 0 recs
Ohio

I heard on MSNBC that the only Democratic presidents to win the White House without winniing Ohio were the two most popular:  JFK and FDR.

by LawStudent 2008-03-05 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio

Did they tell you that JFK carried Texas in the general? I'm sure that they didn't and ignored the current map. Since Obama isn't carrying TX if he's the nominee, that's a worthless point.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio

Oh geez man, you can parse anything. This whole comparison of particular states is so transparently self-serving. Bottom line: Obama has won more states, more votes, and more delegates. Trying to ascribe any more meaning to this state or that is nothing more than spin to avoid facing those facts.

by brimur 2008-03-05 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio

And if he's so great why can't he win primaries in diverse states? We aren't having a national caucus in Nov. His primary performance and his state by state poll numbers have convinced me that he's a general election loser. Also his inability to handle any negative campaigning shows he has a glass jaw.

BTW, you guys said the primary would be over by now didn't you?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio

Diverse states like Georgia, South Carolina, Maryland, Missouri, Colorado? Oh I really don't want to keep listing them.

by brimur 2008-03-05 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio

GA, SC, MD are not diverse states. He won those by getting large black turnout. MO he tied and CO was a caucus. Thanks for making my point for me.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-06 12:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio

Btw, it IS over, you just don't know it yet.

by brimur 2008-03-05 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio

Yeah, it's over for Obama. I do agree with you there. Anycandidate who can't get people to vote for him in a primary doesn't look like a good option does it?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-06 12:16AM | 0 recs
Problem with this

These blue collar voters that you stereotype, about 45% of them chose Obama, the other 55% Hillary.  The margins may be closer.

If the margin was 90-10 I'd say there's a problem.

The bottom line is these voters like both candidates, realize the Dems are better on the economic issues, but a slight majority more preferred HIllary.

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: the problem is

Highgrade, I think you have it the other way around.

Most of the superdelegates & the democrats think Obama cannot defeat McCain in the fall.

Even among Obama's core support of African-Americans.

Survey after Survey show that majority of Blacks have reservations about Obama's chances in November. Blacks are supporting him all the way. But many are aware of reality.

How can Obama carry the nation when after PA, he would have lost 9 out 10 of the largest states in the country.

In the last  3 decades, No Democrats has won the White house without winning BIG in the Top 10 states. We always lose on the number of states won. But we always make it up on the big states.

Bill Clinton & Gore( 2000) did that.

Bill won 9 out 10 of the largest electoral states/
Gore won 7 out of 10 & still lost. he needed the 8th which was Florida.

In the  9 largest states so far, Obama has been VERY WEAK outside of Urban black populations. These people in suburban & rural will not just vote for him automatically in the Fall.

As John King at CNN said. The problem with white voters is a major concern. Come GE, the entire white voting population votes. If Obama cannot even win white democrats in the burbs & rural, can you imagine what will happen in Nov.

He has failed to close because many democrats have serious doubts about him in November

by labanman 2008-03-05 06:33AM | 0 recs
Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania

Without wins in at least two of those, the general election looks bad for Democrats. I fail to see how Obama can win over McCain in those states.

For this reason, I wish the FL and MI problems could be resolved and quickly by the party, with a compromise that both Obama and Clinton back wholeheartedly (at least publicly). We need to do well in Florida.

The strongest ticket in the fall, IMHO, would be Clinton/Obama or something like Clinton/Clark.

If Obama is the nominee, I will vote for him, but not happily, unless he really surprises me with some grand gesture toward Clinton and her backers.

by Coral 2008-03-05 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania

Hillarious. And how will Clinton win without the entire upper midwest and Pac NW? She can't win MN, WI, OR, WA, IA, or even New Hampshire against McCain, and McCain will mop the floor with her in Florida.

