Redstate

You are actually in agreement with Kos, who said "The question is whether this [the votes from Lake County] was legit. The way the vote is being released makes this stink to high hell."

Or that water was wet. Or, apparently, that Lake County's actions are looking suspect.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

isn't Lake County where much of the dead vote is counted??

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

1. Do you assume black people are just as intelligent as white people?
If no, then you are a racist.
If yes, then continue.
2. Knowing intelligence is equal, then do you agree that blacks voted 90% for Obama because they believe he's the best candidate regardless of race?
If no, then you are a racist.
If yes, then continue.
3. Knowing that intelligence is equal and blacks voted for Obama because they feel he's the best candidate, then do you agree whites should have voted for him in equal numbers?
If not, then you are a racist.
If yes, then most of the whites who voted for Hillary are racists.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

And Rightly So!

Is horse-puckey. All of the commentators somehow think that half the Democratic Party is Black ... like the 49% of Indiana Democrats who voted for Obama.

The Census would indicate 412,427 Black people of voting age live in Indiana; if they all voted, and voted for Obama, it still doesn't account for the 615,370 Democratic votes he received.

Unfortunately, the Democrat Party primary IS all about black and white.

Look at North Carolina, Obama's "big" victory last night and my former home state. The numbers are that 40% of registered Democrats are African American. If they went over 90% for Obama(they did), that means he started with a 36%-4% lead. If it ended up 56%-42%, that means Hillary won the non-African American vote 64%-36%. All of those same African Americans and latte liberals voted for Kerry in NC in 2004 and he lost the state by double digits. Good luck with that.

Hillary is unquestionably the stronger general election candidate. Unfortunately, we have McCain, which will give Obama a chance.

Ever potential Republican nominee other than John McCain would be doing even worse.

Everyone on this site has problems with McCain but let's face it, John McCain is the ONLY Republican who would even have a dream of victory this year.

Fortunately, we have McCain, which gives the Republicans a chance!

Just a typical, small town, white girl...

Is that McCain show the ability to put a couple of sentences together that make sense once in a while. Every time he opens his mouth I cringe at what comes out. Even if he doesn't believe in Conservatism, can't he just make stuff up like Obama does?

nt

word "corruption" and said the machine results from early voting have been available for hours...obviously it should be a relatively simple process...and after that exchange the mayor of Gary hung up on CNN and all the results materialized.

Damn. I rooted for an Obama win via corruption, but it looks unlikely now.

...that the Indiana AG just loves getting all the details to these sorts of peculiar events.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It's very fishy when networks started to question whether there's any fraud, then all the sudden, counting was done, and Hillary squeaked out a win.

"Yes, we are in the tank for Obama/Daley, whatever number they need is what they will get." I am not intending to be rude to you, but I have just seen this shell game go on here in Illinois too long to believe anyone from the Chicagoland area in this matter.

McCain '08

ALl the results from Lake County are now in (at least 98%) and it was not near enough for Obama...the first results there were very pro-Obama but the remaining ones were pretty split.

As an Obama supporter I can't wait for the spin tomorrow, about how Hillary, against all the odds and all the pundits' disdain (and probably economists too) managed to pull off the huge upset in Indiana (a state favored to her all along) and, of course, North Carolina does not count because there are too many black people there...

Don't forget that she is once again the "comeback kid" for narrowly avoiding defeat, not that this has any relation to the meaning of the word "comeback."

...to see whether or not the AG's office decides that it's going to investigate the matter.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It's hard for me to care about the total vote in Indiana at this point.

The waiting late thing could be fishy, but the total vote count is not, IMO.

In the end, in Lake County as many people voted in the Democratic primary as voted for Kerry in 2004. Statewide, actually more people voted in the primary than voted for Kerry in 2004. So turnout there was not larger than elsewhere (of course this does not take a lot into account but this is a good rule-of-thumb I would guess, and I am no expert). The county went 55-45 Obama; considering it is near Chicago, considering that it is a blue, more urban county which is where Obama does well, I don't find that surprising at all.

