Put a fork in Hillary...

[Tuckerman]

Wow she crushed it out of the park in W. Virginia.
67%

[BmillsSkier]

Is it really wise for the Democrats to have Barack as the nominee this fall? I realize he has the delegate lead, and has effectively locked up the nomination mathematically.

However is it wise to put up a candidate that leans farther left than Hillary when the goal of the general election is to gain those independants and middle of the road voters?

In addition, is it wise to put up a candidate that lost the majority of the biggest electorate states to the more moderate/less liberal candidate?

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Texas

California

New Jersey

New York

Florida

Tennissee

Michigan (yes Obama wasn't on the ballot)

Massachusetts

Arizona....

Has this ever happened before? (I'm thinking Kennedy maybe.) When the nominee did not win any of the big states in the primary?

Is this really smart on the Democrat's part?

[Mathematics]

Wow she crushed it out of the park in W. Virginia.
67%

Ya, nice to see she finally one atleast one state by a nice sized margin. Especially in comparison to states Obama's won by a similar or higher margin: Obama got 67%+ in Colorado, Georgia, Washington, Alaska (woot), Hawaii, Idaho, Virgin Islands, Washington DC, Kansas & Nebraska.

Of course by the math she's been going by caucus states dont count, states with a large black demographic dont count, states with a low amount of delegates dont count (well except WV, since she just won it), etc...

The real question is if she'll drop out now on a high note (doesnt sound like it) or keep up her "vote white" mantra and keep damaging Obama in Nov.

[AKPogue]

Is it really wise for the Democrats to have Barack as the nominee this fall? I realize he has the delegate lead, and has effectively locked up the nomination mathematically.

However is it wise to put up a candidate that leans farther left than Hillary when the goal of the general election is to gain those independants and middle of the road voters?

In addition, is it wise to put up a candidate that lost the majority of the biggest electorate states to the more moderate/less liberal candidate?

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Texas

California

New Jersey

New York

Florida

Tennissee

Michigan (yes Obama wasn't on the ballot)

Massachusetts

Arizona....

Has this ever happened before? (I'm thinking Kennedy maybe.) When the nominee did not win any of the big states in the primary?

Is this really smart on the Democrat's part?

What do you mean according to a lot of people on this board Obama has this election in the bag? Why should those states count?

[CUBUCK]

Ya, nice to see she finally one atleast one state by a nice sized margin. Especially in comparison to states Obama's won by a similar or higher margin: Obama got 67%+ in Colorado, Georgia, Washington, Alaska (woot), Hawaii, Idaho, Virgin Islands, Washington DC, Kansas & Nebraska.

Of course by the math she's been going by caucus states dont count, states with a large black demographic dont count, states with a low amount of delegates dont count (well except WV, since she just won it), etc...

The real question is if she'll drop out now on a high note (doesnt sound like it) or keep up her "vote white" mantra and keep damaging Obama in Nov.

How many of those states listed are likely to vote Blue in November? DC and Washington? I think she has an argument worth listening to.

Looks like Bmills touched on it above. If the Dems split delegates the way the Republicans do this would have been over a long time ago.

[Mathematics]

Is it really wise for the Democrats to have Barack as the nominee this fall? I realize he has the delegate lead, and has effectively locked up the nomination mathematically.

However is it wise to put up a candidate that leans farther left than Hillary when the goal of the general election is to gain those independants and middle of the road voters?

In addition, is it wise to put up a candidate that lost the majority of the biggest electorate states to the more moderate/less liberal candidate?

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Texas

California

New Jersey

New York

Florida

Tennissee

Michigan (yes Obama wasn't on the ballot)

Massachusetts

Arizona....

Has this ever happened before? (I'm thinking Kennedy maybe.) When the nominee did not win any of the big states in the primary?

Is this really smart on the Democrat's part?

Obama's won big states too (NC, Texas, Illinois, Georgia, WA, etc). He's also won alot more states. and the states where Hilarys won...most she won by small margins (< 5&#37. If you take that into account along with voter remorse for Hilary (Obama nationally polls 10-20 points ahead of her depending on which poll you go by) Obama will have no problems come Nov.

There was an interesting piece on MSNBC last night by Chuck Todd where he discussed the states Obama puts into play come Nov....Hilary's plan was basically just to focus on large swing states (OH & FL), where Obama has enough support he puts 10-12 normally republican states into play...he pretty much changes the democratic playbook for the general election. It's a bit of a risk, but both Kerry & Gore lost on the swing state plan anyways. And with public opinion so much against the republicans right now, Obama has a good chance of trouncing McCain even in republican stronghold states.

