Where The Democratic Race Is Now

Tuesday night, Barack Obama credibly established his claim to be a national candidate

Hillary Clinton won the votes of more Democrats than Barack Obama did. She won the votes of enough “red” states to temper, at least for now, the idea that Democrats in those states believe she is manifestly unelectable and would drag the party down in their states.

Over the next two weeks, the caucus and primaries ahead are better for Obama than for Clinton, and he should close the delegate map a little. Or maybe a lot: he tends to win the states in which he competes and Clinton does not by a large margin. Obama has been on the air in all nine states… Clinton is not… and the big reason is money: Obama has money in the bank, and Clinton is having trouble staying in the black.

Nothing in tonight’s results will temper fears that black voters are choosing one candidate and Hispanic voters are choosing another. Ted Kennedy’s endorsement did not seem to matter among Hispanics.

Nothing in the Democratic results tonight will change the minds of those Superdelegates, at least 500 of whom haven't told us who they're supporting. They're not likely to come off the fence, and arguably, this is a little better at this point for Hillary Clinton because Obama, heading into tonight, had started to pick up superdelegates off of his South Carolina momentum.

Last day deciders chose Hillary Clinton, which suggests that she “won” news coverage following the first national debate and is a reason why she’s accepting debate invitations center and left. (They essentially tied among last-three day deciders.)

Clinton was ahead in the national polls in most of the states two weeks ago. But Obama has closed 20 points nationally. He is no longer the underdog, and heading into – and certainly out of – this contest, he is just as much _the_ leading Democratic candidate as she is. Obama cannot plausibly claim underdog status anymore.

The defection of black voters to Barack Obama continues to hurt Hillary Clinton and has not ebbed. Obama won black voters by more than Clinton won among Hispanics voters; Obama took 44% of them in Arizona and most of them in Illinois. Nowhere did Hillary Clinton receive more than 25% of the black vote.

Regionally, New Jersey and Connecticut voters do not claim Hillary Clinton as one of their own, whilst Arkansas clearly did.

Here is the Obama spin on what the Clinton campaign wanted from Tuesday: “They had to kill us and they didn’t.” Here is the Clinton spin on what the Obama campaign wanted from Tuesday.” Privately, the Obama campaign wanted big upsets. Connecticut is not a big upset. Privately, the Clinton campaign wanted to win their states decisively. This is a dogfight.

The fact that we won’t know the delegate allocation for a few days benefits the candidate who won the most votes, perceptually. But Clinton's margin is less than I thought it would be.

Thanks to Obama’s margins in Georgia and Illinois and his competitiveness in New Jersey, he may wind up winning more delegates than Clinton.

Obama won all six caucus states by huge margins, evidence of a failure of will on the Clinton campaign to do any organizing there.

The white males who preferred John Edwards in the South seem to have chosen Barack Obama. We see this in states as diverse as Georgia and California. Nationally, Obama won white men of all income levels and white men with college degrees. White men without college degrees chose Hillary Clinton. White crossover independent men powered Obama’s vote in California and other open states.

The idea that the Democratic race does not seem to be effecting the Republican race, and vice versa (aside from some rhetorical flourishes and a nagging desire on the Republican side to find someone capable of beating Hillary Clinton. Feb 5 may activate this dynamic.

Comments

Barak Obama beat expectations, but that's not the same as beating your opponent. I'd call this a Clinton win, because she's still ahead, but it's a pretty weak one.

It's interesting how the media watches debates versus how voters do. Most of the people (I know) who watched the debate last week thought Clinton had won it, and were generally impressed by her. But the political junkie/analysts who had internalized Clinton's polished style were more impressed by how much better Obama was than usual.

Neither of these people are gonna give up, and if superdelegates decide this, that could be a PR disaster.

These two people and their staffs must be exhausted, and candidates can do stupid things when they're tired. It will be an interesting few weeks ...

Posted by noho1 | February 6, 2008 9:28 AM

Marc, I think you are over-emphasizing the importance of minute differences in the running national poular vote.

First, this number does not select the nominee; delegates do.

Secondly, Hillary's popular vote edge is almost all based on running up the score in big states that any dem would win - CA, NY, MA, NJ.

To say this is a wash in terms of electability is absurd. Obama won many more red states than did Hillary.

Winning AK, TN, and OK means she has calmed the nerves of red state dems? Please. These folks are all going to look at their state and local parties individually. Someone in Colorodo - a state a dem could win - is not going to take heart from what happens in Oklahoma - a state no dem will win. And Obama has a decisive advantage in red states while splitting the blue ones.

We pretty much alredy know the delegate allocation results and they slightly favor Obama. You and you buddies in the media are trying to spin a narrow Obama victory last night to anything between a tie to a Clinton victory? Why do you journalists have so much trouble telling the truth?

