home

How Hillary Now Sees the Path to the Nomination

Hillary Clinton's campaign has released a statement today, The Path to the Nomination.

The campaign also notes that since Super Tuesday, it has received more than $13 million online from 135,000 donors (virtually all new).

She also congratulates Sen. Obama on his victories in recent contests.

I've reprinted the statement below the fold:

NOTE: Comments are now closed. (BTD)

The Path to the Nomination

This election will come down to delegates. Votes are still being counted and delegates apportioned, but Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are separated by approximately 40 delegates right now – that is, barely 1% of all the delegates to the Democratic convention.

Change Begins March 4th. Hillary leads in the three largest, delegate rich states remaining: Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. These three states have 492 delegates – 64 percent of the remaining delegates Hillary Clinton needs to win the nomination. According to the latest polls, Hillary leads in Texas (IVR Jan 30-31), Pennsylvania (Franklin & Marshall Jan 8-14) and Ohio (Columbus Dispatch Jan 23-31). After March 4th, over 3000 delegates will be committed, and we project that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be virtually tied with 611 delegates still to be chosen in Pennsylvania and other remaining states. This does not even include Florida and Michigan (where Hillary won 178 delegates), whose votes we believe should be counted.

The reason Hillary is so strong in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania is that her message of delivering solutions resonates strongly with voters in those states. Hillary is the only candidate who can deliver the economic change voters want – the only candidate with a real plan and a record of fighting for health care, housing, job creation and protecting Social Security.

The demographics in these states also favor Hillary Clinton. Hillary won among white women by 6 points in Virginia and 18 points in Maryland, and white women make up a much bigger share of the electorate in these states (41% of 2004 Ohio Democratic primary voters, for instance, compared with only 33-35% of 2008 Maryland and Virginia Democratic primary voters). Hillary has also won large majorities among Latinos nationwide – 73% in New York, 67% in California, 68% in New Jersey, 62% in New Mexico, 59% in Florida and 55% in Arizona. Latinos made up 24% of Texas Democratic primary voters in 2004, and may be an even larger share in 2008.

Hillary Clinton has shown that she has the ability and organization to compete financially and on the ground. She raised 10 million dollars in just three days last week, and will be competitive with Barack Obama in fundraising and TV advertising from now through March 4th and beyond. She has a strong organization in each of these key states and endorsements from Governor Strickland, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and former Senator John Glenn in Ohio. Hillary had a huge 12,000 person rally in El Paso last night to kick off her Texas campaign.

Again and again, this race has shown that it is voters and delegates who matter, not the pundits or perceived "momentum." After Iowa, every poll gave Barack Obama a strong lead in New Hampshire, but he ended up losing the state. And after a defeat in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton went on to win by large margins in California, New York, Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Arizona, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates – not the candidate who wins the most states. In 1992, Bill Clinton lost a string of primaries before clinching the nomination. He ceded Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Arizona, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont and South Dakota. Similarly, in 1984, Walter Mondale also lost a series of major primaries before winning the nomination, including New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Indiana, Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Colorado, Ohio, and California. And in 1976, Jimmy Carter lost twenty-three states before winning the nomination, including: Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, West Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama, Illinois, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah.

< Edwards Considering Endorsing Hillary? | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You know what's missing here? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:15:38 PM EST
    Wisconsin.  I really, really want to see her give her all in Wisconsin.

    Ever since Iowa, it's like she's afraid of giving 100% in any state she might lose because it makes things look worse if she does lose, or something.  This is not a winning attitude, and Obama is taking full advantage of the delegate lead that results from running up the score.  She needs to give Wisconsin her best shot, win or lose.

    She is in Wis for four days straight (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:38:35 PM EST
    Saturday through Tuesday, with a big event on Sunday and more to come (since the schedule will have more fluidity, with Obama refusing a debate).  Bill comes tomorrow.  Chelsea was in Wisconsin Monday and Tuesday, across the state.  Ambassador Joe Wilson came yesterday -- at a moment's notice, taking the call and getting on the plane without even a winter coat! -- and is still touring the state.  Etc.

    Ads started already, organizers have been on the ground for a week -- after Obama's, yes, but I think we now are seeing what Maggie Williams can do this fast and will do in Ohio, Texas, etc.

    I think this schedule is using Hillary Clinton well -- she can't be in Wisconsin all week, with the importance of Ohio and Texas.  So it brings here to Wisconsin for the last four days because -- remember -- she does well with the late deciders.

    Parent

    Bill's coming to Wis even sooner -- (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:13:43 PM EST
    just got word he hits Milwaukee at 9 a.m. tomorrow for an event, as every hour counts.

    He has a lot of fans in this city -- since the '90s still seem awfully modrun to Mwokeeans.  My slogan: You can live in any decade you want to in Mwokee.

    (True for the rest of the state, too, except for Madison; as previously noted, it's in Wisconsin but not quite of Wisconsin, with so many out-of-towners who still get their hometown papers mailed to them after decades in Madison . . . and so many there never have been to Mwokee, not their kind of town.  Consider that 80% of Wisconsinites come through the main freeway interchange in Milwaukee -- but Madison even has its own, different route to Obamatown aka Chicago.)

    Parent

    Milwaukee reminds me of home (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    Mind you, I'm from Detroit, so you can decide for yourself if that's a comparison you appreciate.

    Madison, on the other hand, reminds me of Ann Arbor.

    Parent

    I like Detroit, love its history and (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:12:05 PM EST
    proximity to wonderful Canada.  I would have taken a job offer in Detroit but for family circumstances then.

    There are similarities, historically, as old French fur trader towns -- older than this young country both cities are in now . . . but today, Detroit is far more diverse racially than Milwaukee; compare the census stats (and add in that Milwaukee is hyper-segregated, more so than Detroit, with 95%-plus of all AAs in Wisconsin living in essentially two neighborhoods in Milwaukee).  

    Milwaukee is, I'm told by Clevelanders, more like that city in its working-class and ethnic makeup -- its conservative German governmental structures (although Milwaukee is almost as much Polish and still very Irish, as it was before the Germans influx that made it the "American Munich").

    I'm also told by those who have spent time in Ann Arbor and Madison that, yes, you pegged that one.  Lovely cities but removed from the realities of many other residents of their states.

    Parent

    Re: (none / 0) (#175)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:58:47 PM EST
    I wrote a diary about Detroit that may interest you.

    Parent
    Details now for anyone nearby (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:19:17 PM EST
    "Solutions for America" Event with Bill Clinton n

    Thursday, February 14, 9-11 a.m., Italian Community Center, 631 East Chicago Street, Milwaukee (the trendy Third Ward, next to grounds of the world's largest musical festival annually, Summerfest -- so I know that means some Midwesterners know it -- and it's a fast shot from Chicago or elsewhere, just off the freeway . . . and yes, the @#$%!! freeway construction is finally done down there).

    Tickets not required, an open event to all -- and those who know it know this is a big venue, so on a workday and with this late notice, there ought to be no problem getting in.  For more info, call Milwaukee staffers for Clinton at 515-537-9814.

    For the rest of you, watch for this on CNN and others, which also covered Chelsea Clinton's stops at both big campuses in Milwaukee.  But still no word on any public events for Obama here.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#158)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    I wish there had been such details around here given about Bill and Chelsea's appearances..otherwise I would not have missed Bill when he visited Everett and Jones, which is right down the street from me.  Too late now, Cali's already voted.    

