Marc Ambinder (February 09, 2008) - Obama Wins Washington State, Nebraska Caucuses By Wide Margins

Well it is better than to appeal to regular Republicans kinda sorta and to activists not at all.

By the way, I didn't understand what you were getting at with this post. Very random and all over the place

Posted by Benjamin | February 9, 2008 9:01 PM

Hi,

I thought you'd be interested by the delegate breakdown by district in Nebraska:

(1) First district, 6 delegates. With 50% counted, Obama "only" has 58%, that means a 3-3 split.
(2) Second district, 6 delegates: With 100% counted, Obama has 76% delegates which I believe is a 5-1 split.
(3) Third district, 4 delegates: With almost all counted, Obama has 52%, which means a 2-2 split.

If Obama can't cross 59% in the first district, not an atrocious result for Clinton. You have to add to this the statewide allocation also, of course (8 delegates).

Posted by Campaign Diaries/Daniel | February 9, 2008 9:02 PM

For Pete's sake, Marc. I don't want to be unfair or anything, but I'm starting to see why so many people seem to think you are a clueless hack. This is preposterous. Obama beat Clinton in Connecticut and Delaware, almost tied her in New Hampshire, had a fine showing in New York (her home state) and crushed her in the very Democratic Illinois (his home state). There is no evidence that he is unable to appeal to regular Democratic voters -- in fact, most of Clinton's voters like him, just as most of Obama's like her.

If I'm John McCain, I'm looking at two candidates out-fundraising me at something like 4 or 5 to one, and looking at massive Democratic turnout across the board, and I am deeply worried.

Posted by NoahB | February 9, 2008 9:04 PM

HIllary won't become a good organizer or have red state/independent appeal in the general.

However, there is every reason to beleive that Obama will be able to get those regular dems once he has had time for lower information voters to get know him better. They won't vote for McCain in the end. The Clinton brand is still popular with downscale dems....its not so much Obama's weakness with them as it is Hillary's singular strength...but most will vote for any dem nominee.

By the way, the narrative that you and the media love to propograte that Obama only wins in caucus states and primaries with lots of blacks ignores the fact that Obama won the misoouri primary against the clintons...no small accomplishement.

Posted by RKa | February 9, 2008 9:04 PM

Marc,

I think one fact is that Obama has now played in more states than Hillary Clinton has and that in doing so has activated more Democrats for the general election. This will benefit whomever becomes the nominee. But he's done so with the same fundraising capacity and also kept up with her in the delegate hunt.

The Clintons planned this to be over last Tuesday and they spent like there was no possibility that plan A would fail. That seems to be a huge story I haven't really seen.

Plus: A caucus takes time, voter education, and the creation of a political machine. I have yet to see HRC do this during this election cycle.

She has a lock on women (especially white woman) and latinos and seems to be playing a demographic game and working to block Obama's surging momentum instead of trying to expand her base. This week has seen her appropriating Obama's tropes again and creating sharper attacks. But fundamentally, I have yet to see her grow her base of support and expand beyond her comfort zone.

I have seen McCain do so.

That in and of itself doesn't seem to bode well for the fall if she becomes the nominee, which is still a likely outcome given that this nomination fight has devolved into trench warefare of the kind the Clinton's excel at.

Posted by Rhoda | February 9, 2008 9:06 PM

Hillary.....if you love the Demorcratic party and want to win in November....exit gracefully. We cannot win with you at the top.

Posted by Rose | February 9, 2008 9:07 PM

Marc -- your pro-Clinton analysis is getting very tired... aren't African-Americans "regular democrats" or are only whites allowed in your "regular democrat" club?

Posted by Mike | February 9, 2008 9:25 PM

Despite their spin, the Clinton campaign definitely contested Washington state. I believe she had rallies in Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane in the last few days (Obama was only in Seattle) and yet she lost the state in a landslide.

Posted by PBS | February 9, 2008 9:25 PM

It is also somewhat embarrassing that one of the two major candidates has refused to participate in them, in effect ceding their delegates to Barack Obama. Indeed, the Clinton campaign brags about how little it did...

Marc: they're not bragging. They're (as I'm sure you know) just spinning. To an extent, they have a point. They did spend a lot less money on building their grass roots organization. They've run a much less intelligent campaign than Obama. He's pretty much maximized his advantages, and she's squandered many of hers. Still, much of it is about money. There's no getting around the fact that Obama appeals to a demographic more apt to make political donations than much of the demographic Hillary relies on. And Obama has (wisely) put much of this early cash into building that machine. Axelrod pretty clearly saw way back when they had tremendous opportunity to dominate caucuses, and Hillary's people never saw it coming. No doubt they thought their name recognition advantage would enable them to skimp on the organizing end of things and still do okay. Boy were they wrong.

Fortunately for them, by the time the dust had cleared on Super Tuesday, I think they were aware of exactly what kind of fight they had on their hands, and they've adjusted their expectations and strategy accordingly. And fortunately for them, they'll still be competing in a couple of primaries this month. They also seem to have turned their money situation around.

Their next move should be to ease out Penn and bring on the ragin' Cajun.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 9:25 PM

Marc, a couple of things...

1. Hillary didn't advertise much in the states at stake tonight because she doesn't have any MONEY. Her rambling about being outspent is just an excuse to explain away her loss.

2. Voters don't beat one another down at caucuses and they are very democratic. Here's the process:

(a) You arrive at the caucus and register.
(b) A section of the room is assigned to each candidate.
(c) You stand in the section of the room assigned to your candidate.
(d) Your candidate's precinct captain counts the number voters in their corner, and the candidate with the most people standing in their corner "wins" that caucus location and the delegates are allocated accordingly.

You should turn the channel to MSNBC. Rachel Maddow just gave Pat Robertson a beatdown because he was parroting Hillary's complaints about caucus states. She said there is no excuse for Hillary not taking the time to organize in those states and not getting her share of the vote.

Posted by sue | February 9, 2008 9:25 PM

If the Clinton campaign is raising so much money, and not paying back Hillary's loan yet, then why didn't they compete?

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 9, 2008 9:33 PM

Marc - Hillary has problems winning in small, and large, states that she doesn't have a pre-existing machine (Shaheen's in NH, Menino's in MA, Villaraigosa's in LA). Obama thought creatively by setting up his own machine.

