I wonder if anyone is as exhausted as CBS must be this morning after having called Indiana so early, and then having to wait — alone— as Hillary's lead shrunk. They must have been sweating it to say the least. But when the counting was done, Hillary indeed took Indiana by a thin, two-point margin. Obama won North Carolina, 56 percent to Hillary's 42.
Here's what I'm wondering about this morning. Though the New York Times is calling Obama's win in North Carolina "decisive," it's far from big enough to call off the race altogether (Hillary is moving on to West Virginia this morning) and yes, winning by 14 points is sizeable, though it's hardly overwhelming? Earning 42 percent of the vote doesn't make you a Ron-Paul-five-percenter if you know what I mean. Oh, I'm just warming up, read more.
And I can't help but drudge up the specter of the general election. (Oh yeah! That! I'd almost forgotten that's what we're working toward.) Obama called his win in North Carolina a win in a "big state." Yup, that's true — a big red state. Now math isn't my friend, and I know that Hillary faces some, um, numerical opposition, but so does Obama! The Times is calculating that Obama picked up 64 delegates yesterday to Hillary's 60. That's not so many. There were more delegates at stake in Guam on Saturday! (OK, the same amount, but the point is, small.) The totals now: Obama, 1799; Hillary, 1662. Total difference=137. In that margin, therein lies the will of the people?
And there are a million exit poll demographic numbers, but what about this: In Indiana, Hillary bested Obama among both rural voters (68 percent to 32 percent) and suburban voters (53 percent to 47 percent). There are a lot of those folks voting come November.
Yes, the big story this morning is Hillary's announcement that she's lent herself $6.4 million over the past month, making her the biggest wallet reacher since Mitt Romney, but how much of that money was needed just to combat the media drumbeat of her imminent doom? Is the 137 delegate margin more significant than I think? Was any of Hillary's success last night thanks to Republicans calling for spoiler votes? Should we all resign ourselves to ride it out? Isn't that what the Democratic Party's plan (with its proportional wins and superdelegates) all about? Isn't it just working exactly as they've planned (ahem, straight to a superdelegate brokered convention?) (OK, OK, sorry! But . . . um?) Let me know what you think.
Miss Selfridge
Now it's my turn to upset Obama people. I'm an equal opportunity pain in the butt. The states that Obama won are all republican strongholds so why would anyone think he's going to beat McCain? Obama isn't going to take Utah or Mississippi or Oklahoma in the generals so why does anyone think he can win?
1I was kind of wondering the same thing!
2He's going to beat McCain because McCain's old and Obama's fabulous, even some republicans are going to vote for him just because of what he stands for and the fact that the bush adminstration has screwed things up so much they don't want the same thing to happen again, which it could if mccain gets in.
3I think when you consider that North Carolina had a total of 134 delegates, and Obama now has a 137 lead it kind of put things in perspective. When they win by close margins, they have to split the delegates. When they get blow out wins is when they actually make ground against their opponent. Obama has won over 10 contests by 60% or more. Hillary has won 1 contest by 60% or more (she didn't even get 60 in New York!) . 137 is a big number, because she would have to do better than she has been doing in EVERY state between now and the end to make up that 137. Hilary would need to win by 65% in every state to have even a chance. When 60% is an out of reach number, 65% certainly is.
This also shows that even though Wright has been on tv 24/7, it isn't the achiles heel that everyone thought. Obama is still winning. Places that Hillary should win easily, she is barely inching by.
And I don't really care about the demographic of who went with what candidate. This is a primary, and just because there are tendencies for rual voters to side with Clinton, that means she is the preference between 2 democrats. It does not mean that they would never vote for Obama. At the end of the day, a vote is a vote. The decision in Indiana was made by a difference 20,000 people. I just can't buy the idea that she would be a much stronger candidate when the difference is 2% of the over 1 million votes cast.
4States in play Obama can win:
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Colorado
Virginia
People have selective memory about states! It is pretty hysterical.
5I understand your point Jilli, but here's my question. Do you think that the rural voters in these states are more likely to vote for Obama or McCain in the generals? I ask because I think that some "swing democrats" who live in those rural areas might not vote for Obama if he's the nominee.
6"because McCain's old and Obama's fabulous"
Vote for Obama, Student Council 2008!
best. argument. ever.
7Raci, I also think it is safe to say that if we only rely on "typical" democratic states, then we end up with the same map as the last 2 elections. Dean has been stressing a "50 State Plan" because democrats need more than just the usual. Time to think out side of the box. I know states like Iowa, for example, have voted red in the past 2 elections, but that hasn't always been the case.
8Colorado, Virginia and Iowa? Why are those in play? When was the last time they went blue in a general. I realize VA voted a Dem Senator in 2006, but that was only after "makaka" and even then it was razor thin.
