Apr 23 2008
Pennsylvania Democratic primary live
This post will be progressively updated to follow the count in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, starting from when I get out of bed (by which time it might well be all over). Real Clear Politics’ poll average shows a slight narrowing in Hillary Clinton’s lead since last week, from 47.4-40.4 to 49.5-43.4.
11.30am AEST. CNN reports Clinton leads 53-47 with 20 per cent of precincts counted. Their exit poll, if I’m reading it correctly, points to a result of about 52-48. They called it a “win” for Clinton about half an hour ago, for what that’s worth.
12.30pm. Clinton has just given a speech to claim victory of one kind or another: she now leads 54-46 with 75 per cent of precincts reporting.
12.50pm. As Obama gives his speech, the CNN’s count clicks over to 55-45 with 78 per cent of precincts reporting. They are giving Clinton 52 delegates to Obama’s 36 on television, but their web page is holding back on 37-31.
2.20pm. With 98 per cent of precincts reporting, Clinton’s has a lead of 54.8-45.2, which is at the higher end of market expectations.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:22 am
1300
Yo ho ho
He keeps calling Clinton a white honky hoe! I mean, the audacity!
April 28th, 2008 at 10:29 am
YHH - 1300 - Yes that was a Billism during an unguarded rant. The pressure is telling.
You’ve also missed a huge lurch to the right among the Hillarians this weekend. It has been fantastical to see. Since she threatened to nuke the people of Iran, it is now accepted wisdom among her supporters here that our children will be safer with pre-emptive military strikes by the US against whoever. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being painted as a lily-livered milksop.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:34 am
JV
Um really? Pre-emptive strikes…and we have to go over this again?
And Bill…poor bill… he just wants to be loved.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:42 am
jv, it seems the Hillarians are willing to sell their souls for undying loyalty to Hillary Clinton, and yet, for months they were saying that Obama supporters were the unthinking followers! The hypocrisy is breathtaking, not to mention the fact that some Hillarians are now supporting war on Iran, because Hillary says so, and yet were seething to the brim over Howard and his support of war on Iraq in the lead up to last year’s election.
What does this say? It says that there are no principles or morals that can’t be traded for either loyalty or face-saving.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:44 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Has anyone discussed this yet? I find it fascinating that 200K turned out in PA to NOT vote for McCain.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Noocat 1304 - I fear that for some people it’s whatever it takes to keep the black man out.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Remember to watch tonight’s FOUR CORNERS: a profile of Obama.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:11 am
An article on why we may be seeing Obama on Fox and kamikaze Clinton here worth a look: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/04/road-veers-right.html
“The remaining primary calendar veers decidedly right of center…With the exception of Oregon, which is more conservative than is generally acknowledged, the other six states all fall within a relatively narrow band toward the right-center of the political spectrum.”
April 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Pancho, is there a place on the planet that ISN’T right of the political spectrum? Apart from my place of course.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
In shocking news, the SDs seem to think there is still a contest going on. Obamists at PB continue their anti Hillary abuse unabated. (No one is surprised at that).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/politics/26delegates.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
April 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
But still the trickle comes:
“Senator Barack Obama, who spent the day campaigning In Indiana in advance of the state’s May 6 primary, collected the endorsement of an Arizona superdelegate today.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/obama-picks-up-superdelegate/
It’s beginning to look like more than a rumour that Obama plans to roll out about 20 around Indiana and North Carolina. It’s been one a day now since PA by my count.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
FG - I think latte and chardonnay shops.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I don’t think anyone has said otherwise GG. The SD’s can jump any which way they choose. There are no rules as to what they should do so it’s possible that 75% of them could jump on Hillary’s train (which is what she will need to clinch the nomination).
The debate has been around what they ’should’ do (and there have been various opinions on this) and what would be the consequences of their various possible decisions.
The reality is that the SD’s will not vote en block but will choose one or the other for a variety of different reasons. Obama is likely to win - but nothing is certain in politics. Handing the nomination to the one who is behind in pledged delegates, however, has great potential to tear the Party apart.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Obama’s pacifists, Obama another Vietnam victim
Some bloggers love books , I love helicopters. A Vietnam patrol moves in silence with mates by your side in the jungles full of jungle disguised Vietcong.