And whatever happened to Hillary's 50 state strategy? Isn't she "listening" to all voters in all states? I guess her updated version is to add up the states she wins, subtract the losses, and tell everyone she's exceeding expectations. She put money and a set of organizers into Washington and underperformed by any measure. One question she needs to answer is can she organize any of the purple states for Nov.? She studied Alinsky, but he practiced it.

Posted by JohnR CMH | February 9, 2008 9:40 PM

Can Clintonistas get their act together! Trying to rubbish Obama's achievements JUST WONT DO. Obama's is a Movement! The passion it generates is no ordinary campaign... and neither is Barack Obama!

Yes We Can! Judgment to Make Change We Can Believe In!

Posted by Pat | February 9, 2008 9:44 PM

I think if Obama eventually wins this, in the future when someone writes the history of this campaign, they're going to have a hard time rationalizing why Hillary's team just decided to completely ignore and concede all of the caucus states post Nevada.

These are providing some real black eyes for her. Not just the fact that she's losing them, but losing them by absolute landslides. Nebraska at 68/32, Washington at 67/32... and that's after 74/26 in Kansas, 75/25 in Alaska, 67/32 in Colorado, 67/32 in Minnesota, and 79/17 in Idaho.

It strikes me as a real tactical error.

Posted by jbryan | February 9, 2008 9:49 PM

I agree with some others: Sound like HillDog doesn't have enough cash to compete.

Posted by mcd | February 9, 2008 9:51 PM

I love how people like Marc are ignoring the importance of Obama's blowout wins in mid-sized states such as Minnesota and Washington. About as many people live in those two states combined as in Ohio, and I suspect at least as many Democrats. But someone the math keeps escaping people like Marc.

Posted by DTM | February 9, 2008 9:57 PM

I love how people like Marc are ignoring the importance of Obama's blowout wins in mid-sized states such as Minnesota and Washington. About as many people live in those two states combined as in Ohio, and I suspect at least as many Democrats. But someone the math keeps escaping people like Marc.

Posted by DTM | February 9, 2008 9:57 PM

What a blithering idiot you are, Marc. Obama is ahead on the popular vote -- so what's that about him winning only small states?

Posted by John | February 9, 2008 9:57 PM

Why do you and the rest of the media continue to perpetuate this absurd meme that Obama can't win in big states, then cite New Jersey as a sign Clinton is strong in big states?

Washington State has more people than Massachusettes, which the MSM trumpeted as a fantastic win for Clinton. Guess what, Obama will win by at least 10 more percentage points in Washington than Clinton won in Massachusettes.

Furthermore, Georgia is the 9th largest state in the Union. It is larger than New Jersey, and frankly, with massive African-American turnout in November, Obama would have a serious shot at winning it (remember, he did very well with white Democrats here and Bill Clinton carried it too).

That's not even mentioning the fact that Obama won more votes in Illinois than Clinton won in New York.

Obama also has huge victories in swing states: Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, and on Tuesday, he'll soundly win in Virginia.

Clinton is carrying states that Obama will also handily win in a general election (New York, California, New Jersey, New Hampshire)

Posted by Mo | February 9, 2008 9:59 PM

Amazing to see the blind love Obama gets in this post. Keep playing up all the Hillary cant win stuff, because it will not work in the long run. If you say clinton machine and mean that Obama is actually being run by the establishment in the democratic party then you are not a free thinker. Obama's rhetoric about time for "hope" and a "new guard" to come in. You mean Teddie and the old established guard of the dem party who have foiled and lost one election after another is who is behind Obama. Do your homework and see where all the money is coming from for Obama and maybe then you will realize that he is no underdog who has come out of no where. He has been groomed since his speech at the Dems Convention in 2004. If peole want more of the same this year then Vote for Obama/inexperience/Bush for another 4 years.

Posted by Sensible Ed | February 9, 2008 9:59 PM

Can one continue to believe that Hillary will be a more effective President than Obama when she has such a poor showing for all the fabulous advantages she possesses? The Clinton brand name and machine, the white women and older voters, the multimillions that she is able to loan herself as an investment, the smear and politics of personal destruction, of race baiting and the gender card, including tears in New Hampshire (where she is now roundly berated for lying to NH that she was not going to support the rule-breaking primary states of Michigan and Florida), played with so much glee by herself and the ex-President, her husband. She had promised her rich donors that the race would be over by Super Tuesday. Again and again, her record displays failure and weakness. Is this the competent President promised, or is her competence a deception foisted on Americans in order to get Bill back into the White House for another unconstitutional 8 years? Senator Obama, allegedly the "novice," the one without experience, is running a clean and highly successful campaign which is getting cynical, apathetic citizens like myself committed once again to our republic's democracy.

Posted by shirlin | February 9, 2008 10:04 PM

I love how people like Marc are ignoring the importance of Obama's blowout wins in mid-sized states such as Minnesota and Washington. About as many people live in those two states combined as in Ohio, and I suspect at least as many Democrats. But someone the math keeps escaping people like Marc.

Marc has been pimping the Clinton spin for some time now, I'm not sure why this would surprise you. States don't matter unless the Clintons say they matter.

Posted by J.B. | February 9, 2008 10:13 PM

My goodness, Marc. You're beginning to sound a bit unhinged. Obama "can't win states" where the majority of Dems reside?? Way to distort the Feb. 5 results while ignoring how much of a factor the condensed calendar played in the outcome. You know as well as anyone following the race that the momentum was with Barack & he closed HUGE 20-30 pts gaps in NJ, CA, MA & NH after battling Clinton's quasi-incumbent name recognition (and her co-president wannabe husband's "legacy").

Now you're posting as if his large margin wins in several states don't count coupled with Clinton campaign talking pts. Gimme a break.

Hill's folks must be getting desperate.

Posted by KC | February 9, 2008 10:13 PM

CNN just called LA for Obama.

WIth 32% reporting, he's ahead 53% to 39%.

He also just won the Virgin Islands with 90% of the vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

Tonight, he’s taken WA, NB, LA, and the Virgin Islands in a landslide.

Unbelievable.

Posted by sue | February 9, 2008 10:15 PM

More math:

There are approximately as many people living in Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska combined as in Pennsylvania, and actually the exact same number of pledged delegates (158) at stake.

Posted by DTM | February 9, 2008 10:19 PM

I posted on my caucus experience this afternoon at the end of the Gore thread so I won't repeat that, but my account addresses some of the claims made up top. But just to add:

(1) According to the NYT "Candidate Schedules" Clinton made three appearances in the state and Obama made only one.