9Let's look at this the other way Racci, do you honestly believe that the dems won't vote for Obama in the big states of NY, Penn, or CA? I think Obama will get many "swing republicans" who are tired of their party behaving like democrats once in office....
10I think that McCain will get some support in rural areas, but Iowa and Wisconsin and Colorado are pretty rural as well and they went overwhelmingly for Obama.
I think the idea that Obama has this issue with rural voters has been exaggerated by Clinton and recent tactics, but ultimately, the patterns of the country have shown big migration to cities. Not to mention Obama won every demo in North Carolina under 60.
I think you could also say that Clinton can not win with out the under 30 vote and African American vote, and her dirty playing has made some of them not want to vote for her.
11thanks syako, i thought it was pretty great too!
12I totally agree with undave, it's time for a change, and i just don't think we'll know for sure who's going to win until november comes. there's so much speculation going on but who's really going to know?
13"Why are those in play?"
Because the country is in the poohole and democratic registration has bloomed and Obama won by vast majorities in these states. There is significant data that shows they are up for grabs if Obama is the nominee.
Also keep in mind some men wouldn't vote for a woman, just as easily as some whites wouldn't vote for a black man. Obama has been pretty strong with the men in states like Colorado and Wisconsin.
14McCain's old and Obama's fabulous? Never looked at it that way before. Ok, Obama's got my vote. I love young fabulous people. Obama 2008!
15UnDave. Good point. You have much to teach me in the ways of the republican mind.
16could you imagine the dems trying that logic in 04?
bush is evil, kerry is fab...
is young... 
is ____ 
ah, screw it.
17I totally get what you're saying, Sy...
$$
18Jilli, that's also a good point. I will try and use the word "poohole" in as many conversations as I can today as it makes me giggle.
19Hillary need to Consed. She is splitting the votes. It's is time to give it up and support Obama. We need to get the republicans out of office and this is now way to do it.
20Syako i think that republicans did use that logic to get bush into office in 04, how else do you think he won? they made anybody who weren't with them into people who didn't support the troops, and the election before that they made liberals into people with no morals. so maybe young & fabulous will totally work! seeing that the majority of the country voted for bush twice, i don't think americans are that smart anyways.
21wait, liberals have morals?
22fashionstar, that wasn't the only reason. I looked hard at Kerry, but he didn't offer anything different than Bush in my opinion. His stance on the war was exactly the same. He never proposed any domestic legislation that offered any dramatic difference. So the question was why should anyone vote for Kerry?
23I saw some interesting exit polls yesterday that stated if Clinton were the nominee, a greater number of Obama voters would vote for her as opposed to the number of Clinton voters that would vote for Obama is he were to become the nominee. (Does that makes sense?) It was interesting to me because the two are so similar on policy matters. Obama is slightly more liberal, but not by much. I don't know what it means or why, but I think it's interesting to examine.
Also, on a side note, I saw a women who said she was torn because on the one hand she wanted to vote for a woman and on the other hand she wanted to vote for an African American. I can't believe there are actually people who vote based on physical characteristics! I had to sign on to Citizen this morning to remind myself that a lot of people vote for someone for actual policy reasons!
24I sort of agree with you, Still. Kerry in some ways was even more hawkish on Iraq. He kept saying he'd fight the war differently when what I wanted to hear was stop fighting it altogether. That whole homosexual baiting thing Rove did was really awful.
25Actually kerry wasn't my first pick either stiletta, i voted for him because he was the lesser of 2 evils. I preferred howard dean, but they made him out to be loony even though he had really great ideas. But I'm supporting Obama because he inspires me and he's a leader.
26They made Howard Dean out to be a lunatic because he is a lunatic!
WOOOOO-HAAAAA!!!
27lilkimbo- I'm sad to say I have a friend who is a hardcore Hilary fan only because she's a woman. I can't understand that mentality either. I'm pretty sure she knows very little of her actual political views.
On the other hand, I have a friend who told me if Obama doesn't win she hates Hilary so much she'll vote for McCain. Those are the people I'm most afraid of. However, I have confidence that this type of thinking will change once McCain starts getting more coverage.
28Lil kim you havent been around in a while! Welcome back!
People want to make it out like Republicans are leaving the party in droves and thats just not true... some polls to consider:
CBS News reports that in a general election fight, McCain gets 18% of Democrats against Obama and 12% against Clinton. By contrast, Obama and Clinton take 11% and 10% of Republicans respectively.
In the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, we find that McCain gets 22% of Democrats against Obama and 15% against Clinton. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton take 13% and 6% of Republicans respectively.
29I was totally against this war from the get-go, that's why i just can't support hilary, she voted for the war, knowing darn well that it wasn't right only because it was politically safe for her to do so then. Now she's condemning the war, which she voted to get us into. what a hypocrite!
30Thanks cabaker! I've been super busy at work.
And thanks for the stats, also. I knew McCain polls well among middle-of-the-road Democrats, but it's good to have some numbers.