And the funny thing is after giving all this Mark Penn spin about how Hillary more or less won last night because of (your) perceptions and the (meaningless) popular vote narrow edge, you then say that a guy who was a state senator 4 years ago can no longer be thought of as an underdog against the wife of the only two term dem president since FDR.

Not only is your argument absurd, Marc, it's not even internally consistent!

Posted by RKA | February 6, 2008 9:34 AM

This is an outstanding showing for Obama. Clinton’s wins can be chalked up to her being the former first lady and inheriting her husband’s political and fundraising machines. Bill was a two-term president, so WHY wouldn’t Hillary win NY (her home state) and CA (where they have cultivated relationships for 20 years)? Obama didn’t have that advantage, developed a well-funded grass roots organization in a year and won 5 more states and more delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday, even if he had to do it by piecing wins smaller states together. He wasn’t going to overcome her name recognition and big-state advantage in two weeks, but he also knew she wasn’t focusing on the small states. Brilliant strategy.

When you think of it, he had to spend the last several months (in money and time) focusing on the first four states – IA, NH, NV, and MI. He only started really advertising in the Super Tuesday states over the last few weeks and dramatically reduced Clinton’s lead in many of those states in a matter of days. Two weeks ago, Hillary was leading in MA by 37 points, Obama lost to her by 15 points. He erased a 22% deficit in less than two weeks. In NY, she was ahead by 28% on January 26th, but she ended up beating him by 14%, cutting her lead in half. The Kennedy endorsements only happened ONE week ago. They weren’t able to work a miracle in 8 days, but they did help him cut his deficit by double digits in a very short time frame.

For a man who was virtually unknown in many of the states he won until the last few weeks to win more states than Hillary and exceed her in the delegate count is outstanding. It isn’t over, but Obama should not be denied his bragging rights.

The Clinton camp said they'd have this locked up by Feb. 5th. They didn't do it and now the rest of February looks REALLY tough for them, and she's running out of money.

Posted by sue | February 6, 2008 9:38 AM

Re: noho1

I am obsessed with politics, live by it and breathe it and is completely fascinated with this contest and love love LOVE one of the candidates.

And *I* am tired and emotionally drained just to read about all that happens. I can only imagine in what state of nerves *they* must feel.

Posted by Benjamin | February 6, 2008 9:46 AM

Obama won the red states because the anti Clinton vote conservative right wing is crossing party lines so they don't have to face HRC in a general election. The conservatives know that HRC can beet them and Obama can not beet them. Obama if elected which he will not be- would have the least experience of any American president ever elected. JFK who the Obma supporters like to think Obama is was a congressmen for many years before he was Senator and before he was resident. The fact that Obama voted against the war does not make him the most qualified to leaad us out of Iraq. You need expereince to do that job. Obama would spend the first 90 days of his presidency figuring out where the men's room is in the White House nver mind how to get the country out of Iraq. Who are the generals in the Pentagon he would call? Where would he find the phone numbers for thehm. Would he ask Michelle or Rezko. Please give me a break. If the true Democrats want to win this election they better vote for HRC, because the independentd in the Red States supporting Obama will vote for Mc Cain in the general election. Obama will lose the Red and Blue States in a general election.

Posted by anonymous | February 6, 2008 10:08 AM

Didn't CNN say that Clinton won the popular vote by 49% to 48%? So that's only a slight win, considering she was strong in the large states. Obama did very well considering how far down he was only a few weeks ago in all the states. She had to gain a 75-100 delegate advantage in order to win Super Tuesday (that would really set the Obama campaign back on their heels). The total count of pleged delegates is 603 Obama 590 Clinton. That means we're still ahead even after Super Tuesday!

Posted by nettle | February 6, 2008 10:08 AM

The conservatives know that HRC can beet them and Obama can not beet them.

I hate beets. Mom made me eat them when I was a kid.

You're obviously a moron. lol.

Posted by Kerry Packer | February 6, 2008 10:16 AM

Great analysis! I think money is going to play a bigger role than you suggest. I just sent some. Love my guy.

Posted by heather | February 6, 2008 10:18 AM

Marc's inference about the debate is preposterous. Why would last-day voters be more influenced by the debate than final-three-day voters? I think the debate, if anything, helped Obama get Edwards' traditional Dem white male supporters who may have thought Obama might not be of equal stature to Hillary and were persuaded he was.

By the way does CNN's methodology re the popular vote include caucus attenders? Either way, if Obama got 48% of the popular vote Tuesday, that is truly a good sign, because 2 million Californians voted early, and presumably heavily for Hillary.

