Maine for Obama

Back in October 2007, Clinton was beating Obama in Maine by a hilarious 47 to 10 margin, but it seems he's carried the state today, once again by a large margin. My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there. I'm not sure why Delaware and Connecticut don't count, but they definitely don't.

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor. Obama has, of course, deployed polarization to his benefit in a number of states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana most notably) but he's also dominated the states with very few black voters.

UPDATE: I forgot about Missouri. Obama's win in Missouri, of course, doesn't count because the state was called too late.

Comments

That's the spin the Clintons are putting out publicly, but the fact that they're making drastic campaign shakeups at this point tells me they know that Obama is winning this race right now.

If Edwards and/or Gore endorse him, you will start to see superdelegates move in his direction as well. No one wants to see this drawn out forever. Obama not only has all the momentum, he's our best candidate to win the White House.

Posted by Mike | February 10, 2008 6:47 PM

Don't forget Missouri! That didn't count because it was close, or something.

Posted by Sam Rosenfeld | February 10, 2008 6:49 PM

Delaware doesn't count because it, too, has lots of black people. According to franly0 at Drum's place, Missouri doesn't count because it borders Obama's state of Illinois.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 6:51 PM

Mobilising racial polarisation has proven a successful tactic in US politics. HRC may well still win using it.

Posted by otto | February 10, 2008 6:52 PM

Only New York and California count. Oh, and states where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Those count. The other 47 states are either filled with black people or white people who want a hip black friend. Or something.

Posted by jim | February 10, 2008 6:52 PM

I live in Ohio. Men are not for Hillary. They don't like her. Hate her even. But they're not sold on Obama so they pick Hillary because they view them both as bad choices but Hillary less so. This is because they know nothing of Obama. The muslim email has made great in roads here. Any time you talk about the race, and say Obama is giving her a run, someone invariably says "but he's a muslim".

The calendar helps Obama here. He has substantial time to travel the state and get his message out to a very skeptical working class population in northern Ohio.

But Hillary is the incumbent and front runner here by default. She can only go down in the polls, which has been the case in every state to date. Her name recognition lead is eroded the more people hear and see Obama.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 10, 2008 6:53 PM

My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there.

Yeah, that sounds like most of the posts over at TalkLeft the past couple of weeks. At some point, the array of excuses do become inconsistent.

Posted by Jake | February 10, 2008 6:53 PM

LOL. Is Hillary crying again? Is Chelsea going to cry next?

Posted by TLM | February 10, 2008 6:54 PM

People keep leaving out the most important one because they flipped it after everyone went to bed.

Obama's win in Missouri doesn't count because its a bellwether state.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 10, 2008 6:54 PM

Virginia is big. It's a swing state. It's a primary. Obama will win more white voters. Obama will win with women. But do I expect the meme that Obama can't win those states/demographics to stop? Nah.

Clinton would do well to drop the poor-me schtick and go after some voters. Grousing about the process, the media, and whatever else is not in her favor is not helping her campaign. Only going into Virginia, Wisconsin, Oregon, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania - only getting in on the ground there and drumming up local, enthusiastic support (what Obama is and has been doing) is going to give her the chance to win. Stop reading the polls. Stop listening to Mark Penn. Stop calculating. Go in and start talking to voters.

Posted by Craig | February 10, 2008 6:56 PM

Missouri doesn't count because all the "real 'murikins" (i.e. those possessing white skin and a penis) didn't put her over there. You can use this same excuse in other states as well.

Posted by jimBOB | February 10, 2008 6:57 PM

But Michigan and Florida DO count, because wouldn't it be awful if voters think we're completely dismissive of their wishes?

Posted by Craig L | February 10, 2008 6:58 PM

Don't forget about Florida!!!! And Michigan! Florida definitely counts!!!! Definitely!

Posted by Mark Penn | February 10, 2008 6:58 PM

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor.

New Hampshire?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 10, 2008 6:58 PM

None of those wins count (but Michigan and Florida should)

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 10, 2008 6:59 PM

This is good for Clinton....

It always is.

Posted by coda | February 10, 2008 7:00 PM

Obama winning CT was the great under-reported story of Super Tuesday. He was an underdog, way behind in the polls, but he eked out a victory there. It seems to have been buried underneath the ridiculous 'Clinton wins upset in MA' spin, which I can't believe anyone fell for. I still see blogs and pundits saying that Obama needs to win a "Hillary" state to prove he's worthy of the nomination, but that kind of thinking seems to ignore CT.

disclaimer: I support both Obama and Hillary and will gladly vote for either.

Posted by thefax | February 10, 2008 7:01 PM

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor.

So, Clinton's wins among working class Democrats don't count because they're racist. Got it.

This is classism masquerading as anti-racism.

All the primaries and caucuses count. And the two are about tied, Obama has a small lead, but probably less favorable states ahead. None of their wins are illegitimate.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:02 PM

I guess she didn't deploy racial polarization in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, New York, or New Jersey, and she won those. Out of those, I think we can only "not count" New York; the rest are legitimate racial polarization-free wins.

What's getting bizarre about this is that Bill Clinton is now trying out class-polarization, so I guess we will be hearing more about the mansion he lives in next to his slumlord buddy and the private planes he took to go to Google fundraisers, while Clinton is the salt-of-the-earth for having spent a year or two working for CDF and on the board of LSC... Also somehow she's more experienced and vetted, despite never having had a close election in her life either.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 10, 2008 7:03 PM

This is the same Matt who told us last week that Hillary had it wrapped up now, right?

Posted by mq | February 10, 2008 7:04 PM

Call me an optimist, but at some point soon I think people will get far enough up the learning curve to realize the delegate count is the only thing that matters, and we will be able to drop all this nonsense about which states it is more important to "win".

Posted by DTM | February 10, 2008 7:05 PM

Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor.

I'm an Obama supporter and this is a dumb statement. It's not how Clinton is mobilizing people, it's about how Obama is mobilizing them. Every state shows a large lead for Clinton, and when people get to know Obama, they move in his direction. This is consistent in every state - the black ones, the white ones, the green ones, the poor ones, the rich ones.

Posted by Craig | February 10, 2008 7:05 PM

So, Clinton's wins among working class Democrats don't count because they're racist. Got it.

I didn't say that at all. I observed that Clinton can't win states where there are a lot of black people and she can't win states where there are very few black people.

I guess she didn't deploy racial polarization in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, New York, or New Jersey, and she won those. Out of those, I think we can only "not count" New York; the rest are legitimate racial polarization-free wins.

I say we "count" them all, but only New Hampshire breaks the pattern. She can't win in states where to win she'd need non-trivial black support, and she also can't win in states where there are so few black people that politics lacks a racial dimension. She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 10, 2008 7:07 PM

This is the same Matt who told us last week that Hillary had it wrapped up now, right?

That prediction was easily the best thing to happen to Obama in weeks, better than Maine, better than Missouri. The Yglesias counter-prediction is a powerful beast.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:07 PM

My, my, the supporters of the candidate of "hope" and "unity" sure have their knives out today. Whatever happened to being gracious in victory?

I'll repeat what everybody already knows, absent the snark. Obama does do well in caucus states where independents are allowed to vote. Fair statement? He also has remarkable drawing power with young people and affluent white liberals.

Hillary does well in popular vote states where only Democrats vote. She does well with women, the poor, older voters, and traditional Democrats. Anybody want to argue with that?

Posted by John Petty | February 10, 2008 7:08 PM

I say we "count" them all, but only New Hampshire breaks the pattern.

Arizona, 3.8%
Massachusetts, 6.9%
Nevada, 7.9%
New Hampshire, 1.1%
New Mexico, 2.5%

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:15 PM

Maine's caucus was closed... but I guess it was a caucus, so it doesn't count.

Posted by br | February 10, 2008 7:15 PM

don't forget about Poland!

Posted by nattyb | February 10, 2008 7:17 PM

I think all this talk reducing Hillary's appeal to racism and discounting her success is ludicrous.

Hillary's gone about step-for-step with Barack in popular votes and delegates still, correct? It's a little childish, purposely ignoring things, or nutso to ignore that, I think. I haven't actually noticed any Hillary supporters actually claiming that all of Barack's state's don't count. The only remark I think I heard is that Barack is from Illinois, which frankly is a totally legitimate observation, because that's where he's set down roots and basically worked out of and been known for decades. Hillary probably doesn't have any similar connection to either that state or any other state.

Posted by Swan | February 10, 2008 7:17 PM

The big loser in the Maine caucuses? David Shuster.

Hillary will beat that drum because it's the only one she has.

Posted by JayDawg | February 10, 2008 7:18 PM

I don't understand why everyone has seized upon the idea that Hillary Clinton is "the candidate of the poor."

In case anyone needs a reminder, the poorest ethnic or racial subgroup in the US -- other than Native Americans -- are African-Americans. Clearly much black support for Obama is not for economic reasons, but that doesn't somehow discount the reality that black people are disproportionately poor.

Moreover, I think Omaha, Tacoma, and heck, Des Moines, are pretty working class -- and Obama territory.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the white, northeastern working class. That's not the same as "the poor."

Posted by del | February 10, 2008 7:19 PM

Don't pay any attention to the shakeup, the money problems, the badly run ground organization, the racial division, the tears, the threats of terrorist attacks should Obama win, or the negative television ads that had to be taken off the air. Hillary has experience and her savvy management of the expectations game has everyone concluding that she is the inevitable nominee. Her low poll numbers against McCain and her inability to win independents prove that she is best equipped to take on the Republicans in November.

And we all know that any process for choosing a nominee that requires more than 5 seconds of voter participation every four years is undemocratic, anyway.

Posted by Just Karl | February 10, 2008 7:20 PM

John Petty,

Maine had a closed caucus. C-L-O-S-E-D. Only Democrats voted in it. The same was true for Louisiana.

Obama does great amongs independents and activist Dems. He does well amongst black women and white men. He gains great ground wherever he has a chance to campaign and people get to know him.

Hillary does well where people know her name but not her policies. She does well in places where she's lived (except Illinois) and where her racial polarization has worked. She has started the race with every conceivable advantage possible and is losing. She has been forced to go negative and, as a result, has alienated a large part of the activist base of the party (as well as a lot of Dem-leaning independents).

Hillary's only hope is to redefine the terms of the campaign in such a way as to require Obama to overwhelmingly defeat her in every catergory.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 7:21 PM

Hillary's gone about step-for-step with Barack in popular votes and delegates still, correct?

For this weekend, Obama tends to win the popular voter by 20%. He netted +45 delegates yesterday; stands to do pretty well today.

Posted by southpaw | February 10, 2008 7:21 PM

According to "poblano" at Kos, it actually isn't true that income independently explains some of the Clinton/Obama relative vote share. Rather, it is education level that provides the explanation, and once you control for education, income drops out.

The whole thing is interesting, so I will post the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361

Posted by DTM | February 10, 2008 7:22 PM

Hillary is the new Guiliani and Texas/Ohio is the new Florida. The other states don't matter because they aren't part of her superior strategy.
Actually, if Hillary does lose a state or is about to lose a state, there is a well established protocol - first, really really stress why your better than the other choice, sometimes the rubes, er electorate, is a little slow and they can be dazzled by oratorical elegance. Second, have Bill distort the record of your opponent and claim the opponent is distorting your's. Third, cry or claim someone from one of the networks is saying mean things or, even better, combine them both. Fourth, say the state doesn't really matter anyway and the lose was expected. Fifth, replace a campaign manager. We haven't seen six yet but I think it may involve a nationally broadcasted melt-down/temper-tantrum in which we are all scolded for not understanding how she is OWED the Presidency and we are stupid stupid-heads for not understanding. 7 is when she has to be escorted away from the inauguration ceremonies expecting to be sworn in even though she's not the President-elect

Posted by dave.reese | February 10, 2008 7:22 PM

Hah! This reminds me of George Carlin's famous "sports" monologue, in which he dismisses most of the world's major sports as mere pretenders. Running isn't a sport because anyone can do it. Hockey isn't a sport because it's played with a puck. Gymnastics isn't a sport because Romanians are good at it.