Besides, it doesn't have a huge effect on anything but media perception in the end...and the media is in the process of annointing Obama the nominee (YESSS!!!) either way.

Your candidate's links to possibly the most corrupt political machine in the United States of America (certainly it's in the top three) was one of the first things you probably had to learn to constantly keep in your mental blind spot.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Also, pits like Lake County could prove useful around November, so there is no inclination to insult them.

On a serious note, I really hope McCain insists on more poll watchers and election attorneys to ensure ballot integrity come autumn because True Believers believe wins at any cost are worth it. McCain may not be wired to acknowledge it, but the Lake counties and NOLA's and Chicagos tend to produce what is needed however it is needed.

Followed by a 750 word one on the "Illinois Combine:" write 'em up, send 'em in and we'll think about turning your account back on.

Moe

PS: Yes, normally I merely assign one of these. Then again, normally we don't get quite this. There are layers there, that's all I'm saying.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

achieved its tactial objective, which was to remove the halo from above Obama's head. This actually might be the optimal time for this to end for McCain because as summer approaches people consume less media because they are out enjoying the weather and time off. If HRC and BHO were dominating the headlines people might forget about him. The question now is can McCain survive the "honeymoon" bounce BHO will get now that he is the nominee, that would happened regadless of when it ended.

McCain '08

_____________________________

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle

IIRC, the AP exit poll asked voters if the candidate's race was important to them in deciding whom to vote for.

18% said yes.

And of those who said yes, something like 64% of them voted for Obama.

So it was indeed the black voters who were deciding whom to vote for on the basis of race.

They are going to flood to Obama now and, once the MSM claims he has reached the magic number, she will have little choice but to drop out. Until then she can say she wants to let the rest of the primary process play out etc.

I really really really wish the IN election had been stolen, as that would eliminate her feeling she had to be gracious in dropping out.

Wow - It would be interesting to know if you added up all the real costs over the past 8 years how much this election run added up to. She and Bill raised beaucoup bucks, spreading it around untold numbers of Democratic candidates to grease the skids for this year's planned coronation. And all most of them have done is stabbed her in the back. Amazing. I almost feel a tiny bit sorry for her. I said almost.

The exit polls show that it was the Obama voters who were most likely to choose a candidate on the basis of race.

Of the 18% of the voters who said the candidate's race was important to them, most voted for Obama.

But the exit polls do not say that they were all Black voters who went with Obama because of race. For all we know, there could have been a fair anount of "guilty, White liberals" who thought it was important to vote for the Black candidate to expunge their unconscious racism. Indeed, I personally do think that expunging "guilty, White liberals" of their unconscious racism is a big appeal of Obama.

Moreover, if I am not mistaken, the exit polls in Pennsylvania had the majority of (the even larger percentage of) Democratic Primary voters who said race was important voted for Hillary Clinton. Were all those Hillary voters racist?

And if (and when) they vote for McCain in the general election because they say race is important, will they be racist?

For the record, I am not saying that there is are not a large number of Blacks voting for the Black candidate. But by that same token, there is also a large number of Whites voting for the White candidate. That, obviously, is happening.

What I am saying, however, is that when you take into account that African-Americans have (unfortunately) almost always voted for the more liberal candidates -- even within previous Democratic primaries, both local and national -- their overwhelming support for Barack Obama is not as racially-biased as it may first appear.

to cling to that explains her unexpected lack of support. Though when someone refers to the mass of Democrats as the "proletariat", I'd think they'd lean more towards the more socialist candidate.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

"coming into tonight, Clinton has actually gotten more popular votes than has Obama. I haven't done the math to see whether that is still the case and it may not be, given Obama's huge win in North Carolina."

Not only did Clinton have to pull some major sleight of hand to claim a majority of the popular vote (like count MI votes for her but pretend there are no Obama voters in MI)...