Until all of a sudden there is no silence , a bomb has gone off. A mate a second ago alive is now dead. Another a second ago with 2 legs but now one. Another Vietcong ambush of bullets puts more diggers at risk. A call for air backup is made , then the sound of Helicopters coming and the Vietcong go away for fear of those helicopters. Diggers are saved. The Helicoptors have a US emblem on them.
Thousands of miles away in Sydney the anti War pacifists march in Sydney with not a seconds thought for their diggers in the Jungles. Why can not you support the digger but oppose the Politican who made the War. In an elitist ivory tower war is a nasty word. In reality its horror is beyond words. What we know is innocent diggers , solders and civilians die in the millions or are forever maimed
Obama wears no US symbol Pin. I could not care less. there were over 500,000 US troops fighting in Vietnam mostly at the one time. Millions of US troops fought there and their millions familys and children and friends vote and they see Obama with no Pin. Perhaps the rednecks of Ohio and across the American West & South may deliver in Obama another casualty of Vietnam.
If so , the Obama elitists will simply move onto to another Hemingway to read,
whilst I think of helicopters with no politicans aboard , with thanks. Oh , and I love the US military deterrent and so do the majority, but it is in the minority here so oblivious that the threat of its use actually can prevent wars (despite a dumb Bush tainting this reality)
April 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Ron, your reasoning is characteristically all over the place, but let’s just take two points:
The anti-war arguments on here have invariably been directed at the “politicians who made the war”. It is the warmongering of Bush, McCain and Clinton that draws the ire around here. The military personel who find themselves entangled in a war zone due to the political stupidity of politicians have our total support.
Secondly, what is ‘elitist’ about Obama supporters? I’m not sure what you mean by the term, though it obviously gives you some personal comfort to use it.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
FG
You are clearly an elitist as you wear no US flag pin.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Ron,
Hillary Clinton said “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she also said the US would “obliterate” Iran, made allusions to nuclear attacks and pre-emptive strikes.
This is not deterence, nor is it strategic realism. It fails to grasp what her own intellectual strand of neo-liberal thought has argued for a decade - that the threat to the U.S. and its interests does not come from conventional sources or even states, but individuals and rogue elements. The same thought posits that proliferation and the fact that weapons are not controlled will lead to this situation.
How does uncontextualised sabre rattling, used to score political points in a domestic contest, really aid any of this?
I completely fail to see the relevance of your post @1314 on the politics of the situation. It is personal and seeks to tar anyone who doesn’t agree with you - I hadn’t heard of the helicopters and Hemmingway divide before, but it is novel, I grant you that. But really what that post seems to say to me is: ‘either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists’.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
True, Yo Ho Ho. I don’t wear an Australian flag pin either (though I do have a set of Scottish cufflinks). I have a deep suspicion of those who wrap themselves in flags and use the term ‘patriot’ a lot. LIke religion, so much damage has been done in the name of patriotism. Though a proud Aussie, I’m a global citizen first. Elitist? I don’t know what that means.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
[Obamists at PB continue their anti Hillary abuse unabated.]
Truth is not abuse.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Post Nevada caucus:
“REPORTER: Senator, you did get a bigger percentage of the popular vote but you may not have won in the delegates. Your response to that?
CLINTON: Well nobody really knows. And we’re looking very good. Obviously this is about delegates.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK_T99mqB5Q
April 28th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
#1313 - FG - [Handing the nomination to the one who is behind in pledged delegates, however, has great potential to tear the Party apart] - so is “Handing the nomination to the one who appears to be McGovern Mark2, has great potential to tear the chances of the Party getting back to the Whitehouse apart.
Note what Howard Dean just said: “I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else”. Electability, electabilty, electability will decide in the end. If Obama can demonstrate he is more electable in November than Hillary, then he should be the nominee. So far, he has not and not looking likely.
From #1310 GG’s link: [The Democrats’ national chairman, Howard Dean, told The Financial Times in an article on Friday: “I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else.”]