A quick look at the shift in political mindset:

A look at the presidential vote by region suggests a shift in political inclination is at work. Not surprisingly, Obama holds his largest lead over McCain (18 points) in the Northeast -- an area that has become increasingly dominated by Democrats in recent elections.

But, Obama also holds a lead in the traditional battleground area of the Midwest -- where Obama takes 54 percent to McCain's 41 percent -- and in the Republican-leaning territory of the West where Obama holds a double-digit lead at the moment. And, even in the South, where Republicans have dominated at the federal level for much of the past four decades, Obama is competitive; McCain takes 49 percent to 45 percent for the Illinois senator.

While McCain trails by double digits in three of the four regions of the country, he actually far over performs his own party's showing in the Post poll.

Asked which party they trusted to "do a better job of coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years," voters across the country opted for Democrats by wide margins.

In the Northeast, Democrats outpaced Republicans by 29 points while the margin was 26 points in the Midwest. The news wasn't much better for Republicans in the West (Democrats +18) or the South (Democrats +15).

[Crud's Uncle]

Didn't know you had money to loan.

Implicit in your question about voting is the assumption that Gore and/or Kerry would have been better. Having freaky hair does not make you a clairvoyant.

Apparently I gave you too much credit. Did you vote for Bush twice, or were you too young to vote?

[uglymoney]

A quick look at the shift in political mindset:

Thanks for the link. I wish he had broken things down by state a little more. Thats what I am hungry for at the moment anyway. I'm sure the analysis is out there.

I agree with the article that it is going to be a close race. McCain is a good candidate. He has the ability to take up some positions that seem to be traditionally democratic which in this election could be very helpful. The dems are going to keep trying to link him to the hard right. It will be interesting to see how he plays his hand as the campaign approaches.

Will he try to nail down the moderate vote at the risk of alienating the far right or will he keep scratching the right wingers backs at risk of alienating moderates.

Can he keep both sides happy and does he even need the hard right to have a chance at winning? The last few years when he has been backed up against the wall he has thrown his lot in with the neocons and the religious right. That is where he lost me anyway. Obama will be more than happy to remind voters of that.

[Grange]

Obama's won big states too (NC, Texas, Illinois, Georgia, WA, etc).

Get your facts straight or least don't skew them toward Obama like you work for MSNBC. Claiming he won Texas is a lie. Kind of like claiming victory in Pennsylvania when he lost by almost 10 points. He lost Texas in both the primary and popular vote. The only reason he won more delegates was because of the caucuses and there won't be a caucus in the general election.

[spindrift]

...where Obama has enough support he puts 10-12 normally republican states into play...

Been abducted by any aliens lately?

[DaveTV]

I hate to say it, but it appears that lower income working-class whites won't vote for an Afro-American - few on an exit poll will admit that was a factor in their vote, but the demographics don't lie - I wish I was was wrong..
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...e_voters/3584/

[Crud's Uncle]

I think they won't vote for a far-left, potential Muslim, anti-White black( or white) for that matter.

If a moderate Black ran for office, like Colin Powell, it wouldn't be an issue.

I hate to say it, but it appears that lower income working-class whites won't vote for an Afro-American - few on an exit poll will admit that was a factor in their vote, but the demographics don't lie - I wish I was was wrong..
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...e_voters/3584/

[Buster Highmen]

I hate to say it, but it appears that lower income working-class whites won't vote for an Afro-American - few on an exit poll will admit that was a factor in their vote, but the demographics don't lie - I wish I was was wrong..
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...e_voters/3584/

Yep. Obama is far away from having this wrapped up.

It remains to be seen if Americans can vote on the issues or either forget the rivers of shit that comprise the current GOP platform or forgo fundamental ethnic issues.

[Mathematics]

Get your facts straight or least don't skew them toward Obama like you work for MSNBC. Claiming he won Texas is a lie. Kind of like claiming victory in Pennsylvania when he lost by almost 10 points. He lost Texas in both the primary and popular vote. The only reason he won more delegates was because of the caucuses and there won't be a caucus in the general election.

I'm sorry, whats the difference between the primary & popular vote?

And what's the official metric, the one that counts, for who gets the nomination? Delegates. Obama won more delegates. Playing by the rules, Obama won TX.

[DaveTV]

I think they won't vote for a far-left, potential Muslim, anti-White black( or white) for that matter.