Posted by RaymondA | February 6, 2008 10:19 AM

Hey, can you ask the Clinton camp how much cash on hand they have and what their burn rate is?

Aren't those the questions?

And how much they raised in January *for the primary*.

I think they're really in trouble going into OH, TX.

Posted by Chris R | February 6, 2008 10:33 AM

One more thing, if there was any slight late break to Hillary, it was much more likely due to to the waterworks than the debate.

Posted by RKa | February 6, 2008 10:39 AM

The real question is, are all of the other racial minorities in America join to be the roadblock that prevents the election of the first racial minority in American history?

Obama is basically winning every demographic except Latinos, Asia, Indians (from India), etc.

Obama gets strong support among whites, blacks, and even women. The only groups that appear to be clearly voting against him are any racial minority other than blacks. This raises a lot of questions about race in America today. It appears that whites want to put a black man in the White House, but the other minorities don't.

The really strange thing is, that when you look at the voting records, Obama has voted more strongly in favor of legislation that favors immigrants and other minorities than Clinton has, so on policy Obama is better for the groups that are voting against him.

Posted by Jeff | February 6, 2008 10:44 AM

I am rooting for Barack Obama. But I am a bit concerned with McCain. I look at everyone as a possible president and I DO NOT think McCain would be a different situation than Bush.

Now politics is extremely strategic and it may be that the politicians are providing a smokescreen. If we re so focused on Hillary and Obama, are we really watching the success of the Republicans?

And is the country still feeling the same way about Republicans? Before the race the country was very upset with the republicans and voted Democrats in the House. Now, with the excitement of the elections, are we losing sight of the goal? To ensure the republican mindset of the rich get richer does NOT repeat itself. I've been listening a bit to Huckabee, Im not very worried about him. But I have a bad feeling about McCain.

Im just hoping the Democratic duel will not be a good positioning situation for the republicans, most notbaly McCain.

Posted by kims | February 6, 2008 10:44 AM

RKA: Your argument boils down to the idea that california doesn't matter. Your argument boils down to the idea that obama supporters didn't talk all week about the surge there, that oprah and caroline and maria and michelle weren't trying to shame women into voting without their minds and with just their hearts (whatever the hell they really thought that meant). Your argument boils down to the idea that california was the giant killer, that if obama could win there it was all over.

Your argument is wrong, RKA.

These little crazy caucus states count because he picks up delegates and its great to have the people on tv announce how many states he won and how many she won, but the caucus states are places she didn't campaign: they are wins where the crazy left filled the room and won with turn out that doesn't tell a whole story.
He won them but the numbers there aren't that impressive.
Tell me you wouldn't trade half of them for the announcement that he won california or new york?
Tell me alaska and minnesota have the PR value of massachusetts.
There is the big loss he suffered last night and obama supporters helped him lose it with his and their arrogance.
it is a big blow the way NH was a big blow.
Part of his fabled narrative is that he is a giant killer, that he can kill the giant but now sometimes he is the giant and he did suffer little deaths last night.
AND no big new endorsements today yet and no gossip of new endorsements tomorrow.

Sue your post seems apologetic: well he spent his year and his money doing other things:
BUT with a 132 million dollars and a year in the spotlight he didn't get the win he wanted yesterday. not everybody loves him the way you do. he calls it a movement but it is just a campaign and he won a lotlittle wins but missed the big ones.

Posted by Michael C. | February 6, 2008 10:45 AM

RKA: Your argument boils down to the idea that california doesn't matter. Your argument boils down to the idea that obama supporters didn't talk all week about the surge there, that oprah and caroline and maria and michelle weren't trying to shame women into voting without their minds and with just their hearts (whatever the hell they really thought that meant). Your argument boils down to the idea that california was the giant killer, that if obama could win there it was all over.

Your argument is wrong, RKA.

These little crazy caucus states count because he picks up delegates and its great to have the people on tv announce how many states he won and how many she won, but the caucus states are places she didn't campaign: they are wins where the crazy left filled the room and won with turn out that doesn't tell a whole story.
He won them but the numbers there aren't that impressive.
Tell me you wouldn't trade half of them for the announcement that he won california or new york?
Tell me alaska and minnesota have the PR value of massachusetts.
There is the big loss he suffered last night and obama supporters helped him lose it with his and their arrogance.
it is a big blow the way NH was a big blow.
Part of his fabled narrative is that he is a giant killer, that he can kill the giant but now sometimes he is the giant and he did suffer little deaths last night.
AND no big new endorsements today yet and no gossip of new endorsements tomorrow.

Sue your post seems apologetic: well he spent his year and his money doing other things:
BUT with a 132 million dollars and a year in the spotlight he didn't get the win he wanted yesterday. not everybody loves him the way you do. he calls it a movement but it is just a campaign and he won a lot little wins but missed the big ones.

