This is the thread to discuss all things election related this evening.
To kick things off: Obama wins Vermont, handily, as expected. From what I hear the other three are tight.
UPDATE: According to CNN, McCain has won Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island, thereby securing the Republican nomination. Guess Huckabee should have majored in math after all.
UPDATE: Clinton projected to win Rhode Island.
UPDATE: CNN is projecting that both my children are now in bed, Griffin having chosen a story about Hercules, while Huck chose Robin Hood.
UPDATE: Clinton wins Ohio, and at least at this stage (63% reporting), it looks like an ass-kickin'. Word has it rural counties report later, but still, this is a huge win for her.
UPDATE: Clinton on the Daily Show last night:
UPDATE: And they're calling Texas for Clinton, 51-48.
This is a big night for her, and she'll get a spin advantage for a while, but I still don't see how she comes back from her pledged delegate deficit (say that three times fast). Are superdelegates seriously going to give it to her because she narrowly won these two particular states? A huge win in Philly might give her a long shot, but I'd say the odds are still against her.
UPDATE: Oh, and by the way, my younger son will be crushed to find out in the morning that his namesake Huckabee has dropped out:
UPDATE: And here's Clinton's triumphal victory speech:
UPDATE: And here's Obama's not-victory speech:
UPDATE: And here's MSNBC's Chuck Todd explaining why the seemingly big win for Clinton doesn't translate to much movement in the delegate count:
There's something a little twisted about the fact that you need an expert with a team of number crunchers to figure out who's winning. Any chance we're going to update our democracy for the 21st century any time soon?
UPDATE: Ohio is coal country. I wonder if this affected Obama's fortunes there:
Until those [clean coal] technologies are available, I will rely on the carbon cap and whatever tools are necessary to stop new dirty coal plants from being built in America - including a ban on new traditional coal facilities.
As far as I know, Clinton has never hinted at a moratorium on new dirty coal.
Pennsylvania is even more coal-y. I'll be curious to see if there's any polling around the coal question there, and if primary voters are aware of Obama's current positions.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
kmp Posted 1:35 pm
04 Mar 2008
Texas is still too close to call; it was about 50% for Clinton and 49% Obama with 49% reporting. Could be VERY interesting if Clinton takes it.
Permalink
el mono Posted 1:43 pm
04 Mar 2008
If McCain wins - I'm blaming Hillary.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:13 pm
04 Mar 2008
To be honest, I thought Obama would win everything and knock Clinton out. So, what do I know (hard to judge voter reaction from abroad!!).
It is an old trick to claim victory then criticize your opponent for not surrendering before you have actually WON victory. Obama supporters should not try this, it looks bad (I didn't vote for either one of them yet, waiting til the fall!).
It is a problem for the Democrats if they have not clear winner. They may need to do something about those states they didn't count yet (smile). New primaries anyone??
It should not be a Republican year, but every Obama supporter who swears they will never vote for Clinton, and every Clinton supporter who swears they will never vote for Obama, all of them are supporting McCain. If that's okay with them, then so be it.
People here are all abuzz!!! How interesting. They always ask my predictions until they find out I am usually wrong... (LOL).
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:23 pm
04 Mar 2008
I think Russert is right, he says it will go all the way past Peurto Rico, to redo caucuses in Fla and Mich.
And Hill's team is finally getting the message, they have a legal challenge on blocked caucuses. With this format they need to flood the meetings with supporters, the orginal Barack strategy in Iowa.
I bet Hillary is using baby boomers, where Barack is packing cacuses with young volunteers. Nothing unethical about it, that is how that game is played.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:26 pm
04 Mar 2008
Yes she can!
Yes she can!
She stole his chant, hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:48 pm
04 Mar 2008
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ....
Because of new criticisms of Obama -- which actually are not that new, but the press is only now doing something with them -- , the race has now taken on a different complexion.
Short-term, I am very happy for Hillary and her friends and supporters, especially the women. Long-term, this looks very bad for the Democratic Party. And there is no easy solution. Most Democrats who were polled said that Hillary's wins in the popular vote yesterday mean that she ought to stay in the race. And that sounds fine and reasonable and fair. But, in the long run, what will be the upshot, even if she takes PA in April?
Majoring in math is not going to work, at least in any easy, straight-forward way. The delegate count, favoring Obama, will not seem a legitimate way of determining the candidate, if there is a perceived popular shift away from Obama and towards Hillary. Going acquiescently with a 51-49 advantage (or something fairly close, so far as we can see) will look too Republican, and too perverse, to very many Democrats, in the context of a very fishy-looking primary system.
