That lovely home gracious enough to donate their space for what should have been a dreary caucus (2004 had around 50 attendees) was overrun this evening in a shockingly subdued fashion by hundreds of very patient caucusgoers.
The caucus was scheduled to begin at 7:15, but there was a slight delay as overwhelmed volunteers tried to sign everyone in. Around 8:30, I finally weaved through the line. These poor souls were still in line as I left:
In fact, the line still stretched around the block:
jcricket
Obviously the caucus-goers aren’t blog comment thread denizens, or they’d know they should be tearing each other apart right now. What’s with all this patience and decorum!?!
Zuzu
Geeze, I hope they brought port-a-potties.
If not … poor homeowners.
Ninerdave
That is freaking awesome.
As much as I’m pissed Hillary got some wind in her sails tonight, I’m happy to see so many people actually taking part in our country.
TenguPhule
The sound of footsteps tromping on Republican Politicos graves.
How sweet it is.
Xanthippas
Impressive! We had about 200 turnout for the caucus for my precinct in Tarrant County, but about 500 total in the building as they had several precincts caucusing together. Most people didn’t seem to know quite why they were there or what they were supposed to do, but they were for Obama or Clinton and they were going to stand in line to get in and support them regardless!
Reality Based Snark
Did someone check their counter tops? Are they the regulation required Granite?
We need a reason to whine to the press about caucus irregularities.
Reality Based Snark
Actually…
I guess caucus rules don’t have anything against campaign signs being within X feet eh? NY practically requires a cavity check within X feet of anything resembling a poll.
Zuzu
WaPo gives Ohio and Texas to Hillary.
WaPo
Martin
Hillary will lose TX on delegates. Probably pick up about 7 out of the 4 races. She needs to win bigger to pull this off.
Because of how the delegates are grouped, if Hillary wins every single remaining district and state in the nation (WY, MS, WV, PA, NC, etc.) by 25% she still comes up well behind Obama.
The reason this happens is that most of the delegates are attached to district, not to the state. So if a district has 4 delegates, the only way it splits more than 2-2 is if one candidate wins 75% of the vote. Most remaining districts have 4, 5, or 6 delegates. Any winning margin splits the 5 district 3-2, but she needs to win by a lot more to split 4-1. Obama has been winning urban areas that tend to have larger delegate counts attached to them, which are easier to make gains in.
So, she can pick up gains at the state level, but there aren’t that many she can get with small margins at the district level. That’s why she didn’t gain much tonight. So either she needs to absolutely CRUSH Obama from here on out – 65/35 or better, or she needs to convince the supers to vote against the pledged delegate leader.
The delegate math is almost impossible for her to make up short of a major scandal.
p.lukasiak
Tom…do you know the results from your precinct voting?
***********
God I hope so. Nothing would discredit the caucus system more than for Hillary to win the popular vote in texas, then come out of the state with negative delegates because of the caucuses.
And it would be bye-bye for to argument #1 why Obama’s claim that he has some kind of moral right to the nomination if he gets more delegates.
Oh, and by my quick calculations, Obama’s popular vote lead is now down to about 200,000… out of over 28,000,000 votes cast.
p.lukasiak
Martin here is the delegate math
X = number of pledged delegates
if X = 2024 then X/2024 = 1
last night, both Obama and Clinton failed to get enough pledged delegates to make it to 2024 under any scenario — even if they take every delegate left on the map, they X/2024 will still be equal to 0
zzyzx
p.lukasiak I have a simple question for you. How does Clinton win the nomination in a way that doesn’t make 2/3 of the African American population stay home in November? You can argue that caucuses are silly and make the case for Superdelegates, but it’s going to be hard for a Clinton nomination to look like anything other that the party insiders taking it away from Obama. It doesn’t help matters that the convention isn’t until late August due to the Olympics, meaning that there’s very little time to heal the rifts.
Without the AA vote, without the independents that don’t like her, and with a fired up Republican base that is coming out to defeat her, she wins what? The northeast and California?