News flash, winning a big swing state is nice, but you need to actually hold all your blue states, too.

by X Stryker 2008-03-05 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary BEAT McCain in FL

Um, yeah she "won" by recieving more votes in a primary where she had 2 opponents and McCain had what 5? Seriously, Florida is out of reach and I'm not sure why you think it should be a gimme its gotten redder over the last 8 years and one of McCain's biggest supporters is a governor with 70% approval ratings.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary BEAT McCain in FL

oh yeah obama playing by the rules even hillary agreed to (when it was convenient) is clear evidence that Obama is destroying things.  Of course Florida should feel special, Hillary has decided their "important".  Is it just me or does your importance go up and down based on your support for Hillary?

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: the problem is

Yes, but did you look at the total votes Barack got and compare it with McCain.  It was always atleast 2 to 1 in every primary/caucus.  Do you honestly think that a state like California is going to go red in the GE?

by SocialDem 2008-03-05 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: no the super delegates

But I keep reading that Dem voters are for the most part satisfied with either candidate. I don't know that Democratic women are itching to support McCain.

by highgrade 2008-03-05 06:53AM | 0 recs
Obama needs to drop out

It's clearly in the interest of the party that he defer to the will of Democratic voters.  

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-05 06:20AM | 0 recs
I think that hey both should stay in the race

It gives Americans a chance to see the HUGE contrast between Democratic and Grand Old Party values

by architek 2008-03-05 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should do no such thing

Doesn't BO have the support of the voters over HRC?  Are you saying that OH and TX speak for the country, or I should say 50-51% of TX and OH speakl for the country?  And all this republican talk, polls everywhere state republicans like Obama as in they would actually vote for him over McCain, compared with HRC.  Turn on CNN you'll hear it.  

by KLRinLA 2008-03-05 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama needs to drop out

atleast the ones that happen to women and important.  Do women in small states matter?  Im confused, they are in a state that dosent matter but a sex that does, they must be pretty confused to!

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Personally, Obama will find out the hardway in June.

When you've lost 9 out of 10 of the Largest Electoral States in the country ( I already included PA), Many Superdelegates will not support you. Obama has only won his home state.

The GE is WINNER TAKE ALL! ( No more bullcrap splits, No more caucuses)

In 9 out of 10 of the Largest Electoral states, he has LOST everywhere except the Black Urban areas. Come GE, that's a landslide loss.

No Democrat has won in the last 20 years without carrying most of the 10 largest states. Republicans have ALWAYS won more states than Democrats. That's already a given. But Democrats always win the largest states & it makes up for it.

Bill Clinton won 9 out of 10 of the Largest Electoral states ( only losing Texas) & went on to win.

Gore won 7 out of 10 ( it would have been 8 if he won Florida) & he nearly won.

90% of Obama states that he has won are USELESS in the GE. Like SC,GA,AL,MS,ND,SD,ID,WY,AK,MT.

These are red solid as a rock.

Maybe in 2016 or 2020 these states will be purple. But until them, its useless.

by labanman 2008-03-05 06:24AM | 0 recs
Michelle is finally proud of her country

Michelle's statement really offended a lot of people, and if Obama were the nominee it would hurt big time in November.  The statement even offended me, and I'm against the war and have been from the beginning.  But I have friends with sons and daughters in Iraq, and Michelle's statement is just not something any politician -- or politician's spouse -- with any brains at all would ever say.

by PlainWords 2008-03-05 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle is finally proud of her country

The statement didn't particularly offend me, as I'm not a big rah-rah patriot.

However I found it incredibly undiplomatic and a huge misstep politically. How could she say such a stupid thing (I mean, stupid as regards political strategy). It was terribly un-presidential, and will be used by the Republicans in the GE.

by Coral 2008-03-05 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle is finally proud of her country

Mis-characterized by idiots. It was obvious what she meant - she was discussing the politics of America. Look at the tone of it.