(2) What is this about "undemocratic"? This is pretty close to the textbook definition of democracy.

(3) You did need a loud voice today, but only because the place was absolutely jammed. Otherwise it was a very relaxed occasion.

You can read other reports on actual caucus experiences below. I think they'll bear me out that these were happy, inclusive, respectful events.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004173955_webcitizenreports09.html
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/index.html#022257

Posted by Colin | February 9, 2008 10:20 PM

Voters don't beat one another down at caucuses and they are very democratic.

sue: Hillary has no cause to complain about the caucuses. She knew the rules going into this thing, and if she neglected to organize as carefully as Obama did, or couldn't raise the kind of money he did, then too bad for her. Still, it's pretty hard to say that caucuses are "very democratic." The fact is they're extremely exclusionary because of their limited hours and the limited availability of caucus places.

Washington State is illustrative: the Seattle PI (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_wash_caucuses_turnout.html) is reporting that a "record" number of people are expected to participate in the Washington's Democratic caucuses (around 200,000). In Massachusetts something like 1.8 million people participated in the state's primary last week. Let's charitably give the GOP 40% of that participation. That would mean over 1 million voters turned out for Massachusetts's Democratic primary against 200,000 for Washington state's "record" Democratic caucuses. The two state's populations are virtually identical as of early 2008 (my guess is faster growing Washington is now slightly ahead). To put it another way, each Washington State voter will end up possessing several times the nominating power of each Massachusetts voter.

Make no mistake about it: Obama has brilliantly maximized his advantages, and his campaign has very savvily exploited the caucus format. But also make no mistake that it is a decidedly less inclusionary and less democratic way to choose delegates. And this less democratic style of contest is at the core of Obama's strategy to win the nomination.

His strategy so far seems to pretty clearly be: win African-American-centric primaries; win big in his home state; win caucuses; and hang on for dear life every place else. It may be enough to get him over the hump, especially if the successes he seems likely to get in February's post Super Tuesday contests generate enough momentum to increase his reach in March (and he then goes on to win big in some primaries). But if not -- if he can't create a Hillary collapse (and I'd say that's less likely now that she seems to be getting her fundraising in order) -- then there's a non-trivial chance Obama could wind up with a plurality of pledged delegates, and behind Clinton in the popular vote. Not that this is in and of itself necessarily problematic. Rules are rules, after all, and it is delegates -- not the popular vote -- who choose the nominee. But such a scenario would make it a lot more difficult to fight Clintonian attempts to seat Florida's delegates, or to complain if she ends up securing the nomination via the use of superdelegates.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 10:39 PM

What is this about "undemocratic"? This is pretty close to the textbook definition of democracy.

Colin, from the very Seattle PI link you provide (10:20pm), I read this:

Overall, caucus-goers ... said they felt the caucus process disenfranchised too many voters who had to work during the time of the caucus or were nervous about confrontation with neighbors in publicly identifying who they supported. Many said they believed a more accurate tally of supporters for candidates will be provided through the primary ballot.

Ahhh, caucuses. They make it tough for less affluent voters to vote and they dispense with those pesky Australian ballots! (I had forgotten about that angle). What's not to love?!!

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 10:53 PM

Jasper,

Actually, Obama's real strategy is to pick up as many pledged delegates as he can everywhere he can get them, and that includes carefully calculated efforts in every single state (e.g., he had a strategy for extracting extra delegates from New York, even though he knew he wouldn't "win" the state). Which of course is what the logic of proportional allocation dictates.

Incidentally, Clinton isn't stupid, so I am sure she is trying to do the same thing. And in fact, her campaign has made real efforts in many of these states that she has lost dramatically, despite their spin to the contrary.

Posted by DTM | February 9, 2008 10:55 PM

Jasper, from my point of view, caucusing on a Saturday afternoon is *easier* than finding time to vote on a working Tuesday. And I could walk over. People brought their kids. So "extremely exclusionary" is silly. What caucusing really required was breaking old habits: I asked a number of friends over the last week if they were gonna caucus and they kind of looked at me blankly, like it hadn't occurred to them.

Posted by Colin | February 9, 2008 10:59 PM

It's not really fair to keep saying (or strongly suggesting, as in this post) that Clinton won Nevada. Obama won more delegates there, and that is the meaning of "win."

Posted by Jeff Richmond | February 9, 2008 11:03 PM

Classical understandings of "democracy" were all public -- you take responsibility in public for your choices. And again, I saw zero pressure today. Our uncommitteds split evenly between the two candidates. One of the guys who spoke for Clinton was married (happily, it appeared) to an Obama supporter.

Posted by Colin | February 9, 2008 11:04 PM

Jasper, from my point of view, caucusing on a Saturday afternoon is *easier* than finding time to vote on a working Tuesday.

Well, unlike you, Colin, chambermaids and busboys work Saturdays. Moreover, caucuses almost invariably take more time than primaries. My primary vote for Hillary last Tuesday literally took about three minutes. The less affluent you are, the more difficult it is usually going to be to devote the (typically) much longer time required to caucus. Again, lack of work schedule flexibility is a major issue for many downscale voters, and such voters are also less likely to be able to afford a sitter, or possess reliable access to daycare or eldercare.

Look, rules are rules. If Obama wins with this process, than bully him. I'll urge everybody I know to vote for him over McCain. But, if my fears are realized -- and his general election support turns out to be much shallower than is supposed and the Democrats lose in November -- I hope we'll at least have the sense to banish exclusionary caucuses once and for all in favor of far more democratic primary elections. Indeed, no matter what transpires in November, I exhort the DNC to do everything in its power to get all states to jettison caucuses. They're pretty. They're Athenian. They're Rockwellian. They're also elitist and decidedly undemocratic.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 11:18 PM

I am sure there are Obama supporters, particularly downscale blacks, who have shift work issues with caucuses as well...despite the HIllary spin, there is no evidence that Hillary voters have a harder time getting there than Obama voters....more likley they are not as motivated to do so.

Posted by RKA | February 9, 2008 11:26 PM

Marc,

Why do you call caucuses "undemocratic"?

Perhaps you base that assessment on the number of people participating?
Well, if people are too lazy, unmotivated, or too stupid to attend their caucus, then that is their problem.
Just because apathy leads to this result does not make it democratic. If you were right, then our whole system is undemocratic, when for ex:
in local election less than 20% vote, in state elections less than 30% vote etc. Same goes to referendums that are passed with low voter turn out.
I DO NOT think that low turnout disqualifies those contents, or caucuses for that matter.
Anyone who abdictes their voter franchise because of apathy shouldn't count when making a judgement about something being democratic.
Are the caucuses open to all eligible voters? If so, they are fine.