[but nothing is certain in politics] - best thing you said for ages. So all these analysis of polls, PLs, popular votes are a waste of time. just wait to see how the remaining primaries turnout and are there anymore “gates”, from both sides.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Finns: Any comparison with McGovern is just a red herring. Hillary is running second to Obama, which must say something, even to you, about her electability. My point is that, for the SD’s to virtually ignore the outcome of the Party nomination process is a very dangerous road to take. They may yet choose to do so, but the consequences, I suspect, would not help their nominee’s campaign.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
#1322 - to lose in November is even more dangerous
April 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Finns, it seems that Mccain’s and Clinton’s foreign policies are converging as the campaign wears on. What differences can you see between them that would make an Australian want her to win over mcCain?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Has anyone seen the Rev wright’s latest public appearance?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Finns, I’m bemused by the references to McGovern. What are you trying to say: that McCain is Nixon? Or that Clinton is Nixon? If so, what is your point? That those who opposed the the Viet Nam war were wrong? or right? or what? This labelling from the past is irrelevant.
The US has bungled things badly: the Iraq war is militarily costly, unpopular and harmful to the US economy. Even the pro-war factions agree the war is damaging. The question is who is more likely to extricate the US and repair its relations with other states. Muttering about a figure from the 1970’s is just nonsensical.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Not since Isaac Newton sought to decode the Ancient Testament or since Ronald Reagan redefined the properties of a meal fit for children to eat, has anyone defied science as absurdly as Mrs Clinton in her efforts to how that if you count things her way she’s in the lead. She is in the direct lineage of Joseph Stalin who said it’s not a matter of who does the voting, but who does the counting. How the Georgian dictator would have wagged his pipe in approval of Mrs Clinton’s claim that a disqualified election in which only her supporters voted somehow constitutes a legitimate expression of the popular Democratic will in Michigan!
Nothing Will Get Hillary Out of the Race
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04262008.html
April 28th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
1323 Finns:
The trouble with that view is that on all the available figures, Obama is more electable than Hillary - or she wouldn’t be in this mess! To somehow argue that Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain when she is unable to beat Obama is going to take one helluva sales job.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Noocat @1319,
I may call you a f*wit. Whether it is true or not, it is still abuse.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
1325
The Finnigans
I read the entire transcript.
It takes longer than 15 seconds and has a lifetime’s worth of observations and dedication to both his country and his race.
But I guess you were going to say that, eh?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
NEWSFLASH!
Liberal Senator does not realise that Australia’s Head of State is the Queen!
“Thank you for your email regarding the republic debate on 20 April.
In response to your question, the Australian head of State has been recognised by successive governments as the Governor-General, an Australian appointed by the government of the day.
Once again, thank you for your correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Cory
CORY BERNARDI
Liberal Senator for South Australia
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services”
Here I was thinking that section 2 of the constitution stated:
“A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure.”
But no, apparently governments appoint the Governor-General directly, and the Queen has absolutely no role in our constitution whatsoever, even though she is mentioned about 39 times.
But I consider this form of argument a foot bullet on the Monarchist’s part. If the Queen isn’t Australia’s Head of State, then it shouldn’t matter if we excise every reference to her from the constitution. Either the Queen’s role is important, and should be retained, or it is completely unimportant and can be done away with without any problems.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
1331
ShowsOn
That’s right up there with “Clinton is winning”!
You’ve come to the right place Showy!
April 28th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
He’s bored!
They say he’s bored!
What about us! We are so freakin’ over the thing it makes me whince to even think of reading one more post about the Travelling HillBillies!
They say he’s bored:
In interviews with several associates and aides, Mr. Obama was described as bored with the campaign against Mrs. Clinton and eager to move into the general election against Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/us/politics/28obama.html?hp
…I wonder why! LOL
April 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Well he better get un-bored mighty fast. He needs to win Indiana and NC and put an end to this. Pleeeeeze!
April 28th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Finns @ 1325,
This guy must have read transcripts about a different Reverend Wright to the one KR blogged about @ 1330.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23606831-26397,00.html
April 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Nu lede: The disappearing act reappears
http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm
More here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksSGdh-Sox4
April 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
1335
Greensborough Growler
That’s it?
He quotes one line from an entire interview and concludes that Wright demolishes Obama’s integrity?