But you want to do Fox News' bidding, OK. Answer for travelgate, Boratgate, Monica, tax returns?, 1994 Hillarycare disaster, general sleaze of McAuliffe and company. Since Hillary Clinton wants to "prepare" Obama for the kinds of attacks she will face from the GOP, maybe Obama should respond in kind and remind voters why they dislike Hillary Clinton so much.

by elrod 2008-03-05 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle is finally proud of her country

If she was never proud of the civil rights movement the there is no HOPE for her.

by gunner 2008-03-05 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

WY is not useless in the GE.  We've got a guy named Gary Trauner running for congress there, and he can win.

ID is not useless either, we may be able to take Larry Craig's seat.

TX is not useless, we might be able to win a senate seat there, win back the statehouse, redraw the electoral map, and get 5 more congressfolk on our side.

Red states are not "useless" they are places to grow our party.  Do not disenfranchise their voters or diminish their importance!

by LordMike 2008-03-05 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't say they were totally useless

Texas racist?

Wow. Again, great analysis.

by apolitik 2008-03-05 01:03PM | 0 recs
Ha Ha Ha

Hillary only narrowed his lead yesterday by eleven delegates, she significantly underperformed polling from only two weeks ago, and she remains the weakest general election candidate. With only ten states to go, it's pretty much impossible for Hillary to even catch up.

What last night showed, and one would hope that Obama learns from this, is that convincingly beating the Clinton machine requires a harder-edged strategy than he's been using. He needs to get down in the mud with them, pure and simple.

In short, he needs to remind America and Democratic voters of why we were all once Clinton-fatigued. Shouldn't be too difficult, and make excellent training for beating John McCain.

by MBNYC 2008-03-05 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Ha Ha Ha

Why do you think she is the weakest general election candidate?  The new polls out don't indicate that - they show a tie between Obama and Clinton, with some polls, showing more people prefer her.

I can see McCain beating Obama by a bunch, but I think with HRC, it's a different race.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 07:08AM | 0 recs
A number of reasons

...primarily having to do with positioning. McCain outperforms Hillary on experience, for example. In short, he's better than her on her claimed strengths, and there's not enough differentiation between the two except at the margins. That brings popularity into play, and he's more liked than she is.

by MBNYC 2008-03-05 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Ha Ha Ha

By "new polls", you mean "polls that made the myDD rec list"? Obama polls for stronger overall, including, ironically, in Ohio, where he is -1 vs McCain now, where Hillary is -3.

The best whole general election analysis based on all polls shows Obama winning 289 electoral votes (winning) and Clinton 235 (losing).

by mattw 2008-03-05 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Ha Ha Ha

I haven't seen a poll in the last 6 weeks showing Hillary beating McCain.
ALL of the Obama polls show him beating, tying or barely losing to McCain.

Where's your data?

by xodus1914 2008-03-05 08:13AM | 0 recs
That's not the way to go.

No I won't call him to drop out.  Every candidate has the right to stay in this race as long as he/she is  willing to.

It's their decision to drop off from the race.  No I won't call him to drop out.  Every candidate has the right to stay in this race as long as he/she is  willing to.

It's their decision to drop off from the race.  

We need to let this race play out.  I have said it before, and I will say it again.  We are going to take this race all the way to the finish line.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-05 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: That's not the way to go.

She need to beat him fair and square.  

Obama don't drop out.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-05 06:42AM | 0 recs
TAKE BACK THE PARTY!!!

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote against Chris Matthews.

by jfoster 2008-03-05 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: TAKE BACK THE PARTY!!!

A vote for Obama is a vote against Mark Penn and Terry McAwful.

by elrod 2008-03-05 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

surrender

by campskunk 2008-03-05 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

That is hilarious!

by cmugirl90 2008-03-05 07:08AM | 0 recs
Let's see what happens in PA

I understand the sentiment here. Many in the Obama camp (tanked MSM included) were calling on Hillary to drop out of the race. It's only fair to lob the same request back at them. I, personally, think this thing needs to play out until PA. Here was my March 4th prediction:

Hillary wins Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. It won't matter by how much, Hillary continues. Three things happen, 1) Hillary has made her case for winning states a Dem must win, she's got MO, 2) NAFTAgate + Rezko = buyer's remorse, plagues Obama, and 3) both candidates go on to PA, Obama loses double digits and Supers flock to Clinton. It's over in April.  