Most of the dismissals of Obama's victories are on the same level as Carlin's diatribe...only not as funny.

Posted by Jay Andrew Allen | February 10, 2008 7:24 PM

How about getting MY's getting off his prediction of a Clinton victory now? If (on the evidence of her firing her campaign manager and her declaring the super delegates should overrule the popularly selected delegates) she knows she's behind, and if the more she flails the further behind she falls--if she and her people know she's losing, why can't MY figure it out, too?

Or do I not remember correctly what MY wrote a few days ago? It suddenly seems incredible that anyone would have made such a prediction.

Posted by Changeadvocate | February 10, 2008 7:24 PM

"Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor."

Oh I get it, someone told you there's a spot open at Fox News for someone with liberal affectations who doesn't mind making overly reductive, idiotic statements.

I knew you and Sullivan had lots in common, not just looks, but this crap is uncanny.

Posted by Bob | February 10, 2008 7:25 PM

Look, here's the list of all the states that Clinton has won, and the percentage of the population that is African-American:

New Hampshire, 1.1%
New Mexico, 2.5%
Arizona, 3.8%
California, 6.7
Massachusetts, 6.9%
Oklahoma, 7.8%
Nevada, 7.9%
New Jersey, 14.5%
Arkansas, 15.7%
Tennessee, 16.9%
New York, 17.4%

The basic issue is that Hillary Clinton has won very few states.

Of the states that she has won, 6 of the 11 are, or are contiguous with, states she has represented as Senator or First Lady. (If you want an anti-Hillary talking point, that's my favorite.)

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:25 PM

How about getting MY's getting off his prediction of a Clinton victory now? If (on the evidence of her firing her campaign manager and her declaring the super delegates should overrule the popularly selected delegates) she knows she's behind, and if the more she flails the further behind she falls--if she and her people know she's losing, why can't MY figure it out, too?

Or do I not remember correctly what MY wrote only yesterday? It suddenly seems incredible that anyone would have made such a prediction.

Posted by Changeadvocate | February 10, 2008 7:27 PM

John,

Hillary does well in popular vote states where only Democrats vote. She does well with women, the poor, older voters, and traditional Democrats. Anybody want to argue with that?

But... isn't that Maine?

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 7:27 PM

This thread disturbs me.

You guys know that Obama is the candidate of The Village, right? You've noticed that the establishment media uses precisely the same tone and the same jokes to mock Clinton? Just becuase the MSM is suddenly on your side doesn't mean you should suddenly appropriate their rhetoric.

I think it's a good thing for America if Obama wins. I voted Obama. Stop bashing your fellow Democrats, it does no one any good.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:30 PM

She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top.

I guess I just think that overstates the degree to which I think that thinking in local elections affects choices for the Presidential election. For instance, Clinton racked up an insane 70-30 margin in Springfield, Massachusetts. Are you really telling me the voters there are voting for Clinton because they didn't like how school busing was handled in Boston thirty years ago? Or that she won Orange because it's full of people who didn't want to send their kids to public schools in New Haven? And of course Obama is running a Deval Patrick "post-racial" campaign, so most of these voters have probably voted for black guy with the right message before.

I am still trying to puzzle through why Clinton has so much support among working-class whites in CT/NH/MA. It's still a mystery. I can't chalk it all up to "racial polarization".

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 10, 2008 7:31 PM

DivGuy,

Do you really think that the Clinton detractors are in any measure more toxic than the Obama detractors? Or that Obama is a Broderist?

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 7:33 PM

None of their wins are illegitimate.

Well, I agree. Except for Florida and Michigan, since Hillary was the only one on the ballot in one and everyone agreed to ignore the other. Not sure how those are legitimate.

Posted by jim | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

LOL. Is Hillary crying again? Is Chelsea going to cry next?
...
I live in Ohio. Men are not for Hillary. They don't like her. Hate her even.
...
Third, cry or claim someone from one of the networks is saying mean things or, even better, combine them both

Hey, look, everybody! It's Andrew Sullivan!

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

On Super Tuesday 5 women stood together at a busy intersection in suburban Atlanta waving Obama signs. Three of us were white and two of us were black. Funny, we didn't feel polarized at all.

Posted by Janice | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

"Just becuase the MSM is suddenly on your side doesn't mean you should suddenly appropriate their rhetoric."

Why not? They're wising up in their ways and I'm happy to join them.

Posted by TLM | February 10, 2008 7:34 PM

You guys know that Obama is the candidate of The Village, right?

No, the candidate of the Village is Mr. Straight Talkin' Maverick McCain.

Posted by Fausto Carmona | February 10, 2008 7:36 PM

At the risk of interrupting the internecine squabbling with an asinine question (to throw my hat in the ring on this point, I'll just say "she started it" and then hide behind my couch), can someone explain to me what the appellation "The Village" means and where it came from. I fear that I may live in/be part of it, but missed the memo when it/we were rebranded.

Many thanks.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 7:37 PM

Man, I am SO drunk on hope right now. I'm fucking WASTED!

Posted by Bill | February 10, 2008 7:37 PM

Do you really think that the Clinton detractors are in any measure more toxic than the Obama detractors? Or that Obama is a Broderist?

No, I don't think any of those things.

I don't see why this comment thread should be full of "Clinton detractors" parroting the same rhetoric - much of it misogynist - that we see in the establishment media.

The whole raison d'etre of the blogosphere has been medienkritik. We should know better than this.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:39 PM

Nicholas,

Maybe Clinton's access to machine politics in working-class northeastern neighborhoods helped her. I still wouldn't discount the issue of race, though.

DivGuy,

You think that's bad? How about calling your opponent a former drug-addict or drug-dealer? How about calling your opponent a boon for terrorists or secret terrorist himself? How about diminishing your opponent's gains and electoral chances based on his race? All of these things were said by high-ranking Clinton surrogates (WJC, Bob Kerrey, Bill Shaheen, etc).

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 7:40 PM

Maybe it's because working-class voters are more concerned about specific bread-and-butter issues and don't have the luxury of indulging vague promises of "hope" and "bipartisanship."

Plus, in a time when the economy is coming more and more to the fore, the peace and broad-based prosperity of the 90's looks pretty good to the Dunkin' Donut crowd.

Posted by John Petty | February 10, 2008 7:40 PM

Bill,

Me too. It's fucking awesome. I don't know where I'm going to go for hope rehab to kick my hope addiction when this is over. Probably professional sports, b/c, as a Philadelphia fan, they can always be counted on to detoxify me of every last shred of remaining hope in my body.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 7:41 PM

You think that's bad? How about calling your opponent a former drug-addict or drug-dealer? How about calling your opponent a boon for terrorists or secret terrorist himself? How about diminishing your opponent's gains and electoral chances based on his race? All of these things were said by high-ranking Clinton surrogates (WJC, Bob Kerrey, Bill Shaheen, etc).Those are all very bad.

Compared to the dog whistle politics that Clinton attempted around SC, Obama's campaign has been much better about not parroting the misogynist rhetoric that the mainstream media has turned on Clinton. They are to be commended for it, just as commenters at matthewyglesias are to be rightly criticized for doing the reverse.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:44 PM

On a more serious note, I want to add that this is the first time in my relatively short voting lifetime (I'm in my 30s) that the Dems are running 2 candidates that I genuinely like and respect and that I would be proud to have as my President. I know it's not easy to view things this way in the heat of the campaign (and that many people will disagree about one or the other of these candidates), but from my perspective (as an Obama supporter), the strength of both of these candidates really does give me legitimate hope.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 7:48 PM

She can't win in states where to win she'd need non-trivial black support, and she also can't win in states where there are so few black people that politics lacks a racial dimension. She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top.

I think the fist part is true: Hillary definitely can't overcome Obama's popularity with black voters in states where they're a critical part of the primary electorate (30%+ ?). But it seems to me this commonly-heard meme as an explanation for Obama's small state success falls apart in the second portion, because these small, lily white states have nearly all been caucuses, haven't they?

Utah might be the exception, but, given its extremely conservative political culture, my guess is anybody who shows up to vote in a Democratic primary is probably the raving mad town socialist (or one of the state's 119 African Americans). To believe the thesis Matt describes, we basically have to accept the proposition that white folks who occasionally encounter black folks build up all kinds of racist baggage, but lilly whites out in the Aryan Nation hinterlands are like four years olds who have never heard the N word (or picked up on the racist undertones of society).

It seems to me an awfully convenient theory if one wants to believe the worst in people. I think Obama's ability to motivate young, often upwardly mobile and well-educated, aspirational progressives (and their ability to overwhelm the narrow gauge caucus format with their numbers) is a more plausible explanation for his success in these white bread contests. Not that he wouldn't necessarily have come out ahead of Clinton in many or all of them had they been primaries, but I suspect the margins would have been a lot closer.

It's the passion gap, really. Obama inspires it. Hillary mostly doesn't. When voting for Hillary requires ten minutes at a local school to vote in a primary, she does a lot better. When voting for Hillary requires a whole afternoon, she doesn't do so well. Of course, a lot of her supporters probably can't get the whole afternoon off anyway, but that's another story.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 7:48 PM

Well, all arguments aside, it's obvious that this thing is far from over. The irony is that, when Clinton first chose to authorize her campaign, everyone assumed that it would be a cakewalk - a slam dunk. She probably thought that she would ride into these states, get showered with votes, and be treated as if she was some kind of liberator. Who would have thought that, this far in, it would have deteriorated into such a quagmire, a bitter conflict - one that threatens to turn into a Democratic civil war and shows no sign of abating. And, even if she ultimtely wins, she has quite possibly made more enemies than she had before. How could anyone have predicted this? Is there any analog in recent American history that could have possibly served as a sign post? I can't think of anything!

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 10, 2008 7:49 PM

On a more serious note, I want to add that this is the first time in my relatively short voting lifetime (I'm in my 30s) that the Dems are running 2 candidates that I genuinely like and respect and that I would be proud to have as my President. I know it's not easy to view things this way in the heat of the campaign (and that many people will disagree about one or the other of these candidates), but from my perspective (as an Obama supporter), the strength of both of these candidates really does give me legitimate hope.

Agreed, 100%.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 7:50 PM

I still think the real issue here is not which demographic votes for whom, but the simple fact that Obama is out-campaigning Clinton to such an extent that she looks both amateurish and inept. Even if you grant that caucuses are undemocratic, and that winning them is simply illegitimate, and that small states shouldn't vote, you're left with the fact that the DNC has declared that small states matter and caucuses count. Given that, if you're a serious candidate, you compete in them. What is the possible excuse for losing this badly in any of these states, especially if you are a candidate with as much institutional support (factual) and experience (at least alleged) as Clinton?

I don't like Clinton; I would never vote for her. But, like everybody else, I expected her to win this handily. I thought she was a force for evil, but (unlike Bush) a competent force for evil. I thought she'd win Iowa. I thought she'd win handily in New Hampshire. I thought she'd keep it close in SC. I thought she'd win more delegates on Super Tuesday. I thought she'd at least keep it close in Washington State, and maybe win Maine. I still think she could win Virginia. But every time so far, she's screwed up. I'm beginning to think that she's just not very good at this.

I understand why her supporters make excuses. What else are you going to do when you keep being disappointed? Maybe she'll still win. But even if she does, she won't be able to boast of having run a good campaign.

Posted by NoahB | February 10, 2008 7:50 PM

@Nicholas Beaudrot

That is a great idea for a comparision. Compare Duval Patrick's vote getting ability with a reference white democrat. See if he ran above or below the reference white democrat in those areas in which Clinton tromped Obama.

Posted by Adam | February 10, 2008 7:50 PM

One point about the Duval Patrick question that I'd like (but don't expect) to see data on is what percentage of voters who had previously voted for Patrick now have an unfavorable opinion of Patrick and voted for HRC.

My (totally anecdotal) conversations with friends and family in MA revealed that many people believed in and voted for Patrick, but have been very disappointed in him so far and have turned against Obama primarily because his campaign is superficially so similar to Patrick's (poetry and hope; perceived less experience; African-American candidate).