“He (Obama) is a politician. I’m a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician.”
…once again, scrapping the bottom of the sludge for a soundbite to turn into an IED, aren’t we?
And once again, Growler, you take your opinions half-baked from a jock from the OZ?
What’s up Growler, too hard to read through it and actually THINK about it?
Seems you like fast food McIdeas from the righwing MSM.
You’d make a good Republican Growler!
April 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Hillary did NOT make a pre-emptive nuke threat against Iran
Hillary did NOT say Iran had nukes now.
Hillary did not even bring up Iran having nukes.
Hillary was asked IF Iran launched nukes , what would she as POTUS do.
The Obamabots here show such venom for Hillary they will distort anything.
ABC TV News’ Chris Cuomo on 22/4/08 “Good Morning America” asked Clinton about a previous week’s “massive retaliation” phrase - which he described as “scary words” - and asked “Does massive retaliation mean you’d go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest? “what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons ? ie the TV interviewer ” asked Hillary 3 questions concurrently in one
and her reply was
“The question I (Hillary) was asked) was, ‘If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?’ My (Hillary) response was “And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran” to retaliate against an Iranian nuclear hit on Israel.”
She then added: “And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. Because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
Hillary told the truth. Yes you petals the nukes would fly in that circumstance and so they should because Iran’s next nuke salvo might be onto Sydney (even though they’d miss your ivory tower……but only for a nuke mini second
April 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
1334
Ferny Grover
I don’t think he intends to drop the ball Ferny:
For the last year, advisers had been reluctant to highlight him playing basketball, thinking it could raise racial stereotypes or make him look less serious. But in Indiana, where basketball is sacrosanct, Mr. Obama scored four baskets and his team won the 20-minute game, a far better showing than his much-derided bowling outing in Pennsylvania.
(NYT)
April 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
and Pancho , re my earlier post , your interpretation NO , you didn’t ‘get it’
April 28th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Do you think, Ron, we could ask Iran to aim a little to the left with their non existent nukes and hit Canberra instead?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Ron, I saw your leading line, and that’s enough for me:
Pre-emption is when you start shooting your mouth off about destroying a country that not only DOES NOT have a nuke to attack Israel with, but has consistently maintained it does not intend to even make one, let alone use it on a country so close that they’d probably get enough radioactive fallout to deter them from such an insane attack! LOL
(try reading the Shiite edicts on mass murder put out Iranian clerics. They actually have a moral problem with it. Unlike Hillary, who can just decide to kill every man woman and child as her perogative?)
Pre-emption is when you lob ‘annihilate’ a country into the middle of an election campaign, as the most cynical bit of political posturing.
Pre-emption is what the Democrat voters have done to Hillary Clinton’s notion that she’s more entitled to be the nominee.
This has been the most appalling thing she’s said, in my opinion, and she deserves to pilloried over it.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
KR,
Who said it was my opinion. Just another view point on the subject at hand.
At least he is not talking through his pocket. Your dead certainty looking a little wobbly?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
It’s there in black and white Ron. You are defending madness in a weird attempt to spin for Hillary, with some weird parable about how the elites don’t support the troops? Not the issue - never was. Some of the opinion below might interest you. I’m not getting on a merry-go-round about this one though.
“It wasn’t “tough love” — more like Strangelove. The Boston Globe, using unusually strong terms, blasted Hillary Clinton for promising to “obliterate” Iran if it ever attacked Israel.
The editorial concluded: “A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003795050
“Ever since Hillary Clinton channelled her inner Doctor Strangelove on ABC-TV, vowing to “totally obliterate” Iran for some imagined attack on Israel in the future, that word’s hung in the air like a tiny mushroom cloud. Of course, to the corporate media, a casual threat to incinerate millions of innocent people doesn’t have nearly the importance of a lapel-pin–but to anyone who believes the Schoolmarm-from-New-York’s own dictum that “words matter,” the choice of that particular verb is tremendously revealing.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-eskow/the-obliterator-hillary-c_b_98772.html
“Jaded American insiders shrugged off the remark as typical campaign season bluster, filed away with myriad other exaggerations and gaffes.