... but last night's primaries wiped out her gains from PA, in the neighborhood of 210,000.

...there may not be.

I mean, really. He made his decision on this in order to keep John Edwards and Howard Dean happy? That's just embarrassingly naive.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... doesn't mean the voters do.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2...

Of course it's dishonest to pretend there are no Obama voters in Michigan.

This is a GOP site: we're crediting him for his rather rookie mistake. It's not our fault that your candidate isn't very good at this, you know.

:raising hand: Before you answer, you'd best invent a time machine so that you can get Obama to actually win California and Massachusetts. Because if he had won either, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... he's so "not very good at this" that he's winning the nomination, even without California and Massachusetts.

It is *mathematically impossible* for BHO to win the nomination before Denver without the help of superdelegates or HRC quitting.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

and it is mathematically possible (and likely) for BHO to get the majority of all delegates (pledged and super) before Denver.

Which means that I don't have to pretend that your guy is a better campaigner than John Kerry, a man who had already clinched your Party's nomination by this point in the process.

Really clinched it, I mean.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Would Kerry have done a better job in 2008?

Would Obama have done a better job in 2004?

Nobody cares. Pretending John Kerry is a better campaigner because he won sooner in a completely different campaign is a silly comparison.

I would say "fraud," but apparently someone blinked in Lake County.

The Democratic Party, and this is the bottom line, is going to rob someone and award the nomination to the other person. That person, unless something horrible emerges--and God knows, for what I've seen, it remains possible, will be Obama. Hillary Clinton will have just a few less elected delegates and just a slightly smaller percentage of the popular vote, and both require suspension of belief and discussion about Michigan and Florida.

Lord knows, I would have preferred another nominee but Sen. John McCain won fair and square. I will vote for him with that assurance. Your guy, and the choice of gender there is deliberate, will have squeaked out a semi-plurality after the DNC played fast and loose with the process. The irony is that, if you got into the heads of most of the super-delegates who will take this away from Clinton, my guess is they have decided she is the stronger candidate. However, the calculation has been made that she is easier to throw under the bus.

The media's willful assistance in the fiction that Obama has "won" has worn thin, but I imagine the Clinton's surrogates are ready to start acknowledging the obvious and laying the ground for 2012.

"The Democratic Party, and this is the bottom line, is going to rob someone and award the nomination to the other person. "

How is it robbing if they give it to the candidate who leads in delegates, which is the metric everyone agreed on in advance?

poster. Then you don't need to call him out by name and the rest of us can follow the thread.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

HERE!

|
|
V

I think Obama has, for all intents and purposes, has wrapped up the Democratic nomination. I also think that he is now the weaker candidate. My only caveat is that, if you look at his track record since Ohio, he is starting to make small inroads into Hillary's core demographics. And this despite Wright, Ayers, "bitter" comments, etc.

Obama may be weaker but he is still a very formidable opponent.

"First, O'Bama's decision to remove his name from the MI ballot was colossally stupid. What an affront to the voters of that important swing state."

Isn't the affront that all Democratic candidates agreed not to participate in that election?

"You listed several deep-red states that O'Bama won, in order to bolster his "electabilty". Fact is, he won't carry any of these states in Nov."

So what? This is the primary. The rules are clear: the object is to win the majority of delegates. Just because Obama has picked the right strategy for this contest doesn't mean he'll pick the same for the general election if it's not appropriate.

"But he better organized his small group of "rabid" Marxist supporters in those states to come out and "caucus" for him."

Obama's supporters are neither a "small group" nor "Marxist".

agreed not to participate in that election? Obama gave her the state and she's going to use those votes in Denver.

And the core of Obama's supporters are Marxists. The rest are either not listening to his actual policies or are voting based on his personality. I mean, ask your average Obama supporter why they support him and they'll tell you because he supports "change". But ask them what exactly the changes are and 99% won't be able to tell you.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

n/t

and removing one's name from the ballot are completely different stories.