Basically what the last few weeks have done is to severely reduce the chances of Obama winning the general (since now Clinton’s diehard supporters will also feel that it’s unfair and a much stronger wedge has been created between Obama and poor white males) without increasing Clinton’s odds at all. Thanks once again for your help. President McCain has a ring, doesn’t it?
p.lukasiak
Some more texas numbers
Early Voters 1,282,993 (44.91% of votes cast)
Obama 50.55%
Clinton 47.75%
March 4 Voters 1,573,820 (55.09% of votes cast)
Obama 44.85%
Clinton 53.38%
Most of the final polls were saying that the early vote would make up half the total — and that Clinton was slightly ahead in the early vote.
14 Texas polls taken in the last week of February showed Obama up by an average of 3 points (O 48%- C 45%). Only four of the 14 had Clinton ahead — and two of those were 1 point leads.
And while I know that the Obots will talk about how clinton had a 20 point lead going into texas, that lead didn’t exist at any point this year. 11 Polls taken between Jan 31 and Feb 20 show Obama down by an average of only 4 points (O 44% – C 48%)
So, please lets not talk about Obama overcoming a 20 deficit in Texas. By the time the primary season took off, he was down by 4 points…. and once it became obvious that the Texas vote would matter, he went up by 3 points.
And, the final results have him losing by 3 points.
Seanly
zzyzx ~ McCain is promising 4 more years of Bush. Based on Democratic turnout, there’s a lot of us who think that’s a bad thing. I wish we had a primary like this one four years ago. Thanks for your concern trolling though!
RE: Delegates. Since FL & MI delegates aren’t being seated, have they been taken out of the number needed to win? I suppose that what p.lukasiak was getting at…
zzyzx
You can be concerned without trolling. Clinton’s only path to the nomination involves a convention fight. Do you really think that will go well?
p.lukasiak
How does Clinton win the nomination in a way that doesn’t make 2/3 of the African American population stay home in November?
African American voters aren’t stupid. They know that Obama’s relative poisition is based on the overwhelming support of the black community — and they know that if Clinton was running against some Irish-American named Barry O’Bama who had the same schtick as Barack Obama, Clinton would be carrying the black community with ease. And, they know that Clinton will be the best candidate in november — and as President would address the priorities and issues of African American voters.
As for the “Hillary hating” independents — I think they will be more than made up for by independent and republican women who will vote for Hillary.
zzyzx
BTW, the one path to success for Clinton that I can see is to stop playing these games about the states that don’t matter and start winning them. Win MS and WY and NC and OR and you’ll have a much better case than if you sit them out and let Obama run up the delegate count.
p.lukasiak
2024 is the number needed to win if FL and MI are not seated. If they are seated, that number goes up quite a bit (i seem to remember 2200, but that would be too high).
But regardless, even if FL and MI were seated, Clinton could still not lock in the nomination even if she won every remaining delegate. Until yesterday, it was theoretically possible for both candidates to lock in the nomination…that is no longer a possibilty.
chopper
given that the nomination goes to the person with more delegates, i’d have to say yeah, obama still has the argument.
polls yesterday showed a vast majority of dems want the supers to vote along with the earned delegate count. giving clinton the nom in spite of obama’s delegate lead will likely piss off a majority of democratic voters.
scrutinizer
While p.luk spins his numbers, and tries his best to spin Obama as a fringe AA candidate, ala Jesse Jackson, the only numbers that matter are the delegate count and campaign dollars. At the end of the day, Clinton needed substantial gains in pledged delegates from yesterday’s primaries/caucuses, and she hasn’t gotten them. No matter how well she’s doing in one demographic compared with another, at this point she must make huge gains in pledged delegates to win, and she’s not getting it done.
Wins in the primaries are important, because Clinton can spin the wins into “momentum” and justify her continuing her quest for the nomination. But those wins don’t mean much if she’s not getting enough delegates to take the lead over Obama—and she’s not doing that.
Me, an old, balding, overweight white guy, well I’m going to go ring the cash register again for the MUP, buy some popcorn, and enjoy the show.
Onslow
.