Posted by Michael C. | February 6, 2008 10:46 AM

What Super Tuesday shows is just how weak a candidate Hillary is. She had the money. She had the immense name recognition. She had her two term ex president/husband actively campaigning for her non-stop. She had her machine grinding GOTV and calling in every favor they can and STILL she could no better than a SPLIT decision at best. WHAT?

The Democratic Establishment has got to be worried.

She's a competent accomplished managerial wonk. All her inspiration and movement comes from outside herself - feeding off of Obama and Edwards positions for change and Bill's charm to get her through. She is going to now begin to wear very thin in the up coming primaries.

She has hit a ceiling because of her own short comings.

She has to go negative because Obama is going to come on direct and strong as he showed in his acceptance speech last night.

Posted by C.B. Todd | February 6, 2008 10:50 AM

Jeff,

I was actually thinking the same thing last night while watching the elections. I think whites and blacks have a very long history together.One that we may be now, through Obama, trying to come to terms with. So here is my theory, such negative stereotypes have been perpetuated by America about Blacks, that immigrants have adopted those views without really understanding or comprehending the true history of Blacks in this country. Whereas, I believe whites have perpetuated these stereotypes through media, books, etc. but yet still know and understand the true reason African Americans have struggled. Whereas new immigrants or 1st and 3nd, have just accepted the stereotypes as truth. Labeling Black as something "Bad" no matter the candidate, and white as "better". Basically they bought the hype.

Whereas whites, are beginning(primarily through the younger generation) to know and understand the African American with greater depth, insight, and understanding. Some are also beginning to take some responsibility for having caused the situation and rectify it through Barack. because he is such a great candidate with great educational credentials.

It is too bad that African Americans have died, and struggled for everyone to have the same legal rights as whites in this country. However, it seems the minorities of this country do not really understand this, and have bought into the stereotypes perpetuated by white America. Ironically, some of white America is now helping to dispel it, while the minority vote is now (somewhat)preventing this progress.

I personally have noticed the immigrant stance on African Americans, and it is based on media influences.

Posted by kim | February 6, 2008 11:01 AM

Barack won the most delegates last night. See this Politico story - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

Posted by steve Phillips | February 6, 2008 11:04 AM

Keep spinning, Michael. The writing's on the wall for Billary. Running out of money, favorable primary schedule for Obama, public perception turning against her and her ilk (like you). It will be interesting to see now how their desperation manifests itself: crying, racial insinuation, outright lying, campaign finance fraud, etc. I for one will enjoy watching the Clinton's meltdown over the next few weeks.

Posted by Kerry Packer | February 6, 2008 11:07 AM

Here is the latest popular vote rundown:

Clinton: 7,186,853 (48.78%)
Obama: 7,142,354 (48.48%)

Latest estimates for delegates:

"The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 847 to 834.

NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton."

Posted by Ben | February 6, 2008 11:12 AM

Marc - why do you keep spinning this story about the importance of clinton winning the popular vote? Have you actually counted the vote like I don't know a reporter might do? Her margin is miniscule.

Posted by michael | February 6, 2008 11:14 AM

The "Republicans are crossing over to falsely support Obama" theory is not credible. Republicans have their own primaries to vote in -- why would a Republican sacrifice his/her voice in choosing his/her own nominee in order to attempt to sabotage the Democratic nominee? Especially since it's not clear which Democratic nominee is more electable, nor is it clear that doing so would have any appreciable effect on the Democratic choice anyway.

Posted by Jeremy Friesner | February 6, 2008 11:14 AM

Could you imagine if the candidate who receives the most delegates from the primary votes is not nominated, because the candidate with the most friends in the establishment receives the most Super Deleages?

That would be a Democratic Party nightmare, and would essentially hand the Oval Office to the Republicans.

All the crying that was done over GWB beating Al Gore because he had more friends, not more votes, will come back and stare us Democrats right in the face and cause our downfall.

Posted by John Cooper | February 6, 2008 11:18 AM

John Cooper:

Yes, I've been thinking about this, and its actually not unlikely, since Clinton seems to have more establishment supporters and is better at behind the scenes wrangling. Also there is the issue of Florida and Michigan.

If Obama wins the legit popular delegate count, but loses the nominate, it will be a disaster on so many levels. Not only would that be a disaster in and of itself, but then you would also have African America, right so, claiming disenfranchisement once again, and if that were to happen, they could boycott the national elections and even leave the Democratic Party for good. I myself, a white male, would also boycott the national elections if that were to happen.

This issue is going to become very touchy. If Obama wins the popular delegate count, he better get the nomination, or else the Democratic Party could be completely undermined and lost major long term viability. People, millions of people, would seriously leave the party of that.