Perhaps Jonathan Alter was right last week, to tell Hillary that she should withdraw gracefully before March 4th. But realistically, she is not at all disposed to do that, and just as important, her supporters would not let her do that.
As happy for her as I am right now, I can foresee nothing but disaster.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 10:09 pm
04 Mar 2008
We don't see much criticism of McCain on the air do we? Hell, NPR almost crowned him king last night when he got the nomination.
The media will do it's level best to trash both Democratic candidates while leaving McCain alone until the convention. Just watch. These are the very same people that have ignored the fact that George Bush is and idiot for 9 years. The people who couldn't manage to notice that Ronald Reagan had alzheimers while in office.
Don't bet on a Democratic president.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
kmp Posted 1:21 am
05 Mar 2008
I also tend to think that the Dem race continuing is not such a bad thing - after all it gets more voters involved and people are hanging on this race. The more excitement the Dems can build up until November the better off we will be.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:58 am
05 Mar 2008
Why? Because the smaller mainly caucus states represent Barack's delegate lead. That is, a system that underplays the power of sheer numbers of voters, in favor of representing geographical diversity.
Hillary has the big states that are big in the electoral college numbers in the general election. It is more represntative of the general elecvtion demographic for the superdelegates to vote with the majority of primary voters.
The caucuses were packed with young Barackists, giving a skewed picture. hillary is catching onto that though. In Texas caucuses the campaign has challenged the result because of Barack's machine blocking Hillary's caucusers.
Hillary needs a baby boomer mom contingent to pack the rest of the cauceses right back. The baby boomers are immune to bullying. You look bad if you push mom around. Look out Barack youth squad, baby boom shock troops are coming to a caucus near you!
And MI and FLA will be redone somehow. Maybe caucuses are fine for Hillary, if her people get the shock troops organized.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
kmp Posted 3:06 am
05 Mar 2008
I'm sure Obama would not be thrilled, but seems eminently reasonable to me - with only 2 years in the Senate, I would think VP was a pretty sweet deal.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:30 am
05 Mar 2008
I'm thinking that if Hillary kills the hegative campaigning in favor of packing the caucuese with baby boomers, the ticket would work.
Were I in the loop, I would suggest that Hillary arrange a series of special events just for caucus volunteer teams. Have Bill do this lower profile, but vital job. Bill giving special attention to teams of long time party volunteers would have them ready to caucus the hell out of it. Yo.
It'll keep Bill out of the press too.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 7:59 am
05 Mar 2008
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:32 pm
05 Mar 2008
CanisCandida is right on target. For the Democratic Party, this means trouble. The big problem is if it is too damn close to call after the final primaries, then who ever wins will appear to have won through "back room" deals.
And that won't sit well with the supporters of the other.
I don't have a solution. The best thing might be if after the last primary, the contenders and their spouses went to an island somewhere, relaxed and tried to find a way.
Or we could play "Survivor: The Presidential Version" with the Clinton and Obama tribes. Of course, we might end up with Michelle and Bill in the final showdown, and that won't work!!
Both candidates can make good cases for themselves. Both should be able to beat McCain if the other's supporters join in.
How strange and curious!!!
Of course, if they chew each other up, and McCain convinces Powell to run for VP, all bets are off!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:45 pm
05 Mar 2008
Powell as McCain's VP choice is a few moves too far ahead for me to keep up, but I can see that that is hardly impossible.
Cute: Powell is the son of immigrants from Jamaica, and a well-loved son of the Bronx; McCain was born in Panama, and if there are legal problems, let the constitutional lawyers figure it out; Barack Obama was born, as we all know, in Bethlehem, Occupied West Bank, but that is OK, because the lawyers are impressed by the circumstance of his having been wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger.
But talk about "Dream Team"!: a Michelle/Bill ticket!
I should admit, though, that I have a weakness for spouses. I did indeed support John Kerry strongly in 2004, but it was really Teresa whom I was rooting for.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:46 am
06 Mar 2008
part of me loves the whole thing, its like one of those awful Drury novels that I loved so much growing up (almost no one else was writing so well about politics then, and hey I was 12).
The infighting, the shifts in strategy, the interesting cast of characters (all flawed, all interesting).
It's really much better than the average election year.
But then I remember that this is real, and we need real leadership and I get depressed again.
Oh well.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:48 am
06 Mar 2008
And now she is campaigning for McCain in order to diss Barack, saying only she and McCain are fit to be commander in chief. Leaving barack in the lurch if he wins the nomination.