WHY THE CLINTONS WON’T BE RELEASING THEIR TAX RETURNS?…
http://thememlingindex.com/hillary_clinton_net_worth-wealth.html
.
jake
This can only benefit McCane.
John S.
Obama’s #1 argument is that he simply has more pledged delegates. It’s about math – not morals.
Hillary’s #1 argument right now is morale (we won Texas and Ohio!), which for all intents and purposes is meaningless.
Hillary will probably end up with a net gain of 2-9 delegates over Obama from yesterday. Enjoy crowing about that huge win, Paul, since that’s likely the best you’re going to get.
Hillary won by going extremely negative and getting people to not vote for Obama. I don’t think anyone – except you and other Hillary fans – expects and embraces that trend to continue succeeding over the long haul. Obama will learn how to fight back against a Republican campaign, and if he doesn’t then he doesn’t deserve the nomination.
scrutinizer
Yeah, because, you know, more delegates aren’t relevant if the aren’t Hillary delegates.
One of the least appealing arguments Clinton, her campaign, and her supporters make is that the caucuses aren’t fair, when those caucuses have been used in Democratic primaries for decades. It’s similar to the argument that MI and FL results should be accepted. With her vast experience in Democratic politics, Clinton has had years to attempt to get the caucus rules changed? Has she ever even made a gesture in that direction? When Bill Clinton was involved in setting the rules for the Texas primary/caucus system, did she ever say, “You know, Bill, that’s not fair”?
Same thing with the beauty contests in MI and FL. Clinton agreed beforehand that the results of those contests would not count toward delegates. Now the campaign wants to renege on that agreement, and ex post facto include “votes” that they agreed woudn’t be counted in the first place. Mendacious, much?
Bottom line—yes, Obama has a moral claim to victory if he leads in pledged delegates. They’ve all played by trhe same rules, and the fact that he’s put together a ground game that has left Clinton in the dirt in primary states just shows that he’s a better organizer and executive than she is.
Oh, wait—
4tehlulz
Shorter p.luk: Any method of Obama gaining delegates and/or votes is discredited.
zzyzx
If there’s one thing that 2004 taught me, it’s never to overestimate the intelligence of American voter ;)
Seriously, put yourself in their shoes. Suppose from here on in, Obama wins WY and MS, Clinton wins PA, I don’t know what the hell happens in Guam, Obama wins IN and and NC, Clinton wins WV and KY, Obama wins OR, MT, and SD. That seems to be the most likely outcome. I’m leaving PR blank because I don’t have a feel for that either. You’re seeing Obama win states, you see him with a large delegate lead, but he doesn’t get the nomination because party insiders decreed it.
I don’t think you’re understanding just how moving it is for people to vote for an AA candidate who actually has a chance to win. If he loses elections, people will be able to understand it. If the delegate difference is like 10 or so, I think people will also be able to rationalize it. If it involves some wackiness with FL and MI and Superdelegates, there will be a lot of angry people.
McCain/Clinton would be a very close election – especially since Clinton’s whole strategy is to keep the Kerry states and win either OH or FL. The lesson of 2000 is that it doesn’t take many frustrated people to change one of those. Maybe, maybe, if she made Obama her veep that might work, but there would be a lot of fences to mend and very little time to do so.
As for the independent and Republican women, if that’s going to be such a strong counter balance, how come Obama has won the independent and Republican crossovers by such wide margins?
As an aside, maybe you can explain this. How come a 10 point lead in OH means that Clinton should be the nominee but a larger win in WI doesn’t say anything about Obama? If Clinton loses just one Kerry state, Ohio doesn’t matter anymore.
scrutinizer
oops. They’ve all played by
trhethe same rules, and the fact that he’s put together a ground game that has left Clinton in the dirt inprimarycauscus states just shows that he’s a better organizer and executive than she is.chopper
it’s a win though. this makes 3/4 the first day that hillary actually won the delegate count (for those who’ve been wondering why she’s behind, there you go. every single day obama either won the count or tied.)
yeah, i don’t remember the clintons complaining about caucuses back when they won texas in 1992 and 1996.
i really dislike this ‘the rules should be changed or ignored in the middle of a democratic primary because i don’t like the results’ argument.