Not participating was an act of solidarity for the party rules.

Removing your name from the ballot was a recipe for disaster should the outcome be undetermined (as we have now...I know Obama is now presumptively the nominee, but stranger things have happened)

n/t

Funny how her "agreeing to not participate" STILL got her the committed delegates from the state. It sure seems like she participated to ME. The candidates who didn't participate removed their names from the ballot.

She'll find a way to get those votes to count. Or do you really want to disenfranchise 2 whole states?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

"Funny how her "agreeing to not participate" STILL got her the committed delegates from the state. It sure seems like she participated to ME."

Seems to me like she participated too. But why do you think it got her those delegates? At this point, they don't count; and it's kind of a tricky one, hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube at this point, barring an actual re-vote.

"She'll find a way to get those votes to count. Or do you really want to disenfranchise 2 whole states?"

The DNC imposed the "punishment", and it quite obviously is hardly an ideal one. (Far as I know the GOP does something similar, by having some states count half as "punishment", which is of course also a disenfranchisement of sorts.) The decision to have the elections in MI and FL not count seems like kind of a bone-headed move to me, but it is what it is. But given the massive flaws of the "this-election-doesn't-count" election, how could they most properly be "re-enfranchised" at this point?

One way would be to count FL as is and give the uncommitted ones in MI to Obama. There are various reasons to support the notion that that would somewhat under-represent Obama's share of the vote, but even given that, it would only yield Clinton a net gain of around 60 delegates, which in about a month, given current trends, will not be enough to flip the primary to Clinton.

You see, in a normal primary contest - like, say, ours - somebody would have gotten enough pledged delegates to actually make the ballot at the convention a formality. Not happening now, and can't happen: so the two of them are now fighting over the pledged super-delegates. Many of whom are now having an exceptionally busy and probably personally uncomfortable morning, and we can't wait to see what they decide. If they do: it seems a good time to do it, so it's seven-five and pick 'em if they will or not...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

... it's impossible for both to fail at getting a majority of the delegates. Obama will most likely have a majority of both pledged delegates (around May 20th) and superdelegates (given the current trend, quite soon) within the next 2 weeks or so.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that Obama has "failed at it".

"You see, in a normal primary contest - like, say, ours - somebody would have gotten enough pledged delegates to actually make the ballot at the convention a formality."

As it very well may be in this case too. It looks to me like Clinton is really running out of options (not to mention funds).

Is the abnormal part the existence of superdelegates? If so, then I agree with you completely.

Or do you mean that the abnormal part is the winner-take-all aspect of the GOP primary vs. the proportionate aspect of the Democratic primary? Far as I can tell it's possible to have a drawn-out process under GOP rules too, isn't it? Or are the latter states in the primary schedule more or less automatically discounted?

He was able to get enough pledged delegates to win outright by this point: so what quality is it that Kerry has that Obama lacks? We're quite keen to hear your answer.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You're comparing two completely different candidates who were running against completely different competitors. You can't boil that down to a specific quality that one person has that the other doesn't. How would Obama have fared in 2004, or Kerry in 2008?

(My apologies for the double post.)

As to your comment: :shrug: Your candidate has failed to do something that every Democratic candidate since 1976 has done; to wit, get enough pledged delegates to make the convention a formality. I got the impression that you knew why he failed, that's all.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Obama was a newcomer who ran against an established candidate with an established political network who was widely favored to win. Has that happened any time since 1976?

I don't know why you obsess about this point or pretend it's some kind of failure when the primary process isn't even over. You can claim it as a certainty that the convention is not a formality when it is certain that it will not be; at this rate, however, that is far from certain, and it's looking pretty good that Obama will have this wrapped up both in pledged delegates and superdelegates before then.

...for a flawed candidate. On a website belonging to the Other Side, no less. I'm merely the one amusing himself by gently laughing at you.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

- when you insist on comparing apples and oranges.

