2008 Primaries Thread 2: THE QUICKENING

on a different note,

Limbaugh was encouraging people to vote for Obama this morning, until Pennsylvania, when its time to vote for Hillary again. In PA you have to be registered Dem by March 24th or something in order to vote in April.

I listened to the MS Elections Commissioner predict about a 10% voter turnout on the radio this morning. Looks like it was closer to 40%, if I remember the number of total registered in the state right.

Limbaugh is so deluded.

thanks to the electoral college and me living in a securely Democratic state I have the luxury of not having to worry about voting for Hillary.

-- gr8080, Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:38 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i was gonna say the same ... except we did landslide for barack so maybe not???

grady is implying that he's not gonna vote right?? i would not vote for hillary but this is the first election i could vote for and i don't wanna sit it out. by the same token i also don't want my FIRST VOTE EVER to be for hillary mf clinton. write in for barack?

first election i could vote in

nader80

yeah illinois might be "in play" but i doubt it's anything more than a long shot for McCain.

Hillz grew up there.

Should Geraldine Ferraro provide a DNA sample to see if she's also partially African?
Maybe she got where she's cause of her good African genes?

By the way I am white-hispanic
3 hours ago - 3 days left to answer.

Answer this Question
Answers

*smile*
3 hours ago

I don't understand your question.
3 hours ago

um ... with respect to her comment -- how would that make any difference?
3 hours ago

Well, she is Italian. Most S. Italians have African blood.
3 hours ago

yes she should because italians were conquered by the moors and this accounts for the features that she has.
3 hours ago

99%
reporting

Mississippi
Updated 4 minutes ago

County: Table | Map
Exit Poll

Obama

247,456

60%

17

Clinton

153,745

38%

11
--------

60-38? Still less than twice her score. I'm telling you, she's unbeatable.

Hillary is saving the Perez Hilton endorsement for when things really get rough.

Now up to 61-37

Tactical GOP Clinton voters clearly not that inspired on the day.

100% of the Clinton voters voted for Clinton. Beat that, Obama.

lol

http://ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com/2008/03/hes-supported-by-who.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200802u/president-obama.jpg

I think I saw that bit back in December, 2000.

Shrillary's ticket to presidential candidacy was not her gender, biut her choice of mate

Regardless of who wins the nomination, can we even hope for Democrats to unite as a party after what is already appearing to be a very hotly contested and bitter race?

It depends how much crazy McBickle brings to the table this fall. GHW Bush labeled Reagan with "voodoo economics" in '80 before becoming his running mate, don't forget.

http://www.brokeland.com/tracerhand/McCainusesRALLYTHEBASE.gif

donars!

btw, when will Howard Wolfson be giving the Foreign Policy Aptitude test to Obama? The week before Denver, so he can have maximum study time?

http://blogs.pcworld.com/tipsandtweaks/archives/maptest.jpg

I have heard so many people say that they will not vote if their preferred candidate does not receive the nomination.

this scares me, a million times more than the prospect of my preferred dem not getting the nomination. i really hope that the people who would prefer to waste their votes out of spite are in the minority, but it's very worrying.

Very much agreed with this, but that sentiment seems strong in these parts.

6 weeks and 6 billion news cycles later, i wonder how many voters in those states will switch candidates.

-- Cosmo Vitelli, Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:14 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

Florida may not change too much (demographics are in Hillary's favor), but recent polls show that if they conducted a do-over in Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot the first time), it'd be very close.

oh i'll get up bright and early to vote for hillary, even though i more or less hate her at this point, because i'm 100% positive a mccain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster.

maybe i'm in a tiny minority there but i think most democrats will come to that conclusion pretty quickly once this all shakes out. remember, everybody liked each other as of 3 short months ago.

I certainly ain't wasting my vote on McCain or Clinton

Hate is good!

mostly people are just a little heated right now w/all this ill stay home talk

well i wouldn't give HRC any $$ in the general...

most registered Democrats will probably vote for the nominee anyway. I'm less sure about indies.

you got to be kidding me:

Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer responds:

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?

Sullivan has an interesting catch here on the Ferarro flap, Limbaugh, & Wes Clark:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/limbaugh-ferrar.html

The comments referenced by Limbaugh came during Sunday's pregame show when the conservative talk show host offered the opinion that McNabb wasn't as good as the media perceived him to be. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well,'' Limbaugh said. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Negative reaction did not come immediately. But on Tuesday, McNabb told the Philadelphia Daily News: "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal." From there, the firestorm spread quickly. Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and Rev. Al Sharpton called for ESPN to fire Limbaugh. Others in both political and athletic circles also lashed out at Limbaugh's comments.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/obamadelmarc.JPG

So Hillary's total delegate pick-up on March 4: +6. Obama's delegate pick-up in Wyoming and Mississippi: +7. Which means that Hillary's actually lost ground since last month.

I've only just realised (from the above chart) that Obama effectively won Texas.

I don't think that the perceived swing in momentum to Hillary has as much to do with the shift in number of delegates as it does in the perception that Obama can't win the big, crucial swing states - and when he does win, it's usually because his younger, activist base gives him the edge in the caucuses - whereas Hillary does better in primary votes - which have a higher turn-out, are more representative of people how have jobs and families and can't devote several hours on a week-night to a political exercise, and are more similar to a general election.

"who have jobs and families"

"civic activists are privileged folks" is a damn foolhardy assertion to make without substantial evidence -- besides which, if your only evidence comes draws from voter demographics in democratic contests it's a perfect tautology.

It's not so much a question of who's more privileged as it is a question of which method - primary or caucus - is more representative of the will of the people and a better predictor of general election results.

Well, I made my point largely as a rejoinder against those Clinton talking points. I mean, this is something that Obama can use: "Why is Hillary claiming momentum when I've actually gained more delegates than she has in the last two weeks?"

considering that the current democratic primary system of caucuses and superdelegates were instituted to prevent the ascent of an outsider candidate sweeping the popular vote. obama's groundswell of organization has completely turned what was meant to stop candidates like him. i'm not going to argue contrary-to-fact hypotheticals here, but you can be sure that both candidates' stances on how fairly caucuses represent the will of voters is informed by gamesmanship and strategy, not the other way around.

but you can be sure that both candidates' stances on how fairly caucuses represent the will of voters is informed by gamesmanship and strategy, not the other way around.

Sure, but underneath the gamesmanship, the question of fact still remains unanswered - and if there's any doubt about the relative accuracy of the caucus as a measure of electability, I would imagine that would weigh on the minds of undecided superdelegates.

It's not so much a question of who's more privileged as it is a question of which method - primary or caucus - is more representative of the will of the people and a better predictor of general election results.

it's not hard to turn this kind of argument on its head:

being able to win in caucuses requires both and an ability to figure out and adapt to the micropolitics of a given state; it's a good measure of the organizational skill of the campaign. you can win them if you figure out how and get people into it, which is sort of your responsibility as a candidate. (or you can give them up, and complain later, if you like that strategy.)

besides, the long-time party true believers (the kind who show up for meetings in off years, etc) (old women, to stereotype grossly...) are still heavily pro-Clinton. She may even see gains in the caucus states as the results get filtered through county and state delegate selection processes. "who has time" indeed.

since when is andrew "bell curve" sullivan a crusader for civil rights

er i've got a stray 'both and' in my post, hasty editing.

since he started backing obama? i have no idea. the substance of his post seems to be the apparent double standard in the clinton corp. as applied to the statements made by rush and ferarro.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2207/2329256094_f67bc6b92f_o.jpg