But it prompted shock overseas as well as headlines from Bulgaria to New Zealand.
The statement triggered alarm bells in the Persian Gulf, which would likely suffer the consequences of any war between Iran and the U.S. In a harshly worded editorial, the Saudi-based daily Arab News trashed Clinton’s comment today as insane:
This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-hillarys-t.html
April 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/27/obama.wright.ap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Caution ron, colourful.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Re pre-emption:
‘Actually, what she said Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America” was that she would “totally obliterate them” even if they merely “consider” launching an attack on Israel.’
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-considerin.html
So yes - that was implied, particularly given recent history. It’s just stupid stuff.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
1335
keep quoting those neocons GG.
David Nason….i thought the Oz flicked him after his verbal diahorhea article about what a fantastic guy Scooter Libby was, and how he should be exonerated of al charges whether he was guilty or not.
All these lovely neocons pummelling Obama and rooting for Hillary….it’s enough to make ya proud.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
The neocons continue to praise Hillary
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28kristol.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
While they attack Obama…
I guess they know who the candidate will be.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Harryd’H
Nothing to contribute, once again.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
1349
keep growling
at least Brother Ron is listening.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
1343
Greensborough Growler
Your ‘leader’ still in the ‘lead’?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
GG
#1350
GG , the Obamabots even when its on uncensored tape still distort the truth
Listen to it yourself & give us your opinion
Her answer was to ONLY one question ‘what would you do if Iran nuked Israel’ including the fact the US would be able to obliterate Iran NOT that the US
would obliterate Iran just because Iran possesed nukes and this was all in one answer to ‘what would do if Iran nuked’
Pancho 1346
was that she would “totally obliterate them” even if they merely “consider” launching an attack on Israel.’
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-considerin.html
April 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The Saudi based Arab News?
Your allies say this about your President and you don’t nuke ‘em?
“It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations”
…hmm, ‘distinguished’ is being used in the pejorative I guess?
“Doltish ignorance”? Hillary’s using the same brand of Neocon Fear Mongering, just add incendiary rhetoric, false ‘intelligence’ and the world’s biggest military, and you too can get bogged down in a country that just might not want your peculiar brand of ‘liberation’.
She’s shameless.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
KR,
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Apr27.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr27.html
I know, neocon numbers!
April 28th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
1347
HarryH
Oh, another signed up Neocon camp follower eh?
And Growler quotes him to prove what exactly?
Methinks Growler is having a wee identity crisis?
When are you coming out as a card carrying uber-rightwing Neocon Growler?
When you’re the last person to know, eh? Funny or what?
Well spotted HH, and don’t mind GG’s feigned derision, it’s his mask, he’s just trying to be butch before he has to come out as just another armchair warrior.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
KR - salah, salah, salah. As usual, barking up the WRONG tree. I asked: [Has anyone seen the Rev wright’s latest public appearance?] who said anything about an interview. The PBS interview was more like a love-in. More later ………
April 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
KR,
ROTFL
Cheers.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Finns see 1345
April 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Meanwhile Jimmy Carter continues to be the conscience of his nation’s foreign policy:
“Through more official consultations with these outlawed leaders, it may yet be possible to revive and expedite the stalemated peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. In the Middle East, as in Nepal, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.”
I guess that’s why he’s backing Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28carter.html?hp
April 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Finns, I think Codger gazumped you @ 1345.
Have you given any more thought to the foreign policy differences between Clinton and McCain?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
1354
Greensborough Growler
In case you failed to read or comprehend it, I’ll put up the core of the argument about ‘those maps’:
What’s this tell us?
It tells us that Obama’s base is stronger: “strong” and “weak” Dem add up to 172 for Clinton, and 211 for Obama. We have to play less defense.
With Obama, McCain’s base is weaker: 226 EVs versus Clinton, and 178 versus Obama.
These two data points alone are worth the price of admission for Obama. With him as our nominee, Democrats have a larger safe base, and Republicans have a smaller one. But what about the contested states?
More Democratic states are at risk with Clinton. In the “barely Dem” category, Clinton has double the EVs — 117 to 58. What’s more, the “tied” state — Wisconsin, is a Blue state. So with Clinton, we have 127 EVs that are in weak hands.