Posted by Chris T | February 9, 2008 11:29 PM

Chambermaids, Jasper? Is this 1850? Was the haberdasher lobby able to get the vote out?

Posted by Adam | February 9, 2008 11:36 PM

...despite the HIllary spin, there is no evidence that Hillary voters have a harder time getting there than Obama voters.

C'mon, RKA. At least have the graciousness to acknowledge the fact that the caucus format favors Senator Obama. I mean, it's to his and his campaign's credit that they recognized this advantage early on, and developed an intelligent and effective strategy to leverage this advantage to the fullest. One thing Hillary supporters can take comfort in is that, should Obama prevail, we'll certainly be getting a brilliant campaign strategist as a standard bearer.

Still, I'm pretty sure there is ample evidence that documents the socioeconomic disparities between Obama's and Clinton's voters bases. His is wealthier. Affluence correlates with schedule flexibility and autonomy. There's nothing remotely controversial about this, just as there's nothing remotely wrong with Obama's using such facts to his full advantage. I know I would.

Posted by Jasper | February 9, 2008 11:41 PM

Jasper,

But, if my fears are realized -- and his general election support turns out to be much shallower than is supposed...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Obama and Clinton basically running neck-and-neck in the popular vote at this point despite the fact that she's won the most populous states of California and New York and he's supposedly completely reliant on these caucus votes? It sorta belies the idea that the people are speaking and they're crushing him; it's just not so. Marc's latest post noting that they've won the same amount of primary elections also underscores this point.

Indeed, no matter what transpires in November, I exhort the DNC to do everything in its power to get all states to jettison caucuses. They're pretty. They're Athenian. They're Rockwellian. They're also elitist and decidedly undemocratic.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea that caucuses should be jettisoned. They're not as inclusive as straight primary votes, this is true. But they do give a larger voice in the process to the truly committed within the party (whether they're party/cause activists or just supremely driven voters) and it's not strictly a bad thing for the most dedicated members of the party to have a say, too.

Interestingly, the current structure emphasizes different elements of the party: one piece (superdelegates) gives a voice to elected officials and party leaders; one piece gives a voice to activists and committed voters; one pieces gives a say to the regular, ordinary voters. That seems fairly equitable, especially if the best way to win is to find a way to appeal to all three of these different constituencies across a wide geographic area.

Posted by jbryan | February 9, 2008 11:42 PM

As to the superdelegates, why is Jasper not complaining about them? If anything is undemocratic, then having "special" delegates certainly is.
Besides, Jasper should not be worried about the Ms., they'll get her FL and MI delegates seated yet, with a media blitz about not seating them being "undemocratic" and a federal lawsuit if necessary.
And of course any other dirty trick they can pull against Barack.
Ne live in NJ, here it's hopeless, this place would have enshrined Rudy if he hadn't pulled out, and of course fell big time to the Missus

Posted by Chris T. | February 9, 2008 11:56 PM

Jasper= sore loser tonight.

Get over it. Don't like the rules? Change them.
Obama is playing by the rules.

Posted by swarty | February 10, 2008 12:00 AM

Jasper, WA State *doubled* turnout over 2004 and you're worried about shallow support? The same enormous *increase* in participation has been evident in IA and caucus and primary states since, and you're worried about shallow support?

Look, Clinton may still win this thing. She has a lot of deep and committed support. She continues to lead in national polling. She is a serious and resilient candidate with plenty of experienced staff.

But Jasper, let's put the spinning aside and try to understand what's going on here. On spending, Clinton and Obama raised virtually identical amounts in calendar 2007. (The funding advantage emerged only in January 2008.) You're telling me that a candidate with her advantages going into this thing -- deep connections with the party establishment, huge name recognition, and a 20-point polling advantage for most of 2007 -- was not able to put together a real national organization? That it somehow never occurred to her that she would have to appeal to voters in Washington state?

Yes, the caucus will exclude folks who draw a Saturday afternoon shift at work and can't switch. And if that accounted for half the working class, you might have a point. But precisely because caucuses get smaller turnouts, a campaign that puts serious resources into identifying an mobilizing its people can do that. I don't think she has the people.

Finally I point out that Obama has won primaries in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, and Utah. So spinning this as a caucuses winner versus a primaries winner won't fly.

Posted by Colin | February 10, 2008 12:01 AM

In re commitment and caucuses and primaries, I saw in one exit poll that they asked people if the election was very important, important, somewhat important, or not important at all. Clinton won only the last group. I think it's a good thing we have caucuses which capture real interest, as opposed to people who just stumble out of bed to vote, without thinking it important.

Posted by Pablo | February 10, 2008 12:06 AM

In re commitment and caucuses and primaries, I saw in one exit poll that they asked people if the election was very important, important, somewhat important, or not important at all. Clinton won only the last group. I think it's a good thing we have caucuses which capture real interest, as opposed to people who just stumble out of bed to vote, without thinking it important.

Posted by Pablo | February 10, 2008 12:06 AM

Marc, just come out and admit you're in the Clinton camp. On the payroll or something. You belittle Obama's wins will heaping tons of print(pixels?) on Clinton's campaign strategies.

Obama had a tremendous win tonight.

Posted by Beth in VA | February 10, 2008 12:12 AM

Marc,

You should ban Larry from posting on this site. His post suggesting violence against Obama is disgusting and incendiary. That type of sentiment should have no place on this thoughtful site and he should not be allowed to be around thinking people.

Posted by MJ | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Obama and Clinton basically running neck-and-neck in the popular vote at this point despite the fact that she's won the most populous states of California and New York and he's supposedly completely reliant on these caucus votes?

jbryan: I base my fears about Obama's electability (the "shallowness" of his support) on the Electoral College (which is, after all, what we all should be looking at in terms of November).

I simply can't see the predictive value in caucuses, because participation is so much tinier than general elections.

So, that leaves me with primaries. And in primaries in states that are at least plausibly competitive this November, so far Obama is 2 for 5* (Missouri narrowly his, Louisiana more heavily so, Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, Tennessee for Hillary). I realize that's a small sample. So we'll have to wait and see what more states do. Sure, Obama wracked up big margins in Georgia and Illinois. But Georgia's not going Democratic this year. And Illinois almost certainly is. Don't give me polls. Give me actual elections. Mass elections. I'll be very interested to see what Ohio does. If Obama wins Ohio, I think the nomination's his, and I'll be a lot more confident the next president is a Democrat. If she takes it, that makes her four for six in purple state primaries.