    Parent
    Those still ahead, sign up online (none / 0) (#225)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    for info -- I get it asap from signing up at the campaign site (be sure to sign up for your state, too).  The info above still is not even up in the Milwaukee press online, the largest paper in the state.  But then, it's Republican and loves Obama.

    Parent
    Expectations game (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    Clinton will contest WI, but doesn't want to set expectations too high, so that a loss (which is expected, though perhaps not by a big margin) won't be seen as a loss despite intense campaigning.


    Parent
    Have too (4.00 / 1) (#38)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    Hillary has to fight for the win, and aggressively. If it's a loss, eat it and book on. If she's too careful, Obama (who has nothing to lose) will eat her campaign alive.

    If you look at Huckabee on the Right, you'll see that same spunk, not conceding because his base wants to let McInsane know he's not all of the conservatives' choice.

    Same applies to Hillary. Ignore the calls to concede, "it's over"...plug on (and unlike Huck, with a flamethrower!). She also has to seperate herself from Obama -- this is the main problem here -- she's trying to go after the same voting pool. Folks are picking her because she's not of Obama's base.

    It's not about unity here, it's about choice.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    that is a good description of the game that I think has been played a little too much in the campaign to date.

    At this point I really just want to see her ask for every vote.  Not only do I think it's the right strategy for her, but it's the kind of campaign I'd want her to run in the GE as well.  I don't want another Kerry-type campaign where we're scared to even venture into a bunch of states.

    Parent

    When you lose primaries 65-34 (none / 0) (#156)
    by Geekesque on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:33:50 PM EST
    the spin is that you're sinking.

    Parent
    I think that's been the fatal flaw of her strategy (none / 0) (#14)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    Obama started out with a mindset of compete everywhere. It probably hurt him some in the big states since he didn't focus there, but he more than made up for it by running up the score in the 75% of the states she hasn't really made an effort to compete in.

    I think her team was planning on a victory by a decisive win on Super Tuesday in big states and that the rest of the states would be small margins of victory for him. In fact, the reverse happened, and was too late in the rest of the Feb states to play catch-up.

    Parent

    jeralyn, (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by kangeroo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:27:30 PM EST
    i love you.  i love BTD.  i love TL, period.  thank you to both of you for being brave enough to go against the MSM and the establishment blogs recently, even with one of you (however tepidly) supporting obama.  you guys are my heroes.  i'm very, very grateful.  thank you.

    What Kangaroo said!!! :) (none / 0) (#193)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    It was the backroom tactics (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    of Republicons that made this mess in Florida...THEY are the ones who scheduled the primary.

    And now the NAACP is calling for the votes from FL and MI to be seated.  So...

    Finally, discipline (none / 0) (#1)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    This is what I've been waiting for, more discipline and shooting straight at the bullseye.

    Have to concentrate on what that matters -- the nomination -- and not get sidetracked on tasty morsels.

    It's do or die now, so let's get her message out to our corresponding bases!

    Strong, detailed, optimistic (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    yet pragmatic statement, as I would expect.

    Since Huff Post has a headline saying Clinton fails to congratulate Obama, again:

    I'm pleased HRC's statements includes a kudo for Obama.

    Now Huff Post headline is: (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:26:21 PM EST
    Clinton congratulates Obama, finally.

    Clinton can't win for losing, can she.

    Parent

    I've reread the statement (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    Where's the kudos to Obama?

    Parent
    Gulp. Not there. Jeralyn? (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    It's plausible (none / 0) (#3)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    Though as I've said before, she needs 65-70% of whites and Latinos in Ohio and Texas.

    8-10 loses in a row? (none / 0) (#4)
    by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    No one lost 8-10 states in a row before right? Not in a two way match-up by massive margins?

    What are they going to say when the the TX and PA polling numbers start to fail them?


    The white men and rich college people? (none / 0) (#7)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    The white men and rich college people have run this country for to long!!!

    Ummm, both Obama and Hillary are rich and college educated, and neither are white.  So, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

    FWIW, in Maryland/Virginia, Obama won every economic demographic except those households making over $200,000.

    Hillary is the first black First Lady now, too? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:32:44 PM EST
    Wow, the things I learn on the blogs.

    Parent
    Over 200K (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    Dems usually pull 35 percent of this group wonder why it was not represented.

    Parent
    She congrats Obama? (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton's campaign has released a statement today, The Path to the Nomination.

    The campaign also notes that since Super Tuesday, it has received more than $13 million online from 135,000 donors (virtually all new).

    She also congratulates Sen. Obama on his victories in recent contests.

    Where?

    You misread the post (none / 0) (#35)
    by cymro on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:48:58 PM EST
    If you read the post carefully, I think it gives you the answer. The three short paragraphs you quote are in fact separate news items:

      1. the campaign released a statement
      2. the campaign has raised $13M
      3. Hillary congratulates Obama

    The fourth paragraph then notes that the statement is reprinted below. Nowhere does the post say that the second and third news items are addressed in the statement, because neither of them are.

    Seems simple to me.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    I suppose that makes sense (none / 0) (#67)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:06:31 PM EST
    Could have been clearer...

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#17)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:33:37 PM EST
    The Obamas are barely millionaires, and that's mostly from the royalties of his second book after the 2004 convention made him famous; before that they were merely upper middle class. The Clintons are worth an estimated 45-60 million and have been worth quite a lot for a long time now.

    But (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    look at the base he's drawing.

    The class divide in this race is as alarming as the race one. Don't want some pimple faced college kid who's only idea of life is what some dumbassed prof brainwashed him with, dictating to me what's "good for you." Sorry, seen too many college kids flipping burgers who are no better than the guy who never went to college. Brain power alone doesn't get the job done.

    Especially dislike how this college crowd and it's policy pushing types, that destroyed the trades. Pushing so hard to goto college, that tech college is considered as sub-standard.

    Well, those pimple faced college kids will have to repair their own drains; fix their air conditioners; and the same with that 50k car that momma and daddy bought for them.

    No problem with rising to the top, but there's too many up there who forget about those who don't care to be up there -- they make their money the honest way, by w-o-r-k-i-n-g for it.

    Parent

    This type of logic is (none / 0) (#68)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:07:10 PM EST
    why they invented the phrase in the 1970s to "never trust anyone over 30".

    Seriously, could you be any more ageist? Why not just disenfranchise the whole lot of 'em if they can't be trusted? Raise the minimum voting age to 35 and be done with it.

    I could make equally stupid remarks about how Clinton voters tend to be low information voters that based mostly on name recognition, but I have more respect for the poor than that.

    Parent

    Not to mention (none / 0) (#87)
    by doordiedem0crat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:24:05 PM EST
    having younger people interested in those whom actually represent them is.... a good thing.

    You'll be thankful our kids have such awareness about our political process when your 90 years old and speeding around in your wheelchair.

    Parent

    That's the problem (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    You'll be thankful our kids have such awareness about our political process

    The problem is that they are NOT aware of our political process. They're following a product, a brand, a rockstar. They don't know how things are really accomplished in DC. They don't know that a promise is not an accomplishment. Once the campaign is over, they'll go right back to being uninvolved. Obama asks them to do nothing more than elect him.

    Yes, I am really afraid of the political Unawareness of these kids right now, and more when I am 90 and in my wheelchair. They aren't worried about health care, they think it's fine that O uses RW talking points about SS being in crisis. Energy, climate, economy, poverty - these are not their issues. They ARE the issues for the vast majority of Americans.

    Pardon me for being over 45 and having had to work for everything I have, but I'm not ready for Gen X and Y to decide what's in my best interests. They seem to think that if Obama wins, that means we can have a big party!

    And then what?