Posted by Jeff | February 6, 2008 11:26 AM

lol! Billary!

Posted by kims | February 6, 2008 11:30 AM

Picture this. Obama wins the most popular delegates. He loses the nomination. He forms his own political party and runs as a third party candidate. He wins the election and not only become the first African American president, but also historically breaks two party rule!

Posted by Jeff | February 6, 2008 11:35 AM

"The real question is, are all of the other racial minorities in America join to be the roadblock that prevents the election of the first racial minority in American history?

Obama is basically winning every demographic except Latinos, Asia, Indians (from India), etc."

True Hispanics have a tendency to go towards CLinton. Hispanics also tend to be more moderate like Hillary, and racism may be a factor as well. But the small tendency of Hispanics to vote for CLinton hardly constitutes a "block," and is NOTHING compared to the racial lines that blacks are voting along.

Blacks are voting for their own far more than any other other race (or gender.) They are for more guilty of it than Hispanics.

My question than for you, Jeff, is that if it's a problem for a group to vote against someone for their race, is it still OK for a group to vote FOR someone based on race. How might someone react if I said I was voting for Edwards because he was white.

And lastly, you point out that OBama's slightly more pro-immigrant stance should make him a more favorable canddiate to Latinos, Asians and Indians, but many of these people are moderate on immigration (yes, even Latinos. Some that have lived here for a generation or more are very conservative on immigration.)

Posted by Lauren | February 6, 2008 11:49 AM

Actually there has been a third party candidate that has been elected president, A. Lincoln. When he was elected president he was a republican, but the two major parties at that time were the wigs and democrats. Lincoln is the only president that has been elected as a third party candidate, so the history's already been made...

Posted by Kate | February 6, 2008 11:55 AM

Kerry packer: you are one interesting person: like several other bloggers on this site you make fun of someone who mis types a word on the most informal medium there is. In your case, beets. But it is funny how its just the obama supporters who tend to do this, and always after a hillary supporter says something positive about their candidate and negative about "the movement".
It is funny that you say folks are turning against "billary and her ilk" when we were all lead to believe "the movement" is about being positive: you sound like another pedestrian name-calling hater to me.
what possible benefit is there to say Billary and denigrate her and him? is that your politics of change? if I combine names and say Borama or Barama is that clever or does it make any point I have more interesting or true?
And gosh: look at the benefits you reap from non-specific accusations of racial bias?
Obama should cast the haters out of his campaign, shouldn't he?

Posted by Michael C. | February 6, 2008 11:56 AM

"So here is my theory, such negative stereotypes have been perpetuated by America about Blacks, that immigrants have adopted those views without really understanding or comprehending the true history of Blacks in this country."

Kim- an interesting theory, but I think it underestimates the ability of immigrants to form their own opinions from their own experience. The reality is that blacks and immigrants are two groups that often compete for the same jobs. This point was even broached int he debate when Hillary mentioned blacks who believe they have lost jobs and seen wage drops because they are competing for low level drops with illegal immigrants who caan be paid less then minimum wage under the table.

This competition in the same niche results in a basic group theory which would predict competition and exclusion among any groups in this position.

I think it is this very real competition than then compels peopel to fall back on negative stereotypes to justify their opinions. It certainly doesn't legitimize. And I don't evne believe that this stereotyping behavior is the rule. many blacks and hispanics get along beautifully.

I do think think that the economic tension between the groups is very real.

Posted by Lauren | February 6, 2008 11:58 AM

Lauren: I think that black people voting for Obama is more comparable to women voting for Hilary than it is the idea that someone is voting AGAINST (sorry don't know how to do italics) someone because of his/her race or gender. I think these groups are particularly inspired by the historical significance of the candidates.

I agree with you that the characterization of latinos has been ridiculous. Sure Obama lost the latino vote by a wide margin in Cali, NJ, Nevada, but what about Arizona, Illinois, and NM (what happened there anyway?)? We are talking about a big and diverse group of people here.

Posted by Sara | February 6, 2008 12:12 PM

For the benefit of people who don't regularly read the comments here, "Michael C." is a troll, not a serious poster. Don't hold his trolling against Hillary Clinton (the candidate he nominally supports).

Posted by JK | February 6, 2008 12:13 PM

"Lauren: I think that black people voting for Obama is more comparable to women voting for Hilary"
I agree Sara. I've just been disturbed that the African-American vote is the one group that has so overwhelmingly voted along racial lines. Women vote slightly more for Hillary, maybe 60%. But blacks havebeen voting over 85% for Obama. Every other groups is split roughly evenly or 60:40.

It is the extent of the black vote that bothers me. I feel that if 85% of women were voting for Hillary in every state, it would be a big topic of discussion (and it would bother me a lot too.)