Apology has more than one meaning.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

... it's impossible for both to fail at getting a majority of the delegates. Obama will most likely have a majority of both pledged delegates (around May 20th) and superdelegates (given the current trend, quite soon) within the next 2 weeks or so.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that Obama has "failed at it".

"You see, in a normal primary contest - like, say, ours - somebody would have gotten enough pledged delegates to actually make the ballot at the convention a formality."

As it very well may be in this case too. It looks to me like Clinton is really running out of options (not to mention funds).

Is the abnormal part the existence of superdelegates? If so, then I agree with you completely.

Or do you mean that the abnormal part is the winner-take-all aspect of the GOP primary vs. the proportionate aspect of the Democratic primary? Far as I can tell it's possible to have a drawn-out process under GOP rules too, isn't it? Or are the latter states in the primary schedule more or less automatically discounted?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It's still not possible for Obama or Hillary to get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright.

Here's a hint at where you're thinking is fuzzy: There are more than 2 candidates in the Democratic primary.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

"It's still not possible for Obama or Hillary to get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination outright."

Correct, but the contest isn't for the most pledged delegates, it's for the most delegates. Under most circumstances the superdelegates don't matter enough to be decisive, but in this case they do. So what? You still end up with one candidate with a majority of all delegates.

"Here's a hint at where you're thinking is fuzzy: There are more than 2 candidates in the Democratic primary."

Not for some time now. The only other candidate to have received any delegates at all is John Edwards, and he dropped out some time ago, with 19 delegates to his name.

Could you explain where you think the thinking is "fuzzy"?

Because neither can win an outright majority of elected delegates at this point, the unelected and non-pledged delegates get to pick the nominee. They can completely ignore the election results and pick whoever they want. At this point they seem to be leaning Obama, but there is no guarantee they'll stay that way. Don't discount the role of old time party politics and the Clinton machine in encouraging those delegates to go with Hillary.

Then there's the matter of the FL and MI delegates that may get seated after all. And guess who's got more pull on the credentials and rules committees? Another hint: It ain't Obama....

PS. Since I can't have any more popcorn, can someone pass me the beer and chips?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

"Because neither can win an outright majority of elected delegates at this point, the unelected and non-pledged delegates get to pick the nominee. They can completely ignore the election results and pick whoever they want."

They can't completely ignore the election results - they have to supplement them. If Obama is, say, 100 delegates ahead, the superdelegates would have to turn out for Clinton by a majority of 100+1. Not just that, but superdelegates also have to weigh the effect of going against the pledged delegate winner and how that will affect the general election and the party's fortunes down the line. In this case, not a rosy picture.

At this point, the trend in superdelegates since January has been going consistently in Obama's favor. (see http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html) It's not like the currently uncommitted superdelegates are just Clinton votes in hiding.

"And guess who's got more pull on the credentials and rules committees? Another hint: It ain't Obama...."

How do you figure that?

"The committee with jurisdiction over the seating of delegates -- the Credentials Committee -- is one of the three standing committees to the national convention (the other two being the Rules Committee and Platform Committee). It will be composed largely of members elected on the basis of the results of state primaries and caucuses. In this inside fight, should it come to that, Senator Obama enjoys an important advantage. In total, 161 of the 186 members of each standing committee are selected from states, and 20 states and the District of Columbia have only one representative on each of the committees.

By winning so many states and thereby controlling so many state delegations, the Obama campaign can weight their selections towards the Credentials and Rules Committees, the places where a procedural or credentials battle will be fought in the maneuvering prior to the convention. By picking Rules and Credentials seats in state after state where his campaign will be entitled to 2 out of 3 standing committee seats, Obama can gain an important and possibly decisive advantage in the pre-convention skirmishing."

http://www.pollingreport.com/delegates.htm

The whole point of the super delegates is they DON'T have to pay attention to the election results. And even if they do, they can choose to go with Hillary's "I won't the most big states" or "I got more popular votes even though Obama has more delegates." and still claim to follow the will of the people.