    Parent

    They also don't (none / 0) (#107)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    keep up with the local and state politics (the REAL meat and potatoes of politics). So in these off years between these Hollywood presidential elections, they aren't around.

    I vote in almost every election, from a one vote boring zoning law; to the even more boring school board elections, on upwards. I take the time and effort to research the issues and make an informed decision on what's best for the community.

    So I'm a little resentful that Johnny-come-latelys are now trying to tell me my business, and "what's right for you." They weren't around then, and frankly don't give a damn about their "ideas of change" now. They sure weren't there to help their communities when they need it the most.

    Parent

    So should they be allowed to vote (none / 0) (#125)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    yes/no. That's all I'm asking.

    Parent
    I offended someone (none / 0) (#167)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:47:13 PM EST
    on my other journal about how the voting age should be raised to 25.  I cam e up with a better solution later that would actually allow the voting age to be LOWERED to 16 (with a Political Aptitude Test), which seemed to get a better reception.

    But then weeks later, a friend of mine who attended the Obama rally in Maryland was so p_ssed off at the Obama supporters that she came home and posted that the voting age needed to be raised to 25, LOL!

    Parent

    Issue isn't about age in itself... (none / 0) (#215)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:36:21 PM EST
    it's wisdom.

    I've noticed over 30 years each new generation is more immature than the next. Their IQ rises by leaps and bounds, but their maturity and behavior erodes accordingly (good case is when I went to school no kid even dared to bring a gun there. It was baseball bats, or at the worst a knife, but for protection. Now, I wouldn't blink an eye if they bring bombs to school to kill someone that picked on them).

    So I don't have a problem if a 16 year-old can vote, but that 16 year-old has to be mature enough for the responsibility.

    Maybe a better voting requirement would be like jury duty. When you vote, you're required to show up and due your duty and vote even for the mundane local politics.

    That'll put a stop to these grandstand rock concerts, as everyone in the process is a part of it from the first time they casted a vote (they'll also see right past the glib, from experience on the local level -- and how often such fine talkers wind up in jail for robbing the kitty, too).

    Parent

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:43:33 PM EST
    Look at how engaged the baby boomers have been in making the world a better place, securing the world for democracy and bringing equality to all.  They had the idea to change the world, and look where we are now!  Peace and prosperity, a cleaner environment thanks to alternative energy, PLUS, America is now seen as the bastion of honesty and civility.  Their basic tenets of love and happiness have remained unwavering all these years.

    Boy, all those young people sure did bring a lot of change!

    Parent

    They brought (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:09:52 PM EST
    and end to the Vietnam War, the draft, created momentum for the Voting Rights Act, fought for the freedom of the oppressive 1950s and struggled for the right of minorities to get quality educations.

    That is, until they got older than 30.

    Parent

    All national (none / 0) (#205)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:24:46 PM EST
    then look at cities like Detroit and Atlanta.

    Then tell me about how good the youth vote is to clean up the mess they're in.

    They only get involved in droves when national policies directly affect them -- like wars. But ask them to do something good for the community (than volunteering) that doesn't affect them directly, and they're no shows.

    Want "change", change that slacker mentality. Get involved locally, become an active process in it. You'll learn things like tempering the anger, compromising, and the other delicate parts of politicking that's not taught in a book (or watched on TV or in Hollywood).

    Parent

    it's funny how folks forget (none / 0) (#227)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
    that George W Bush is a baby boomer, too.  As is Karl Rove.

    I think you need to look at your history.  JFK, RFK, and MLK were all close to or in their 40's when they died.  Add in LBJ and the whole thing is skewed.

    Parent

    And then... (none / 0) (#104)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    they became corporate raiders and Wall Street robbers when THEY were 30+.

    Please, no more hypocrisy.

    My issue with kids today is they're brain smart, but wisdom stupid. Oh, they're dissect things and study them, but when you ask about the consequences of making hard decisions, their eyes go blank (or they'll ignore the question). Like with any revolution, their good to light the fires, but NO ONE wants them to run the government. Even Lenin, Stalin and Mao knew that wasn't even wise.

    Kids are reactionary, and without the life experience to understand the consequences of their actions. Their used to mobilize a crowd, but once it's over, their expected to return back to where they came.

    And frankly, those who are poorer sure don't need the Starbuck types telling them what is "for your own good." (let alone college kids living off of mom and dad). I see it even here, and it's as disgusting as watching folks vote for people because, "He ran a business, so he knows how to run a government" (like with a hatchet??).

    Parent

    This is one of the most ridiculous things I've (none / 0) (#128)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    ever read. I hope you're planning on permanently losing the youth vote and watch it fall back to 1980s level of apathy. But I suppose you'd be happy with that outcome.

    Parent
    Frankly don't care (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    as they only show up to the big rock star events. They treat elections like the finals of "American Idol" (oh, they'll know the candidates and all, even!), but once it's over, they're right back to MySpace and Facebook, again.

    When the kids stick around in large numbers, and vote on the boring stuff in their own backyard, I'd start to care. Sit at meetings with tears in their eyes as they're so boring, and speaking over things like the cost of water; tax rates; bond issues and if the city needs a new dog catcher -- THEN -- I'd give them the respect as then they're EARNED it.

    Prove it that the kid vote is more than a wash up every 4 years. Not ask for the respect without the proof they participate locally and statewide every year.

    Parent

    You are right Sandy (none / 0) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:47:10 PM EST
    We will look back and realize how the youth vote was manipulated by Axelrod. The viral quality of the Obama campaign is just that viral. Superficial, with not many of the masses doing any searching on their own. It has also worked on the adults. I am dying to see the viral spread study of this campaign.

    Parent
    It's superficial... (none / 0) (#182)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    as even the kids before this bunch at least were well read in what they were touting.

    Do any of them know today what they're voting for, even?

    ABB? Will that change policy? Will it reach across the divide to get anything done? Or do they think by crashing and burning government, it'll get them what they want? Republicans are now facing the consequences of that approach (and frankly I'm glad, too -- especially with trying to stack SCOTUS with litmus tested judges, and trying to take rights AWAY in the Constitution).

    No more reactionary stuff. Had enough of it for over a decade. It fails because the majority of Americans aren't radical -- they want their government to work, not be in flames.

    "Change" can be good, but only if it's tempered with reality, and the wisdom that comes with it.


    Parent

    I used to think like you. (none / 0) (#170)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    ...When I was 20.

    I even told myself I'd never become a stodgy old party poop who would ever make the decisions I saw my elders making.

    But then I turned 30 and became truly aware of how young and...well, un-wise I was.

    Parent

    We we also the (none / 0) (#224)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST
    reason the for the 26th Ammendment.

    "never trust anyone over 30".

    In case you do not know... that ammendment was passed in 1971 and states..... no law may restrict those 18 years of age or older from voting because of their age.

    Men & women were dying in Vietnam War and could not even vote.

    Our "Baby Boom" generation has made alot of slogans on our way through the decades. We could just a easily start a slogan "never trust anyone under 30"... but that does not make it true.


    Parent

    Do all 18 mil college students have pimples? (none / 0) (#95)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    I know this one doesn't.

    Not everyone who goes to college is a wealthy indolent, and not every wealthy person is indolent. Your sweeping generalizations are quite unfair.

    I also hate the disdain for education and knowledge. Something I had to face when I decided, as a lower-middle class student, to attend a top tier University (on a massive amount of financial aid).

    I also resent the idea that studying, writing and learning aren't forms of work. It's certainly not easy to understand Derridan formulations of deconstruction or engineering biosensors designed to detect the presence of chemicals, bacteria and viruses.