Napoleon
Well put zzyzx. But people like p.luk don’t care if they trash the parties chances.
chopper
that’s the thing. the supers were created in order to allow higher-ups to override the delegate count, but it was supposed to be a rarely-used device. like if the people were voting for a candidate who was just too crazy or too likely to fail in the general.
obama is genuinely electable. i understand that hillbots will argue that hillary is better suited to take on mccain than obama (while of course obamabots will argue his merits vs mccain) but its obvious that neither candidate is of such low electable caliber that the big red button needs to be pushed and the hounds released.
why shouldn’t the superdelegates vote along with the pledged delegates?
p.lukasiak
One of the least appealing arguments Clinton, her campaign, and her supporters make is that the caucuses aren’t fair, when those caucuses have been used in Democratic primaries for decades.
no one is saying tha caucuses aren’t “fair”, we are saying that they are unrepresentative of the will of people who would vote if a primary were held.
No one ever suggested at any point that if Barack Obama got to 2024 pledged delegates — from anywhere — that he should be denied the nomination. Those were the rules, and no one challeged them. The same rules say that if no one reaches the necessary 2024 delegates, then its up to party leaders to exercise their judgement — and that includes considering people like Al Gore or John Edwards.
Napoleon
Chopper, the way I think of it is that the supers have to calculate that the damage they will do with party “regulars” who vote in primaries will be outweighed by the catastrophe that would await the party in the fall if the person in question was the nominee. Call it the Dennis Kucinich/Mike Gravel rule.
Dennis - SGMM
First, it’s nice to see high voter turnouts – especially in places where voter turnout hasn’t been that great in the past. I think this is due not only to the close primary contest but to the fact that people feel that their vote actually counts this time. Hopefully, the better minds will get together to change the system so that the nominee isn’t a foregone conclusion after the same few states vote.
Second, if the general election actually hinges on experience and national security then neither Clinton nor Obama have a chance against Senator Methuselah. Together on the same ticket, yes. Individually, no. Both campaigns have some soul searching to do. The last brokered convention to produce a winning nominee was in 1932 when FDR went on to be elected.
chopper
well, i sure wish the clintons would have tried to do something about the totally-unrepresentative caucuses back in 92. then again, they won most of the caucuses, so i guess that’s pretty cool.
4tehlulz
I think, regardless of who we support, we can all agree on one thing:
LOL Zogby. Seriously, no one should pay money to ZI ever again.
p.lukasiak
that’s the thing. the supers were created in order to allow higher-ups to override the delegate count, but it was supposed to be a rarely-used device. like if the people were voting for a candidate who was just too crazy or too likely to fail in the general.
actually, that is not why super-delegates were created.
The real reason that they exist is that party changed its rules in the face of political change — the debacle of the 1968 Democratic convention made it abundantly clear that the old days of machine politics were dead, and new rules were created that made the nomination process more ‘democratic’ — and those changes meant that a whole lot of Party leaders would wind up not being delegates to the convention.
So the super-delegates were created to make sure that the leadership of the party got to participate in the convention, and maintain some influence over what happened to the party.
Punchy
Any way to post something, John/Tim/Mike, that doesn’t involve the primary? Kinda sick of it, myself.
How about some high quality spoof on this?
chopper
exactly. and obama is far more electable than either of them.
as i said before, polls of democratic voters are pretty clear that they don’t want the supers overturning things in this primary. i can imagine many millions of pissed-off, disenfranchised dems if clinton manages to arm-twist the supers into overturning the earned delegate count.
think of it this way; this year could be one of those big ‘political realignment’ years ala 1980. this could be one of those elections that takes the other party out behind the woodshed and leaves them wandering in the wilderness for years and years. and its obvious from obama’s appeal that he’s bringing many, many normally-undecided and normally-apathetic voters into the fold.
the supers have to realize that turning around and cutting that off at the knees by giving the nomination to the person in 2nd place would seriously blunt that cultural momentum. many millions of young and previously-disinterested people who came out of their cupboards to be a part of a massive politico-cultural change in this country would turn around and shuffle back in disgust, and the clintons would essentially be responsible for gutting the whole thing, all out of a petty sense of entitlement.