*I realize, FWIW, that "2" vs. "3" is only an advantage of one for Hillary. So it's close. But the point is, we hear so much about Obama's supposedly superior electability. Thus I would expect the advantage to be his -- ideally decisively so. It's obvious he can generate a lot of excitement, and bring out a lot of young voters. But can he actually pull in states we need in November? I think it's still a very open question which of the two is superior in this regard. Remember, it's all about the Electoral College, and it's all about converting red states to blue, against a very centrist, moderate Republican. The next couple of months should certainly be fascinating history in the making.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 12:17 AM

As to the superdelegates, why is Jasper not complaining about them? If anything is undemocratic, then having "special" delegates certainly is.

I don't like them, either, but I think you do have to have some sort of mechanism in place to build majorities of delegates if the convention is deadlocked. That said, rules are rules, so I trust nobody will cry "foul" if the bulk of them decide to throw in their lot with whichever candidate wins the popular vote. After all, they're free to vote any way they choose.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 12:23 AM

Another disorganized and shallow series of posts from Marc Ambinder. How'd he get this job anyway?

Posted by Peggy | February 10, 2008 12:27 AM

methinks Larry may be getting a visit from the Secret Service in the not to distant future, so whether or not he will continue to have posting privileges may not be his most pressing problem.

Posted by Jim | February 10, 2008 12:27 AM

methinks Larry may be getting a visit from the Secret Service in the not too distant future, so whether or not he will continue to have posting privileges may not be his most pressing problem.

Posted by Jim | February 10, 2008 12:27 AM

Chambermaids, Jasper? Is this 1850? Was the haberdasher lobby able to get the vote out?

Um, last time I checked, robots hadn't yet taken over the cleaning of hotel rooms, idiot.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 12:29 AM

It's becoming somewhat comical watching Clinton supporters' attempts to rationalize Obama's votes away.

First, it was the youth. They are naively idealistic, so their votes don't really count.

Then it was the blacks. They vote for the black guy, so their votes don't really count.

Then it was the "wine and cheese crowd." They went to college, and are therefore far less "authentic" than blue-collar Democrats (white ones only; black blue-collar Democrats are excluded under point two). The "wine and cheese" people don't really count either.

The independents don't count because they're independents. The men are a minority of Democrats and, more problematically, a lot of them like Obama, so they only sort of count.

Now it's the red-staters and the caucus-goers who apparently don't count, although the reasoning is getting too specious to paraphrase at this point.

The Obama campaign must be on its last legs. The only people left supporting Obama are young people, black people, people who went to college, independents, men, red staters, and people in caucus states. All the real Democrats are supporting Hillary.

Posted by Pragmatic Progressive | February 10, 2008 12:29 AM

Jasper,

I'm baffled by your logic. You say you're concerned about Obama's support being more shallow because he's mainly winning caucuses with smaller participation, but I noted that they're running close to even in the popular vote so far. Your response was that, again, participation is smaller in caucuses (which shouldn't matter if, again, they're running basically even in total votes) -- but then you say that your concern is the electoral college. If that's so, why the issue with the number of votes at all? The electoral college has nothing to do with the popular vote, certainly; I think we all know that by this point.

So you then say the most important factor isn't winning the popular vote, it isn't winning delegates, it isn't the difference between primaries and caucuses, it isn't winning red states or blue states -- a candidate needs to win primaries just in the states that might be swing states come the general election. But last I checked, that's really not how we've ever evaluated candidate viability and it seems a silly system to implement now. But I applaud you on the consistency of your arguments.

Incidentally, that little victory Obama will be getting in the Virginia and Maryland primaries on Tuesday... will those count? I'm not sure. I know they've got a lot of black people in them, so I'm pretty sure they're on the list of victories that don't count for Obama.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 12:40 AM

Jasper, WA State *doubled* turnout over 2004 and you're worried about shallow support?

Yes. Doubling to -- oh boy -- 200,000 -- is not indicative of broad support. Washington State's voting age population is surely approaching five million.

I'm not terribly worried either way about the Pacific Northwest. There's no way the Republicans hold onto this region in 2008. But yes, on the narrow point of caucuses vs. primaries, the latter are much more inclusionary, much more democratic, much larger in terms of voter participation, and therefore more reliably predictive of the general election.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 12:44 AM

Someone's bitter tonight (Marc...)

Posted by Joe Wheaton | February 10, 2008 12:52 AM

Personally, I think I agree with the analysis that says Clinton's strategy of 'neglecting' the intermediate races in favor of waiting for the big races has a parallel to another New Yorker's campaign and may have similar results.

Also, while I see lots of posts denigrating the success Obama has had in caucuses, where was this talk about the fundamental unfairness of them when Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada? Also, where was the concern for the working poor who otherwise would not be able to participate when Clinton was trying to exclude Jasper's 'chambermaids and busboys' from the process?

Lastly, I see alot of people expressing the idea that somehow Obama is exploiting the system somehow disingenuous. No one changed the format of these contests at the last moment. Clinton had plenty of money early on, but relied on her name recognition and access to the organizations of established party stalwarts to win the caucus states. Indeed in any other election cycle; this would have been a winning strategy as she has garnered enough votes in each of these contest to win in any other election cycle.

What she has shown is a singular inability to adapt to a shifting environment and unexpected challenges to her pre-conceived concepts of a situation. Obama looked at the challenges he faced. He calmly and rationally examined how to negotiate the obstacles to a successful conclusion. It is this approach that convinces me of his superior qualifications to be president. We have seen what happens when we have a president who attempts to force facts to conform to one's pre-conceived ideas of the world or the challenges it presents. It lends gravitas, and creditability, to his position of being a serious agent of change. It also pulls the fangs from Clinton's assertion that she is the more experienced and more capable candidate. Clinton is fighting the last two presidential campaigns using strategies that would have changed their outcomes had they been used by the Democratic nominees of those campaigns. Unfortunately for her; she is up against a candidate who is grounded in this campaign and the challenges it presents.

Posted by MikeyBackwards | February 10, 2008 12:57 AM

When you write that "Obama cannot win the states where the majority of Democrats reside" ...I take it you mean the large states with large Democratic populations. But based on what? You only have Super Tuesday data, and Obama did win Ct and Delaware. Of course he won his home state of IL by a larger margin that Hillary won her home state of NY.