    I can tell you that, thanks to my college education, I have become more socially aware and more interested in politics. The way I see government and social policy is entirely due to my humanities education. And, it would not be an exaggeration to say that my support for Hillary is due in large part to my education.

    Parent

    Of course not. Half are over 25 (none / 0) (#209)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:29:09 PM EST
    and many have families, mortgages, fulltime careers, all the things that age us fast. :-)

    That said, as someone who teaches students your age, too -- I'll be the first to say that our future is in good hands, if the hands of A and B students.  They are almost too serious, they are hard workers (I'd tend to hire B students who had to work hard to get there over those of the A students to whom school came easy), and many in your generation have struggled against great societal odds and tragedies from Columbine to 9/11 and Katrina.  These mark you forever, as the tragedies of my time did me.  I see this in my children your age, and never will forget how devastated they were after not listening to me the first time that they could vote.  

    They voted for Nader.  They got swept up in that semi-cult, though nothing near the one we see today.  I worry that your age group may be setting themselves up for disappointment -- but heck, there are worse choices! Involvement is the key, as it is apathy that is the enemy.  And the young  recover fast, definitely within four years. :-)

    So I never would use sweeping generalizations on your generation -- or any generation.  Thank you for not flashing back with the stereotypical myths about us Baby Boomers, a remarkably diverse group of strivers like Hill and Bill but of slackers, too . . . not to name names of the type of guy who got to college owing to inherited wealth, as a legacy, and was let off with "gentleman's C's".:-)

    Now do us all a favor -- don't load up too much on those student loans and lighten up sometimes.  Life is short.  Trust us on that one, anyway!

    Parent

    Clinton Wealth (none / 0) (#219)
    by marirebel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:40:31 PM EST
    The Clinton's only became wealthy with their book deals, and Bill's speaking engagements after his presidency.  Prior to that, Bill made a little over $100K as the Govenor of Arkansas.  Perhaps Hillary made more (or less) at her law firm, where she was the first woman partner.  But, they were not anything close to being millionaires!  Hillary Clinton chose to work for the Children's Defense Fund right out of law school, rather than taking jobs that surely would have brought her wealth.    

    Parent
    Off the top of my head, (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    Obama's net worth is less than $250,000. Hillary's net worth is something like $40 Million. That's $40,000,000.

    There is no way (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    His net worth is less than a quarter of a million while he lives in a two million dollar house.  The equity alone from the Rezko deal, er, mortgage, is three hundred thousand dollars.

    Further, he is a New York Times bestseller.  He would have at least half a million in the bank from all the books that Walmart and Sam's Club sold for him.  If he had a standard contract, he would also get bonuses based on weeks on the list, starting at around 25K for top ten, then upping to 50K for top five, with a cap at around a quarter of a million.

    Plus, his foreign rights will have seen a tremendous uptick from all this press.  He could have picked up anywhere from 2-5 million from Europe and the Commonwealth territories alone.

    Parent

    OK, I'm not going argue his net worth, (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    my main point was that Hillary's the "rich" one of the two.

    Parent
    My net worth? (none / 0) (#112)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    Is alittle over 6k a year (I'm disabled).

    Please, don't tell me about money. Or how hard it is to having a living with 100k. Platitudes and sympathy I careless about, either.

    Dislike this crap of class and race. R-e-a-l-l-y do.

    Parent

    Did you add the Rezko house? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    Obama is too inexperienced (none / 0) (#19)
    by vonny on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    Obama worries me because he will not debate Hillary. They have had only one debate. He seems to get upset when people question him on the issues.
    Obama also has lied to the people about his healthcare plan; it is NOT universal. Hillary's is.
    I agree the press have had a love afair with Obama while attacking Hillary unrelentingly.
    The republicans will not give Obama a free pass.  The only thing is,  I hope by the time the voters
    find out what Obama really believes, it might be too late.
    Obama has also changed his views on how soon the troops should be pulled out. How can we believe this man when he won't debate with Hillary and let us see the differences in them?
    As far as the money issue Hillary is in good shape with now over 13 million dollars donated since super Tuesday, and getting about a million dollars a day now in donations.
    I'm beginning to believe Obama is all fluff and no tough stuff. It's fine to dream, but there has to be a workable plan.

    The last debate was a tie (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:53:27 PM EST
    He won on Iraq.  She won on healthcare. Dems won overall because they both proved to be worthy candidates.  I'd like more debates to highlight our nominees' clear superiority as a general election strategy.  I suppose with Obama's momentum, I can't blame him for risking a debate in advance of Wisconsin.

    Parent
    If you're talking about Cali... (none / 0) (#171)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    ...were we watching the same debate?  He tanked on every issue, -especially- the immigration issue.

    Parent
    Hypocritical (none / 0) (#174)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    I love it when people use this in the context of politics. Their goal is to win. They can all spin whatever to their advantage. The rules belong to the party, they are not some Federal code. The whole idea of political parties is that they can have a mash up. If she sat around and gave up the FL and MI delegates she would be a loser and not a fighter. If Obama had won he would do the same. I think Hillary is the better politician cause she did not take her name out of Michigan. That was idiotic to take their names out. Obama has manipulated every word the Clintons have said to frame them as racist, war mongering, old guard, liars, vicious on and on. So, he has to take his licks.

    Parent
    Removing name was an Iowa pander (none / 0) (#188)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    and he won Iowa.  I'm not saying this put him over the top in Iowa, but would you rather be in Obama's shoes or Hillary's at this point.  

    Everything you've done in the past is responsible for where you sit right now.


    Parent

    What she wants doesn't matter (none / 0) (#179)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    It's a fairness issue for the voters of MI & FL.

    For the DNC to insist on punishing the voters of 2 states is not a theme we should be disputing into fall.

    How do we claim to believe in a 50-state strategy if we don't allow the voters of FL & MI representation at the Democratic Convention?

    hmmm-- maybe I should rethink that Democracy Bond I've been paying on every month since Dean came up with the idea?

    Parent

    Yes, ma'am (none / 0) (#186)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    it's about the voters being represented. Pure and simple.

    Can't believe the DNC would punish states, and by extension the very voters. That's a policy decision that's simply anti-voter.

    Almost like they want to give the election away to the Republicans.

    Parent

    The ma'am part made me blink.... (none / 0) (#204)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:22:48 PM EST
    But it seems like we agree?

    Parent
    He has (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    debated her 16 times.

    Parent
    They've had debates amongst the entire candidate (none / 0) (#96)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    field, but only ONE debate with just the two of them.  I want to see more debates, and I think the people of WI, TX, OH and PENN deserve them.  

    Parent
    I watched them all, (none / 0) (#105)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:47:59 PM EST
    most of the debates centered on the two of them.

    Parent
    I watched them all as well. And John Edwards (none / 0) (#133)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    was up there as well as Bill Richardson.  Hardly a debate between the two final candidates.  Be honest.

    Parent
    Hillary wouldn't want debate (none / 0) (#145)
    by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:20:03 PM EST
    If she had Obama's position, money and numbers.

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#172)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:55:02 PM EST
    she's wanted to debate him more before she "lost her lead".

    I still say they're in a virtual tie and will be until the convention where we will see blood if the Floridians don't get seated.

    Parent

    The evidence shows that you are mistaken (none / 0) (#183)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    When she was the front runner and supposedly "inevitable" -- although I never heard her say that -- she took part in every single Democratic debate that was held. Of course she would continue to debate him now even if she were the front runner. She rocks at debate.