Posted by Lauren | February 6, 2008 12:18 PM

Michael, I will concede to you that Hillary won the PR war. She always does when she has shills like Ambinder and the rest turning up into down and down into up.

As this article says, much of the media painted Hillary as a bigger winner than she was last night:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8358.html

I concede, you have the media spin-meisters on your side, but we have the facts and the truth on our side. More states, more red states, more delegates, more favorable contests ahead, more money going forward.

But, hey, since you and the media have convinced yourselves that that Obama lost big last night, then there is really no need for you to rebut my posts, is there?

But I want to thank you and Ambinder and all the people proping up Hillary as desperately as you can. It's great for us to be the underdog, even though we are a little ahead. It helps keep pur troops motivated and eliminates any possibilty of complacency. So, Yes, Michael....you won big last night!!!! (wink, wink).

Posted by RKA | February 6, 2008 12:19 PM

Conservatives have absolutely no chance of taking on Obama if he is elected. They will dodge than face him. Obama is very gentle on Billary, but I tell you he is smarter than Bill Clinton and Bill knows it. Looking forward, Obama will be nominated. I am pretty sure about that.

There are no dirty Washington politics here!

Posted by Tony | February 6, 2008 12:21 PM

Obama won 14 states to Clinton's 8. He won in states where Republicans ordinarily win. Clinton won in traditionally blue states where Dems win anyway. That indicates to me that Obama will have far more clout in a general election.

In addition, Obama won more delegates last night than Clinton did. More states and more delegates. Only the media and the Clintons could spin that into a Clinton victory!

With Obama much more flush financially (that indicates he has managed his campaign more efficiently that Clinton), and with the states coming up, he is in great position to bury her during the next few weeks.

Posted by mtnwizard | February 6, 2008 12:23 PM

It is so obvious your blog is a misleading infomercial for Obama who votes "present" and does NOT do anything but tell people what they want to hear - sounds like Mitt "having-a-fit" Romney ?

Oh - did I mention all The Kennedy's still alive are NOT JFK and NOW politically ignorant "has-beens".

Ted Kennedy has never been greater than a "B" grade rerun considering all the poor decisions he has made in his life. Hopefully he can now quietly retreat to a carefully selected retirement.

Even Obama can't fool the intelligent baby boomers who pay attention to the issues unlike Obama's deceptive headline grabbing Health Care Plan NOT for all Americans !

Posted by mrinternet | February 6, 2008 12:47 PM

It is so obvious your blog is a misleading infomercial for Obama who votes "present" and does NOT do anything but tell people what they want to hear - sounds like Mitt "having-a-fit" Romney ?

Oh - did I mention all The Kennedy's still alive are NOT JFK and NOW politically ignorant "has-beens".

Ted Kennedy has never been greater than a "B" grade rerun considering all the poor decisions he has made in his life. Hopefully he can now quietly retreat to a carefully selected retirement.

Even Obama can't fool the intelligent baby boomers who pay attention to the issues unlike Obama's deceptive headline grabbing Health Care Plan NOT for all Americans !

Posted by mrinternet | February 6, 2008 12:48 PM

Lauren:

I don't think the black vote is an issue. Its not just that Barack has black ancestry, it is also his message, which is a message that rings true for African Americans. They aren't supporting him just because he's black, they are supporting him because his message and his promises are in line with their interests and what they want in a president. His message has some religious appear and a message of hope that is simply more attractive to a lot of African American voters, and htey trust him more than they do Hillary, big surprise, he is authentic, she is not, at least that is how it seems. He has street cred, she does not.

Posted by Jeff | February 6, 2008 12:50 PM

I'm not sure I get why this is "disturbing." 92% of blacks voted for Gore and I believe Kerry got a similar percentage. I think it shows a tendency amongst blacks to vote in blocks.

In this case, I do think that race is a big factor in why blacks are voting for Obama, but I don't think thats the same thing as voting against a candidate because of their race. As I mentioned before, I think that blacks, like women are swayed by the historical significance. I would also argue that blacks see it as even more significant (I'm not saying that it IS more significant, just that they would rank it as such). We should keep in mind that especially in these southern states, a majority of blacks weren't even able to vote until the 1960s. Having a viable black candidate for president is a huge, huge deal for them. I just don't see that as the same thing as say, voting for Edwards because he's white.

At the risk of sounding like I drank the kool aid, I also think that the Obama campaign has done a great job of resisting being pigeon holed as the "black candidate." The rhetoric in the speeches of both him and his supporters (Oprah anyone?) has been about inspiration and unity (some would argue to the point of shallowness).