DivGuy--I'm very pleased that you agreed with my previous post (I feared I'd get lambasted as some sort of starry-eyed optimist/typical Obama supporter). As an agreeable guy, would you be able to shed some light on what is "The Village" and where the term arose from? Many thanks.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 8:00 PM

I particularly liked this diary over at The Great Orange Satan:

Well, these are not real Obama victories because he can only win in caucus states and his home state and states that have a majority of African-American voters and states where he has time to do retail politics and states in the south and states in the northeast and states in the midwest and states in the southwest and states in the northeast and states with open primaries so Republicans and Independents can vote and states with closed primaries so Independents and Republicans can't vote and primaries held off the main-land and primaries held in sort-of kind-of foreign countries like Iowa, Illinois and South Carolina, Nebraska, Georgia, Connecticut, Kansas, New Mexico, Washington, Minnesota, Delaware, Alaska and the Virgin Islands.

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 10, 2008 8:00 PM

Utah might be the exception, but, given its extremely conservative political culture, my guess is anybody who shows up to vote in a Democratic primary is probably the raving mad town socialist (or one of the state's 119 African Americans).

Jasper,

You DO realize, don't you, that one of Utah's three congressional districts is held by a Democrat, right? There are Democrats out there even in these smaller, conservative states, and many of them have a vested interest in winning these things too.

If the Obama campaign is premised on going out and winning supporters and organizing in every part of the country, then good on him -- that's what's needed for people like Jim Matheson, Nancy Boyda, John Marshall, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, John Yarmuth, Larry LaRocco, and so on.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 8:01 PM

For those of you who still think the Clinton campaign's on track, here's a potentially relevant fact: Intrade now gives HRC a 30.0% chance of getting the nomination. Obama, of course, would have a 70.0% chance.

Yeah, it's meaningless. Or is it? The Giuliani parallels with Clinton's current strategy are dead-on, but she doesn't really have a choice. I think she missed her chance to beat Obama, and now she's just going to have to try to lose more slowly to him and hope that the superdelegates come through, I suppose. But a "stolen" victory, or any appearance of one, will result in Obama voters (correctly, in my opinion) sitting out the general election.

Obama can make it easy on Clinton: he proposes a pledge to drop out if he has fewer pledged delegates at the end of primary season, and she makes the same pledge. Superdelegate controversy averted.

Posted by Lev | February 10, 2008 8:03 PM

Obama's win in Missouri, of course, doesn't count because the state was called too late.

That's just silly.

Obama's win in Missouri doesn't count because Missouri is just a protectorate of Illinois.

Get the talking points straight.

Posted by Adam | February 10, 2008 8:03 PM

She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top. Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 10, 2008 7:07 PM

I noticed something in yesterday's New York Times Metro Section that might interest you to investigate more. You showed interest with the Catholic vote on Huckabee. Well, there's some evidence here that Catholics like Hillary a lot more than Obama:

ABOUT NEW YORK; Catholic Vote Is Harbinger of Success for Clinton By JIM DWYER, February 9, 2008

Be sure to click on the full graphic there, it includes the Catholic vote numbers from 10 states, it's not just about New York. They're pretty striking.

I myself would be interested to know whether the same thing happened yesterday and today. Until then, it's pretty striking that lots of Catholics like Clinton over Obama.

Posted by artappraiser | February 10, 2008 8:04 PM

artappraiser,

Catholics tend to overlap pretty well with working class whites and hispanics.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 8:07 PM

I understand why her supporters make excuses. What else are you going to do when you keep being disappointed?

When Obama supporters are disappointed, they largely seem to declare Hillary the presumptive nominee.

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 8:11 PM

Jasper...You DO realize, don't you, that one of Utah's three congressional districts is held by a Democrat, right? There are Democrats out there even in these smaller, conservative states, and many of them have a vested interest in winning these things too.

jbryan: Sure. No doubt. And bully him for brilliantly executing a well thought-out strategy. Team Obama has out thought the Clintons, among other things. And again, I'm not claiming Clinton would have won the bulk of Obama's caucus wins had they been primaries -- just that the margins -- and therefore the delegate counts -- would likely be a lot closer. His primary wins outside of the deep south have mostly been scrape by affairs. His caucus wins haven't.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 8:11 PM

As an agreeable guy, would you be able to shed some light on what is "The Village" and where the term arose from?

It's from Atrios.

The basic concept is that the mainstream media and "expert" class behaves in such a way as to massively limit the possibilities for discourse in this country.

They do this through personality-based analysis, where it doesn't matter what a person does or believes, so long as they are agreeable to the social world of these few elites in the media and expert class.

Thus you get the long McCain encomia, the irrational hatred of the Clintons, the continued marginalization of anti-war writers and thinkers to the benefit of the mainstream pundits and "experts" who would never have done something so silly as upset the precious pro-war consensus before the fact.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 8:13 PM

FREE DAVID SHUSTER!!!

Posted by JR | February 10, 2008 8:14 PM

I'm getting tired of the unnecessary crap from the Ygleias, which is apparently filtering down to the commenters. It obviously helps only the Republicans, and the posters to vent a little.
If I want to read half assed snark, there are people better at it.

Posted by Barry | February 10, 2008 8:15 PM

When people talk about the presence or lack of support for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama among "working class Democrats," do they mean to imply that somehow "working class African American Democrats" just fold into "African Americans" and are no longer considered to be working class Democrats?

If someone means to say "working class white Democrats" or "working class white male Democrats", is that not what he or she should say?

Posted by El Cid | February 10, 2008 8:16 PM

Right, I don't disagree with that. I think of most of the caucus states had held primaries instead, he still would have won, only by smaller margins in some places (like Maine and Washington). But the Utah primary win says a lot. And the claim I was taking issue with was that these Democrats there are somehow out of the norm... when they're managing to get a Democrat elected to one of the state's three House districts. The state may not be in play on the presidential level, but there is an active base of Democrats below that and the fact that Obama won them so convincingly is important.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 8:16 PM

When people talk about the presence or lack of support for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama among "working class Democrats," do they mean to imply that somehow "working class African American Democrats" just fold into "African Americans" and are no longer considered to be working class Democrats?

No. They mean that, overall, working class Democrats vote for Hillary. There are slices of that group that like her more or less, but it's an identifiable group with definable tendencies.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 8:18 PM

Who would have thought that, this far in, it would have deteriorated into such a quagmire, a bitter conflict - one that threatens to turn into a Democratic civil war and shows no sign of abating.

Jaysus. Could we possibly have a little less hyperbole? I thought it was commonly agreed that rushing to the nomination was a bad thing, and that a somewhat more drawn-out process would likely produce a more tested nominee? It's still only early February, for chrissakes. And the rhetoric has been gentler, and more positive, over the last couple of weeks. And there's hardly a "quagmire" in evidence as Obama continues to push ahead and rack up victories. As far as I can see, the process is pretty much moving along satisfactorily, with -- gasp -- big and small states both having an important say in the nominating process.

A sense of perspective, please.

Posted by Jasper | February 10, 2008 8:20 PM

Thanks, DivGuy, that's very helpful and a nicely succinct way of describing one of the more pernicious aspects of life inside the Beltway. I've always thought of it as a fraternity for people who wish they joined a fraternity, but this is much better.

Posted by Joe | February 10, 2008 8:24 PM

" . . . big and small states both having an important say in the nominating process."

Really? I thought Obama's recent massive victories in small- and medium-sized states only mattered if he won a few of the big states, like PA and TX, who's demographics favored Clinton.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 8:25 PM

The caucuses have their problems, but one thing they do is give a place where enthusiasm and organization trump familiarity. The McAuliffe master plan to hurry up the primaries does just the opposite. This year they seem to have their perfect candidates for both sides of the equation, and Obama is just better in caucuses than Clinton is in primaries.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 10, 2008 8:26 PM

Who would have thought that, this far in, it would have deteriorated into such a quagmire, a bitter conflict - one that threatens to turn into a Democratic civil war and shows no sign of abating.

This "civil war", thankfully, appears to be almost wholly confined to the blogosphere.

Among everyday Democrats, both candidates are extremely popular, and party unity is just about a foregone conclusion.

Obama and Clinton both have negatives in the 10-15% range among Democrats. Tiny numbers, in context. The party is unified. It'd be nice if the blogosphere could reflect that.

Posted by DivGuy | February 10, 2008 8:26 PM

"Maine for Obama"

This is the biggest fairy tale I have ever heard. Give me a break.

Posted by Ali Karim Bey | February 10, 2008 8:27 PM

MY: "Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor."

Wow.

Wow.

I understand your pathetic need to be cool again, after predicting a HRC win, but this is blog-historic pathetic.

Do I really to need run down the states HRC won?

Or does your disgusting phrase,"racial polarization" only apply one way?

Jesus, this post is toxic.

Posted by Andruw | February 10, 2008 8:28 PM

Matt, I love your blog, but this is ridiculous. Someone somewhere remarked that Obama tends to win in states with large black populations or tiny black populations, and you promptly decide that this potentially meaningless fact explains a difference in voting patterns. There's a correlation, causation problem here, and it's not like you to fall prey to it. Now, the simple truth is that there's no use overthinking this stuff. If we absolutely must identify a broad trend, it's pretty clear that Obama does well in state when he has time to campaign there, which would explain why he did less well in large states that are harder to cover. But this doesn't need to be a hard and fast rule. Some of this, not much but some, is chance too, you know.

Sadly, the comments are not a hell of a lot more illuminating than the post.

Posted by alex | February 10, 2008 8:29 PM

I just wanted to post a clarifying comment in response to some of John Petty's statements and responses to him from others. Although the Maine primary was technically closed, you could re-register as a Democrat at the door if you were unregistered or registered as an independent voter. If you were previously registered Republican or Green Independent (which is a separate party here), you had to re-register by January 26th. So essentially if you were politically astute or paying attention to the papers you could participate in the primary without being a long-term Democrat.

Now you can argue that this isn't a "real" Democratic primary, or you can look at it as a stroke of fortunate genius by the state Democratic party to get new voters, young voters, and pissed off indy voters to register Democratic. By all accounts the primary has been attended by crowds two to three-fold larger than in years past, meaning that an already strong state party has essentially doubled the number of its members that are politically active enough to show up at a caucus. And the state party is aware of this, they've been working hard to make sure that anyone who couldn't make it to the caucus could get an absentee ballot, they're taking full advantage of the opportunity to build their grassroots support.

Posted by Sefrankel | February 10, 2008 8:31 PM

Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the white, northeastern working class. That's not the same as "the poor."

That was true in Massachusetts. The blue collar machine came out in force for Hillary. Bill was cashing chips he accumulated in the WH. That made a difference. In the center of the state, which is full of college students, Barrack won the day.

Posted by Rocket guty | February 10, 2008 8:34 PM

Sefrankel,

Of around 1 million registered voters, the breakdown is as follows (from CNN):

31% D
28% R
38% I
3% G

Seeing that such a huge percentage of the electorate is registered independent (and half vote Democratic), it makes sense to allow some to be involved.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 8:40 PM

Just becuase the MSM is suddenly on your side doesn't mean you should suddenly appropriate their rhetoric

Dude, totally. The New York Times has nothing but nice things to say about Obama. Brooks, Dowd, and Krugman are always using flattering rhetoric to describe him. Same with the Clinton News Network. It's like a minor miracle that every cable news network insists on including the unpledged super delegates in the delegate count that crawls across the screen every 2 minutes. Hillary is getting such a raw deal and I never hear her or her supporters complain about. I'm glad somebody finally said something.

Posted by Just Karl | February 10, 2008 8:43 PM

Hillary is the new Rudy Giuliani. Sure, we'll lose Washington Louisiana Nebraska Maine Virginia Maryland Wisconsin etc.(New Hampshire Iowa etc.), but damnit, we're going to win big in Texas (Florida)! Glad to see all the underhanded race-baiting in South Carolina continue to blow up the Clintons' faces. Serves them right!!!!