With Obama, however, we have only 58 “barely Dem” EVs, and the tied states, North Carolina, is a Red state.
Obama puts more pressure on McCain states: With Obama, McCain has 76 “barely GOP” EVs compared to 13 against Clinton. Put another way, best case scenario where our candidates take all the states in their column and “barely GOP” columns, Obama ends up with 360 EVs, while Clinton would get 312. Obama has far higher ceiling.
Obama Holds the Kerry states better: This is related to the “base states” stuff above. The only Kerry state Obama currently loses is New Hampshire. On the other hand, Clinton loses Michigan, New Hampshire, and ties in Wisconsin. Furthermore, Obama has three Kerry states in the “barely” category — Michigan, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Clinton has six — Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Hawaii. That means that Clinton is losing or barely holding on to 9 Kerry states (out of 19), compared to four for Obama.
Democratic numbers versus McCain are currently artificially depressed because of our long-running primary. But despite that disadvantage, Obama still runs a far broader, map-changing campaign than Clinton.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/24/113851/565/912/502497
…I think you should really try and read the whole thing, I know it’s hard for you to actually grasp the argument, but it outlines a fundamental shift in the game. Obama is a bigger threat to McCain’s base and is closer to running the Republicans out of town.
Now, tell us you don’t want that so we know which side you’re really batting for!
April 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
FG,
Unless you have something more up to date, then your 1359 is factually wrong.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=52544§ionid=3510203
April 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
GG - reading between the lines, that is one vote you can count in Obama’s column. Carter has made the same point several times over the past months.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Oh well Ferny, only all of Carter’s family, and as Carter himself says:
“World opinion is strongly supportive of Obama, that’s all we hear,” he reiterated.
But what is the world press saying about Clinton’s good impersonation of ‘doltish ignorance’?
Cheers and applause, I guess! LOL
April 28th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
1362
I’m feeling safe GG.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
To quote the man himself:
“Speaking to local reporters Wednesday on a trip to Nigeria, the former Democratic president noted that Barack Obama had won his home state of Georgia and his hometown of Plains.
“My children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama,” he said at a news conference, according to the Nigerian newspaper This Day. “As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for, but I leave you to make that guess.”
April 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
KR,
I already conceded they had to be neocon numbers. This was a given, because your champion is behind.
But wait, once you infuse the results with your perjorative assumptions and overlay the results with a smear of Clinton, you can then write off the inconvenient facts and fill the gap with fluffy half truths. And, voila the wishful thinkists’ Obama result emerges.
Obama is in front because he is behind! So obvious!
The Pro-Obama cacophony of chattering cretins will no doubt applaud another perversion of the facts.
George Orwell had you in mind when he cast Big Brother in 1984!
April 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
#1360 - in the immortal words of the great one: “the first one now will later be last”
April 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Now we’re ‘chattering cretins’. You’re such a joy to be around GG.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Finns, I’m just talkin’ World War III blues.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
1367
Greensborough Growler
Your own logic is that Hillary is in front of the nomination race because she is behind!
But no matter.
Let’s unpack it for you, as you seem incapable of it yourself:
This NOT about who has actually won the most delegates so far. That ain’t in contention, at least not for the rest of us.
This is about a series of state polls, yes polls, with all their caveats and differences in methodology, but let that pass.
The results, taken as simple figures for total delegates show a marginally bigger lead for Hillary against McCain.
Now, let’s remember, this is even before anyone is the actual nominee for the Democrats, so let’s not get too carried away with champagne just yet.
But, if you unpack the states, look at the individual races, what you see is that CLinton is running the old Democrat race, and winning the usual Democrat states. Obama is running a much wider race, and threatens McCain far more closely in far more states than Hillary.
I know it’s a bit more complex than the big hand is on 12 and the little hand is on 3 Growler, but if you can’t actually get your mind around these facts, what in god’s name are you doing on a psephological website pontificating with neocon talking points?