The Grand Panjandrum
p_luk: In the words of Mark Penn, chief strategist for Campaign Clinton, 2/13/08:
He’s right. Its about the delegates. Because THAT is how the process works. I agree that the process is sloppy, but that is the process, and the rules are in place. Lets make a pact (everyone who cares about the process, that is) to work to change to process for 2012, so that it more resembles what the rank and file want. But until then, we have what we have.
Paul you can wish and HOPE all you want, but the FACTS are that it is about the delegate count. I know you are trying to make some argument for your candidate, but unless we change the rules we have to live by the rules.
Nonsense. The only way to arrive at this number is to cherry pick the polls. Please don’t insult our intelligence. You need to provide the all the data, not your favorite polls to make your case. Your not writing to a bunch of half-bright mouth breathers over at Taylor Marsh, so you’ll need to provide data or have your argument rejected out of hand.
Napoleon
By the way, if the supers override the popular will of the people I believe there would be a particularly nasty downside to the Democrats for the next 50 years that would ordinarily not be present. It is well proved that a person’s political voting pattern is strongly correlated to what they do the first 2 or 3 elections. Currently, contrary to any other voting block alive today, those under 30 is the strongest voting block in the favor of any party, and it’s the Dems they favor. (Contrary to the old wife’s tail that the young vote more liberal as a general proposition that is simply not true). The new deal and WWII winning generation that grew up with FDR don’t even vote as strongly as this block, and on top of it the number of people in that demographic is larger then any except the Boomers. It cannot be over emphasized what a big deal this may be for the Dems going forward.
This voting block is strongly voting for BO. If the party should pull something that disillusions this block of voters they could literally be throwing away a tilted demographic field in their favor for the next 50 years. They better think long and hard before they do that.
I truly believe that if the Clintonista’s pull something that smacks of disregarding the will of the people they will wipe out the wind at the backs of the Dems the remainder of my lifetime, and I am 46.
Napoleon
The new deal and WWII winning generation that grew up with FDR don’t even vote as strongly DEMOCRATICALLY as this block. . . .
Fixed typo
p.lukasiak
obama is genuinely electable. i understand that hillbots will argue that hillary is better suited to take on mccain than obama (while of course obamabots will argue his merits vs mccain) but its obvious that neither candidate is of such low electable caliber that the big red button needs to be pushed and the hounds released.
a month ago, I probably would have agreed with you. But what just happened in Ohio gives me serious pause about Obama’s electability. Obama is simply not pulling in the moderate vote in the states that Democrats have to win in November. And McCain is going to veer sharply toward the center, with his “maverick” repuation intact, while Obama remains undefined in the minds of most voters — and the GOP is already doing its best to define Obama based on his record in Illinois.
zzyzx
I posted this as a diary on DK, but this is my advice to both candidates.
Barack Obama: I love you as a Presidential candidate. I caucused for you and I’m a delegate at the King County Convention for you. That doesn’t mean that I’m blind to what flaws you have. The 3 AM ad didn’t just work because Clinton raised a boogie man. They worked because you haven’t addressed the one flaw of your run – people still think of you as inexperienced. Fortunately, you have a great chance to reverse things.
You have a month and a half to largely focus on PA. Win the state and it’s over. Here’s what I do for the next three weeks. It’s time to pull a reverse Rove and turn your weakness into a strength.
People deride your experience? Well it’s time to explain what exactly a community organizer and civil rights lawyer does. Talk about your experiences in those jobs. Explain what it taught you about how to deal with people’s problems, especially those who have little and need the most help. If you want to draw contrasts to Clinton, you could point out how this puts you more in touch with the concerns of average people than being in the bubble of being a First Lady for decades. Wisdom vs experience was a good tactic, but outside experience vs inside would work even better. What’s more, it plays to your strength, letting you weave narratives and inspire people at the same time you demonstrate your experience.