    Parent
    "Inevitable" (none / 0) (#213)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:33:38 PM EST
    Clinton  never used  the  word  "inevitable."  

    The  media  and  the  Obama  campaign did.

    See the pattern?

    Parent

    a bit more reality? (none / 0) (#65)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:04:26 PM EST
    Obama worries me because he will not debate Hillary. They have had only one debate.

    They have had a number of debates.

    He seems to get upset when people question him on the issues.

    That's not what happened at those debates.

    Look, let's take the "let's debate more" and "let's debate less" for what it is -- part of the jockeying and campaigning.  Clinton wanted more debates when she was running low on money, because it's a lot of cost-free publicity.  For the same reason, Obama wanted less.  Both sides are just playing politics here.

    In any event, they are going to debate in Texas and in Ohio before Mar 4.  That's two in the space of three weeks, and seems eminently reasonable.

    The Baltimore Sun notes: "This is debate number 19".  So, can we put to rest the notion that Obama doesn't debate?

    I agree the press have had a love afair with Obama while attacking Hillary unrelentingly.

    I certainly agree with you there.

    The republicans will not give Obama a free pass.  The only thing is,  I hope by the time the voters find out what Obama really believes, it might be too late.

    Both he and Hillary have 80+ ratings from the liberal groups.  We pretty much know what both of them believe.

    I'm beginning to believe Obama is all fluff and no tough stuff. It's fine to dream, but there has to be a workable plan.

    Just look at his website, there's plenty of plan there.

    Look -- if you think Hillary is better, that's fine.  If you think Hillary is more willing to fight for stuff than Obama, I can accept that.

    But, I have to say, it bugs me when I read that he's all fluff or that we don't know where he stands.  Let's not go overboard here.

    Parent

    whats this "ask the GOP"? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    President Obama will have a democratic majority in the House and the Senate.

    Mandates up front vs. no-mandates up front, is not a Dem vs. GOP argument. Its an argument about political tactics, about how to best get the rest of the plan passed.
    Mandates in the '93 plan contributed to its lack of popular support.

    Mandates eventually may be necessary. But what is eventually necessary from a policy-wonk position is not necessarily the same as what is smart to put forward, up front, when trying to get the thing passed.

    The argument with the GOP is whether or not it should be a governmental priority to insure that affordable health insurance is available to all.
    Obama's plan, as is, will establish that principle and put it into practice. Everyone will have affordable insurance. If some people choose not to take advantage of it, and game the system, then they can be dealt with later, once the rest of the program is secured.

    Parent

    Practically Lactating (none / 0) (#220)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:40:45 PM EST
    Edwards  feels  Obama's approach is  naive, too.  He's  a strong  supporter  of  mandates  as  part of  the  bargaining  position going in.  

    He literally  RIDICULED  Obama   at  the  last  debate  for  thinking  he  could   "be  nice"  with insurance companies.  

    He  was  absolutely right.

    Parent

    well put (none / 0) (#126)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    I must be crazy.  I find myself defending Obama here, and defending Hillary at other places.  I want to get up and scream: both candidates are awesome!

    Yes, there are some differences, and yes, there a many pros, and a few cons, to both.  But there's no need to trash the "other."

    My spouse and I, for the first time in our memory, actually voted for different candidates in the Virginia primary.  But we both did it happily, because we think it's a win-win scenario, and we'd each happily support the "other."

    Sigh . . . I wish it were little bit more so here.  Or, at the least, have the complaints be fair and accurate.

    Note to all: just remember, denigrating our Dem opponent now is right out of the GOP playbook.  And don't think that all the negatives that are said aren't going to be scooped up by McCain, the GOP, Rovians, Swift-boaters, etc., and used against us.

    Let us praise the candidate of our choice, not denigrate the other.

    (Sheesh . . . I must be crazy, or naive, to spend even this amount of time on this post . . . Sigh . . . )

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#144)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    I can agree that going to the table with mandates as a requirement will sink the healthcare push.

    Because in the end the Republicans are as opposed to it as they are of gay marriages.

    Hillary isn't learning from the 1994 push, that pushing an agenda so hard without compromises, will backfire.

    Change is slow, it's designed to be slow, or like the sub-prime mess we won't know the outcome until it's too late.

    Obama does have the right stragedy on the healthcare issue (I won't be voting on either, as I'm against "universal" healthcare as they're planning), and it's more platable to the Right. It'll at least get them to the table to talk, not outright setup a posse to hang up the plan at high noon (with a crowd of jeers to go with it -- AGAIN).

    Want "universal" healthcare, both sides will have to compromise. No radical talk -- it isn't passing like in 1994 if it is (sorry kids, that's not how policy decisions and government works, it's the world of compromises).

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#168)
    by BernieO on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:47:35 PM EST
    Actually mandates make it more likely that the insurance industry will not fight against the plan, and let's face it, they can do a lot of damage if they do. Insurance companies know they will be facing cost controls, but the trade off will be that they will enroll a lot of new, healthy, mostly young people to offset the negatives. If they are on board, the Republicans will also be more cooperative.

    Parent
    You are right, because the insurance companies (none / 0) (#177)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    will not sign on unless the mandates are there.  You have to look at this from a cost perspective and unless the participants are there then the entire health care plan will not work.  You have to have everyone or it will not work.  

    Parent
    "lack of fight (care to show that?)" (none / 0) (#178)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:00:50 PM EST
    He let the bill that would tighten up regulations for nuclear energy plants DIE a quiet death.  Exelon gave him campaign money, the bill dies...and yet in Iowa he lied to voters that it was the "only nuclear legislation he's passed".

    He wasn't willing to fight for the people in Braidwood, Illinois (90%+ white), but he's the man to go to if you live in Roseland (90%+ black).  

    Oh but wait.  Then there's Rezko, where poor minorities were allowed to suffer in  dilapidated buildings.

    Maybe he just doesn't give a cr@p about anyone, then.  Anyone except "President Barack Obama" and the symbol it is.

    Parent

    One-Two Punch (none / 0) (#20)
    by Chimster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    Yes! This is the spark that I've been waiting for. Now that Hillary will start to really fight for the nomination, it's the perfect time for Edwards to endorse her. It'll be a one-two punch to stop the Obama Mo. Edwards willl back Hillary as the tough one who'll fight for Democrats and will beat back the Repugs!

    This is a fascinating development... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Polkan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:43:35 PM EST
    It seems that McCain is inadverntly caught in the middle. He'd much rather have Obama as a nominee, but he can't afford to let him play the definition game first. So he becomes an unwilling partner in Clinton's strategy. Also, Mark Penn's point about Obama's lead being 1% is quite revealing.

    you can't really beleive that, can you? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    McCain is on his knees right now, praying to sweet jesus that Hillary manages to pull this out. It is his best shot at uniting his party, and motivating his base. Who wouldn't want to run against someone with seemingly unshakeable negatives in the high 40s?

    Parent
    On his knees?? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Polkan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:00:57 PM EST
    He's already almost crowned, what are you talking about, Huckabee maybe?

    McCain will destroy Obama like a chewtoy. I wouldn't be surprised if Karl Rove is caught sending emails to republicans to vote Obama in Dem nominations. The republicans will turn it into a contest between a war hero and adopted son of a Mass senator. By November, he will have more negatives than McCain. Remember Gore and Kerry nominations?

    Parent

    seriously (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    and poeple call Obama's supporter cult like?  

    Parent
    You sure about that? (none / 0) (#142)
    by echinopsia on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    I would think he'd be on his knees praying for Obama, so he wouldn't have to face the better debater who understands the economy and actually has some foreign policy experience.