Obama can win the large Democratic states if he has enough time to campaign and overcome the Clinton name recognition advantage.

In all Super Tues states he closed the gap fast, and given another week or so might have pulled off Calif.

But Obama essentially had about a week and a half from SC to Super Tuesday to make his pitch in 22 states.

Also, in a general election, Obama or any Democrat will win these blue states no matter what. Obama has shown appeal far greater than Hillary, however, in the swing purple states and even in red states. For instance, a state like Ga or Va may come into play for the Democratic party if Obama is the nominee, like it never would for Hillary.

I also agree that the comment about the caucuses being "undemocratic" is unfair and inaccurate. In many cases, a caucus is grassroots democracy at its best.

Posted by cm | February 10, 2008 12:59 AM

BAN JASPER. Ban him NOW. Not only is his tripe complete and utter nonsense, but to ACTIVELY encourage assassination is completely over the top and completely unacceptable. Not only should you ban Jasper, you should (indeed, you MUST) turn over Jasper's information to the Secret Service right now.

RIGHT.FRIGGING.NOW.

Posted by Christopher | February 10, 2008 1:00 AM

if that's so, why the issue with the number of votes at all? The electoral college has nothing to do with the popular vote, certainly; I think we all know that by this point.

jbryan: The Electoral College has nothing to do with the popular vote? Really? Are you serious? If I recall correctly from way back in the seventh grade, the winner of the popular vote in a given state wins that state's electoral votes. Right? So -- stay with me here -- the candidate best able to win the popular vote in the states that are truly competitive -- places like Ohio, Florida and Arkansas -- stands a better shot at taking the oath next January. It doesn't matter whether it's Hillary or Barack who's more likely to win New York, Illinois, Idaho or Utah. Such states aren't competitive.

So far I think it's very debatable as to which of the two Democratic contenders is strongest in states that are competitive. But if Obama were really the clear "electability" champion, it wouldn't be so debatable. In fact, if Ohio falls to Clinton, it won't be debatable any more. The electable choice in that case clearly is Clinton.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 1:00 AM

John McCain's advisers are probably thinking: woe unto the Democratic nominee who refuses to organize; woe unto the Democratic nominee who appeals to activists perfectly and regular Democrats kinda sorta.

Um, who, exactly are these ' regular Democrats' that Obama 'kinda sorta' appeals to?

Make it clear, Marc, because, from where I sit, the BASE -- the ones that show up every election - and haven't wavered - the most regular of Democrats - are African-Americans...and they seem to be sorta showing up.....

But, I guess, they don't count, until they're told to come out on election day.

Unbelievable- the disrespect shown the Black base of the Democratic Party.

Posted by rikyrah | February 10, 2008 1:12 AM

Jasper:

Total WA registered voters are around 3.2 million, actually. I don't see a party breakdown, but I would guess a rough split between the two, though we also have our share of Independents.

Has anyone done rigorous analysis on how primary/caucus votes or turnouts predict general elections? As a direct application, it's an obvious category error: people are making a different kind of choice. Everyone I talked to at today's caucus would support either candidate in the general election.

My point is simply that a *doubling* of party turnout over four years would seem to suggest *greater* party interest and enthusiasm and other things being equal, suggest better chances in the Fall. And that pattern of greater turnout is not limited to us latte-sippers, but holds up across the nation.

Your arguments on absolute sizes cut both ways: HRC turned out five or six thousand people to a Seattle event on Thursday. And yet, statewide, she couldn't turn out even 75 thousand people to local events on a sunny Saturday afternoon.

Anyway, Jasper, I respect the fact that you have asked some good questions and nuanced your position as the thread progressed.

.

Again I would urge anyone interested to inspect the fine grain of the results, either at the NYT page or here: http://www.wa-democrats.org/index.php?page=display&id=273
For anyone who knows the state the geographic range of Obama's support is breathtaking.

So is a better-than-2:1 thumping in the context of an evenly-contested national race.

We're enthusiastic. Yeah. Get used to it, or better, join us!

Posted by Colin | February 10, 2008 1:13 AM

I'm baffled by all the sudden disillusionment with caucuses as undemocratic. They've been around forever. The fact is, in typical presidential election years, the frontrunner is seen as a lock by this point. The Iowa caucuses have great influence, but races later in the calendar tend to be treated as done deals. (Last go round, Kerry was already anointed the shoo-in by Super Tuesday. I know plenty of people who voted for him just because they figured he was going to win anyway, and they wanted to go with the winner.) As a result, people haven't complained so much about caucuses v. primaries. They've focused instead on the inordinate influence of the early states.

Now Clinton's struggling against a challenger nobody thought had a chance, and--presto-magico!--caucuses are undemocratic! (Would it be more democratic if Clinton already had it "sewn up," as so many of the chattering class predicted a few months ago?) If Clinton had objected to the caucus system before the election season started, that would be one thing. But now the critique seems nothing more than sour grapes. Maybe caucus system reform is something state parties need to address, but certainly not mid-game. (Though, as we've seen in MI and FL, the Clinton camp loves mid-game rule changes if they think it will help their cause.)

Obama has made the best of the situation. Can't we give credit where credit is due?

Posted by Lisa | February 10, 2008 2:05 AM

As a direct application, it's an obvious category error: people are making a different kind of choice.

FINALLY someone takes a second to educate the folks trotting out the "the states he won would not go for a Democrat anyway" in a futile attempt to explain away the Obama "flyover" wins.

I didn't think anyone needed to respond to these erroneous assertions. Surely, if the harbingers of this meme would just think about what they were saying for one second -- or just channel some basics.

So, thanks

Posted by rossi_summit | February 10, 2008 2:18 AM

Jasper:

You seem to suggest that Hillary supporters in the "big blue states" will not lend their considerable votes to Obama in November. I don't follow your thinking. Ohio and Texas aren't "winner take alls." He would have to completely collapse in Ohio and Texas not to keep the delegate counts close--especially if he performs as expected in the Potomac primaries and Maine.

Further, there are huge pockets of Black voters in both those states. Texas' Latino population may break for Hillary, but there's ALSO a good chance that Obama's awareness will have grown enough to offset her much better name recognition by then. Not for nothing, "Hillary haterade" has GOT to be pouring freely in Bush's backyard. Ergo, a Texas primary win for Hillary that cedes the state in the general would be a pyrrhic victory of epic proportions.