Hillary Clinton: My advice to you is simpler because your problem is simpler – legitimacy. If you’re 200 delegates behind and losing more elections than you’re winning, even late, you might be able to eek out a win, but only at the cost of pissing off people you’ll need in November.
What should you do about that? It’s simple. Start contesting everything. Stop playing the unimportant state game and fight for Wyoming and Mississippi. Win in North Carolina and Oregon, Indiana and Montana, and you’ll make a much stronger case for your nomination. Start a winning streak of your own, and you’ll get the nomination.
The other advice I have is one you’re starting to heed. Stop fighting for FL and MI to be seated as is and start calling for new elections there. You can still win the states and getting delegates that way will win a lot more points than trying to force the rest of the party to accept elections that everyone agreed wouldn’t count. Stop spinning and start winning.
Billy K
Tom, our Dallas caucus was similar. I voted at 6:00, came back at 7:00 to caucus. It was a good 2 hours before we could even get into the hall. Once there, they allowed us to sign in and leave. It was, overall, 2-1/2 hours. I didn’t see one person leave. I didn’t hear one person complain. The Chair (or whatever the official’s title was) was absolutely overwhelmed by the turnout.
Oh, and judging by which signs the groups were huddled near, the turnout was about 5-1 for Obama.
Shinobi
There is no Vagina litmus test.
p.lukasiak
Nonsense. The only way to arrive at this number is to cherry pick the polls. Please don’t insult our intelligence.
Okay, I’ll tell you what. You divide up the “February” polls any way you want, and then show me different results. The reason I split up the polls the way I did was because there was only one day in February (the 21st) where no polling was done — and so I split it up into “before the 21st” and “after the 21st”.
Regardless of how you split up the polls, one thing is obvious — Obama was down by a few points in early February, and up by a few points in late February — and couldn’t close the sale.
dslak
I’d like to see the evidence that Republican women are likely to vote for Hillary, because that sounds fairly far-fetched.
Cassidy
It’s a myth, though, to think of Hillary as more experienced. Actual time on the job is approx. the same.
Her “experience” has been aptly described in the previous thread.
Cassidy
missing link
zzyzx
Texas and Ohio were two of Clinton’s best looking states demographics-wise. It’s not that surprising that he had more trouble there than in Wisconsin or Washington.
Billy K
Ha. I just found results for my district:
Dist. 23 (4,487 delegates)
39% (86 of 220 reporting)
Obama 1,347 79%
Clinton 346 20%
No wonder it seemed like such a rout from my perspective. It was. I wonder where the Bizarro district is where Clinton is flipping those numbers.
Napoleon
A link on the youth vote I make much of:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012847.php#more
AkaDad
Hillary will never be ahead in delegates. She mathematically can’t win. Period. Each day Hillary stays in she tears the party in half.
zzyzx
Also, it’s the case that Clinton was UP in Wisconsin in February and she couldn’t close that sale. Why is that not a factor?
Punchy
Monistat 7 says “FAIL!”
p.lukasiak
I posted this as a diary on DK, but this is my advice to both candidates.
the problem with your advice to Obama is that Clinton has just as much (if not more) of the kind of grassroots experience that Obama has (btw, I’m still trying to figure out where Obama gets 20 years in public life from — and where Clinton’s 35 years in public life comes from.)
And as for the First Lady bubble — she;s been out of it for seven years now, representing a highly diverse state, and getting high approval ratings for doing so. I’m not sure that the ‘bubble’ argument would work — and could work against Obama, since he’s spent most of his “public career” in the “bubble” of South Side Chicago — while Hillary has been representing urban, suburban, and rural voters from New York for the last seven years.
Finally, I really don’t think that Clinton should listen to the advice of Obama supporters.