Posted by Sara | February 6, 2008 12:51 PM

To gain the advantage, Obama needs 200/353 in the next 6 days:

FEB 9
Louisiana -Primary- (30/56)
Nebraska -Caucus- (15/24)
Washington -Caucus-(42/78)
Virgin Islands -Primary-(1/3)

FEB 10
Maine -Caucus-(14/24)

FEB12
District of Columbia -Primary- (10/15)
Maryland -Primary-(41/70)
Virginia -Primary-(45/83)

Posted by yiannis | February 6, 2008 1:15 PM

Blacks voting blindly for a man because he is black is as racist as a white voting along the same vein.
A ONE term senator who hides his Islamic upbring and downplays prior drug use is not a competitive Democratic candidate.

Posted by texasamigo | February 6, 2008 1:24 PM

Jeff,

This Indian American is supporting Obama. I think that the reason Latinos, Asians and Indians are not supporting Obama more heavily is that they do
not tend to be very leading edge voters, i.e., enthusiastically into politics, blogging, and aware of the nitty-gritty differences in policy positions and voting records.

So, it is not suprising that they stick with the establishment candidate about whom they typically have more information.

The other thing Obama has not done is cultivate ties with these communities the way Clinton has.
For example, Hillary appeared via satellite TV to
address a convention of Indian American entrepreneurs, while Barack while invited, did not.
This helps Hillary a lot. At one Indian American event, Hillary raised a cool million dollars.
Likewise Obama did not sign the 80/20 Asian group memo, and they threw their support behind Hillary in California.

I chalk this down to inexperience of Obama with national politics, and hope he will improve on this.

Ni

Posted by Ni | February 6, 2008 1:31 PM

This is not good for Obama, not at all. His Iraq/Rezko problem is for real and is no tinfoil hat shit. Obama’s got serious issues. When old McCain gets his hands on this and shoves it through the GOP attack machine, oh my! “I’m a war hero and the Democrat is a crypto Muslim who is connected to Saddam Hussein”.

The DNC should intervene now and pull Barack Obama out. If he goes on he’ll derail the whole election for the Dems.

The trial in Chicago hasn’t even started and yet there is seemingly no end to the ever increasing Obama/Rezko shit. Obama’ll be worse off than Dukakis ever was come November.

Posted by RichardC | February 6, 2008 2:43 PM

Jeff,

You've summed up the whole farce of the Obama campaign:

"he's authentic, she is not, at least that is how it seems. He has street cred, she does not".

Well there you go, pinning all your 'hope' on a candidate who seems authentic. As for street cred, isn't that all about spin over substance?

This would be funny if there wasn't so much at stake. I just hope there's time for some of the substantive issues to gain momentum, such as the recession. Street cred doesn't count for much when you're about to loose your job and your home. When the going gets really tough for America, it's policies and a 'wonky' approach to detail that might get the problems solved, not sitting around chanting for some "hope" and "change".

If Obama wins the nomination and makes it as far as President, he'll find it tough raising campaign funds from all his supporters' welfare cheques.

Posted by MelanieL | February 6, 2008 3:15 PM

Jeff-

The Dems seemed to be split pretty much down the middle (with small exceptions, Hispanics tend slightly more to Hillary, women tend slightly more to Hillary, white males tend slightly more to Barack.) The only group that stands out consistently and overwhelmingly in favor of Obama are blacks. Is it because blacks distrust Hillary and believe in Obama's distinctly different and hopefuly message? I think not. His and Hillary are very similar. They voted the same on 94 out of 98 votes. So do blacks simply distrust Hillary more than whites do? Up until about a year ago, Bill CLinton was embraced as the first black president and the CLintons have forged numerous tied with the black community.

The true reason that blacks are voting overwhelmingly for Obama instead of Hillary is because of race. I find unsettling.

Posted by Lauren | February 6, 2008 3:26 PM

Lauren, Lauren...you know this wasn't always the case. You know, "the first black president" and all? The Clintons had the majority of the endorsements from the old line black establishment. Remember that? Then came Shaheen, Penn on Hardball, Bill's 'fairy tale', Bob Johnson, Bill's "Jesse won SC too", and on and on.

Why you're beating this horse I'm unsure, but you're extremely disingenuous to pretend that you have no idea where it came from except for blacks being 'racist'. Hilarious and a page straight from the Gospel of Clinton. Demonize your opponent for what you yourself are actually guilty of. Amazing.

Posted by Jay | February 6, 2008 3:39 PM

If Obama wins the nomination and makes it as far as President, he'll find it tough raising campaign funds from all his supporters' welfare cheques.

MelamieL...WTF? With impaired reasoning like that, I think it would be safe to assume you are collecting a welfare check. Obviously you are a low information voter who is blissfully unaware of your candidates' demographics. Hillary far and away captures the low end, or downmarket, voter while Obama does much better with college educated folk.