    Parent
    yeah, I am sure about it (none / 0) (#164)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:46:03 PM EST
    Facing a good debater is not his biggest problem. Bush managed to win the WH two times against candidates who cleaned his clock in debates. Go listen to how Republicans are talking - not their public talking points, but how they speak when amongst themselves. I try to do that on a regular basis, as my form of oppo research. They are absolutely unanimous in hoping that they get to face Hillary.

    Their coalition is throroughly fractured, with no faction dominant, and very little to unite them. Even with their two core polcies - tax cuts and the war, they have problems. McCain actually voted against the original Bush tax cuts, using rhetoric somewhat reminiscent of ours. And Obama has already started to hang that around his neck. They all do agree on the war, but they also know that the majority of the people are against it.

    They are desparate for some energizing force that can unite them - and Hillary-hate is a sure fire winner for them.

    You should have read the comments in GOP blogs after that wonderful contrast last night - when Obama gave his speech and then they cut to McCain's speech. The young, the exciting, the visionary speaking of concerns that are aligned with the people vs. the old, valient war-hero, so desparatly out of touch. They know that they will lose big against Obama - many of them are already looking for what to do in 2012. Hillary is their last chance.

    Parent

    Ohio Calls (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    I placed several calls within Ohio last night and was absolutely floored, I knew I was a Hillary supporter and having a women President was very important to me but wow, they love her and are very much energized for a women first this is very important to them.

    One lady I spoke with was in a nursing home and she told me she and the other girls absolutely were voting for Hillary it was time for a women and they all had already ordered their ballots, she could hardly speak her voice was so frail but she wanted a women President, I swear gave me goose bumps.  

    Later last evening I was flipping through some stats on the 04 electorate noodling amount the spread possible needed and was reminded that 43 percent of the electorate are white women and that no other demographic comes close, none. Powerful if they come together for one candidate.  

    And then I realized I don't believe I have heard or seen a DNC spokesperson or non elected Party Leader that looks like this demographic which I found disquieting.


    How does Obama get the numbers? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    See earlier thread.  He would have to win states at the 60% level, too, to get enough delegates before the convention.  Clinton does have a distinct disadvantage, agreed, in that even questioning her opponent's policies is seen as racist by some.

    But I'm seeing signs of the new campaign manager coming out swinging hard, so let's have, um, hope.:-)  There is time in Wisconsin -- only today did the campaign really start to hit front page in a big way in the biggest paper in the state.  Admittedly, it was front-page play of the Obama rally, but it's a very Republican paper.  So let's wait and see who dominates the last couple of days, when most potential voters will just be putting down their snow shovels in Wisconsin (the weather has been so much of the news that nothing could compete!) and starting to think about going to the polls.

    Obama needs to pad lead (none / 0) (#53)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    to get her to cave.  If he wins 3/4, that would probably do the trick, as (according to Bowers) he just took the popular vote lead by even the most Clinton generous standards.

    Parent
    Link? Lots of different numbers on (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    lots of sites.  I have not seen any with this margin.

    Parent
    RCP has the lead (none / 0) (#75)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:14:03 PM EST
    at 129 delegates for Obama.  

    Here is the link

    Parent

    Influence or Inspire (none / 0) (#83)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    I view both Clinton and Obama as powerful Leaders that could forge alliances and bring together diverse interest but with very different leadership styles.

    Hillary has the ability to influence and drive behavior..

    Obama has the ability to inspire creative thinking..

    I feel an urgency to fix the damage of the last 7 years righting the course of our Country and Hillary's Leadership ability can make that happen.

    Parent

    Excuse me but (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salt on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    cant we wait until the votes are counted before picking out the drapes.

    Parent
    I find all this odd (none / 0) (#136)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:17:15 PM EST
    Why create a panic? Up to now no one had any valid predictions. We can all sit around and stew, scare people to no end. Let people vote, let it happen.

    Parent
    Why Hillary should be in WI (none / 0) (#30)
    by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:46:21 PM EST
    I would like to see Hillary compete everywhere right now, and with $13 million and a bunch of re-tappable new donors there is no reason not too. Hillary successfully reaching beyond her status quo money pool to find new donors is a great thing. The more people who invest in the Democratic movement the better. Get every Dem in every state (blue, purple and red) energized for the general. Change the dynamic. Don't settle for 50% plus 1.

    Obama gets this big time, and that is why so many support him. His charisma and speaking skills are just the icing on the cake.

    See detailed schedule upthread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    so I don't fill up space twice with it.  And then let us know what you think of the strategy.

    Parent
    Hillary in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#152)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    I like the idea that the campaign is making a strong effort in Wisconsin. The strategy of her spending last four days there (with Bill visiting the state now) also makes sense. May be  it does not matter, but does any one have a sense of the statewide polling there ? Also, Wisconsin seems to have strong Union presence. Do you know who the unions have ensored? It may make a big difference for the ground operation.

    Parent
    Two paths to the nomination (none / 0) (#32)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    This paper blurs two possibilities:

    (1) Hillary wins by healthy margins in Ohio and Texas, reverses Obama's momentum, finishes with the lead in pledged delegates, and takes the nomination outright.  This is very unlikely, though not impossible.

    (2) Hillary wins by narrow margins in Ohio and Texas, slows Obama's momentum, finishes  behind in pledged delegates, and takes the nomination with a combination of super-delegates and/or Florida and Michigan.  

    The problem is that scenario (2) is significantly more likely than scenario (1), and will lead to a lot of disillusionment among Obama supporters.  

    Particularly if Obama wins decisively in WI and HA, Ohio and Texas voters who are torn between the candidates but have the party's best interests at heart should think long and hard about voting for Obama, in order to have a clear and undisputed nominee.

    They might (none / 0) (#42)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:51:53 PM EST
    if it's very close.  They won't if Obama has a clear lead.  Check out last night's threads.

    Parent
    will of the people (none / 0) (#86)
    by wasabi on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:24:00 PM EST
    Which will?  Do the members of the House vote who won their district?  Senators their state?  The Popular vote?  The delegate count?  Etc.

    Parent
    super delegates are part of the vaunted rules (none / 0) (#98)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:42:46 PM EST
    Why do so many pick and choose these rules?

    Parent
    Too young to vote? (none / 0) (#33)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    But HRC can vote to trust Bush with an AUMF that affects these kids?

    The "good news" (none / 0) (#36)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    Is that Texas Democrats are more like 20% African American.  

    I think last election (none / 0) (#46)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:53:45 PM EST
    is a reasonable approximation, particularly with Hillary campaigning so hard among Latinos.  In VA for example the A-A percentage was the same this year as last primary.

    Parent
    I think the math is wrong (none / 0) (#70)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    If 20% of the electorate votes for Obama, then Clinton would have to win 62.5% of the rest of the population.  (Because .625 * .80 = .5)  Of course, the 20 A-A population will not vote 100% for Obama, so that makes it even less than 62.5%.

    It's still uphill, but nowhere near the 70% that you mention.

    Parent

    I think she meant (none / 0) (#82)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    That she would need 70% to come out with a clear win (i.e. a lot of delegates) from Texas. If it's a tie, at this point, that's basically an Obama win.

    Parent
    Must be the new math (none / 0) (#189)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:14:15 PM EST
    All ties = Obama wins?

    In any case, it seems rpetty unclear what will happen to delegates from TX. The system for alloting them seems pretty convoluted.