Clinton's double digit win in Ohio makes her case even stronger. We will have to see how this plays out over the next 7 weeks until the PA primary on April 22nd. Can you believe that Iowa was just 9 weeks ago!

by grlpatriot 2008-03-05 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see what happens in PA
A sad, sad assessment coming from someone who swallowed wholesale the negativity sold by the Republicans and Clinton foes who resent the idea of a couple that works well together. They've been shitting on Hillary ever since Bill first got into the Governorship of Arkansas. But okay, the "Clintons only care about the Clintons", and I suppose the Clinton Foundation's work to bring low-cost meds to the poorerst in Africa is jut "political show".
by BrandingIron17 2008-03-05 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see what happens in PA

I think it needs to go to NC, I don't see why a big Hillary state should be the end all be all when there will be a state larger than NJ or Mass. still left to vote.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's see what happens in PA

Do you just pull these margins of victory out of nowhere?

I hate to be nasty, as there is too much of that, but I wonder where you get your 'analysis' since you seem so content on polluting the threads so often with it.

by apolitik 2008-03-05 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

I realize this is just counter-snark but I have to tell you, the joke is old at this point.  It's better just to revel in the frustration of the people who fruitlessly demand that Hillary bow to their math calculations and drop out.

You know what's funny?  Mike Huckabee dragged out the Republican race right to the finish line, in the face of a deficit many orders of magnitude greater than anything facing Hillary, and nothing really happened other than him getting teased on SNL a little.  He stayed in it until the delegates were counted, everyone was pretty much okay with his right to do so, and the world did not end nor was the Republican Party torn apart as a consequence.  Kind of interesting.

by Steve M 2008-03-05 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

That was the quickest paradigm shift EVER on this 3rd Rock from the Sun (at 1au).

dayum!  How the headlines have flipped on their proverbial dried-up axis-of-evil

journalism - INDEED!

ROFLMAO!
GO HILLARY!
GET'CH UR GROOVE ON SISTA-FRIEND!

(I'VE NEVER been more proud OR eaten so much popcorn)  ;-)

^5 and gracias to TX & OH & RI  (right on)

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-05 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

btw, did anyone else here Chuck Todd earlier???

You know Chuck Todd?  The "GURU of POLITICS" according to Tweety and the other Head-less at MSNBC?  Anyway he's the guy that breaks down the math and precincts, etc and how much they count, etc...........

long story short

he said (paraphrasing)
----------
today we're looking at our next President and Vice President, these two.  I'm just not sure yet which one will be on top
-----------------
his words above not mine!
My MOTHER predicted this a year ago.
(weird)

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-05 07:07AM | 0 recs
You know she'll most likely lose, right?

It's almost impossible to catch him in delegates, and it's hard to see how she can catch him in the popular vote without a six-digit margin in PA.  It's too late for "paradigm shifts", Hillary needed an Obama implosion.  And she didn't get it.

Oh, and Obama is highly unlikely to put Hillary on the ticket.  Why saddle himself with the face that launched a thousand Republican campaign contributions?

by corph 2008-03-05 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

I would almost agree, except that it would guarantee a Republican win in November.

by Drummond 2008-03-05 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

I guess you own a guarantee shop?

what's YOUR guarantee worth?

LOL

nada - this election is sooooooooooo different!

Cosmo the CLown could win against ANY PUG!  Especially one that is over 70 and deranged!

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-05 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

correction

I don't think HE could win w/out her

She could beat him with one arm tied behind her back

she's a scrapper!

damn haven't you noticed??????