Seriously, I find your reasoning pathetic as well as quite sad in a pitiful sort of way.

Posted by Jay | February 6, 2008 3:47 PM

All the elites, in the media and the blogosphere, want this election's story to be about race and racial conflict. But it is not about race -- not about affluent whites "transcending" it or immigrant groups failing to "transcend" it.

It is about class. It's about those on the outside hoping to find a way in and those marginally on the inside fearing being pushed out, vs. those solidly on the inside who have the luxury of worrying abstractly about ideology and "tone." If Obama was a white candidate with the same message -- "turning the page" on the "old" politics of race and gender, praising Reagan and dissing the only successful two-term Democratic administration since FDR in order to attract affluent "cross-over' Republican votes, running to the right of his main competitor on health care and Social Security -- that would be overwhelmingly apparent. Because he wouldn't be able to do any of that and still get the African American vote.

Posted by mary | February 6, 2008 4:31 PM

Hi, Mary...aka Lauren's sock puppet.

Posted by zzzzzz..... | February 6, 2008 4:58 PM

Ouch Jay. I was trying to point out that while the Dem vote is split pretty evenly there is one group out there voting overwhelmingly one way. I think it's interesting and should get some attention. And I don't know what you're accusing me of pretending, but I'm pretty genuine in my astonishment. If women were voting 80% in favor of Hillary, it would be headlines. I describe myself as liberal but I'm not PC, and I do like to play devil's advocate. Identity politics has been an overriding topic in the election from the start. It was frustrating and I'm very pleased that for the most part, people are voting based on tehir candidate. Granted, there are some whites who are racist and won't vote for balck man, there are Latinos who are racist, and I think it's obvious that blacks are voting for Obama because he's black. This bothers me because I'm sick of the idenetity politics, and I think there are much more important issues going on. There are plenty of reasons to like and dislike all the candidates, but race, gender etc. is not a good reason to dislike or LIKE any of them. I just think that after all the media hype on identity politics, the one segment where it's playing out should get some attention. Maybe it is because if the Jesse Jackson comment. (I suppose Jesse Jackson was a better candidate as well.) Maybe it's because of historicla significance (most plausible) but it's affecting the race and deserves to be explored.

Also, um, Mary's totaly not my sock puppet. ALthough I tend to agree that if Obama were white, he'd still get the white male vote for being a Washington outsider (and the white male vote will win him the nomination in the end if he does win it) but I think the black vote probably would be split more evenly, like the other demographics.

Posted by Lauren | February 6, 2008 6:47 PM

Jay: tell the truth: there is no audacity of now for Obama. He went to daschle and kennedy a year or more ago according to NYTimes and both said he should run because sometimes you don't get a chance. That advice from two who missed their chance: it's about his future and not our future.

I try to figure out why his speeches don't touch or stir me. They are not the real thing. He announces and does so to sound like Lincoln at lincoln state house. His speech writer says in the new york times he patterns speeches after Bobbie and jack and MLK JR. The speeches have the cadences but not the message: no one ever made a great speech about himself. That is what I realized today.
I thought about it today and realized his speeches have this meta approach: " am about to inspire you. I am inspiring you right now. Look I just inspired you. Vote for me".
Not talking about the promised land, not the bridge to the 21 century and not the audacity of now. Instead it is, "I am the promised land, I am the bridge, and the audacity of me".
He has to bash a kindred spirit to get his chance.
His arrogance is unbecoming.

you tell Melanie not to beat that horse but really what would the country say if 75 -90% of women voted for Hillary? Already everybody and his brother are trying to convince women that it is somehow anti-feminist to vote Hillary.
Isn't melanie allowed to talk about bias wthout being accused of being bias? its an open forum for accusing hillary of code or the bradley effect but not an open forum for asking questions about block-voting?

Posted by Michael C. | February 6, 2008 7:05 PM

Hillary has a 48% disapproval rating. Can someone please tell me how she can win in a general election against a war hero who the media is already comparing to Teddy Roosevelt?

Posted by Dresden | February 7, 2008 3:24 AM

If Obama wins, several Latino voters will give their vote to Mc Cain. As a Latino myself, I am aware of my culture. We seek a president who has stability, as well as expirienced with politics. Futhermore, Obama has no expirience, and therefore going against Mc Cain will be a disaster for the Democratic Party. Yes he might have the black vote, but what about the rest? In addition Obama cant stand on his own. He needs big MOMMA "O". That truly makes him her bitch. Well see what happens if Obama makes it in office. H ewill be the = to Bush of the Republican Party.

Posted by Martin | February 11, 2008 10:38 PM