    Parent

    latinos don't (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:57:21 PM EST
    drive many delegates in Texas, because their turnout has been pitiful in past elections.  I'm shocked that he strategy is so south Texas centric.

    Parent
    you bring up a good point (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:50:59 PM EST
    another thing to take into account is how delegates are divided in Texas, because she needs 60 percent of delegates not votes.  So there problem is actually bigger.  Texas divides delegates by state senate district.  so it is like a bunch of little mini primaries.  the districts have different delegate counts depending on dem turn out in the last two elections.  These counts range between 2 and 8.  The highest one is my senate district her in Austin with 8.  Austin is an Obama demographic. the next two highest are in Urban Houston and Dallas, both with heavy black populations.  She will do best in south Texas, her campaign is focused most heavily there, but it isn't a good return, even if this time south texas showed up to vote, because they haven't in the past, those Hispanic districts will yield few delegates.


    God Bless you Latino Granny (none / 0) (#50)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    I am a granny too and we are tough and hard to beat :-)

    alright (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    Carole Keeton Strayhorn?

    Parent
    That is exactly the key we see (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    consistently.  As an analysis (at pollster.com, I think) put it, race is not a factor for whites in "homogenous" -- almost all-white -- states.

    It is a factor less decisive for Obama in more diverse states, states where he is not the first person of color they've seen in person in eons.  Seriously, coming from a majority-minority city, when I travel through those areas, it gets weirder with every stop, not seeing a person of color for days on end.  

    Race is not relevant there.  See census stats and maps on entire counties, for several counties at a stretch, with hardly anyone but white, white, white people.  So sad, but too true.

    So VA DC and Maryland (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    are all white states?

    Parent
    Texas Delegates Math (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:01:25 PM EST
    here is a great post that explains how delegates are divided and the make up of the individual senate districts.
    From Burnt Orange Report

    As an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#64)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:03:44 PM EST
    I appreciate your candor.

    If Obama wins, I want him to do it decisively over the next three weeks.

    Well, Hillary's "friends" (none / 0) (#66)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    will argue that they are listening to voice of the people -- including the people in FL and MI.  But you are correct, this will not please Obama's supporters.  Which is why everyone should be rooting for someone to win fair and square.

    Obama still not addressing gender (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    and him with two daughters.  Disappointing -- but telling, Ben.

    In the end, Superdelegates can't be "stolen' (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:20:51 PM EST


    Here is that video that (none / 0) (#84)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    Latino Granny posted in correct format so it won't get deleted.....VIDEO

    This video should help her with youth vote (none / 0) (#195)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    as in under 8 yrs. old.

    Parent
    you are (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    hilarious.

    FL/MI... (none / 0) (#92)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    ...They project giving her 178 delegates, but are silent on their assumptions about how many Obama gets.  He gets at least 67 in Florida, leaving her with a net +111, but there are 55 uncommitted delegates for Michigan, and my bet is that the Obama campaign will press hard for a "deal" to permit MI/FL on the condition that Clinton gets her 178 delegates, and he gets all of the remaining 145 or so delegates, leaving her with a net +33.  This seems like a very logical "compromise" proposal, and one that the Clinton campaign will be likely to initially reject.  Obama only needs 51% of the credentials committee to support the idea, though, so I think something like this will happen.

    My point is that Clinton supporters shouldn't count on FL and MI to provide her with a lead in pledged delegates.

    You are right, but.. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Polkan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    didn't the MI party already announced they allocated their delegates?

    Parent
    the other thing is... (none / 0) (#173)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    ...if MI and FL count, then a "majority of delegates is no longer" 2025, but rather 2208, as Chris Bowers points out.  The 4049 total delegates do not include Michigan and Florida pledged delegates and superdelegates, therefore the number of total delegates would increase if they were included, and the number needed to have a majority would increase by 183.  

    What does this mean?  It means that Florida and Michigan are largely irrelevant.  It would make it harder for Obama to clinch, but it wouldn't necessarily clinch things for Clinton either.

    Parent

    It's not about clinching it (none / 0) (#194)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:18:46 PM EST
    with just the delgates that came from primaries and caucuses.  It's about making an argument to the superdelegates for whom they should support.

    Parent
    There's something like 350 uncommitted SDs... (none / 0) (#211)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:31:56 PM EST
    ...and close to 400 if MI and FL are counted.  I don't think they're all going to sit and wait until the last minute to endorse, though.  It seems like these guys are jumping on board to each campaign at a rate of 20-50 a week.

    I tend to doubt there'll be more than about 250 uncommitteds left on 3/5. Is that enough to end this thing?  I'm not sure.  I think it would be if Clinton didn't perform well on 3/4, but if Obama didn't perform well that day but still had a decent lead in pledged delegates(say, 50-60), they're not going to stick their necks out and hand the nomination to Clinton.  

    Parent

    Texas polling data (none / 0) (#109)
    by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:57:28 PM EST
    IVR Polls had this Texas breakdown...

    Clinton 48%
    Obama 38%
    Gravel 3%
    Unsure 10%

    http://ivrpolls.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=1

    But the poll was taken over Jan 30-31. Given Obama's many wins since then, I would really doubt Hillary still holds anything close to a 10% lead. I would even bet that he is ahead or at least tied by now.

    If he did take Texas wouldn't that seal the deal?


    It would if the process was democratic. (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    Does she drop out after Texas? (none / 0) (#119)
    by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    So what will it take for Hillary to see these numbers? Does Obama taking TX do it?

    She will never drop out. (none / 0) (#123)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    if Obama wins TX (none / 0) (#147)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:21:08 PM EST
    that it will be over. One assumes she will have an interest in maintaining her dignity by graciously conceding.

    Parent
    Or graciously... (none / 0) (#200)
    by magster on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    negotiating a spot on the ticket or on the Supreme Court.

    Parent
    Because I think he will (none / 0) (#121)
    by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:08:42 PM EST
    A 10% gain after weeks and weeks of overwhelming wins is very doable for Obama.

    Obama has 10 point lead in NC (none / 0) (#122)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:09:11 PM EST
    10th largest state in the nation.

    N.C. has a very large AA population plus (none / 0) (#135)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:16:49 PM EST
    they are a red state traditionally..

    Parent
    AA votes (none / 0) (#146)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    still count for delegates.

    Parent
    yes and now (none / 0) (#130)
    by Polkan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    if Clinton can come very close in delegates (i.e. very small percentage of total existing delegates), then she should make an argument to the superdelegates and to the party at large. the purpose of this whole process is to win the WH. superdelegates would be compelled to both seat at least FL and to look at who carries what kind of base. then put their votes as a block to the candidate who they think can win.

    But all the evidence points (none / 0) (#132)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    to Obama being a stronger candidate.

    Parent
    What evidence? (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by ivs814 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:28:08 PM EST
    You can say it all you want but it doesn't make it so.  I find it disgusting that he solicits and depends on the support of Republicans and Independents to get the nomination for the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  Without them he'd be toast.

    Parent
    We really don't know who the stronger candidate (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    is right now.  There is no "evidence."  Vote for the person who you think can make the changes you are after regarding the issues.  And just a reminder, this election isn't over yet.  We don't have a nominee.  Anything can happen.  Heck, there could be a love child out there somewhere.  

    Parent
    RCP (none / 0) (#138)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    Well, even assuming it is correct (none / 0) (#139)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    It seems to be about pledged delegates only, and SD are big part of this equation. The assumption is IF Obama has pledged delegate advantage he wins.