And I've seen the exact same analysis of the rules committee give Hillary the advantage.

But hey, it's YOUR primary and you're free to choose to believe that Hillary will capitulate and bow to the greatness of your saviour.

PS. This is great fun isn't it!

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

"The whole point of the super delegates is they DON'T have to pay attention to the election results."

Absolutely correct, they don't have to, but naturally these things enter into political calculations one way or another.

"And even if they do, they can choose to go with Hillary's "I won't the most big states" or "I got more popular votes even though Obama has more delegates." and still claim to follow the will of the people."

They can, and some do, but still the trend among superdelegates is consistently in Obama's direction.

"And I've seen the exact same analysis of the rules committee give Hillary the advantage."

In which she has the advantage how? Maybe you could post a link to clarify.

"But hey, it's YOUR primary and you're free to choose to believe that Hillary will capitulate and bow to the greatness of your saviour."

I'm an expat independent, so it's not MY primary, and I certainly don't choose to believe that Hillary will capitulate. I do think, however, that she's running out of viable options.

Edwards has 12 delegates from NH and SC (ref), so in theory every delegate could commit and Obama and Hillary could each be a few votes short of a majority.

Seems unlikely, as some won't commit ahead of time and most will start jumping on the Obama bandwagon and put him over the magic number.

Colossally stupid? Certainly; just like early contenders Edwards and others. And Hillary was colossally scheming.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, all announced that they would follow rules set by the Democratic National Committee. That leaves just Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., on the ballot, rendering the contest virtually meaningless.

Hillary went to Florida, despite "promises" not to. She was in St. Petersburg and Miami the Sunday before the primary, and in Miami again, that Tuesday night.

Obama won Iowa 25 to 14, where Blacks account for only 2.5% of the population. I doubt he'll win "Red" states over McCain, but his winning "non-ethnic" states over Clinton is ignored by the media.

I hate commenting on the Democrat squabbles, but it's the only game in town just now. Come the Fall, taxes and national security will be advantages for McCain.

Iowa was the beginning of the race, multiple candidates, Obama a phenomenon without definition, and a caucus state. I haven't dissected the numbers, but 25% of the caucus votes is probably in line with his current level of support among a similar demographic of voters.

The point is that Obama has intensified his support among black voters and still appeals to a majority of white youth/students, but has not broken beyond that demographic. Or to put it another way, if Iowa were held today as a primary between Obama and Hillary, he would likely not prevail based on current voting patterns.

And Rightly So!

Obama won over 37% of the Iowa caucuses, leading Edwards (29.7%) and Clinton (29.5%).

In the March County Conventions, Obama won a convincing 52% of the 2,500 state delegates.

There are 660,693 "active" registered Democrats in the state, and only about 75,000 Black people of all ages in the state.

Obama's win might be attributed to the closeness of his Chicago base (and campaign staff) to Iowa ... a three-hour drive.

In the Fall, McCain stands a good chance in Iowa, even given an 85,000 voter advantage in registered Democrats. We lost Iowa to Gore by about 4,500 votes, and beat Kerry by about 10,000 votes.

Your last paragraph is the one that we have to start from come the general election.

I'm not quite sure how to interpret the earlier paragraphs as we get into the fall.

One wild-card I'm not sure any analyst has looked into: voter irrationality. Has that been higher to date than in past Presidential contest, and if so, how can we bring the voters back to reality? (I'm assuming that voter irrationality favors Obama, as how anyone rational could support him is beyond my understanding.)

And Rightly So!

I'm assuming that voter irrationality favors Obama, as how anyone rational could support him is beyond my understanding.

That is a lotta people you are saying are irrational ... even in the worst case each candidate will probably get 55 million votes or more in the general. Can you really say that they all are irrational? Or even a large portion of them? I mean, that is a lot of people you have never met or anything. I sometimes in more frustrated moments think that nobody rational could support McCain, or coulda supported Bush in 2004, but I know too many smart people who did so to actually believe that. People've got different perspectives, beliefs, interests, etc.