Oh, and congrats on being commenter of the month!
31(Sorry, I'm a little behind.)
What bothers me is that it's a mathematic impossibility for Clinton to win the nomination at this point, but she's still sitting around acting like it's possible...and the media is not helping.
I'm not complaining too loudly, because I appreciate the free media attention for the Democrats, but it's frustrating to see only a few in the media pointing this fact out while so many others celebrate Clinton's minor victories along the way.
32Lilkimbo i don't get it either, their policies are so similar that I don't know why democrats who're for hilary would hate him so much that they wouldn't vote for him if he won the nomination. I can get if they prefer her, but i don't see why they despise him so much. if it came down to her winning the ticket, i'd vote for her rather than mccain, i don't like her but she'd be a good president.
33I think Hil's "victory" speech last night, was more of a farewell speech, i think she knows it's over for her.
34Yeah. I agree, Fstar. She did sound very concession-y.
35I find it bizarre, Fashionstar. I'm a Republican and McCain wasn't my first choice, but I will definitely be voting for him and probably campaigning for him, too. That's how many, many Republicans I know feel. And Obama and Clinton are a lot more similar policy-wise than say, Romney and McCain.
36Well, it's not a mathematic impossibility for Hillary to win the nomination. The superdelegates can exercise a lot of discretion. And people in this thread have already pointed out valid reasons for them to go with Hillary. The biggest reason being that she has been much stronger in swing states than he has. It's possible that Republicans will leave the party in droves and former red states will all turn blue, giving Obama the win. But, Democrats were saying that the last time around and it didn't happen then, so there are certainly no guarantees there. And, it seems important to point out that the popular vote may seem convincing, but it didn't mean a lot last election cycle...
I can kind of understand the argument that it would be better for the Democratic party to put the primaries behind us. But, Obama's lead is very slight - 137 delegates might sound like a big difference but look at it this way, Obama has 52% of the delegates and Clinton has 48%. Not that big a difference.
Interesting editorial in the NYT today talking about what Clinton and Obama should be doing at this point to close the deal.
37so hmm, can the democrats really be united before november...the Denver conventions is going to be really fun to watch.... go McCain
38so hmm, can the democrats really be united before november...the Denver conventions is going to be really fun to watch.... go McCain
39
on the double post
40I think the polls of the people saying they wont vote for the other candidate has a lot to do with sour grapes. Obama has been the mathmatical frontrunner from the beginning, and I think telling a pollster that you won't vote for the other candidate is a way of pouting. I do think that those numbers will change greatly by the time the election rolls around.
If Hillary was more electable, more people would be voting for her. Obama has won the delegates, the popular vote, and the number of states. He has consistently remained ahead in national polls.
Also, the polls Cabaker listed are saying that 6% more Democrats would vote for McCain if Obama were the nominee, but Obama would get 3% more Republicans to vote for him. That leaves you with 3% difference! And that is during this very divisive time.
I think Hillary's campaign has been far more angry, and that is reflected in her supporters. She has really spread a lot of lies about Obama, and I think many of them will be cleared up by November. (Like that whole "he's with big oil" lie, where she said he voted for a decrease in oil company taxes, when really he voted for an increase in taxes for oil companies.)
41The thing is Hillary is going to be more electable against McCain. There are more Hillary voters that say they wouldn't vote for Obama than Obama voters that wouldn't vote for Hillary. She has won all the big Democratic primaries. If the Democrats ran things like the Republicans and did a winner takes it all mentality with the primaries Hillary would already be the nominee. Obama may have been the obvious choice for a while, but the country is really in a dead heat right now. Not to mention that polls say that Hillary is more likely to beat McCain. I'm confused. Do we want to beat McCain? OR do we just want what's fair and expected?
42I don't think we have time to really get into all her lies. That's why I don't understand how anyone could vote for her. I thought the FIRST thing you had to have was integrity, and she doesn't have any.
43congrats to Mr. Senator in no other country on earth would this be possible...now lets back back to providing solutions to the issues
44Hillary is a fighter but for the good of the party she needs to let it go, she can run again in 2012
45If Hillary were "more electable," she would have won the primary season. She hasn't, as Jillness said.
46and technically neither has Obama isn't the magical number 2025... anyway i shed atear for billary last night as the Indiana results were final announced at 1 am est.
47It's one more month. Seriously what difference is one more month going to make?
48thats right harmony! keep up the fight!!
49Exactly, Zahara Pitt. Neither of them have won the nomination. Obama is slightly ahead of Clinton. But, neither of them have won it. I don't begrudge either of them their decision to continue the campaign.
Calling someone "more electable" is taking more into consideration than just who can win their own party. You have to be able to win swing states to win the country, and that is Hillary's biggest strength.
So far, the people haven't been able to pick a clearcut winner, so it's up to the superdelegates now.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.