    Big assumption.

    its not wrong (none / 0) (#140)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:19:14 PM EST
    I think the assumption is that if Hill wins TX, OH, and PA, then, although she will still be behind in pledged delegates, the superdels will be called upon to give it to her, for some reason.
    Seems to be the only path for her.

    Bingo (none / 0) (#148)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:24:18 PM EST
    your bolded comments should be read, and taken to heart by all those who are pushing for a superdel coup. It would be devastating.

    super del coup (none / 0) (#159)
    by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    "Super Del Coup" sounds like a classic car.


    Parent
    I agree but (none / 0) (#149)
    by jdj on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    I perfer Obama.


    Not sure (none / 0) (#154)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    Remember we are not talking about changing the outcome. No matter what either campaign says, neither candidates will have enough delegates going into the convention. So neither wins. Now you can:

    1. Try to allow every voter to have a voice (FL, MI), or
    2. Just use SD to decide, or
    3. Combination of above.

    Which is the most "democratic?" Forgetting bias to either candidate I think most neutral observers will say 1). FL and MI voted without any campaigning, but why does that make it invalid? Would the results have been different with campaigning? Maybe, but considering the two candidates have fought to a virtual draw you could make a strong argument it wouldn't have really tilted that much.

    Anyway, I prefer 1) over any other option.

    about Michigan (none / 0) (#163)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:44:47 PM EST
    Leaving aside Florida, in Michigan, Obama and Edwards took their name off the ballot, while Clinton did not.

    To try to seat Michigan on the basis of that election, where the voters didn't really have a choice, seems patently unfair.

    Parent

    yes, but (none / 0) (#169)
    by Polkan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:48:22 PM EST
    ...the candidates had a choice to keep their names on the ballots, correct? i agree though that seating MI without some kind of grand statement and appeal to unity from DNC and both candidates would be a bad thing

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#165)
    by Polkan on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:46:07 PM EST
    this is the best way to describe it that i've seen so far

    Parent
    I tried to ask this before (none / 0) (#214)
    by fuzzyone on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    but somehow my comment did not show up. Was Hillary opposed to the decision to exclude FL and MI before she won those stats.  That seems important to me.  If she was not then her argument to seat them is just raw opportunism.  If she has been consistent then I'm a bit more sympathetic, though the MI thing seems particularly unfair since Obama took his name off the ballot.

    Parent
    Keep in mind: neither candidate will win (none / 0) (#157)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    Forget spin from either side: neither candidate will have the number of delegates needed to win on their own. How this is resolved is grounds for a lot of valid and various viewpoints, but it should start with the basic premise: neither has won, and neither gets an automatic "well I should win."

    I think what we should all agree on is that the process should be within the established rules. And I would like to add: hopefully with a lot of consideration for what is best for the democratic party in the long run, not just the interest of one candidate.


    not if (none / 0) (#162)
    by andreww on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    obama pulls off victories in TX, OH, and PA

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#176)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    Even if he does he still doesn't hit the magic number. It is true, however, if he does he will pretty much be assured any path to solution will lead to him being the nominee. That was not my point, rather the premise that its high probability this will not be resolved by delegates alone.

    Parent
    Because they are part of the process (none / 0) (#180)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    And as I posted below neither one will really win. I think its partial Obama spin right now that whoever is ahead in pledged delegates must win, or its not right. I could just as easily see a scenario where Sen Clinton has he majority of cast votes, but less delegates, and her side would argue that is the voice of the people.

    SDs are part of the process, like it or not. Just like the way strange allocations skew the awarded delegates. If you want to change one that opens the door to change all of it. For example I don't believe caucuses are fair, regardless of which candidate wins. So should we throw them out too?

    Super delegates and loyalty (none / 0) (#192)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    Some say that the Superdelegates will all give their vote  to the leader if there is no clear nominee regardless of how  they initially pledge their vote.   Many of these delegates have very strong obligations to the Clinton's and you just don't throw away that obligation willie nillie even if its for the best cause of the party.  Many will stick with their initial endorsement no matter what.

    I must say, (none / 0) (#196)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    I am annoyed.  And I say this as an Obama supporter (an actual one).

    HillaryFan (none / 0) (#198)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    Not    an  illusion.   Hillary  has  234   already  COMMITTED   superdelegates.  Obama  has  only  156  committed.    

    NO we don't (none / 0) (#199)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:20:30 PM EST


    Nope (none / 0) (#203)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:22:41 PM EST
    The Iowa Independent reported that the Obama campaign suggested the move to the other campaigns as a strategic move to detract from Hillary's assured victory.  No one has ever disputed that report, so far as I'm aware.

    Something smells funny to me (none / 0) (#207)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    With such fans, who needs enemies.

    I thought they were both likely to come up short (none / 0) (#216)
    by katiebird on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:36:21 PM EST
    I thought they were both likely to come up short of pledged delegates.

    And how is it fair to rewrite the rules for super-delegates now?  They both have pledged super-delegates, are they both supposed to find agreement and release them?  Or only Hillary?

    Isn't that a bit of an insult? "Say, Governor -- I don't want that pledge...."

    Or do we say to the uncommitted ones -- "Sorry, you've missed your chance to endorse.  We need you to fill in the gaps for the one with momentum."

    The rules are that the super-delegates can endorse according to whatever criteria they consider appropriate.

    How exactly do you define the new rules?

    No, not all (none / 0) (#217)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    as CNN -- one of the best sites, so I'm told, in trying to calculate the unknown, the caucus numbers -- has it as a margin of just under 120 for pledged delegates, in Obama's favor.  But a margin of 40 in Clinton's favor including superdelegates.

    (Of course, that one candidate has so much reliance on caucus delegates is a difficulty.  They aren't even picked yet.  They're local delegates to state conventions, where decisions will be made in some of those, up to their discretion, as to how many national delegates to allocate to each candidate.)

    Not knowing your sources, still, I'll stick with CNN.


    Agree re CNN (none / 0) (#222)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:42:02 PM EST
    As I said above (none / 0) (#218)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    What is the will of the people? Are caucuses really the "will of the people" (again not carry which one wins, its still strange)? And the SDs were there to begin with, they are not being thrown in at the last minute to change something. Right now the will of the people is pretty split. So what do you suggest? A co-presidency?


    SuperDelegates (none / 0) (#223)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    The   2 prominent  SuperDelegates  from  Massachusetts  (Kerry, Kenndey)  have  REFUSED  to vote  along with  the will of  the  people from their  state.  They'll vote   Obama, period.

    Latina Granny (none / 0) (#226)
    by auntmo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    I  noticed  that , too. If  she's linking  Andrew  Sullivan, she may not  really  be  a  Hillary  supporter.

    Electoral College? (none / 0) (#228)
    by IndyCatherine on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:42:32 PM EST
    This is my first post on this site. TL is the fairest blog out there right now; the others are so filled with hate that I can't read them any more, so kudos to you!
    So my question is this: if neither candidate has the majority to win the nomination and the DNC has to decide how to settle it, shouldn't they look at the electoral college map to see how each candidate did in the states with high electoral votes (CA, NY, etc.)? It would seem to me the nominee MUST win those states to win the election....and Hillary seems to have won those big electoral prizes. Another factor should be Ohio and Florida, where the last two elections were decided; who can win those? They should also look at the states that are likely to stay "red" no matter what (like Idaho, Alaska etc.) and perhaps those should be "discounted".  To me, it is logical to take electoral college issues into consideration, but then I'm not a politician....


    Thanks to those of you (none / 0) (#229)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:29:52 PM EST
    who praised TalkLeft above, your readership and contributions are much appreciated.

    Comments here are now closed, we're over 200.