Making silly attempts at jokes by invoking George Orwell is not answering the argument, but it’s all you ever seem to do.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
At a sermon at Friendship-West Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas:
[Wright listed accomplishments that a black man can achieve if he stands up for himself, all of which Obama achieved, such as being the first African-American to edit the Harvard Law Review and winning the Iowa Democratic caucus. “You can be … the first black man to have a black woman sleeping at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue legally,” Wright said. “You can change the system.”]
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/607379.html
But it is not WHAT he said. it is the WAY or HOW he said it. He was basically mocking the non-black Americans. He was basically saying that “we now have a black guy who can be in the Whitehouse, so up yours, nah nah nah nah nah”. It has to be seen to believe, his body language, swagger, gesture, facial expression and the way he stirred up the black audience.
This guy will sink Obama candidacy and presidency.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Ignorant loathing lefties….Obamabots….dreamin’ dolts….kumayah singers, unpatriotic peaceniks who put our families at risk, Bush/Howard lovers, chattering cretins…
How can we bear the odium?
April 28th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Don’t believe the hype, Finns.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Finns @1372 - that’s a hilarious line!
And you should probably leave the ‘poor marginalised whites’ lines to Thatcherites and the likes of Hanson. I’m pretty sure that that helpless group can cope with what you see as ‘basically mocking’. Incidently this basically mocking is probably similar to a lot of what Wright delivered at the NAACP dinner, which the major networks seem to have reported pretty positively.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
#1374 - the hype? what hype. thinking of writing a song called “Takin’ ’bout Obama blues”. With a spiritual advisor like that who needs enemy.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
1375
Pancho
I note that Chris Wallace on Fox can ask Obama about the ‘lunch bucket crowd’ and no one raises and eyebrow or asks how can he generalise like that, or make such an elitist remark.
But if a black man says it! Look out brother!
It’s all two-faced rubbish, but about what we’ve come to expect as the standard of ‘debate’.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
That’s not what he said; nor is it what he meant Finns. Thanks to the broader exposure of his NAACP speech, his interview by Moyers and sermons like this, Americans are beginning to see the man beyond the soundbyte. We’re seriosly interpreting his ’swagger’ now? Ever been to a black church Finns? I have. The culture, language, posture, cadence, delivery is all different to the quiet little Aussie Catholic/Anglican/Baptist/Presyterian/whatever church we all have some familiarity with.
But I’m a little confused - if it wasn’t filmed, then how were you able to parse his body language?
April 28th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Sarcastic Humour Finns, 90% of the posts in the US threads are based on it.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Compare with our Deal Leader, Obama is an L-plate. What a master politician our DL is. I cannot remember a substantial new tax rise that would generate billions to the Govt that has been greeed with joy, support, relief and back slapping. This is the tax on the mixed alcoholic drinks.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
1372
The Finnigans
Fairly good article actually Finns, and it concludes:
Haynes praised the hourlong interview Bill Moyers conducted with Wright that was broadcast on PBS on Friday, describing it as the first balanced portrait of the man since the scandal broke last month.
“It’s something that needs to be part of every classroom in the nation,” Haynes said. He said Wright “basically presented not only himself but the prophetic tradition of the black church in this nation. He represented the best of America.”
…I must say I enjoyed reading that interview too.
And as for Wright’s joke about a black woman in the Whitehouse, well maybe we could ask Hillary how many she knows that slept there?
April 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Finns
Different is not deficient.
Just because people are different does not make them deficient.
The blacks are not gonna take over if Obama wins the Presidency.
But hopefully it can bring people together with better understanding .
April 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Can you really be sure Harry? I mean, I realise that Obama pledged not to ‘enslave the white race’ in this interview with Jon Stewart (http://youtube.com/watch?v=b1i1RBfZKx4&feature=related), but check out his ‘his body language, swagger, gesture, facial expression’.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Pancho
#1383
“Can you really be sure Harry?”
You sure cann’t. You use the Obama line. when you here words from Hillary ,
just ‘mange’ them and change them to suit your own ends
April 28th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Mange them with troops or a chopper?
April 28th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Well the flock
Do you support the decision by POTUS Truman to nuke Japan in 1945 ?
lets see your Obama convictions with your answer
April 28th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I think you all deserve a new thread. I’m paying attention now (hopefully), so please behave everybody …