JEZ LOUISE I mean I thought it was beyond obvious

by CarolinaDawn 2008-03-05 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

LOL

by americanincanada 2008-03-05 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede
DO you think Obama needs Hillary to beat MCCain?
Or does Hillary need Obama to beat MCcain. DO you really see Hillary winning any states in the South without Obama? Or do you think  that as long as the Dems win Penn, OH and FL then they can win the GE? The Dems have been running that play for years and you saw what happened in the last two elections....
by xodus1914 2008-03-05 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

I can't vote for a candidate who didn't get the most votes.  I can't vote for a candidate who didn't win key states like CA, Fl, NY, MA, TX, OH, etc.

I am not going to vote for a guy who rode liberal activists in Idaho to a victory.

by dpANDREWS 2008-03-05 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

You cant vote for a Democrat because he didnt win certain states in the primary. So instead you'll ensure his defeat by not voting in the general? This makes a whole hell of a lot of sense.

by AC4508 2008-03-05 07:40AM | 0 recs
Moderate Democrats need to make a stand

The way the system works and the way the internet works we could see this sort of thing start to happen every 4 years.  Heck, Obama isn't that bad considering what could come down the chute in the future.

With college kids and liberal activists kicking in 30 million a month on the internet, with split votes, and with all the smaller and caucus states dominated by liberal activists and university hubs, we could see all sorts of godawful fringe left candidates rise to the top in the future at the expense of more mainstream, established candidates.

by dpANDREWS 2008-03-05 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Moderate Democrats need to make a stand

Now you are starting to sound like my Republican uncle....

by SocialDem 2008-03-05 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

I guess you're not voting for Clinton then, seeing as how Obama is leading in both delegates and the popular vote so far.

by Nautilator 2008-03-05 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Markjay: Obama very likely will go to the nomination with a plurality of the vote. Perhaps you dont know what plurality means?

by AC4508 2008-03-05 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

No, my dear, there's no such thing as a plurality nomination.

2024 is the number needed to win.  Otherwise, who knows...

by Si Ella Puede 2008-03-05 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

As I said in my diary, Obama will not achieve a plurality of the votes cast by Democrats in these nominating contests.  Do you disagree?

by markjay 2008-03-05 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Hillary surging in NORTH CAROLINA

Most recent polls in North Carolina had shown Obama with a double digit lead. But his standing in the national polls has declined over the last week and it looks like the same trend is occurring in North Carolina."

by rossinatl 2008-03-05 08:05AM | 0 recs
Got a link?

Or even the name of the poll(s)?

by corph 2008-03-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Indeed, you are quite correct.  If the Democratic Party is to have a prayer in November, Obama should concede--possibly opting for a Veep spot.

Senator Clinton will carry Pennsylvania, much as she has Ohio and every other major state save Senator Obama's Illinois.

The Obama folk and their apologists in the media have become pathetic.  Having already lost every major Democratic bastion, his supporters would have the rest of us believe that Red States and states with heavy African-American populations which also turn Red in general elections, are sufficient to secure for him the nomination.  

Of course, this is predicated on disenfranchisng Senator Clinton's huge wins in Florida and Michigan.  Were those states alone added to the Clinton column, her delegate total would be insurmountable for Obama.

And were this any previous Democratic election cycle, with winner-take-all delegations, Senator Clinton's wins in just six or seven major states would have made insurmountable Senator Obama's wins, even had he won everywhere else.

Truth be told, Obama is toast.  He will not win Red States in November, and he will likely lose all traditional blue states as well.

I know this because my family, from my parents' generation some sixty years earlier through my own and a generation beyond, have been bedrock Democrats, never voting any other way.

But if Obama were the presidential nominee, ALL of us intend to vote McCain.  Likewise millions of Lations, Asians, and fellow bedrock Democrats.

Losers like Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, John Kerry and the 2008 presidential also-rans have for the most part endorsed Obama, out of jealousy of the Clintons.

But trashing the Clintons comes at considerable peril.  Bill and Hillary Clinton taught the Democratic Party how to win, and win again, and govern successfully, after the party's several decades in the political wilderness.