(When I say interests I don't mean like an interest in stamp collecting, I mean like economic interests, etc.)

Romney/Pace 2008

I very much agree and redistricting that will happen adds the need for GOP Governors

Also, Senator Lugar is getting up there and we need potential candidates to help retain the seat when it happens

I live in Tennessee and right now the GOP has the State Senate by 1 seat, is 4 seats behind in the House and, of course sadly, the Governor Bredesen is a Democrat.
Using Tennessee as an example, right now there are 5 Dem and 4 GOP House members. If not for gerrymandering there should be 2 "safe" Dem seats (Nashville & Memphis); 5 "safe" GOP seats (East Tennessee, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Memphis suburbs and Nashville suburbs); and 2 "swing" seats in rural West Tennessee and rural Middle Tennessee. But because we did not have a seat at the table in 2000 redistricting, the Dems were free to "create" or maintain safe Dem seats for Bart Gordon and Lincoln Davis and created a GOP seat for Marsha Blackburn that stretches from the Memphis suburbs to the Nashville suburbs.
I am sure there are other states with similar Dem controlled gerrymandering and that is why having the Governorship is so important!

there's still a very good chance she can steal the nomination at the convention. That's a lot of her OWN money to waste. I don't think she's going to drop as long as there's still a chance that her investment will pay off.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

My guess is the supers are going to come out strong for Obama now, the media is going to rip on her constantly, and she is going to have even more difficulty raisig money now.
Maybe she stays through Kentucky and WV, maybe even through the DNC meeting at the end of the month. But I think unlikely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

Are the 60+% of white folks who voted for Hillary racist? Are the large majorities of women who voted for Hillary or the men who voted for Obama sexists? For certain, some are, but I can't believe tha most are. There is a certain appeal to vote for someone you can identify with which is why we see candidates changing their names or adding in "nicknames" on the ballot to appeal to Irish, Italian, Polish, Catholic, African American voters. If blacks were the racists you claim then Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell would be governors right now.

You guys are the ones having a campaign based on skin color.

Moe

PS: Just for the record: your side treated the nomination of Michael Steele as an excuse to disperse racist imagery of him. We haven't forgotten that, which is why I think that you'd be well advised to avoid this particular topic in the future. You don't want to get any of that muck on you.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I'm on your side. I hope my post didn't indicate that I wasn't. I just don't think racism explains the overwhelming support for Obama among black voters any more than it does for the white folks voting for Hillary. I do agree with other posters that McCain voters will be bombarded by accusations of racism from the Dems this fall. Just because they say it doesn't make it true.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...for the black candidate -- who differs in no appreciable way, policy-wise, from the white candidate -- has nothing to do with voting along racial lines.

I merely said it wasn't driven by "racism". There are identity politics at play, no doubt. The Dem candidates are definitely targeting their message and efforts at particular groups - African Americans, women, gays, etc.

The pressing issue (apparently) is why are only 40% or so of white Democrats voting for Obama? And the answer typically provided by the MSNBCs of the world is that its the white voters who have the hang-up or problem voting for a black candidate. And, it's Clinton who is "playing" to this fear/racism.

My question is why is the MSNBCs of the world not asking what is the problem with the black voters who are giving less than 10% of their support to an identical candidate on the issues whose only apparent problem is she is white? And, is Obama nefariously playing to the hang-ups or issues that black voters have with a white DEMOCRATIC candidate.

At least among white voters, the split has got to be generational. Younger whites have been voting for Senator Obama. Older ones have been voting for Senator Clinton.

FWIW, most of the Clinton supporters I know well enough to get a thoughtful answer from strongly identify with a fellow Boomer. I really wonder if its as simple as the fear of the Boomers being displaced by the new guy.