If a moderate Black ran for office, like Colin Powell, it wouldn't be an issue.

Potential Muslim? Anti-white? Right...

[stupendous man]

I think this is just gonna make obama-hillary more likely. though I don't know that hill will go for it at this point.

[Crud's Uncle]

Just because you are a Koolaid drinker, doesn't mean that most of the country does not see through the man.

Potential Muslim? Anti-white? Right...

[Grange]

I'm sorry, whats the difference between the primary & popular vote?

And what's the official metric, the one that counts, for who gets the nomination? Delegates. Obama won more delegates. Playing by the rules, Obama won TX.

Yes delegates is the official metric, but you are using MSNBC logic. Your next sentance states:

He's also won alot more states. and the states where Hilarys won...most she won by small margins (< 5%).

The percentages are measuring popular vote not delegate count. You are talking about popular vote percentages not delegates to cut down Hillary. If you want to compare delegates won, in which case Obama won Texas, then talk about delegates not popular vote. But when you are talking about popular vote and claim he won, which he didn't, you are either lying or don't know the difference.

[Keith Olbermannn]

Yes delegates is the official metric, but you are using MSNBC logic.

I resent you resenting my logic. MSNBC is the most logical network period. Now if you mind, kindly shut the fuck up.






TUNE IN TONIGHT TO SEE ME MAKE FUN OF BILL O'REILLY!!! FRESH HARD HITTING UNBIASED NEWS!!!

[DaveTV]

Just because you are a Koolaid drinker, doesn't mean that most of the country does not see through the man.

And you speak for the most of the country, Einstein? I think your avatar tells us where you are at. Speaking of KOOL_AID, keep guzzling The El Rushbo Hannity Kool-Aid and don't try to form your own opinions of things..

[Rasputin]

Didn't know you had money to loan.

Implicit in your question about voting is the assumption that Gore and/or Kerry would have been better. Having freaky hair does not make you a clairvoyant.

Money to loan? What are you talking about?

As for assumptions, Helen Keller could have foreseen that anyone would be a better President than Bush, unfortunately we live in a nation where many believe that everyone taking their piddling little piece and stuffing it in their mattress is the best type of society, but really, that only benefits the ones who have the wealth in the first place, like the Bush family. Anyone who wasn't a member of the power elite and voted for Bush got played for the suckers they are, and now many of the stupider ones are still insisting that they made the best choice available.

It didn't take a clairvoyant to see it coming, just average intelligence, which was too lofty a place for most of those who voted for Bush.

BTW, I was clairvoyant before my hair was long and freaky.

[Rubicon]

It didn't take a clairvoyant to see it coming, just average intelligence, which was too lofty a place for most of those who voted for Bush.

"One will often judge a past decision by its ultimate outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made, given what was known at that time. This is an error because no decision maker ever knows whether or not a calculated risk will turn out for the best. The actual outcome of the decision will often be determined by chance, with some risks working out and others not. Individuals whose judgments are influenced by outcome bias are seemingly holding decision makers responsible for events beyond their control."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias

[Crud's Uncle]

I don't listen to either Hannity or Rush. I think both of them are bought and paid for by the Republicans.

And you speak for the most of the country, Einstein? I think your avatar tells us where you are at. Speaking of KOOL_AID, keep guzzling The El Rushbo Hannity Kool-Aid and don't try to form your own opinions of things..

[Crud's Uncle]

You said you gave me too much credit. Just a little joke.

You can't know if Gore or Kerry would have been better. I think they would have been worse. No one can say for sure.
]
Gore and Kerry belong to the power elite just like Bush.

Money to loan? What are you talking about?

As for assumptions, Helen Keller could have foreseen that anyone would be a better President than Bush, unfortunately we live in a nation where many believe that everyone taking their piddling little piece and stuffing it in their mattress is the best type of society, but really, that only benefits the ones who have the wealth in the first place, like the Bush family. Anyone who wasn't a member of the power elite and voted for Bush got played for the suckers they are, and now many of the stupider ones are still insisting that they made the best choice available.

It didn't take a clairvoyant to see it coming, just average intelligence, which was too lofty a place for most of those who voted for Bush.

BTW, I was clairvoyant before my hair was long and freaky.

[timvwcom]

Gore and Kerry belong to the power elite just like Bush.

What do you mean? GWB is the son of a President of the US... Al Gore is only the son of a Congressman and Senator, and Kerry is a relative of the wealthy Forbes family... They are just "regular" folk like the rest of us.