This campaign season has been marked by amazing Democratic turnout that has dwarfed the increasingly factionalized GOP electorate.

When Obama wins the nomination, he will combine the full force of the Democratic party with a considerable number of independents creating a dual-front fight that McCain cannot overwhelm.

Aside from the asinine "Larrys" of the country, Obama simply does not inspire the animus that Hillary does. Since their policies differ so little, there's nothing for a Democrat NOT to like about an Obama candidacy come November.

Posted by AltonDarwin | February 10, 2008 2:30 AM

You seem to suggest that Hillary supporters in the "big blue states" will not lend their considerable votes to Obama in November.

AltonDarwin: I'm not suggesting that at all. Either Obama or Clinton should easily win all of Kerry's '04 states. The only exception I reckon is California. I think the Democrats will win it, but I suspect they'll need to spend a few buck to hold it down if Obama's the nominee, given his troubles with Asian and Latino voters (and McCain's popularity with the latter). Still, they should win it.

No, I think the election, as the last several, is decided in the purple states: Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc. I think Clinton does better in those states. For the record, I think the Democrats will win in November. My main objection on the electability front is that, as someone who has never been tested by the GOP attack machine, Obama's a bit of an unknown quantity when it comes to a general election. And I think if there ever were to be problems with his performance in November, they'd likely manifest themselves to the detriment of the party in the "close" (i.e, purple) states.

It's a bit of a truism, but the classic swing voters is a working class white. I simply see Hillary as the stronger performer with this cohort. I imagine that, from the perspective of the Electoral College, a Democratic victory in 2008 is likely to look much like its victories in '92 or '96: like a Bill Clinton victory.

Ergo, a Texas primary win for Hillary that cedes the state in the general would be a pyrrhic victory of epic proportions.

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Texas is very unlikely to go to the Democrats this year. It's getting a bit purpler as time goes by, but it'll be another couple of cycles before it could reliably be considered a swing state. Texas is still a red state, and does not realistically figure into the Democratic party's plans for victory in November. They won't get it. They don't need it.

Since their policies differ so little, there's nothing for a Democrat NOT to like about an Obama candidacy come November.

Well, there's the fact that he's untested against the Republican attack machine; and the fact that a black candidate has never been a major party's nominee before (I hope it doesn't hurt him in the general election, but I'm not certain of this -- are you?); and the fact that his youth and lack of Washington experience are likely to match up unfavorably against Senator McCain; and the fact that he'll accurately be attacked by the GOP as one of the party's most liberal members; and the fact that he probably won't be able to press home the advantage on economic issues as strongly as Senator Clinton; and the fact that he probably won't run as strongly as Clinton can in most of the aforementioned swing states -- where the election will be decided.

FWIW, I'm not saying we couldn't write a laundry list of Clinton's weaknesses, too. But it's not like Obama doesn't have any, either. And Democrats have been known to choose wrongly before.

Oh, and on both Iraq and the economy, their positions do differ. Clinton has (prudently, in my view) not committed herself to a timetable for withdrawal. Obama has. I want us out of Iraq. But I think both for strategic/tactical reasons and for political reasons, it's wiser to preserve flexibility. Also, I won't go into it in detail, but on economic issues (healthcare, Social Security, etc.) there are some substantive differences on their respective views, and some major differences in their teams of advisers.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 3:08 AM

Jasper, do you really think that HRC is stronger in MO when she lost independent voters there by 37% to Obama? That is a pretty weak showing. The Dems can't win MO on registered Democrats or on Gore or Kerry voters alone. Yeah, Obama could lose some Dems downstate. We don't really know. But it is hard to believe that all of his independent voters there would be voting for HRC in November.

Posted by ikl | February 10, 2008 3:47 AM

Jasper is correct. Obama makes California tougher to hold. If McCain figures out the right way to play Obama's ludicrous proposal to remove the Social Security cap, a whole lot of white swing voters won't think twice about picking a Republican.

The Jewish vote has been all over the map--he won it in Connecticut and California. But he lost it badly in New York, New Jersey and (worst of all) Florida. This is probably due to their distaste for his foreign policy advisers, particularly Brzezinski and Malley, and their opinion of Obama's judgment can only get worse once McCain starts to woo them.

On the caucuses: without question, this nomination has demonstrated that they can't continue. They simply aren't a convincing metric of voter preference. They work fine when momentum carries one candidate along, but in a delegate count they simply don't make the case. That's precisely why Obama's wins don't do anything beyond add to his delegate count. Ultimtaely, it's why the Dems should (and probably will) push it towards the candidate who would have won a good number of those states in a primary vote.

Posted by Cal | February 10, 2008 3:57 AM

ikl,

Jasper, do you really think that HRC is stronger in MO when she lost independent voters there by 37% to Obama? That is a pretty weak showing. The Dems can't win MO on registered Democrats or on Gore or Kerry voters alone.

It's not just Missouri. He's winning the independent vote everywhere. Arizona: +10, California: +24, Georgia: +30, Iowa: +24, Missouri: +37, New Mexico: +36, Nevada: +14.

I don't see how Clinton can perform better in these states in the general election when it's pretty clear that Obama is running *way* ahead with independents. I guess the idea is that his candidacy alienates large segments of the Democratic vote, but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case -- the polls show that most base Democratic voters are extremely satisfied with both candidates.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 4:00 AM

If McCain figures out the right way to play Obama's ludicrous proposal to remove the Social Security cap, a whole lot of white swing voters won't think twice about picking a Republican.

Wait, what? Really? Obama's proposal to raise (not remove, incidentally) the cap on those who make more than 90,000$ is going to move a large chunk of white *swing voters*? I don't think the 90k+ crowd is particularly a swing demographic, but okay... this seems especially like a weak argument when all Obama has to do to respond is throw McCain's support for privatization back at him.

The position is also going to be a strong asset for Obama in helping to continue driving the under 45 vote. Which will already be extreme enough when you've got a 46 year old candidate facing off against a very noticeably 72 year old man.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 4:06 AM

I'd also add that I'd be delighted to see 2008 be an election on Social Security. The last time the Republicans tried to pitch their Social Security plans, back in 2005, it didn't play very well. So yeah, best thing the Democrats could ask for would be for McCain to run on that.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 4:16 AM

Well let's see. Minnesota has gone for the Democratic nominee every year since, oh, roughly Eisenhower. I guess that makes it an even more reliable blue state than either New York or New Jersey, both of which went with Reagan in 84. And Obama won Minnesota by 2 to 1, similar to his blowout margins in Washington and Nebraska. (And Idaho. And North Dakota. And Kansas. And Alaska.)