The Clintons do not need the Democratic Party.  It needs them.

If the Democratic Party wants to commit suicide with an untried neophyte like Obama, who cannot carry a single big state save his own, then I would suggest that Hillary Clinton run as an independent.

The Clinton supporters in November will go in huge numbers her way.  And she will thus become the first woman as well as first independent American President.

Otherwise, the nation, currently in shambles, has little chance to survive.

by lambros 2008-03-05 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Technically, Howard Dean hasn't endorsed, though it sometimes seems that way.  As for the 2008 also rans, I thinks it's just Dodd who's endorsed, right?

by DaveOinSF 2008-03-05 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

I do not know how you can consider yourself a "bedrock" Democrat when you're talking about voting for McCain.  What about the SC?  What about Roe v. Wade.  What about sane taxation?  What about 100 years in Iraq?  No matter who is the nominee they will both be good presidents.  And about not winning any big states....Remember this is a primary, do you honestly think a state like California or New York is going to go Republican?  Remember how in every contest Obama (and Hillary) have both trounced McCain 6 TO 1 in some states in total number of votes?  How you come to this conclusion is beyond me.  If anything, Hillary is the one we'd be taking a risk on.  She is going to run a 50+1 campaign with a divided country.  Obama will actually have a working majority some of whom WILL NOT vote for Hillary.

by SocialDem 2008-03-05 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Clinton is now leading in popular vote:

13,079,597 to 12,674,318

by americanincanada 2008-03-05 08:56AM | 0 recs
You're including MI and FL, right?

Say so.  Otherwise you're being dishonest.

by corph 2008-03-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: You're including MI and FL, right?

I think he's including the WA straw poll as well.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 09:19AM | 0 recs
Heh.

Wouldn't surprise me.  Present the scenario most favorable to one's candidate as undisputed fact.

He must be taking his cue from Jerome's delegate counter.

by corph 2008-03-05 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

no, their just using Republican math from Florida where less is more.  Shocking isn't it that Hillary is hoping to be the first President since George W. Bush to "win" with the fewest votes.

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

I got new for you.  Obama is not getting out of this race until he falls behind in the pledged delegate count.  After the campaign Hillary has run against him, he should declare guerilla warfare on her.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
Bad idea. Not his style.

Plus, he doesn't need too.  The giddy HRC supporters seem think this is a winner-take-all electoral college.  She needed to make up significant numbers in delegates last night, and didn't.

Silly football analogy: The Hillary team, down by 14 points, just ate up nine minutes of clock time late in the game to drive down the field and kick a field goal.  Then they announced to everyone it's a touchdown in order to keep their spirits up.

by corph 2008-03-05 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

I hope he does declare warfare...then the politics of hope and change can be seen for what they really are...bullshit rhetoric.

by americanincanada 2008-03-05 09:22AM | 0 recs
This diary is pure idocy n/t

by JDF 2008-03-05 09:25AM | 0 recs
Boy, Did You Prove Your Points!

Obama's supporters have no sense of humor. Or irony.

And many of them just plain aren't very bright!

by S1 2008-03-05 09:26AM | 0 recs
Better Off Today than Yesterday

Obama is better of today than yesterday.  Dont believe me?  A couple thoughts...
1. Lost few net delegates +  she lost allot of her potential places to catch up.               2. The media wondering around asking if the almost certain nominee is ready, expirenced, know enough about him etc back to the "hillary will do anything to win, went negative, likley to crash convention.  
THIS is a MUCH better story line for him than he had over the past week.  When given an nearly equal of winning by the media he gets the better press.