But as a Clinton supporter, I have one piece of advice for Obama — win Pennsylvania. I don’t care if its by a single vote. Win Pennsylvania.
demimondian
First, Asti, I have reason to know much much more about Hillary Clinton’s relationship to government than any of you. You are wrong; she played a major policy role on many domestic issues. The pillow line may work among uninformed misogynists (and, make no mistake, it is *genuinely* misogynistic, unlike periodically and the rest), but it is not true.
Here’s the thing you Obots need to understand. Obama hasn’t ever gone negative because he’s never really had to. He’s never faced an opponent who will throw the kitchen sink at him, and he’s never shown that he can do that. If he can’t, then, no, he WON’T win the November election — because McCain will.
Clinton has found an Obama weakness. Now, Sen. Obama, you need to show that you can learn how to respond to this kind of attack, because you will get it, and you will need to respond. Can you win? Yes, you can. Will you need to fight clean while responding to dirty? Yes, you will. So do it, and close the sale.
That, after all, is what the primaries are all about.
zzyzx
Why not? If she wins the nomination, she’s going to need our votes. No matter how you crunch the numbers, the party is mixed on who they prefer. If you just ignore us and focus solely on your supporters, who is going to vote for you in November? It’s that kind of thinking that got her in trouble in the first place.
The Grand Panjandrum
So YOU say. You have presented no data to support your claim. Like I used to tell my Freshman Calculus students, if you don’t show your work you get NO CREDIT for an answer. NONE.
chopper
Napoleon, right on.
The Grand Panjandrum
Not true. Here’s the evidence.
The NAFTA remarks by Goolsby and the Somali garb smear were probably most effective at influencing those who don’t drink lattes and drive a Prius. But that is just a guess.
zzyzx
Oh, and another thing. I’m not an Obama supporter. I’m a Democratic supporter. I want whoever will be able to win 2008 and turn things around. Right now I think it’s Obama, but I’m willing to listen to the counter argument. All I’m hearing from you is encouraging Clinton to play electoral games while writing off Obama for playing the game better.
chopper
i don’t get it. i’ve always thought that clinton was a viable candidate. not some fluke, but one with genuine electability. i do happen to think that obama is more electable, but that’s neither here nor there.
hillary’s consistent losses on the campaign trail from day one haven’t changed that. yes, she’s ran a crappy, disorganized campaign and watched an ‘inevitable’ nomination wither away to an upstart candidate, but i still don’t think she isn’t viable or unelectable.
yet she wins ohio and suddenly obama isn’t electable? your ODS is showing.
Grumpy Code Monkey
RoonieRoo and I went to our caucus in Pct 105 (Manor). First of all, they had to move it, because the original site could not accommodate the number of people (originally both the Democratic and Republican caucuses were going to be held at the same site, but given the massive Democratic turnout that wasn’t feasible). I guesstimated the turnout to be about 500-600 people, fully 3/4 of whom had never participated in a caucus before. The caucus was supposed to start at 7:15, but because of the number of people still in line to vote in the primary, it didn’t get started until two hours later. Like Tom’s crowd, it was excited but polite, although that may have changed later into the night.
We didn’t stick around for the actual caucusing (we had to go home so we could empty the dog), but based on the cheers as results were read from RI and Vermont, it seemed to lean Obama. Not surprising, given that Travis County went heavy for Obama.
Heh. One of the candidates for Constable was there pressing the flesh because that race looked like it might go into a runoff. Just some added surrealness to what was already a surreal day.
It was wild; people were excited. I’ve never seen people that excited in an election.
AkaDad
“I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.” – Hillary Clinton
It looks like Hillary is voting for McCain in November.
Tony Alva
What’s with the Lotus parked out front?
jcricket
Thanks Demi – I completely agree with you (as usual).
And I also agree with this – but think it applies to both sides. What we need is for both sides, once the nomination is decided, to shove the nominee over the finish line in a resounding fashion. I get totally disheartened whenever I read statistics about Obama or Clinton supporters who plan to back McCain/stay home if their candidate doesn’t win.
I’m not saying its an invalid response, but a disappointing one/mistake, given what’s at stake.
r€nato
Oh man, the Republicans are FUCKED this fall.
Thanks for that report from Texas.