Posted by Jimborama | February 10, 2008 8:44 PM

Yeah, even a state as solidly Republican as Utah isn't really the monolith it may look like from the East Coast. Salt Lake City itself is a lot less conservative than the rest of the state, and, not coincidentally, significantly less Mormon, as well. SLC's mayors have been Democrats continuously at least as far back as the 1970s. Rocky Anderson was quite an outspoken liberal, in fact. Their current mayor is an urban planning professor. It's not all Republicans there.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 10, 2008 8:46 PM

If Hillary wins Virginia it counts because it shows that the Super Hot n' Fresh Hillary can extend Virginia's transition from Red to Purple. And that she is the mighty bridge to the 20th Century.

But if Obama wins Virgina it doesn't count, because he will win with his usual, crazy and unsustainable coalition of White Men, people with Master's and PhD's, young college kids, African-Americans, 2nd generation immigrants, military families sick and tired of the war, Independents, and disaffected Republicans.

Posted by Gregor | February 10, 2008 8:51 PM

Missive from the Great Orange Satan:

The latest count of states won by popular vote, plus the margin of victory:

Clinton (10)

Arkansas +43
Oklahoma +24
New York +17
Massachusetts +15
Tennessee +13
California +10
New Jersey +10
Arizona +9
Nevada +6
New Hampshire +3

Obama (19)

Idaho +62
Alaska +50
Kansas +48
Washington +37
Georgia +36
Nebraska +36
Colorado +35
Minnesota +35
Illinois+32
South Carolina +32
North Dakota +24
Louisiana +21
Maine +18
Utah +18
Alabama +14
Delaware +10
Iowa +9
Connecticut +4
Missouri +1

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 8:56 PM

Matthew writes "She can't win in states where to win she'd need non-trivial black support, and she also can't win in states where there are so few black people that politics lacks a racial dimension."

In other words, Hillary uses racism to get people to vote for her. And I agree. What's the difference between a racist and somebody who uses racism for political advantage (like Hillary does)? Nothing I can see.

Posted by TLM | February 10, 2008 8:58 PM

And of course, we still don't know who won the effectively tied New Mexico.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 8:59 PM

jbryan,

The difference between "winning" and "losing" NM is one delegate.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 9:01 PM

If Hillary wins Virginia

Is this really a plausible outcome at this point? Obama needs 35% of the white vote in Virginia. In Georgia, whose white vote is demographically probably closest to Virginia of states that have already voted, Obama got 43%, and, really, Virginia has a lot more northern transplants than Georgia does. He should practically split the white vote with Hillary, and win the state convincingly.

Wisconsin is the only place where I think Clinton might potentially be able to get an upset, but I don't think that'll happen, either. The Clintons, at any rate, seem to have conceded both - it's Ohio and Texas 24/7 at this point.

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 9:02 PM

On a more serious note, Hillary does best when it's 2007 and she hasn't spent any time in front of the voters, and she gets endless free airtime on all the political talk shows. That's when she does really well with voters from coast to coast.

Obama does worst when it's 2007 and the media tells us every days that African-Americans don't believe he can win, and DEM leaders from coast to coast of all races and faiths line up to declare their support for the Clintons.

After 36 contests however in the year 2008, the data is screaming that Obama converts voters on the ground to his column at an astonishing rate --but most importantly, that Hillary cannot convert voters. Which is pretty amazing because essentially what that means is that she is, as a candidate for President, a failed candidate.

The data was all there starting about 2 weeks before Iowa too. Iowa--and the negative divergence in sentiment data for Hillary prior to the Caucus--was a big, big tell on what was coming.

Posted by Gregor | February 10, 2008 9:03 PM

DivGuy wins the thread, IMO, for talking sense.

I like Matt's snark about how none of Obama's wins matter. That's good stuff. The crack about Hillary relying on racial polarization for her wins is bogus. Team Clinton tried to "ghetto-ize" Obama in SC, it blew up in their face and since then they haven't said a peep on that score. I don't think downscale Dem whites are voting for Clinton because Obama is black; downscale Dem whites are voting for Clinton because of (a) name recognition/goodwill and (b) she's a good candidate. When given enough exposure to get to now him, downscale white men tend to come around to Obama. Hillary, however, seems to have a pretty solid hold on white women.

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

Jasper, DivGuy - you two do realize that my whole post was a joke, right? keywords: authorize, slam dunk, liberators, quagmire...

It should sound familiar. And, before you say it, no, it wasn't that funny, but I have so little to add to the conversaiton. Just let me have this one thing.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 10, 2008 9:04 PM

The interesting thing is that just a month ago Hillary held big leads in most of the states that Obama has now won. What happened to those? She currently has leads in Texas, Penn, Ohio - what will happen to those?

It's a delegate race, and Obama's deliberate strategy from day one was to focus on the early states and the caucus states, build up momentum, raise more money through the Internet, aim for roughly an equal share of delegates after Super Tuesday, and then move on from there. Methodical. Step by step. He always knew it was going to be tough, and really the only misstep so far was to trust the New Hampshire polls and assume all he had to do was turn up. His campaign learned from that close loss, which in my view was a blessing in disguise.

The point is that he's had a consistent message and strategy throughout this campaign, unlike Hillary, who seems to have thought it would be over even before Super Tuesday. But since Iowa she's been swinging in the wind, responding this or that poll, this or that issue - act tough one day, cry the next, tout experience one day, change the next; lean on Bill one day, Chelsea the next; crow about winning Mass and California one day, admit to cashflow problems and fire the campaign manager the next.

I tell you what I want in a president - someone who knows what he/she wants to do on day one. Someone who will not blow in the wind, someone who has a strategy, follows it, and achieves his/her goals. That's not Hillary if this campaign is any guide. It's Obama. Surely.

Posted by Mark O | February 10, 2008 9:07 PM

The difference between "winning" and "losing" NM is one delegate.

Oh, I know. But at least it'd be one more state to add to the list of Missouri, Connecticut, and Utah where Obama didn't win on the backs of blacks, to further help defuse the current leading meme that those and caucus states are the only places he can win (of course, the fact that it's effectively tied regardless of who pulls out an exceedingly narrow victory should serve just as well, but we all know how that goes).

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 9:07 PM

jbryan,

I believe we've gone over this already. NM doesn't count if Obama wins. It's too small and doesn't have the Clinton-recognized perfect number of black folks.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 9:12 PM

LOL ben. It would be accurate to say Hillary has barely yet to win a state where she hasn't had to use race baiting to win. Read Matthew's comment at February 10, 2008 7:07 PM on this.

Posted by TLM | February 10, 2008 9:17 PM

I don't think Clinton has won through race baiting. I think that racism has helped her to some extent in winning Asian, Latino, and working class white voters, but I think that a lot of it has more to do with Hillary being a pretty good candidate, and having a natural advantage in getting low information (non-black) female voters to vote for her, and they support her by wide margins.

If this were all about race, we'd be seeing much worse numbers for Obama among white men than we are seeing - do people really think that white women are more racist than white men?

The fact that Hillary is the first viable woman candidate is really important, and she really is a much better campaigner in a lot of ways than, say, John Kerry, who easily swept to the nomination.

As I said, I think race plays a significant role here, but I don't think it's anywhere near the only factor. And the race-baiting in South Carolina really mostly hurt Clinton, in terms of rallying the black community behind Obama, rather than helping Clinton.

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 9:27 PM

Hillary is the new Rudy Giuliani. Sure, we'll lose Washington Louisiana Nebraska Maine Virginia Maryland Wisconsin etc.(New Hampshire Iowa etc.), but damnit, we're going to win big in Texas (Florida)!

Jimborama: Hillary is hardly the new Rudy. Rudy didn't win anything. Hillary has won a number of key states, including the nation's largest, and a number of other large states. In fact, going into this weekend's contests, she had attracted the most popular votes of any candidate in either party, was close behind Obama in total pledged delegates, and was leading the overall delegate count. A lot of analysts, including this proprietor of this blog, still think she has a pretty good shot at the nomination. Not bad for someone who reminds you of Rudy. It remains to be seen whether or not she can regain her momentum in March. But I wouldn't count her out just yet.

Posted by Tobias | February 10, 2008 9:33 PM

"The New York Times has nothing but nice things to say about Obama. Brooks, Dowd, and Krugman are always using flattering rhetoric to describe him."

Um, I guess you missed Krugman's skewering of Obama's health care proposal. Krugman's so attached to it that a variation has been running roughly once every other week.

And, um, I guess you missed Dowd's "legally blonde" and "Obambi" wisecracks. (The latter ran in the print edition, but got cut from the web.)

Of course, Dowd's insanely mean to Hilary, too. But her Obama comments suggest she'll use the shtick on him she used to savage Gore in 2000. It ain't much of an act, but it's the only one she has.

Brooks is another story. It's fair to say his rhetoric about Obama has mostly been flattering.

Posted by Max | February 10, 2008 9:33 PM

With all due respects since you both write for the Atlantic, Ambinder is stupid enough to write for the Washington Post...and that is STUPID.

Posted by della Rovere | February 10, 2008 9:36 PM

The Yglesias counter-prediction is a powerful beast.

Indeed. I would ask MY to revise his earlier prediction but I pray he does not.

A 5-0 weekend for Obama. Just unbelievable.

Tuesday is going to be fun.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 10, 2008 9:40 PM

"but he's a muslim"

You gotta laugh.

If this country has so many morons in it that this sort of thing is going to sink Obama's candidacy, then this country deserves to get Giuliani, not even McCain.

Anybody who would vote for Clinton because "Obama is a Muslim" shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

Put a test at each polling place:

Question 1: "Do you think Obama is a Muslim?"

Anybody answering "yes" gets told to get lost.

Democracy is supposed to work for people educated enough to understand it, not morons.

[Note for the morons here: Of course, I'm not serious about the test remark.]

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 10, 2008 9:42 PM

It is interesting that the Clintons are considered to have race baited for comparing Barack Hussein Obama with other black men.

I wonder why black people are voting for him in droves. Maybe because he has not positioned himself as a black activist. If he did he would surely lose his white supporters. Unfortunately there is not very much analysis about this as yet, but wait and see if he is nominated.....

I think that the media likes to hate Billary and are feeding the fires of disunity among Dems. Since the reporting is very one-sided. This would eventually be regretted once the GOP wins in November, but it would be too late.

Posted by KJACK | February 10, 2008 9:45 PM

Also, none of this weekend's states count because Hillary expected to lose them since last week!

Getting a bit dizzy from the Clinton spinning...

Posted by Andrew | February 10, 2008 9:48 PM

Any analysis of states where Hillary can do well is outdated.

Clinton can do well in primaries or caucuses that take place before February 6th. Unfortunately for her, it's February 10th.

All the data from before this weekend is irrelevant. You had a challenger coming from 20 points back in many of those states. That's like turning around an aircraft carrier. It takes a while to get it going, but once it gets moving, it's hard to stop.

Many people in earlier primaries were not yet convinced Obama was legit or could overcome Clinton's huge lead. They had heard for a year that she was inevitable. Many in CA cast absentee ballots a month before the primary. It takes a lot to change that sort of thinking.

Who here believes that if California was run from scratch tomorrow Obama would lose? That's all you need to know about what's coming.

Posted by timkell | February 10, 2008 9:51 PM

ben said:

I believe we've gone over this already. NM doesn't count if Obama wins. It's too small and doesn't have the Clinton-recognized perfect number of black folks.

The Clinton campaign is starting to remind me of those crazy "The Magical Amount" anti-smoking ads that seem to be pervading MTV lately.

Posted by Daniel Munz | February 10, 2008 9:55 PM

The post-Super Tuesday contests are meaningless because they only prove Obama is competitive in the South, the Western states, the plains states and New England.

Posted by neil | February 10, 2008 10:01 PM

Richard Steven Hack:

Well, remember I've mentioned that a considerable portion of George W. Bush's voting support apparently came from people who thought they were voting to give a second term to his father.

In some cases, when the interviewer explained that Bush #2 was the SON of Bush #1, the respondent refused to accept it and said they were obviously the same person, ti was simply that Bush looked more relaxed and younger because he'd had a few years to rest up outside of office.

Remember, you fight elections with the voters you have, not the voters you'd like to have...

Posted by RKU | February 10, 2008 10:01 PM

Neil,

Don't forget the mid-Atlantic.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 10:10 PM

Seems like the Clinton folk are content to keep losing delegates in order to attempt to "control the narrative." Isn't it a little late for that? By the time they spin things their way, Obama will have built a huge lead for himself, and she'll need huge wins with less money to come back.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 10, 2008 10:12 PM

Tom in Raleigh: And, before you say it, no, it wasn't that funny, but I have so little to add to the conversaiton. Just let me have this one thing.

FWIW, I thought it was pretty good.

Posted by Lucy | February 10, 2008 10:14 PM

Maine's caucus is closed, yes. However, it shares the same difficulties that the rest of the caucus systems.

My caucus took three hours on a Sunday afternoon and you had to be physically present for the entire time, disenfranchising:

1. People who had to work (and in Maine, lots of people work on Sunday, since it's a very poor state);

2. People who have child care issues;

3. People with disabilities;

4. People without cars;

5. People who are elderly and/or sick.

So, I'd say one reason that Obama does well in the caucus states has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with Hillary's voters being cut out of the process.

When this season is over, the caucus system should be abolished everywhere, in favor of a system where all votes count equally.

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | February 10, 2008 10:19 PM

As an Obama fan, I have to admit that this is the shilliest that Yglesias has been on Obama.

It is an indication of the trench warfare nature of this race going forward that Obama can score a crushing 4 state sweep and only get a net gain of a hundred or so delegates out of it.

"The New York Times has nothing but nice things to say about Obama. Brooks, Dowd, and Krugman are always using flattering rhetoric to describe him."

A perfect example of how lame, incorect, and inappropriately meta most indirect attacks through accusations of media favoritism usually are.

Posted by Colatina | February 10, 2008 10:20 PM

So most Catholics are now either working-class or Latino. Try again.

60% of all US Catholics are non-Hispanic white, 30% Hispanic and 5% each for blacks or Asians. If you were to adjust these percentages to reflect eligible voters the number of non-Hispanic whites would increase substantially.(33% of all Hispanics are younger than 18 and 30% are not citizens)

Catholic mean household income was slightly higher than the mean for the US in 1991. Unless someone can point to data that shows a divergence during the past 17 years one should not assume Catholics are more working class than the population as a whole. It should be noted that the majority of Catholics are registered Democrats regardless of income levels while this is not true for white Protestants.

While racism (ignoring sexism) among some segment of Catholics may explain why Obama does poorly with this group I would suggest at least a portion of the preference for Clinton is because she is seen as better on bread and butter issues like jobs and healthcare. In the absence of any real differences on social issues, Democratic Catholics are selecting the candidate they deem as more committed to progressive economics.

It is the works vs faith thing.

* Catholic women are more Democratic than Catholic men as are older Catholics compared to younger Catholics so this also would explain part of the Clinton advantage.

Of course Maine counts, I do feel however that states with the most Catholics should count for more since we are God's chosen people version 2.0 If Obama doesn't get right with us he will not win the general election - don't hold me to this since I am at the computer and not sitting on the Throne of Infallibility. The Vatican needs wi-fi....

Posted by Pope Sixtus VI | February 10, 2008 10:22 PM

Lambert Strether:

If Clinton had made caucuses a priority in her strategy, all the barriers to voting you name could have been handled with campaign $$ and volunteers (driving, babysitting, etc.)

But Clinton thought it would all be over by 2/5 and she ran out of money. She had no Plan B.

Posted by lina | February 10, 2008 10:24 PM

MY: "Realistically, Clinton seems to have difficulty winning anywhere she can't mobilize racial polarization in her favor."

Just a reminder for folks....realistically Dems aren't gonna stand for this BS again.

We don't care about your career.

Posted by Andrruw | February 10, 2008 10:26 PM

I was going to think of a witty reposte to this P.O.S. post, but instead let's just go with:

"I hate you Matt Yglesias"

Posted by MR | February 10, 2008 10:29 PM

Hillary did very well in 3 big states, none of which Republicans have carried in nearly 20 years of Presidential elections (California 1988). And those are CA, MA, and NY.

MA and NY have not been won by the GOP since 1984.

I would really like to say there's been one election result in this primary by Hillary that has impressed me. Frankly I cannot find a single one. Allowing Obama to take 40% of New York while she only took 33% of Illinois was another in a series of very unimpressive results.

It's funny to me to see the discussion in full force about all of this over the internet because any old election hand will tell you that inside the Clinton campaign there surely has been very little to celebrate since the voting started.

Posted by Gregor | February 10, 2008 10:30 PM

1. People who had to work (and in Maine, lots of people work on Sunday, since it's a very poor state)

Really? I don't think Maine's that poor a state. According to the census, its median household income is only slightly below the national; its poverty rate is lower than the national percentage. Home ownership is way higher than the national average. On the whole, the state seems to be doing okay for itself.

2. People who have child care issues;

Most of the people who have child care issues are probably younger parents, no? This tends to be Obama's demographic more than Clinton's.

3. People with disabilities;

I didn't realize the disabled vote was a big Clinton bloc. Can you point to some of the exit polls in favor of this, Lambie?

4. People without cars;

And again, this could reasonably impact the young as much as any other demographic group, and that's an Obama-leaning group. But if people don't have cars and can't drive to the caucuses, isn't that something the Clinton campaign can provide? That's part of the whole organization argument. When I participated in GOTV efforts for Obama in my state, we were able to call a campaign hotline to get cars for anyone that needed a ride to vote. I'm sure he's got that going in other states as well. It's part of organizing and being able to make sure your voters can get out and support you. There's no excuse for Clinton to not have an operation capable of doing this. Shoddy effort on her part.

5. People who are elderly and/or sick.

Again, I don't think the Sick Persons bloc is one that's been particularly noted as a pro-Clinton stronghold. As to the elderly... before we kept hearing about how Obama's winning the caucuses because his supporters have all the free time in the world, but don't the elderly also fit this bill?

So, I'd say one reason that Obama does well in the caucus states has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with Hillary's voters being cut out of the process.

That doesn't seem to be a reasonable conclusion based on the "evidence" you've put forth so far. In fact, on all the caucuses where exit poll data is available, it doesn't indicate that there's been an overwhelming deficit of working class voters or older voters. Now, while I'll certainly grant that caucuses aren't as immediately accessible as primary voting, there's been nothing in terms of concrete evidence to suggest that the people being "disenfranchised" from this process are overwhelmingly Clinton supporters. This just seems like something people are suddenly deciding must be fact and tossing out at every available opportunity. Provide some evidence, please.

When this season is over, the caucus system should be abolished everywhere, in favor of a system where all votes count equally.

All votes count equally in caucuses. You just need to show up and vote.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 10:31 PM

Pope Sixtus VI,

I said "Catholics tend to overlap pretty well with working class whites and hispanics."

You said "60% of all US Catholics are non-Hispanic white, 30% Hispanic".

I guess I based my understanding of the economics of the group on my own personal experience. Here's a more recent survey by the NCR which may shed some more light on the subject.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 10:32 PM

Thanks to superdelegates, none of Obama's wins have to count.

Posted by Heathcliff | February 10, 2008 10:33 PM

I just saw a lot of Obamaist triumphalism over on a similar post on The Carpetbagger Report.

By the way, this is a very unusual number of comments for a Matt Yglesias blog post.

All I'm going to say is, the Maine turnout is very amazing for the snowy weather they had, and I wouldn't feel foolish attributing that turnout to raiders. Idaho, the reddest of the red states, was also an overwhelming victory for Obama. It's pretty clear the right want to run against Obama, too, because they don't want Hillary within spitting distance of the White House at least, and also perhaps they think propaganda will work better against Obama and our hopes of broadening his appeal across the race-line are overblown.

In light of that, it would make sense if the evilest of the evil right-wingers, who have a lot of family and friends in a place like Idaho, were able to mobilize a lot of raiders by word-of-mouth.

Posted by Swan | February 10, 2008 10:34 PM

Andrruw writes "Just a reminder for folks....realistically Dems aren't gonna stand for this BS again."

LOL. Matthew was telling it like it is. LOL. If you listened to more of Obama's inspiring speeches, you would be better informed and support Obama just like us high info Obama voters.

Posted by TLM | February 10, 2008 10:37 PM

Swan,

I think I heard that Rush was involved in a similar effort

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 10:40 PM

A win in Maine augurs well for Obama in Ohio. There's one school of thought that believes in demographic predestiny and so, Obama can keep getting a large percentage of the African-American vote and steadily make up ground among white men, including those who lack postgraduate lattes.

Another school of thought says, the 1990s are over, and it's time to bring the country together, to solve problems instead of relentlessly enjoying gutter politics. More than the under-40 creative class appreciates this and it's elitism to suggest otherwise. His positions on economic issues are as liberal if not more so as HIllaries, and well detailed to boot. For some of the Clinton hacks, nothing Obama ever says will be detailed enough, or he's declared a triangulator for reasons having nothing to do with his policies. Whatever. The voters are favoring Obama with increasing frequency, so the solution is either to recognize this fact or to cast aspersions on the voters or the process by which the votes were earned.

The better candidate is winning. Adapt.

Posted by David B. | February 10, 2008 10:40 PM

Um, I guess you missed Krugman's skewering of Obama's health care proposal. Krugman's so attached to it that a variation has been running roughly once every other week.

Yeah, I know Max. Krugman also went after Obama for saying that he wants to raise the cap on SS. I was trying to be sarcastic about the claim that the MSM is against Clinton. It doesn't matter to the Clinton supporters that the NYT editorial page is lined up in support of Clinton. Or that Abrahms and Maddow on MSNBC are pro-Clinton. They are throwing fits because Chris Matthews is not pro-Clinton. They call him Tweety and use him as an excuse for her failures. It's pathetic.

Incidentally, I happen to like Maddow very much.

A perfect example of how lame, incorect, and inappropriately meta most indirect attacks through accusations of media favoritism usually are.

Why, thank you.

Posted by Just Karl | February 10, 2008 10:44 PM

"So, I'd say one reason that Obama does well in the caucus states has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with Hillary's voters being cut out of the process."

Despite the really dumb aspects of the Dem primary process (e.g. having proportional representation at the level of individual congressional districts), this race has revealed its many virtues. It seems that it is a good thing to have a mix of open/ closed contests and primary/ caucus contests. Giving dedicated Dem activists a chance to give their favorites a boost in caucuses and including independents (a better indication of electability than Democrats' narrow, often inaccurate views; see John Kerry) seems to promote a solidly liberal, electable nominee with cash-raising and organizational capabilities. Whoever wins the race will have proven themselves to be a very capable, appealing, formidable candidate.

This is more true than the GOP system, where the combination of winner-take-all and open primaries rules have resulted in a prohibitve favorite to win who still hasn't established secure legitimacy in the party.

Posted by Colatina | February 10, 2008 10:48 PM

TLM: Sen. Obama is a great candidate (LOL need not apply), but I will not let phony narratives about either camdidate stand.

HRC has won decisive victories among Democrats across the country.

More importantly, from Just Karl: "throwing fits because Chris Matthews is not pro-Clinton. They call him Tweety and use him as an excuse for her failures. It's pathetic.""

Just Karl: if you're picking Matthews in this fight, have fun, and enjoy St. McCain.

Posted by Andruw | February 10, 2008 10:53 PM

Ben wrote:

Swan,

I think I heard that Rush was involved in a similar effort

He's also out of step with the establishment on McCain. Granted, there's a lot of stuff being spread around about a lot of conservatives being unhappy with McCain. But basically the whole mainstream media establishment and the whole conservative establishment are vociferously against Hillary.

Posted by Swan | February 10, 2008 10:56 PM

The Bildeberg group will not allow obama to be president, if he gets elected they will create more false flag attacks and declare martial law and bush will suspend the election indefinetly, we must be ready to stop that from happening, help us anonymous, the people need you

Posted by hh | February 10, 2008 10:57 PM

The Bildeberg group will not allow obama to be president, if he gets elected they will create more false flag attacks and declare martial law and bush will suspend the election indefinetly, we must be ready to stop that from happening, help us anonymous, the people need you

Posted by hh | February 10, 2008 10:58 PM

Idaho voter here Swan (and Obama volunteer).

The whole "massive numbers of Republicans are voting for Obama in hopes of getting the weaker candidate in the general election" argument is pure foolishness and/or Clinton spin.

Granted, I'm not sure if I would qualify as the evilest of evil right-wingers, but I did volunteer my time and effort for Obama in my state. I've been a Democrat since I was politically active. Sure, my dad, being a former Navy officer, is a recovering Republican, but I don't really think he's pure evil either.

Doesn't it make more sense that, since one of Obama's largest voting bloc is made of young people, that it is young people swaying their family and friends to come out for Obama rather than thousands of faceless right-wing people simultaneously deciding, in some sort of vast conspiracy, to vote in the Democratic primary?

Frankly, the reasons Obama won Idaho by incredible margins are pretty simple:

1. Obama opened up offices and actually campaigned here. Hillary didn't.

2. Obama bothered to actually come here and give a speech...a speech that roughly 15,000 - 16,000 people came out and heard. In a state as small as mine, that's huge.

3. Hillary is just plain, flat out, not liked outside of deeply Democratic voters. Heck, a lot of Democrats don't like her.

4. Obama is inspiring. Period.

Just like in Maine, people waited out in the snow for hours for a chance to jam 8500 people into an Arena in Boise that seats 6000. Hillary got less than 15% of the vote before discussion, and ended up with less than 15% of the vote after discussion.

8000+ people don't chant "Obama! Obama! Obama!" unless they really like a guy.

Posted by Jim Crozier | February 10, 2008 10:59 PM

He's also out of step with the establishment on McCain. Granted, there's a lot of stuff being spread around about a lot of conservatives being unhappy with McCain. But basically the whole mainstream media establishment and the whole conservative establishment are vociferously against Hillary.

Romney was the establishment candidate. They don't like McCain, but they like him better than Huckabee and they don't have much choice in the matter (now).

They also hate Hillary. They hate her so much that they think they can rally the base against "Not-Hillary". A chance to face a Clinton in a national election would erase any lasting divisions within the party. They also think McCain would wipe the floor with her.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 11:01 PM

This has been an incredible campaign. Really, I've learned so much during it.

I've learned that despite hearing for my entire political existence that the cynical youth vote is the flightiest, most fickle, most mercurial, and least dependable voting bloc in the nation, they've actually got extreme institutional advantages that give them overwhelming control over the nominating process. They're actually an unstoppable force.

I've learned that despite hearing for many, many years that older voters are the most driven, most solid voters -- the ones that can always be counted on to turn out and get the voting done -- they're actually not very dependable at all and in fact, most of them have apparently never participated in one of their state's presidential caucuses before, so incredibly disenfranchising is this process to them despite many states having had these systems for years.

I've learned that the caucus states are so thoroughly rigged that they've been won in clean sweeps in every prior contest by so-called "wine track candidates" -- Maine, Idaho, North Dakota, Alaska, Iowa, all voting in unison for Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, and Paul Tsongas.

I've learned that it doesn't actually matter that you're setting up campaign offices months in advance in far-flung Alaska, or that you're actively and personally campaigning in small states like Delaware, Kansas, and Idaho; structural advantages are so in your favor that these are moot gestures. And I've learned that the supporters of the former First Lady are so wavery on their support, so unenthusiastic, that it doesn't matter that there are actually no campaign offices in place to give these people an opportunity to volunteer, direction to act, or a way to help take part in the process to help their candidate win.

Incredible campaign. I hope to keep learning new things as we progress.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 11:08 PM

jbryan,

If you hop on over to the comments section at TalkLeft, you'll learn a lot more interesting things about the race. It is truly eye-opening. Sort of like the bizarro-world version of here.

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 12:02 AM

The commenter above who said this:

If Clinton had made caucuses a priority in her strategy, all the barriers to voting you name could have been handled with campaign $$ and volunteers (driving, babysitting, etc.)
But Clinton thought it would all be over by 2/5 and she ran out of money. She had no Plan B.

... has hit the nail on the head. How do I know this? I volunteered in Nevada for Obama. Nevada was a pre-Feb 5 state and Clinton organized it at least as well as Obama, and she won.

It's clear to me that Clinton, like Rumsfeld, had no plan B. (Also like Rumsfeld she said on 60 minutes tonight that she does not ever even think about the possibility of losing, because, in her words, "leaders don't think that way; if you have doubts about defeat step aside and let someone else lead."

Yea, Lincoln, who was racked with self-doubt, was a crummy leader. When he said in his second inaugural "no predictions are ventured for [the war's] ultimate success," he was being a wuss not a leader.

Those of us who have been paying close attention to Hillary's "experience" argument have noticed that the experience to which she is referring is more about experience running against and defeating Republicans (where she has been successful if you lump her in with Bill) than programmatic experience (where her attempts have met with, shall we say, mixed success at best).

The trouble is, this argument disintegrates when she has made tactical blunder after tactical blunder against a candidate whom her husband dismissively calls "the kid." Well, if he's the kid, than why is Hillary having so much trouble beating him?

Posted by RaymondA | February 11, 2008 12:11 AM

LOL ben. They're really crazy at talk left aren't they? It's because they are low information voters and that's why they support Hillary. That explains why everything they say is wild and crazy. Obama supporters are high info voters, and that's why we are smarter and know more than them. Simple equation. Obama supporters smarter than Hillary supporters.

Posted by TLM | February 11, 2008 12:13 AM

I didn't make an judgements about the truthful quality of their comments (I held that in). I just thought it was interesting how widely their comments section diverges from this one.

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 12:16 AM

Fantastic post, jbryan.

I've also learned that a candidate that won in Maine and Utah can't win without the black vote, and that a candidate that won in the closed Connecticut primary can't win without the independent vote. I've learned that the candidate who reaped the most delegates from any single contest...a primary, nonetheless...can't win the big states.

I've learned that the candidate with the most popular votes, most states won by a 2-1 margin, and most delegates won, and most money and most donors and most volunteers...is losing.

Interesting times, indeed.

Posted by Michael | February 11, 2008 12:16 AM

In the comments section, I learned that caucuses don't count. Technically, they do (but not really). Howard Dean may have planned it this way to disenfranchise Clinton voters.

I learned that Obama = GWB. Also, he'd lose CA, CO, MN, and a bunch of other states to McCain.

I learned that it was a devious trick by Obama to win the "little" states. It wasn't fair. Do over!

I learned that Obama is really arrogant (uppity, even) when he wins.

Like I said, it was really eye-opening. It sort of tempers my animosity towards HRC a bit, but makes me really wonder about her supporters.

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 12:26 AM

SOME of her supporters

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 12:27 AM

LOL ben. Sorry I misunderstood you. Since you said they were a "bizarro-world version of here", I thought you must have meant they were out of touch with reality. If you had said we were a bizarro-world version of them, I would've found it insulting!

Posted by TLM | February 11, 2008 12:27 AM

I've learned that despite hearing for my entire political existence that the cynical youth vote is the flightiest, most fickle, most mercurial, and least dependable voting bloc in the nation, they've actually got extreme institutional advantages that give them overwhelming control over the nominating process. They're actually an unstoppable force.

Why do so many of these Obamabot postings remind me so much of the glorious, heroic, magnificent history of the 1972 George McGovern campaign...in which youthful idealism and activist energy overcame the seemingly unstoppable barriers of the worthless Democratic Party Establishment...

Just to save the youthful Obamabots a needless google, McGovern then went on to lose 49 states...

Posted by RKU | February 11, 2008 12:28 AM

RKU,

If I'm the robot, why are you the one incapable of grasping sarcasm?

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 12:33 AM

Jbryan and Ben:

To add to the things you learned, I learned a couple of things during this election also.

Despite the fact that America has never elected either a black man or a woman as president, it is only the black man who is unelectable. The woman is "inevitable".

Hey MY, how about some blog love on potential VP choices for the three remaining major candidates (Obama, Clinton and McCain)?

Posted by Jim Crozier | February 11, 2008 12:42 AM

Don't bother listening to RKU -- anyone who worries that Obama "might have trouble carrying California" is not worthy of serious consideration.

Posted by asdf | February 11, 2008 12:56 AM

After Super Tuesday, Clinton's popular vote total was 8,823,097, Obama's 8,294,209, according to a table on CNN.

She was ahead by 528,888 votes.

That's half a million voters and then some. Obama has surely cut that lead in the days since, but by how much?

Can't seem to find that statistic, because I guess it just doesn't matter. Delegate counts matter, exit polls matter, projected electibility matters, demographics matter...

Democracy? One person, one vote?

Not so much.

What a shame!

Posted by wobbly | February 11, 2008 1:00 AM

wobbly: as I've post on this very blog's comments, Obama leads the popular vote. He's got more votes in primaries alone...when you add in caucuses, its not close.

Posted by Michael | February 11, 2008 1:06 AM

After Super Tuesday, Clinton's popular vote total was 8,823,097, Obama's 8,294,209, according to a table on CNN.

It's important to note that: 1) that doesn't include any of the votes Obama got in caucus states (Minnesota, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota, Alaska, Washington, Maine, Nebraska, Colorado); 2) that number DOES include the vote totals on two states that were stripped of their delegates (including one in which Obama wasn't on the ballot).

Can't seem to find that statistic, because I guess it just doesn't matter. Delegate counts matter, exit polls matter, projected electibility matters, demographics matter... Democracy? One person, one vote?

I don't know what to say... "welcome to America?" Seriously, the idea that votes aren't flatly equalized across the country isn't really something new. We have an electoral college that's premised on the idea that states elect presidents, not people; we have a Senate in which all states are represented equally; we have laws mandating certain districts have a certain percentage of minority voters; we have a House in which not all representatives serve districts of equal population and in which new representatives are won not by flat population sizes but by population growth or loss over a span of time.

The nomination process wasn't created out of a vacuum in December 2007. It's always been decided by delegates; these delegates have always been apportioned by means other than a flat "one person, one vote" equalized across the country; caucuses have always existed, weighting isn't anything new. Now, I'm sorry if the intricacies of our republic are offensive to you, and maybe you were naive enough and ignorant enough about the way the system works to not know about any of this stuff or to think that none of it matters, but surely this excuse doesn't hold water when it comes to a professional campaign operation run by a sitting U.S. Senator / former United States First Lady.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 1:10 AM

Wobbly,

Can you provide a link? I haven't seen any results with that wide of a margin (~7%) in the popular vote and CNN doesn't include caucuses in their numbers.

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 1:12 AM

Howard Dean was plus 30 in New Hampshire the week before the Iowa caucuses. John Edwards was never above 4% in national ARG polls for the entirety of 2003. Obama has been the clear second choice since February 2007 and most people on the intraweb thought whichever candidate emerged as the alternative to HRC had a pretty good shot of winning. FWIW: Clinton was never above 50% in any national poll. At the start of 2007 the difference between her and Obama was 20 points. The October polls caught him in a a slight dip just as she broke 40% for the first time. Notice how the April 2007 poll had it at 39 Clinton and 38 not Clinton in Maine.(Obama was at 22)

Obama is running an excellent campaign but the tendency to treat polls from October as anything more meaningful than an indicator of name recognition is sloppy thinking. The truly impressive part of the Obama campaign is its ability to close the deal in the final week not how it over performed compared to a poll from four months ago.

Posted by tears for clowns | February 11, 2008 1:16 AM

Wobbly, it is truly wonderous how you can simultaneously reject the results of caucuses as antidemocratic while championing the Michigan (and the Florida) primary. Truly wonderous . . .

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 1:21 AM

Clinton and Obama are both on at least Plan B. The difference is the money, momentum and terrain favor him.

I think both camps hoped to be coasting to the election by now. In December, I assume their scenarios were something like this. For Clinton: win IA and NH, Obama seen as iffy, she gets Culinary workers and big win in NV, his $ and enthusiasm dry up as SC is written off as an anomaly, she ends it after big Super Tuesday. Obama: win IA and NH, watch as a campaigned based on inevitability goes off the rails and media piles on, win NV and SC and win Super Tuesday at least 55-45 with big win in one of her must have states, Clinton suspends campaign.

Posted by Plan C | February 11, 2008 1:31 AM

Can anyone point me to data that shows Obama's voting coalition is not typical for wine track candidates with the obvious addition of 80%+ support among African-Americans? I assume 1992 and 1984 would be the only two meaningful comparisons.

Posted by point me in the right direction | February 11, 2008 1:49 AM

Anyone read Krugman's latest column/HRC shill/Obama swiftboating? What a dickhead. A cult? Obama's supporters a cult? Obama is Nixonian? WTF?

"Hate Springs Eternal"

"What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent."

Yes. When your surrogates smear your opponent as a muslim/Manchurian who does drugs and is only just "your hip black friend" who is sorta kinda like Jesse Jackson and Sidney Poitier but has no record at all in 20 meaningless years of public service--then you're clearly well-intentioned.

And the people who support Clinton try to deny the reality of these facts and act as though the states Obama keeps winning don't matter, and it's Obama supporters who are in danger of "becoming a cult".

Mr. Krugman, you are a hack. Kindly go fuck yourself, then drown in your own urine.

Posted by Abe | February 11, 2008 1:51 AM

Abe,

I think Krugman's column is a response to Frank Rich's on Sunday.

Seriously, though, he can go eat a dick.

Posted by ben | February 11, 2008 2:04 AM

wow, the vitriol in this thread is unbelievable. i'm a hillary supporter and i've never heard anybody say obama's wins don't count; that characterization's awfully simplistic and misleading. i couldn't get through all of the comments because the hate-fest is getting to be too much for me, but divguy--thank you for being one of the few here who don't feed off the hate.

Posted by kangeroo | February 11, 2008 2:22 AM

For wobbly and whomever...when you check vote or delegate count make sure your source isn't including FL and MI...they don't count. Period. They will when they do their revote, but they do NOT count now.

Some good sources:

Super Tuesday
TOTAL VOTES CAST

Clinton: 50.2% (7,427,942) + 57,919
Obama: 49.8% (7,370,023)

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/super_tuesday_the_most_interes.html

Figures below do not include American Samoa and Virgin Islands as site does not have data. Clinton won AS, Obama won VI 3 delegates each unconfirmed.

Overall primary vote
Clinton 9,060,808 - 870,303 (FL) - 327,419 (MI) = 7,863,086
Obama 8,598,013 - 575,794 (FL) = 8,022,219 + 159,133

States won
Clinton - 10
Obama - 18

19 primaries
Clinton - 9
Obama - 9
New Mexico too close to call? Both site have Clinton leading, but neither has awarded a win, not sure why.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&st=NM&off=0&elect=1&fips=35&f=0

10 caucuses
Clinton - 1
Obama - 9

Earned delegates
Clinton - 877
Obama - 908 + 31

Superdelegates
Clinton - 223 +92
Obama - 131

Data site:
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2008&off=0&elect=1&f=0

Delegate data site:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

Posted by G Davis | February 11, 2008 2:35 AM

These wins and losses have little to do with anything else but name recognition.

When Obama can work a state and folks get familiar with him and his name, he can win. In the big states in a mass primary like Super Tuesday, the Clintons win on name recognition just like the older national polls.

It's not hard.

Race was brought into it when Obama reached a credibility standard...both by the Clintons and by the black voter who realized this guy actually was electable.

Blacks have moved to Obama the same way women have moved to/stayed with the Clintons.

The rest of us will make the difference in who wins.

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unity, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | February 11, 2008 2:46 AM

Don't like the whole superdelegate vote? No matter who your candidate is, contact your elected representatives if you disagree with the process or their vote:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

Posted by G Davis | February 11, 2008 2:51 AM

I'm from Delaware. Not only do we not count because we have too many black people, but we also have too many students upstate and too many gays on the coast. We used to have blue collar whites, Hispanics, and women, but they all moved to New Jersey.

In all seriousness though, it does refute Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment when Obama can win in places like Maine, Connecticut, and yes, even Delaware. Whether or not Obama can continue to cut into Hillary's support in places like Texas and Ohio remains to be seen.

Posted by Evan | February 11, 2008 3:36 AM

My understanding, though, is that this doesn't really count because it's a small state, much as Utah doesn't count because there aren't many Democrats there, DC doesn't count because there are too many black people, Washington doesn't count because it's a caucus, Illinois doesn't count because Obama represents it in the Senate even though Hillary was born there, Hawaii won't count because Obama was born there. I'm not sure why Delaware and Connecticut don't count, but they definitely don't.

Oh, boo me a friggin hoo. Go whine yourself a river.

Are you incapable of understanding the observations about the demographics of the race thus far? Or just too dishonest to address them without your Obama obsession getting in the way?

It's not that the results "don't count". Clearly, they do. The question is whether the results have created a situation in which the weaker candidate, reliant on a population that simply won't carry him through in the general.

States that Obama carried that a) weren't caucuses and b) didn't have a 30% black voting bloc:

1) Connecticut
2) Illinois (his home state)
3) Missouri

He barely won Missouri and Connecticut wasn't a blowout.

Hillary won far more decisively in every other state with primaries and an average black voting bloc, with the exception of New Hampshire.

Obama's supporters are responding to this observation, which expresses strong skepticism about his electability in the general, with one or more of the following:

1. You think black voters don't matter? Racist pig.

2. Who cares? Hillary supporters will vote for Obama. All Democrats will vote for Obama.
3. Waaaaah. Stop belittling Obama. Those little states still count. You're just jealous.

Argument 1: They don't matter *more* than every other demographic, and Obama has consistently failed to carry these demographics when they aren't skewed by hyper-liberal caucuses.

Argument 2: If it were true that all Democrats will blindly support whoever the nominee is, we could go ahead and bypass the nominating process, save a lot of money, and just let the Democrat leadership pick a candidate. After all, Dems will support any Dem, right? And in that case, why all the intensity about Obama and your conviction about his electability? The Dems will support anyone--even Hillary.

But no, apparently your logic only goes one way. The 900K voters who went for Hillary in California and Florida (each), the million voters in New York, they'll vote for Hillary. But god forbid the Dems should "disenfranchise" the 25K Obama voters in Nebraska or the 11K in North Dakota. They'll get mad and vote for McCain.

Argument 3: Democrats put the superdelegates in place precisely because they wanted an override. Obama won't win the nomination with arguments about the legal parity of his wins, and all your whining won't change that. By any measure that matters, Hillary's wins thus far demonstrate greater and broader support. If the party feels that nominating Hillary will give more voters the candidate they want, and believe that their delegation awards process distorted this result, then them's the breaks. Party nominations aren't a constitutionally guaranteed protection. The party can do whatever it wants. It can seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. It can pressure the superdelegates into supporting whoever they think is the more electable candidate. And all you can do is pout and stay home, gut it up and do what you think Hillary's voters will do, or vote for the other guy.

If Obama wins Texas, Ohio,and Pennsylvania with huge margins, that will argue that momentum has finally carried him over. If Hillary wins them with huge margins, or even close margins, then Hillary has won the most states with the most representative votes.

And of course, most sane people--which doesn't appear to include most Obama supporters that post in blogs--recognize this. The pundits and the press will do their best to create momentum for Obama by hiding and denying the caucus distortion, in the hopes that they can convince Texans, Ohioans, and Pennsylvanians to vote for the "inevitable". It probably won't work.

But if it does, bet on McCain.

Posted by Cal | February 11, 2008 4:47 AM

"She does best in states like California, MA, and NJ where race is an issue in local politics but there aren't nearly enough black people to put Obama over the top."

B I N G O, Matt. Sad but true, racial animosity, tension, and contestation, are palpable in places like Eastern Massachusetts, just as they are in South Carolina. It's not surprising that in such places, voting preferences in the 2008 Dem. primaries have often coincided with racial lines. Most white Dems in MA don't hate Barack, they merely prefer Hillary. And by the same token, most black Dems in SC don't hate Hillary. In support of your theory, it's worth noting that even afer Iowa had shown Obama's viability, SC black Dems. still preferred Hillary to Barack. It was ONLY after that brief flurry of racially polarizing remarks in the media, that many SC black Dems switched to Obama. By contrast, it is encouraging to see how, in states like AK, Iowa, and Utah, which lack that kind of active racial tension involving blacks (owing to the near absence of blacks), the atmosphere easily allows white Dems to prefer Barack.

Posted by Truthtryer | February 11, 2008 5:51 AM

Barack Obama has a black African father and a white American mother. So he's 50/50 white/black. Why is he called 'black' and not 'white'? Is black dominant?

Posted by Johnny Foreigner | February 11, 2008 6:07 AM

"But no, apparently your logic only goes one way. The 900K voters who went for Hillary in California and Florida (each), the million voters in New York, they'll vote for Hillary. But god forbid the Dems should "disenfranchise" the 25K Obama voters in Nebraska or the 11K in North Dakota. They'll get mad and vote for McCain."

Cal-
So let me get this straight. If Obama is the nominee, do you seriously expect the Democratic party to lose California or New York? So that leaves Florida. Great, you a great buildup, put yourself up against 3 strawman arguments, and the best you can come up with is a state that Obama didn't even contest.

Posted by C | February 11, 2008 6:21 AM

As someone who likes Hillary AND Barack, I hope that the more fervent partisans of each don't get too carried away by the sound of their own rhetoric, and alienate supporters of the other. If you're that much in love with bullying and dismissing someone else's point of view, why not just admit you're really neoconservative at heart? LOL

Posted by Truthtryer | February 11, 2008 6:21 AM

I think Krugman's column is a response to Frank Rich's on Sunday.

Seriously, though, he can go eat a dick.

And yet people say that misogyny is mobilized against Clinton. Where do they get these crazy ideas?

Posted by DivGuy | February 11, 2008 6:50 AM

Of course, it may be that HRC is choosing not to put scarce resources into these small caucus states, saving her fire for the big states in March.

Clinton still has a fairly considerable lead in popular votes cast, and this to me will be the critical argument for superdelegates should the elected delegates be close. Obama's claim that he has "more states" is irrelevant.

Posted by bob h | February 11, 2008 7:21 AM

If the party feels that nominating Hillary will give more voters the candidate they want, and believe that their delegation awards process distorted this result, then them's the breaks. Party nominations aren't a constitutionally guaranteed protection. The party can do whatever it wants. It can seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. It can pressure the superdelegates into supporting whoever they think is the more electable candidate.

I think the Democratic Party ought to unfairly disenfranchise Obama's many supporters--including a large segment of the African-American community--and see how the GE shakes out. My guess: Black voters largely stay home and McCain coasts to the presidency.

Posted by Moonlight | February 11, 2008 7:38 AM

DivGuy:

"And yet people say that misogyny is mobilized against Clinton. Where do they get these crazy ideas?"

Huh? You've done alright defending your candidate so far (although I disagree with most of your points, they at least attempt to be authentic)...don't blow it now.

Posted by drosz | February 11, 2008 8:26 AM

A couple quick thoughts:

First, I think Clinton has at least five "wins" in fully contested and electorally important (meaning swing or traditionally Republican) states to her credit--New Hampshire, Nevada, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Arizona--and New Mexico would count as a sixth. Of course Obama has many more than six such "wins" to his credit, and in any event "wins" per se are not terribly important for the purposes of the nomination contest in light of proportional allocation. But I see no reason not to give Clinton her due for doing well in those five or six particular states.

Second, Obama's general election argument doesn't really depend on "Obama Democrats" not supporting Clinton if she ends up the nominee. And in fact I personally believe that Obama Democrats will mostly support Clinton, unless Clinton gets the nomination after Obama gets more pledged delegates.

Rather, Obama's general election argument depends on "Obama Independents" and "Obama Republicans" not supporting Clinton is she ends up the nominee, and on many "Anti-Clinton Independents" and "Anti-Clinton Republicans" turning out for John McCain even though they otherwise do not strongly support him. And I personally think the evidence on those scores is pretty overwhelming.

Posted by DTM | February 11, 2008 8:29 AM

Huh? You've done alright defending your candidate so far (although I disagree with most of your points, they at least attempt to be authentic)...don't blow it now.

Oh, come on. Locker-room misogyny has to be called out for precisely what it is. This is exactly how the media narrative against Hillary Clinton works - by slowly building up the little bits of bigotry "she cries" "men hate her" "she screeches" into the full-blown thing - "eat a dick", and making that acceptable.

The common response to the identification of such misogynist discourse is this offhand rejection, this presumption that surely that could not be the case, no argument needed. I find that profoundly problematic, and it's, again, precisely what we see in the media - Chris Matthews' bile every night about Clinton only getting where she is because she's a woman who's husband cheated and his praise for an "aqua velva man". The blogosphere should be the place that rejects these media frames, not the place that either accepts them or pretends they don't exist.

It looks to me like Obama is in the lead, because he's done better in the election based on the rules everyone agreed on beforehand. I will be happy to support either candidate against McCain in November. I think that the problematic things in this thread are threefold:

1) The marginalizing of Clinton's wins as a rhetorical response to the marginalizing of Obama's wins. Every win counts. That's the fair principle.

2) The uncritical repetition of the Village discourse on the Clintons, and the growing acceptance of its misogyny over the course of the thread.

3) The bile against Clinton who still stands a good chance of being our candidate in November, and who would be a very strong candidate and a good president. There are differences between the candidates, but they do not even come close to matching the hate thrown around in this thread. (That includes the several crypto- or explicit racist posts about "Hussein Obama" and his lack of blackness.) As I said, luckily, there is little evidence that the blogospheric insanity is infecting hte public - rank and file Democrats like both their candidates very much - and I hope that left blogistan can follow their lead.

Posted by DivGuy | February 11, 2008 8:50 AM

Clinton still has a fairly considerable lead in popular votes cast, and this to me will be the critical argument for superdelegates should the elected delegates be close.

As of today, this is false even if you just count primaries.

Cal: I'll repeat a request I made to RKU in another thread, please explain the thought process that would result in a middle-aged registered Democratic woman voting for McCain over Obama in November. Same goes for a blue collar registered Deocratic male. These demos are solid Democratic demos. I think the burden is on the people claiming that solid Democrats won't vote for the Dem nominee to give some explanation other than the fact that these solid Democrats preferred another Dem candidate. In every election, some portion of the party base preferred a candidate other than the eventual nominee. I don't recall this kind of hand wringing in the past, although I'm not old enough to remember much before '84. Moreover, polls show that an extremely high percentage of Democrats like both candidates, which makes it even more unlikely that the Dem base won't line up behind the nominee, whoever it is. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who said, "Fall in love and then fall in line." That's what the party base does. I suppose if you had a situation like the Republicans have with McCain (if, for example, the Dem nominee was Lieberman), the base would revolt. But that isn't remotely the case here. Democrats like Obama. Some just like Clinton a little more.

Independents and cross overs voting for Obama, on the other hand, are much less likely to vote for Clinton. Which isn't to say none of them will. A rising Dem tide will hopefully lift all Dem boats. But the argument is that Obama can lift the tide above sea level.

Posted by Led | February 11, 2008 9:05 AM

Actually, Hillary Clinton is doing quite well in the primary states.

The party should end the caucus system for every state in 2012, if only because they are so sparsely attended and inherently undemocratic.

They appear designed to accommodate the idle rich, the idle poor and full time students, which is pretty much the Obama base.

Only about ten per cent (40,000) turned out in the Maine Democratic caucus, a state which gave Kerry almost 400,000 votes in 2004.

But for the caucus, and our weird proportional allocation of delegates, Hillary would be close to securing the nomination by now.

Posted by fjschmitz | February 11, 2008 9:23 AM

Ezra Klein said it very well today:

Hillary bashing has become so normalized that, save in the most extreme and offensive instances (like Shuster accusing her of "pimping out" her daughter), it barely registers as more than background noise. On the one hand, this is a real advantage for the Obama campaign. On the other, it's tremendously unfair, and a prime example of the media using pack narratives and group beliefs to influence elections -- a power that progressives should call out and oppose.

Posted by DivGuy | February 11, 2008 9:26 AM

Seriously, can you guys stop being so misogynistic towards Paul Krugman, you might hurt her feelings. Beside, maybe it was probably just that time of month for him.. I mean her... whatever.

Nothing will provoke sexism in November like the Clinton campaign's apparent addiction to constant claims of victimization. It will give new definition to the term backlash. Who could deal with 4 years of that?

Posted by Leave Paul Alone! | February 11, 2008 9:47 AM

But if it does, bet on McCain.

Which is why Clinton is farther ahead of McCain in national head-to-head polls than Obama is. Oh, wait.

Posted by Fausto Carmona | February 11, 2008 9:49 AM

DivGuy: I agree with you and Ezra that the Clintons get a raw deal from the media sometimes, but (a) from the beginning the Clinton "baggage" was a powerful reason to think Obama was the better gen election candidate and (b) their campaign style and manipulative treatment of the media do lend themselves to the type of coverage they get. I'm not saying (b) justifies the coverage, but it partially explains it. The sexism stuff is indeed ugly, but does that really extend beyond Matthews (and Schuster, although his sexism was more directed at Chelsea) among real, i.e., non-Fox, journalists?

Posted by Led | February 11, 2008 10:04 AM

DivGuy:

"Oh, come on. Locker-room misogyny has to be called out for precisely what it is. This is exactly how the media narrative against Hillary Clinton works - by slowly building up the little bits of bigotry "she cries" "men hate her" "she screeches" into the full-blown thing - "eat a dick", and making that acceptable.

The common response to the identification of such misogynist discourse...etc, etc, etc"

I didn't want to have to do this, but you forced me to do it....

I call...SHENANIGANS!!

Seriously, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means. Or maybe you do, but applying it to an insult from a guy to another guy is not a good argument in my opinion. In fact, it's silly to me; a caricature of PCness and precisely the reason why I will make fun of you now instead of taking your arguments seriously. I have no ill will toward women in any way nor you, but this is just silly. I would say this probably doesn't matter and you don't care what I think, but your argument seems to be precisely that...an argument that you don't like what people think of women...or more precisely what you think people think of women and Clinton more precisely. However, one more chance for me. Question I might interested in: what do you feel about the charge of racism or dogwhistle politics from the Obama camp?

Posted by drosz | February 11, 2008 11:51 AM

Not sure anyone is still interested, but the "Village" phrase comes from the infamous 1998 Sally Quinn article about how the Clintons were not part of the permanent power structure in Washington. The whole article is a nauseating paean to how hard the blowjob scandal had been on the rarified sensibilities of Official Washington. As David Gergen told Quinn "We have our own set of village rules."

Even more pithily (and the real gem of the whole article) David Broder told Quinn: "He came in here and he trashed the place, and it's not his place."

Ten years later it's still a fun read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm

Posted by Merle | February 11, 2008 12:38 PM

"Hillary can't win anytime she can't use racial polarization in her favor". Nice! A TL commenter observed that "Obama has not gotten a majority of the white vote in a primary". Said TL commenter did not observe the primaries such as CT where Obama had white men overwhelmingly, and white women helped Hillary.

Posted by 4jkb4ia | February 11, 2008 12:47 PM

I was a precinct captain for Obama in Orono, Maine which is four miles north of Bangor and the home to the University of Maine. The convener at that caucus said usual attendance is about 20. Over 600 people showed up. It started two and a half hours late so that all could participate. The location had to be changed and the new place was not an easy find but yet over 600 voted. The Obama team was organized to the tenth degree. We were ready, thanks to Obama's grassroots organization. Hillary did not have ANYBODY there to organize her "corner". She got some votes, but not many. On Saturday, the day before, 7,000 people poured into an auditorium with at least 1,000 not being able to get in, so he went out to them. He stopped at a local diner before the rally and spoke with the working poor. (There is an unbelievably fabulous photo of him playing with a baby in the Bangor Daily News). Hillary made a stop at the University, in a much smaller venue and had a much smaller crowd. I made and got phone calls (four phones calls to me personally to vote for Obama)and got not one from Hillary. He is out-organizing her from the grassroots up. She's a topdown power person and that's why he is going to win. As well he MUST!

Posted by sofia | February 11, 2008 2:02 PM

I was a precinct captain for Obama in Orono, Maine which is four miles north of Bangor and the home to the University of Maine. The convener at that caucus said usual attendance is about 20. Over 600 people showed up. It started two and a half hours late so that all could participate. The location had to be changed and the new place was not an easy find but yet over 600 voted. The Obama team was organized to the tenth degree. We were ready, thanks to Obama's grassroots organization. Hillary did not have ANYBODY there to organize her "corner". She got some votes, but not many. On Saturday, the day before, 7,000 people poured into an auditorium with at least 1,000 not being able to get in, so he went out to them. He stopped at a local diner before the rally and spoke with the working poor. (There is an unbelievably fabulous photo of him playing with a baby in the Bangor Daily News). Hillary made a stop at the University, in a much smaller venue and had a much smaller crowd. I made and got phone calls (four phones calls to me personally to vote for Obama)and got not one from Hillary. He is out-organizing her from the grassroots up. She's a topdown power person and that's why he is going to win. As well he MUST!

Posted by sofia | February 11, 2008 2:02 PM

This is very immature and childish to say a state counts or does not count in this election. Every state counts and Hillary Clinton is trying to play dirty politics by petitioning to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. She herself has publicly acknowledged that she does not expect to win the next couple of primaries and caucuses until Ohio & Texas. By then I believe this whole campaign would have changed and in favour of her competitor. Lets face it there is a lot of support for this man and more places he visits he sucks people into his reality. I used to support the CLINTONs , but meeting Sen Obama has mesmerized me and many of his reforms and policies are better than Hillary;s as they do not use corporate lobbyists only the people. The power is given back to the people from this point on with Obama in power.

Posted by janet | February 11, 2008 3:00 PM

Led--if Dems just automatically vote for whoever the nominee is, why don't we just do away with the election and let the majority in Congress determine the presidency?

Clearly, Democrats have a choice. McCain is going to appeal to moderates. I haven't claimed that he would win women, but I think blue-collar Democrats could be peeled off. Certainly, the Hispanic vote is in play.

Posted by Cal | February 11, 2008 3:07 PM

Mrs. Clinton, Struggling only pulls you under faster.

Please... keep struggling.

Posted by Drew | February 11, 2008 3:34 PM

Jim's comment is hysterical.
Mrs. Clinton's excuses remind me of C. Rice --" How could we have known they were going to attack --- they didn't give us the flights numbers and dates?"

Posted by Phyllis | February 11, 2008 3:39 PM

Jim's comment is hysterical.
Mrs. Clinton's excuses remind me of C. Rice --" How could we have known they were going to attack --- they didn't give us the flights numbers and dates?"

Posted by Phyllis | February 11, 2008 3:39 PM

Jim's comment is hysterical.
Mrs. Clinton's excuses remind me of C. Rice --" How could we have known they were going to attack --- they didn't give us the flights numbers and dates?"

Posted by Phyllis | February 11, 2008 3:39 PM

Jim's comment is hysterical.
Mrs. Clinton's excuses remind me of C. Rice --" How could we have known they were going to attack --- they didn't give us the flights numbers and dates?"

Posted by Phyllis | February 11, 2008 3:40 PM

Ezra Klein said it very well today:
Hillary bashing has become so normalized that, save in the most extreme and offensive instances (like Shuster accusing her of "pimping out" her daughter), it barely registers as more than background noise. On the one hand, this is a real advantage for the Obama campaign. On the other, it's tremendously unfair, and a prime example of the media using pack narratives and group beliefs to influence elections -- a power that progressives should call out and oppose.

This is a presidential election, not a book club meeting. There's always obstacles that have to be overcome. Conspiracy and Hegemony is an excuse for explaining a loss without admitting fault or failure

Posted by dave.reese | February 11, 2008 4:52 PM

The running joke used to be "Maine, where they don't have any black people to discriminate against, so they discriminate against the French instead."

Does Hillary have any French ancestry?

Posted by PSP | February 12, 2008 11:44 AM

Missouri doesn't count, because she actually "won" it before she lost it.

It's pretty much like every other state Obama wins, they don't count because, before the ballots were cast, she was leading there longer,

Posted by Doug | February 13, 2008 5:05 AM