P.S. Can we save some time to crack on McCain no matter who wins?  After all he caught the pleauge today!                

by affratboy22 2008-03-05 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Better Off Today than Yesterday

I too think that being the frontrunner again will bring increased scrutiny to Clinton.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-05 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Obama going dirty will damage him far more than Clinton going dirty.  It's just a fact.  When you set yourself up as the New Hope you can't change tactics and become a dirty fighter.

by JustJennifer 2008-03-05 09:33AM | 0 recs
Obama is Willie Horton and OJ Simpson now

A Hillary ad apparently darkens his complexion to make him look blacker - like Willie Horton and OJ Simpson were made to be. Mandy Grunwald of Clinton's campaign says the ad on Daily Kos was not their ad. But the ad on Hillary's own website has the darkened image.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /5/131156/5021/187/469677

This is disgusting. How dare HRC supporters accuse Obama of using GOP talking points. This is pure Lee Atwater. Darkening Obama? And don't think this is accidental or will be overlooked. The Clintons threw the kitchen sink and they will get it right back.

by elrod 2008-03-05 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Man, what Kool Aid on you drinking?

by bigdavefromqueens 2008-03-05 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

This is rubbish.
Last time i checked Obama had more delegates than Clinton. If anybody it should have been Hillary who dropped out after super Tuesday. She was behind in the standard delegate count and was artificially inflated by the super delegates. You didn't here calls for her to drop out then. Now both candidates can't win without super delegates. Why are the standards different for Hillary?

I reiterate, this is rubbish.

by bentheben 2008-03-05 10:20AM | 0 recs
by poserM 2008-03-05 10:28AM | 0 recs
Delegate update - Obama only down 4 for the day!

Looking at Obama's own website, it looks like he only lost Ohio by 9. And they are projecting a 38-29 win in the Texas caucus portion instead of 37-30.

I also noticed that the TX primary portion now reads 64-62 for Clinton and not 65-61 as originally thought. I checked Burnt Orange Report and now they have it at 63-63 - though an outstanding delegate probably goes to Clinton.

BTW, Buckeye State Blog and Burnt Orange Report confirm these shifts, so this isn't wishful thinking. I'm still checking on the TX caucus results.

If Obama is right about the caucus, then he only lost 4 delegates on March 4. If the caucus number stays 37-30 then he loses 6. I originally had him losing 10.

So let's get this straight. In two of the most demographically pro-Hillary states Barack Obama lost a grand total of 4 delegates. But now he should concede the race. LOL.

by elrod 2008-03-05 10:32AM | 0 recs
BTW

This is the sort of diary that gets Obama supporters very focused and motivated. If that was the intention, it worked.  This does us what the NYT Iseman storty did for McCain and what Chris Matthews' NH misogyny did for Clinton.

by elrod 2008-03-05 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Hey, umm...

Obama won Texas, you guys.  More delegates.  Why?  Because his campaign out-organized Hillary in terms of enthusiastic Democrats to caucus for him.

And I don't want to hear any complaints about browbeating either, because these caucuses are basically like a second in-person vote: no argument, no discussion.  You sign in, write down your preferred candidate and can then leave if you want.  None of this typical drivel about Obama supporters shouting down Clinton supporters, because it didn't work that way in TX.  Obama's delegate win in TX is fair.  And Clinton couldn't even win TX even after Obama's worst media week in the campaign.

by hekebolos 2008-03-05 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Nope, he lost Texas. You can try to spin that but he lost.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Well no. This is a delegate selection process. So he won Texas. Remember when we were all very upset that Al Gore won the popular vote but still lost. The rules of the election themselves define what is victory. In this case, victory is defined by delegates.

by brimur 2008-03-05 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

You are making the Bush argument again then? The will of the voters doesn't matter. The Hillary campaign thanks you for your help!

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

What? Did you lose some brain cells? For democracy to work there has to be a process and we all have to abide by the same process. Go back to HS government.

by brimur 2008-03-05 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

the problem with the 2000 election wasn't that Bush won the electoral college cleanly despite losing the popular vote.  That would have been sufficiently angering, but still would have been according to the rules  The problem with the 2000 election was that Gore actually won Florida.

Get your facts straight if you want to argue, and understand what the stasis issue is.  Otherwise, leave argumentation for those with the rational capacity for it.

by hekebolos 2008-03-06 02:54PM | 0 recs
Who do you want at the top of the ticket?