Aditionally it was her campaign that assured Canada that NAFTA was safe, essentially admitting that she is just lying about her opposition to it. while at the same time accusing Barack of selling out on NAFTA.
Basically her campaign is counting on the ignorance of the voters to win, pandering to fear with that moronic 3 am ad.
She will lose, and it is because of her dishonest, conniving, and incompetent advisors. But also because she chose to listen to them. She would do the same in office. It's really too bad, but she has proven barack should win.
He was going to anyway, there really is no way she can get enough delegates now. Even if she changed advisors and strategy, by packing caucuses like Barack's crew has. She should have caught onto this after Iowa.
Then actually called for caucus revotes in MI and FLA. Too late to change strategy now. Oh well, in my opinion she has shown she is not fit to lead by letting these negative tactics go on. they just can't work, that is obvious. they will only hurt the democratic party ticket.
Let's hope Barack and his excellent team can beat McCain/Nader. Otherwise we could very well see Iran become the next oil war target. Hillary has let US all down, now she's going to let the whole world down by taking barack down with her.
So goes the try at the first woman president, 20 points ahead up until she hired these rats to run her campaign.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:14 pm
06 Mar 2008
With this traitorous behaviour of favoring McCain over barack, hillary has given them an excuse to switch sides. The 3 am ad and the lies on the NAFTA/Canada back channel meeting seals the deal. It is all just too much chicanery and too traitorous to the democratic party. And ultimately to the nation, given the danger of McCain bowing to neocon pressure to attack Iran.
What if another 911 incident comes along to aid the neocon plan to attack Iran? Will Sen. Clinton vote to authorize that, as she did to authorize the war in Iraq?
Catch the clip of Reich on the Colbert Report. Colbert pressed him, and he finally admitted he has deserted the clintons for these very reasons I mention.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:25 pm
06 Mar 2008
Dear AmazingDrX,
One of the sad things to realize is that voters have come to expect candidates to be somewhat nasty and a bit misleading about each other (and it has gone both ways, alas). My impression from the polls is that a bit of nastiness doesn't bother them, and they discount it. So, they are not likely to take as much umbrage at Clinton as you do.
At this point, they look pretty much stalemated for the moment. Let the back room maneuvering begin!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:33 am
07 Mar 2008
Throwing over the party to try and win the nomination. So it was fitting that Hillary made the idiotic mistake of comparing LBJ to MLK to try to cut into Barack's civil right's heritage. Comparing one of the most disgusting presdients to a civil rights hero? Why?
Hillary has committed treason to the democratic party, trying to take us all down with her. She went too far Patrick. Backroom, frontroom... she's toast now. She's done.
She deserves to lose now, for this main reason and because she hasn't been able to lead her campaign. She has let advisors go wrong from the start.
Before Iowa was the time to get smart on how to win caucuses. With wins in even a few smaller caucus states, she really would be tied with Barack now. But she was advised that only the big states mattered. How would she lead the nation, when she can't pick and lead a campaign staff?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:59 am
07 Mar 2008
What did she say when an advisor said, you must go negative on Barack and say only you and McCain are fit to be commander in chief? What did she say? When advised to commit treason to the democratic party by touting McCain over Barack?
What is Barack going to say at 3 am, after that hypothetical 911 incident,when an advisor says, we must bomb Iran? He's going to say, you're fired. That's a president. That's a leader.
Out of the three candidates, which one will really lead, instead of letting advisors get US into another oil war. Only Barack.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:49 pm
11 Mar 2008
Dear AmazingDrX,
There is a problem. First of all, there isn't really a significant difference between Clinton and Obama on Iraq. Not really.
Obama, just a short time ago, said he would send US troops into Pakistan in hot pursuit if he felt like it, without consulting with the Pakistanis.
He and Clinton have both pandered to the military stupidity establishment on this kind of issue.
They both insult each other, and their supports are frequently immoderate about each other on the web (and in life). So much name calling!!!
I do think he is slightly more likely to capture the nomination, but they both should be gracious in victory and in defeat.
Frankly, McCain is a waste of time, always was. The other two don't impress me that much yet.
I am thinking of developing a line of vomit bags that can easily attach to voting machines (to help encourage turnout!!). (LOL)
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:52 pm
11 Mar 2008
Immoderate supporters, I mean, on the web, both candidates. Don't read what McCains people say, not interested.
patrick in Beijing
PS, immoderate supporters are NOT some kind of risque underwear.
Permalink