So what are you smoking, Marc? And where are you trying to blow it?

Posted by Keith Pickering | February 10, 2008 4:18 AM

Obama cannont win in the general, and the Democrats need to ensure the Florida delegates are seated at the convention. Over 1.2 million people voted in that primary, and they are going to need Florida's support in November. If they get to the convention, and it is apparent that Florida's delegates are critical to deciding the nominee, the Democrats will have no choice but to seat them. Otherwise they will have pissed off 1.2 million voters, and handed Florda to the Republicans in the general. Florida is a "purple" state, and as Florida goes, so goes the nation. Think about it. If it comes to that, Obama will be forced not to fight the seating of those delegates. If he fights it and gets the nomination, there is no way in HELL Florida will support him.

Posted by common | February 10, 2008 8:31 AM

Of course it is patently untrue that Obama can't win in traditionally Democratic states. Connecticut,Delaware Illinois and Minnesota are heavily Democratic states. He should do very well in Maryland and DC on Tuesday. DC is as Democratic as you can get.

He also has broad appeal in "swing states" like Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado.

More importantly, he is doing very well in states that could kill the Republicans. Obama could beat McCain in Louisiana and Virginia. He may be able to challenge him in Georgia, and if the black community is invigorated by having a black president, he could cause trouble for them in Mississippi, Alabama and the Carolinas. If the Republicans have to spend a dime defending the Solid South, they will be toast in November. If Obama can win two Southern states, namely Virginia and Louisiana, there is no way the Republicans can make up for that cut into their base.

Meanwhile, Clinton would struggle holding onto to traditional Democratic states if she were the nominee, and would be playing the Kerry game of abandoning states to fight with Bush over about 8 swing states. It hurt the Democrats at all political levels. Obama is the only one who can play the 50 State game and put the Republicans on the defensive without risking his own base, especially since McCain obviously has yet to convince his own party that he is the one.

It maybe that McCain won a lot of anti-Romney votes, and now the anti-McCain voters are having their say.

Posted by AxelDC | February 10, 2008 8:50 AM

AltonDarwin: I'm not suggesting that at all. Either Obama or Clinton should easily win all of Kerry's '04 states. The only exception I reckon is California. I think the Democrats will win it, but I suspect they'll need to spend a few buck to hold it down if Obama's the nominee, given his troubles with Asian and Latino voters (and McCain's popularity with the latter). Still, they should win it.

Two points here... There's NO WAY Dems are losing California this cycle. Latinos broke for Hillary on familiarity. When he's the nominee in the general, he will have built PLENTY of broader Latino support. He was La Opinion's choice after all. The Latino metrics will have to be assessed WITHOUT Clinton as an option. Second, McCain's troubled reception at CPAC means he won't be touting his pro-immigration stance to heavily come November either.

...My main objection on the electability front is that, as someone who has never been tested by the GOP attack machine, Obama's a bit of an unknown quantity when it comes to a general election. And I think if there ever were to be problems with his performance in November, they'd likely manifest themselves to the detriment of the party in the "close" (i.e, purple) states.

I am sick UNTO death of this tired meme. A Black man in politics untested by dirty tricks? PUH-LEASE. The Clinton's have tried to make some stuff stick and failed. Clinton keeps whispering Rezko like they don't have a dirty laundry list of their own sleazy campaign contributors. Further, all the Clinton's savvy didn't prevent Mr. Clinton from becoming only the third President in history to be impeached. Didn't stop the Whitewater inverstigations, Travelgate, the FBI file inquiries and any other myriad distractions that wasted countless millions and unraveled his legacy. Gore should have GLIDED into the White House after Clinton. Instead, Clinton's tattered coattails made him a pariah on the campaign trail and faciliatated Dubya's Florida theft.

Obama's a pol from Chicago. He'll be fine. BTW, McCain is REALLY weak on "values" after dumping his injured wife for a beer heiress AND racists still haven't forgotten about Bridget, his "Black" adopted Bangladeshi daughter. That red-state angst cuts both ways on McCain as evidenced by Huckabee's performances in those states. Huge swells of newly empowered Black voters PLUS soft support for McCain in base GOPers means the South is in play again. Obama's true 50-state strategy helps him here.

Respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. Texas is very unlikely to go to the Democrats this year. It's getting a bit purpler as time goes by, but it'll be another couple of cycles before it could reliably be considered a swing state. Texas is still a red state, and does not realistically figure into the Democratic party's plans for victory in November. They won't get it. They don't need it.

I will wait to see how Ron Paul fares in Texas to see how "in play" it will be. Even if he drops before Texas, his name will be on the ballot and will likely draw like he did in Louisiana. Voters choosing his HOPELESS campaign in lieu of the almost confirmed GOP candidate speaks VOLUMES. Again, in normal circumstances, Texas would not be a possibility; HOWEVER, circumstances AREN'T normal. McCain will be fighting tooth and nail for every social conservative AND swing independents. Obama has electrified the Black electorate in untold numbers, increasing their impact exponentially. McCain can't lost Romney's 7%, Paul's 5% and Huckabee's voters and win this race.

As an aside, if Texas is a foregone loss, Hillary's strategy to focus on it for primary delegate counts INSTEAD of expending resources on putting softer red states into play as Obama has done seems especially foolhardy.

Well, there's the fact that he's untested against the Republican attack machine;

Dealt with this one above... NEXT. Interesting that with all Obama's momentum "he's untested against attacks" is still the first thing people try to tar him with. Seems silly to me.

and the fact that a black candidate has never been a major party's nominee before (I hope it doesn't hurt him in the general election, but I'm not certain of this -- are you?

Ditto for a woman candidate. (I hope it doesn't hurt HER in the general election, but I'm not certain of this -- are you?). Incidentally, her NEGATIVES are SO MUCH HIGHER. She's a woman with baggage that draws red meat animus like a vulture to carrion.

and the fact that his youth and lack of Washington experience are likely to match up unfavorably against Senator McCain;

REALLY? I'll stack the most impressive political orator in a generation against crotchety Grandma marble-jaws ANY day. NO SENATOR since Kennedy has advanced straight from the Legis

Obama Wins Washington State, Nebraska Caucuses By Wide Margins

TrackBack

Comments (75)