That will be a consideration.

by highgrade 2008-03-05 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Obama could win the popular vote and lose the general election. McCain will win OH and FL against Obama. McCain should go for a coalition of older voters, Jews, whites and Latinos. Youth and black voters might be good enough to sneak thru the Democratic primaries but the general is a whole other animal.

Clinton-Obama is the best bet to win

Will African Americans really not vote for Obama to be VP and heir apparent in 4 or 8 years???

by rossinatl 2008-03-05 12:17PM | 0 recs
Recommended

Not.

by Skaje 2008-03-05 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Wow, I have to admit this is an argument that I haven't heard quite like this... Hmm, Obama should concede because he fails to attract lower income middle aged white guys??  That's a great political argument....not!  I don't think that Hillary supporters understand that since the math doesn't work in her favor there is no chance in hell that this will be decided in her favor by superdelegates.  It just won't happen, to assume that the movement that Obama amassed will simply fall behind Clinton is laughable at best, sure some will but most won't.  If you think they will then you don't understand his attraction.  I've been a life long Democrat but I have been volunteering for Obama with other Dems, republicans, independents and first time voters... Its not about a party so I could care less about if a plurality of dems voted for HRC..this is a movement and is she uses her institutional status to steal this election well sayonara to the Democratic Party on my part and congratulations to President Mccain.

by HGM MA 2008-03-05 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Obama lost the nomination last night. There is absolutely no way he can get the nomination having lost BOTH Ohio AND Texas. And he campaigned in both furiously and tried to knock her out and failed miserably.

The party will never give him the nomination after that. There is way to much doubt about him on the part of real registered democrats - he has yet to win a large democratic primary state - and he will never get the Hispanic vote - while Hillary will get back the black vote.

All the arguments are now on her side. There is no way he will be the nominee. She locked it up last night.

by venice1789 2008-03-05 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

All the arguments except the delegate vote totals, the Popular vote totals, number of states won, and head to head match up polls with McCain.

otherwise.. spot on

by Why Not 2008-03-05 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

He's been tanking against McCain in the polls.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-05 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Ah negative campaigning at it's best..  Everyone gets mud on them and we can't tell the difference between all those in the brawl.  McCain was not in this mud brawl, he remained clean.  Any surprize that his numbers remained the same while hillary and obama both tanked?

by Why Not 2008-03-05 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Except you know Virgina, and Wisconsin and Illinois, and in a month or so NC.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Excellent way of putting it. Thanks

by DaleA 2008-03-05 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Okay bud, you keep on believing that, I mean Huckabee and Romney fans couldn't believe that the GOP would nominate a guy who cuoldn't get that majority of Republican Voters either, and hey Hillary didn't major in math.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-05 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

Obama should concede? Why should someone who has more delegates bow out? Oh, because only the big, democratic general election voting states really count. But in those states Obama also won delegates. We ARE counting them in the total, and Obama is still winning. Hillary hasn't gotten the margins out of the big states she needs, period.

Let's recap this past week: Hillary trashes Obama in an attempt to destroy any chance the Democrats have to win in Nov. Hillary whines about media coverage, and endorses the view that she is being treated unfairly. She pretends like she doesn't know if he's a Muslim or not to scare up votes. WTF. And she is supposed to be the more progressive of the candidates.

All she and her surrogates care about is winning at any cost.

by bullmoosetr 2008-03-05 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

After reading all these comments, I will include one of my own. "We are not yet the ones we have been waiting for".

by hidesrtdav 2008-03-05 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama should concede

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/n ational.php?year=2008&off=0&elec t=1

Even thought Clinton wins the popular vote in the primarys. She only leads by less than 1 per cent. A lead that is easily erased by the extreme caucus lead than Obama holds. So don't pretend that somehow  he is deliberately suppressing the will of the democratic party.

by bentheben 2008-03-05 04:48PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads