Matthew Yglesias (February 12, 2008)

I'm with Atrios to guess that VA GOP will declare McCain the winner, nothing more to see here.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | February 12, 2008 7:04 PM

Huckmentum!

Posted by Callimaco | February 12, 2008 7:07 PM

God keeps intervening on Huckabee's side. Quit doing that, o meddlesome Supreme Being!

Posted by lampwick | February 12, 2008 7:08 PM

Well, Matt, this obviously doesn't count because... LOOK OVER THERE!

Posted by Mark Penn | February 12, 2008 7:08 PM

"Fifty-six percent of voters were women, and fifty-eight percent of them went for Obama."

Ah, see, if the state doesn't have at least 57% female voters, it doesn't count.

And if the ones they do have break for Obama, it DEFINITELY doesn't count.

Posted by Joe | February 12, 2008 7:10 PM

Clinton won white people, barely. Otherwise, Obama won everybody, including lots of groups everyone was all on about how he couldn't win.

If the exit polls holds up, I don't see how the Clinton people can spin this as anything but a humiliation.

Posted by John | February 12, 2008 7:10 PM

I'm looking forward to riding this bad boy into the ground! Call me Dr. Strangelove!

Posted by Maggie Williams | February 12, 2008 7:12 PM

Huzzah!

Posted by southpaw | February 12, 2008 7:12 PM

Fabulous. Now where's my Wire blogging??

Posted by Marshall | February 12, 2008 7:13 PM

If Obama got 48% of white people, I'd be surprised if he didn't get close to 60% statewide.

Posted by SDM | February 12, 2008 7:13 PM

Chuck Todd's point: no party reg. in VA means McCain got squeezed on the indies.

That there are people who are making their minds up on McCain vs. Obama in the primary boggles me; as Gail Collins put it:

You’re torn between the guy who’s been against the war from the beginning and the guy who’s willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years? Between the guy who wants to pay for a $50 billion-a-year health care program by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy, and the guy who wants to keep the tax cuts and pay for them by cutting the budget? Get a grip.

Yeah, there are 'Tom Davis Republicans', as Todd put it. But, still.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 12, 2008 7:14 PM

"I don't see how the Clinton people can spin this as anything but a humiliation."

Well, as early as mid-2006, everyone knew that she was going to lose Virginia. So she didn't even campaign there. It simply doesn't count. The only states that do count are NY, MA (it counts double), NJ, CA, OK (triple), AZ, OH, and TX. Oh, and really, whoever wins FL and MI should just be crowned the nominee as a matter of course.

Posted by Joe | February 12, 2008 7:15 PM

Virginia doesn't count because Thomas Jefferson used to lived there.

Hey, it's as plausible as anything the Clinton campaign can come up with...

Posted by Jay Andrew Allen | February 12, 2008 7:16 PM

Wow, they called it 5 seconds after the polls closed.

This must be another whopping victory for Obama.

Obama closed very close to her in the white vote, which is also great.

Obama 08

Posted by sue | February 12, 2008 7:18 PM

I'm glad the media is starting to be more specific about Clinton's base. Obama has been even or beating Clinton among white men the entire election. It's just that white women are by far the biggest block of voters in the Democratic primaries.

It's not that white people won't vote for Obama, its that white women are enthusiastic about Hillary.

Posted by matthewcc | February 12, 2008 7:18 PM

Virginia doesn't count because that's where her national campaign headquarters is located.

Posted by Dismayed Liberal | February 12, 2008 7:19 PM

Bill Clinton: "Virginia's filled with people who know Obama personally, since he's a US Senator. So it doesn't count."

Posted by Jake | February 12, 2008 7:22 PM

Virginia doesn't count because Virginia is for lovers.

Posted by blah | February 12, 2008 7:22 PM

Dismayed Liberal,

Arlington isn't Real Virginia [tm].

::::::ducking and covering::::::

Posted by dry_fish | February 12, 2008 7:23 PM

This is absolutely great news for the Clinton campaign!!!

Posted by Tommy | February 12, 2008 7:24 PM

Obama very competitive among white women 45/55

Posted by plum | February 12, 2008 7:26 PM

I'm a white Virginia resident and I voted for Obama this morning. However, I left a post it with an asterisk on it for the election officials clearly explaining that my vote shouldn't really count because I would have voted for Hillary if everyone else had dropped out by now (like they were supposed to!).

Posted by Sean | February 12, 2008 7:26 PM

The latest line I have heard from Hillary supporters is Virginia doesn't count because it's an OPEN primary.

Damn those republicans!

Posted by tessellated | February 12, 2008 7:27 PM

note: Obama WON white men, he lost white women. that's important to keep in mind.

Posted by hanging_chad | February 12, 2008 7:27 PM

Unless Obama takes something like 70%, then it's not that huge, give proportional allocation. I'm starting to think that the entire left can be defined as "No one said there would be math".

Posted by James Robertson | February 12, 2008 7:28 PM

According to the linked exit poll, Clinton won among lapsed Catholics.

Everyone knows the Democrats can't win key swing states in the general election without the lapsed Catholic vote.

Therefore, the superdelegates should make Clinton the nominee.

Posted by DTM | February 12, 2008 7:29 PM

Suprised that 58% of the voters are college graduates. There might be something to the lapsed Catholics are not fond of Obama meme. I know I gave up on hope at Catholic school.

Posted by Pope Sixtus VI | February 12, 2008 7:29 PM

Wow, change beat out experience as a top candidate quality by 56 - 22. Which meant Obama over Clinton. Obvious lesson if Obama makes it to the general election.

Posted by plum | February 12, 2008 7:31 PM

If the exit polls holds up, I don't see how the Clinton people can spin this as anything but a humiliation.

O ye of little faith!

1. We weren't able to campaign in Virginia as much as we would have liked. (Why, it's not clear.)

2. Everybody knew Obama was going to win Virginia; therefore it doesn't matter. The real tests are Ohio and Pennsylvania, obviously. (Subtext: 1) black people aren't real voters. 2) Ohio, one of the few states losing population on an annual basis, is somehow all-important.)

3. We still lead in the popular vote! (even though they don't, but hardly anybody will check. Also, the game is delegates, not popular vote; otherwise, the state caucuses would be relatively meaningless exhibitions.)

4. We still lead in delegates! (probably not after tonight, even including the Clintons' substantial edge in superdelegates, but I doubt that will stop the Clintons from saying so.)

5. Obama won because he's "the establishment candidate"! (Do we really want a president who could say that with a straight face? Really?)

6. Only the 7 most populous states really matter, except Illinois, and including Massachusetts.

7. Caucuses are undemocratic! Wait, there weren't any caucuses tonight? (Superdelegates, on the other hand, deserve their independent role in the process.)

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 12, 2008 7:33 PM

Obama won Latinos?? There goes that narrative...

Posted by jon | February 12, 2008 7:34 PM

Looking at CNN's exit poll, it went about 62-38 for Obama. That seems to be about what he does everywhere now. Hillary lost everyone except white women over 65. She only wins women because the older women voted so heavily.

8% were republicans and 21% were independents. Republicans did not give it to Obama, even without them it was decisive (~58-42).

Kaine, Webb, Obama now. Is Virginia in play in November?

Posted by Patrick | February 12, 2008 7:34 PM

Do we really know any of these statistics until after more than 1% of the votes are counted? Haven't the exit polls been off one way or the other in most of the races?

Posted by Jason | February 12, 2008 7:35 PM

One would think that being the Holy Father would count for something such as my comment appearing first. DTM must have been educated by the Jesuits.

Posted by Pope Sixtus VI | February 12, 2008 7:35 PM

J. Robertson -- even with proportional allocation by congressional district, you can get very significant delegate margins with 60% of the vote. It really depends on how many delegates there are per district, which varies widely. On that front, incidentally, Obama has some advantages in VA: some of his strong areas have lots of delegates to allocate.

Looking at the CNN exits, I see two interesting, slightly surprising points. Obama's support correlates very heavily with frequency of church attendance. It also correlates heavily with people saying television ads made a difference in their vote.

So if you support Obama, go give another $50, or $55.01, to buy some ads for OH and TX. Si se puede!

Posted by There will be math | February 12, 2008 7:37 PM

Don't you mean basically everyone voted for Obama except whites?

But lets not talk race. Probably just a coincidence.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 12, 2008 7:39 PM

I get all this grief about a curse, 0-8, blah blah blah, but hey, at least I could guide my candidates to the nomination. What the hell is Mark Penn earning his money for?

Posted by Bob Shrum | February 12, 2008 7:39 PM

Clinton won all of the following demographics:

Catholic/Less Often (10%) 50% 49%

Western Va. (12%) 59% 41%

White Democrats (40%) 58% 41%

White (61%) 50% 49%

White Protestant (31%) 53% 47%

White Women (35%) 55% 45%

Decided Vote Today (9%) 51% 48%

White 45-59 (22%) 53% 46%

White 60 and Older (17%) 61% 39%

She also walloped Obama among people who said they cared most about experience, people who said the U.S. is not ready to elect a black president, those who said they would be satisfied only if HRC won the nomination, those that said Obama attacked HRC unfairly, those who said HRC was most likely to unite the country, and those who said that Hillary Clinton would make a better Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by bob | February 12, 2008 7:39 PM

According to the exit polls, Hillary won among women whose first name is "Chelsea".

Posted by Jake | February 12, 2008 7:41 PM

Still Undecided:

Everyone voted for Obama except white women over 65.

But lets not talk about sex, probably just a coincidence...

Posted by Eric k | February 12, 2008 7:42 PM

She can't even claim the hispanic vote anymore. This is all falling apart quicker than I thought.

Posted by cbc | February 12, 2008 7:42 PM

Fuck you, Still Undecided. Obama basically split the white vote, and won white men by a wide margin.

The issue isn't that white people dislike Obama. It's that white women really like Hillary.

Oh, and fuck you.

Posted by John | February 12, 2008 7:42 PM

Clearly a big win for Obama. The Clinton campaign is probably toast.

Patrick, I sure hope Virginia is competitive, but don't hold your breath. Winning the Democratic primary in a state doesn't really mean much in the general. Kerry won Virginia's primary and so did Gore. Come to think of it, a Democrat always wins the Virginia Democratic primary. What's up with that?

Posted by Rob Mac | February 12, 2008 7:43 PM

Now that he's taken the Latino vote by 10 points, Obama really needs to shore up his support amongst Cafeteria Catholics.

. . . and, uh, people who think Hillary would be a better commander in chief. She seems to win those people decisively (83%). Although, to his credit, Obama wins 99% of people who think he would be a better commander in chief.

Posted by southpaw | February 12, 2008 7:44 PM

Jason, I guess they do exit polls in thirds, 1/3 in the morning, 1/3 afternoon, and 1/3 in evening. Then they adjust as real numbers come in. Earlier in the campaign, 1/3 or 2/3 completed exit polls were leaked and they did not stand up. The full exit poll has been better, at least since Super Tuesday (when I started looking at them). Maybe they just work out better in overwhelming victories.

Posted by Patrick | February 12, 2008 7:46 PM

[sarcasm]

Obviously this win doesn't count, because Obama can't win among birdwatchers, who break for Hillary 75-25 in every contest. So until then, this landslide win doesn't mean anything.

[/sarcasm]

Posted by firebrand | February 12, 2008 7:46 PM

Hillary also won:

Blonde women 49-51 who love golf (1%) 62% 38%

Jewish Circus Clowns who play the banjo (12%) 51% 49%

Once vacationed in the Catskills (2%) 80% 20%

The fact that she won the key banjo-playing Jewish circus clown demographic proves that Hillary will win in the states where it counts (i.e., the states she wins). Virginia and about 40 other states, therefore, obviously don't count.

Posted by jim | February 12, 2008 7:48 PM

16 percent of Clinton voters said Obama would be more qualified to be Commander in Chief. Does that mean that 16 percent of her support are from Republicans and Independents who support McCain and want to see Obama lose?

Incredible if true.

Posted by Josh | February 12, 2008 7:49 PM

Pope Sixtus VI,

As I understand it, being Pope means you eventually get the right answer. It doesn't mean you get the right answer first. Just ask Giordano Bruno.

Posted by DTM | February 12, 2008 7:55 PM

"Exit polls".

Meh. I'll wait for actual votes. Wasn't California just a week ago? How soon we forget.

Posted by Al | February 12, 2008 7:55 PM

Speaking of Virginia--if/when Obama wins the nomination (knocking on wood, taking nothing for granted)--is it completely implausible to think he might tap Warner as his veep nominee? Warner declined to run for the presidency, but it seems to me a ticket of Obama plus a popular ex-governor of an increasingly purple southern state would be well nigh unbeatable. Plus, you get to keep Webb in the senate that way, which is good for the Dem majority.

Posted by vicretro | February 12, 2008 7:56 PM

This doesn't count because Virginia is a caucus state.

...

... wait, it's NOT?

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 7:57 PM

The longer Hillary Clinton stays in this race for drubbing after drubbing, the more she hurts the case for herself as Senate Majority Leader.

Posted by Dismayed Liberal | February 12, 2008 7:57 PM

Where did you get your latino breakdowns?

The CNN exit polls give "n/a" for the latino breakdown of votes.

Posted by lestatdelc | February 12, 2008 7:59 PM

jim -

I about split a gut on the jewish banjo playing clowns ...

whew ... tears of joy streaming ...

Posted by sn00t | February 12, 2008 7:59 PM

Actually the results seem to indicate that black people really really really like Obama. But I'm sure they are voting on issues not race.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 12, 2008 8:00 PM

it doesn't count because Clinton supporters were all stuck on the Beltway

Posted by maddy | February 12, 2008 8:01 PM

You got it backwards, Josh. That's 16% of those who think Clinton is more qualified to be Commander in Chief still voted for Obama.

Posted by wj | February 12, 2008 8:02 PM

With 38% in, it's 64-35 Obama.

I didn't realize Virginia had THAT many African Americans.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 8:03 PM

Obviously this win doesn't count, because Obama can't win among birdwatchers.

This joke meme is either getting out of hand, or assuming a life of its own.

Reminds me of all those OJ jokes (but in a good way!)

Posted by plum | February 12, 2008 8:03 PM

sn00t, the really funny thing is that they were 12% of the overall vote!

It's gotten to the point where I'm disapppointed when CNN can't call the vote the instant the polls close. I figured DC would be even more lopsided than Virginia...

Posted by Dismayed Liberal | February 12, 2008 8:04 PM

Damn public schools letting me down...

Posted by Josh | February 12, 2008 8:04 PM

Obama might still lose Texas going by the huge funding gap, if that's any indicator. Just like in California, he is probably going to come close and lose. And though that should be considered a win in any book, pundits frothing deliriously over his assumed, impending coronation might see anything less than hysteria as a blow.

Posted by zai | February 12, 2008 8:05 PM

@Still Undecided: That's what won it for him in my native state of North Dakota, too. I was really proud because I know the black guy there.

Posted by moff | February 12, 2008 8:06 PM

I'm not sure if this counts as an "issue" per se, but it is not pure identity politics for black voters to prefer Obama after effectively being informed by Clinton's campaign that she was no longer interested in getting votes from black people.

Posted by DTM | February 12, 2008 8:06 PM

The latest line I have heard from Hillary supporters is Virginia doesn't count because it's an OPEN primary.

Of course, you forgot that Maryland doesn't count because it's a CLOSED primary!

And because the polls are staying open an extra 90 minutes here due to weather.

Damn weather!

Posted by JDinBalt | February 12, 2008 8:07 PM

Thanks for the exit poll info, Patrick. I'm still going to wait until most the votes are counted before looking at them, but that was interesting to know.

Posted by Jason | February 12, 2008 8:09 PM

All is going according to plan, foolish mortals. My client's strategy is to get Obama's guard down by deigning to let him take a bunch of small states like WA, WI, and VA by overwhelming margins and then crush him in Ohio and Texas.

Can't you see the brilliance of it all? It's definitely worth the millions upon millions of dollars Hillary paid me.

Posted by Mark Penn | February 12, 2008 8:12 PM

Honestly,

I don't see how anyone could begrudge black people voting for Obama. It's not like he'll be the 10th black president, and it's not like he's Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson either.

I think its pretty effed that people would get annoyed by that. Clinton is lucky to be pulling in 1 in 10 African Americans.

Posted by Dismayed Liberal | February 12, 2008 8:13 PM

Obama won 99% of Chesterfield County

https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/election/DATA/2008/67F01F96-1E82-472E-8051-CF1B1C3786A4/Unofficial/00_041_s.shtml

Posted by Goon | February 12, 2008 8:13 PM

So here's a question for you: when are the radical secular bloggers going to start the fear and loathing of Obama, evangelical appeaser, again? I am presuming sometime after he wins the nomination...but just sayin'...especially if Huckabee is the GOP V.P. candidate...and there's also the question of when we might see that "netroots: don't dis people for working with Republicans" Obama again?

Posted by artappraiser | February 12, 2008 8:20 PM

I hate to crush the hopes and dreams of a generation of liberals, but today the Senate past the Protect America Act. With Republicans heading toward electoral defeat, is there ANY luck that the Democrats are actually going to stand up for liberties.

I didn't think so.

Back to your celebrating Obama's meaningless win.

Posted by Joe Strummer | February 12, 2008 8:21 PM

Anyone link to that exhaustive breakdown (on an admittedly and obviously pro-Obama site) of the Texas state senate districts and the likely delegate breakdown in each? (Think it was Sullivan who linked to it this morning.) Suggested that even if Clinton wins 53 percent of the vote, Obama'll beat her in delegates.

Unless Clinton absolutely crushes Obama in both Ohio and Texas, there's simply no way she'll make up anywhere near the ground she needs to make up in those states. The Dem primaries not being winner-take-all is likely to kill any comeback hopes she might have. And that's assuming Obama doesn't make up ground on OH and TX between now and March 4 (which would be a first in this campaign, other than New Hampshire).

Posted by vicretro | February 12, 2008 8:22 PM

I think it must becoming more and more obvious to democrats everywhere that Obama has the potential to deliver the presidency to the Democratic Party in a landslide.

Posted by tessellated | February 12, 2008 8:23 PM

"Sic Semper Tyrannis!"

Posted by David B. | February 12, 2008 8:25 PM

I think it must becoming more and more obvious to democrats everywhere that Obama has the potential to deliver the presidency to the Democratic Party in a landslide.

Even if he did, the Clinton people would find some way to invalidate it. Then they'd try to find some way to overturn it.

Posted by ben | February 12, 2008 8:26 PM

@Goon: If that data is right, Hillary Clinton has yet to get a single vote in Chesterfield County. As of 8:20, 11 people voted for Richardson, 1 voted for Kucinich, and everyone else voted for Obama.

Posted by southpaw | February 12, 2008 8:26 PM

Anyone else notice that, so far (42%), Obama has accumulated more votes than the entire GOP field combined?

But, you know, Hillary's clearly the more electable...

Posted by Ghost of McConkey | February 12, 2008 8:28 PM

From Josh Marshall
We're hearing on the cable shows that Obama won the Latino vote in Virginia 55%-45%...But we shouldn't necessarily read that much in to those numbers because Latinos were only 5% of the Democratic primary electorate.

I'll take it anyway.

Posted by bjd | February 12, 2008 8:30 PM

I want to say that a lot of GOPers are voting for Obama so that we lose in the general election. Read this thread at Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0208/How_many_of_your_apparatchiks_are_voting_strategically.html

Posted by Micheline | February 12, 2008 8:30 PM

Bob,

If you seperate all those categories by Men and Women I think you'll find Hillary is getting them by her margins among women.

Still Undecided:

Are you RKU posting your racist swill under a new name?

Posted by Eric k | February 12, 2008 8:31 PM

Micheline,

I did read it and this was my favorite:
I am a white over-50 woman who lived in Aryan country for many years, always voted Republican, and still registered that way. Not now. Obama has what it takes to LEAD this country out of the mess the Repubs have got us into. We don't need details as much as leadership...

Posted by bjd | February 12, 2008 8:35 PM

Micheline,

Ya one comment thread on one blog clearly means a national trend.

Shut up and deal with it. He is winning.

Posted by cbc | February 12, 2008 8:35 PM

My vote for funniest comment:

Well, Matt, this obviously doesn't count because... LOOK OVER THERE!

Posted by RaymondA | February 12, 2008 8:37 PM

Back to your celebrating Obama's meaningless win.

Aside from the obvious point that this kind of crap won't happen with Obama in the White House in place of Shrub, here's another reason why it's not meaningless: in November, he's going to have long coattails that will deliver us a better Congress.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 12, 2008 8:37 PM

The Virginia primary doesn't count because of... um.. er... 'CROATAN'.

Posted by Jon H | February 12, 2008 8:38 PM

I'm starting to think--

Obviously untrue.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 12, 2008 8:42 PM

Why do some Obama fans continue to push the weak arguments like 'he won in certain red states' (which no Dem has a chance in) and the number of Obama votes vs GOP votes. I have seen at least a dozen fairly sound pro-Obama arguments yet it is always the stupid ones that show up over and over again.

Posted by Obama deserves better | February 12, 2008 8:44 PM

The racial demographics hugely favored Obama in Virginia. Its silly to downplay that.

If he can compete in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, he's got the nomination. I'm not sure he can do that. I'm in PA and I know Democrats who very much dislike him for various reasons - some good, some not.

If not, maybe he gets it anyway. HRC won't stand in the way of the inevitable. She's a pragmatist. But nothing is inevitable until those states vote. We'll see how it plays out.

Personally I need more than "Yes We Can" from a candidate.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 12, 2008 8:44 PM

CBC,

I happen to like Obama much more so than HRC but you must realize that rightwingers are extremely devious and they always operate under stealth so that's why I put the link to illustrate this point.

Posted by Micheline | February 12, 2008 8:47 PM

Micheline,

I have seen just as much evidence that republicans are voting strategically FOR Hillary. The logic being that her candidacy will ignite the republican base in the general election.

Here is my hunch: while strategic voting for Hillary and for Obama by republicans is taking place, a significant number of cross-over votes for Obama are heartfelt. And for Hillary? Not so much.

Posted by tessellated | February 12, 2008 8:48 PM

The racial demographics hugely favored Obama in Virginia. Its silly to downplay that.

Sure.

Looking at CNN's exit poll data, though, he actually won white voters outright, 50% to 49 (56-42 among white men), and he won Latino voters even more strongly, 53 to 47.

Black voters may have contributed greatly to this being an absolute rout for Obama, but take them out and he still wins the state. So don't try to downplay that.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 8:49 PM

So, ah, does anyone else suspect that "Still Undecided" isn't? The spin is getting to be a little much. Sooner or later, when you lose seven or eight contests in a row, in real thumpings, you have to admit that there is a real problem there.

Posted by Kraz | February 12, 2008 8:49 PM

"There's no solace anywhere in these numbers"

Maybe not, but there's a lot of sweet comedy over at taylormarsh.com. Here's her first primary result

"UPDATE: Eugene Robinson just said he got an email from the Obama campaign saying they're "giddy" at what they're seeing in exit polls, and people will be "surprised." He went on to say that Obama intends to "rewrite" the storyline of the primary. If the numbers solidify, no doubt Obama has won a landslide in Virginia, and will deserve high praise. However, it's important to note that the one who is really "giddy" is Mr. Robinson, someone who is presenting himself as an unbiased commentator, but who clearly is not. So now can we all quit pretending he is?"

Here's her second:

"UPDATE II: John McCain wins Virginia. This one was tough for him, which he definitely didn't expect."

Notice anything missing?

BTW, don't bother trying to comment over there unless you praise Hillary, or bash Barack. The screening is tighter than Redstate's.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 12, 2008 8:51 PM

does anyone else suspect that "Still Undecided" isn't?

I suspect that "Still Undecided" is a supporter of someone whose last name begins with M, H, P, R or G.

Posted by Kevin | February 12, 2008 8:51 PM

Did Tim Russert just say "White Catholic Ethnics"? Is that code for "Da Irish"?

Posted by Ryan | February 12, 2008 8:55 PM

Did Tim Russert just say "White Catholic Ethnics"? Is that code for "Da Irish"?

In Chicago it's code for Poles.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 12, 2008 8:56 PM

Don't forget Italians. They're White Catholic Ethnics too.

Posted by Kevin | February 12, 2008 8:58 PM

Don't forget that TX has the most opaque prima-caucus system ever created. I live here, and I'm struggling to make sense of how you hold both. Doesn't having a caucus defeat the purpose of the primary? How do you ensure early voters know to go caucus too? It will be difficult to predict how TX will go given how complicated this system is. (Of course, I struggle with making sense of most TX politics. After all, the city of Dallas did vote to build a freeway in a flood plane.)

Posted by LL | February 12, 2008 8:58 PM

By the way, Rachel Maddow is awesome. Pat Buchannan started raving about how vulnerable Obama was for all his "left wing" votes and she just pointed out that instead the Republicans will make up crap about him being Muslim or not saluting the flag or other fake nonsense. David Gregory looked quite uncomfortable.

Posted by El Cid | February 12, 2008 9:00 PM

HRC won't stand in the way of the inevitable. She's a pragmatist.

I will be very surprised if, win or lose, the Clintons don't make this thing long, drawn-out, and ugly. Deep in their souls, they're LBJ, not Kennedy; gutter fighters...not elegant figures of grace and class.

The only ultimate calculations for HRC will be career calculations, imo.

Remember the devastatingly graceful concession speech Al Gore gave after the Supreme Court decision 8 years ago? I can't imagine either of the Clintons bowing out so gracefully for the good of the country or party -- it's just not who they are.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 12, 2008 9:00 PM

It was posted in this thread that Clinton won "White Democrats" 58-41. Was that incorrect?

I'm impressed by their enthusiasm but I'm seeing very little else from Obama supporters here that is convincing me to vote for him. I just don't care that much about personalities or Clinton-bashing I'm interested in issues and competence not a cult of personality.

I'll support Obama gladly as the nominee but I don't yet see myself voting for him in the primary.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 12, 2008 9:00 PM

Well, that's just the thing.

Obama hasn't won in every state, but he has at least been competitive in almost every state, including states like New Mexico, New Jersey, and Missouri. So why wouldn't he at least be competitive in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio?

It simply makes no sense to me that somehow those particular states are going to be blow out wins for Clinton, even if she is slightly favored. And the way things are going, blow out wins in all three of those states is what she is going to need to even keep the pledged delegate count close.

Posted by DTM | February 12, 2008 9:01 PM

Chuck Todd says Clinton will have to win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 60% in order to keep up with Obama's delegate count.

Posted by bjd | February 12, 2008 9:06 PM

Still Undecided,

With all due respect, I think we were unaware that we were supposed to be making a case to you about why you should vote for Obama. And I don't happen to know what issues you care about and why, so that is a bit broad of a topic.

But as for "competence": as it happens, these campaigns are the largest, most complex, and most important endeavors either of them have ever managed. So, you might consider looking at who has done a better job.

Posted by DTM | February 12, 2008 9:08 PM

Hillary won 100%-0% of those that choose Hillary Clinton on the ballot.

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

@Still Undecided: Clinton walked into this primary with about as many advantages as anyone could hope for: incredible name recognition, a successful ex-president and hugely popular Democrat as husband, a Senate seat in a major state, and the "inevitability" conferred upon her by the news media.

She's fighting her life now, more or less, against a relative upstart. To me, that's not competence.

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

I just don't care that much about personalities or Clinton-bashing I'm interested in issues and competence not a cult of personality.

I'm the same way. That is why I support Obama. I couldn't care less that he gives a good speech. Just curious: which issues do you prefer Clinton on?

Iraq?
Iran?
Torture?
Flag Burning?
Cluster bombs?

I'm assuming it isn't stuff like abortion, education, or health care since the differences are minor/non-existent on those issues.

Posted by jim | February 12, 2008 9:13 PM

A big-government-libertarian friend of mine who lives in virginia emailed me to tell me that he was voting for Clinton, because he finds Obama "scary" and because he thinks Clinton will be easier for McCain to beat.

My friend is probably not horribly typical of virginia right wingers

Posted by hawaiigradstudent | February 12, 2008 9:15 PM

To "Still Undecided":

Please don't accuse Obama's many supporters of being a personality cult. I decided to support Obama many months ago by looking carefully at the positions, records, and beliefs of the various Democratic candidates. Even among so many choices, Obama was compelling: his intelligence and complexity alone made him attractive, let alone his distinctly pragmatic temperament. Once I began to read about his canny leadership, his willingness to champion unpopular but important issues (government transparency, licenses for illegal immigrants, video taping of police interrogations) it became clear that Obama was a candidate of substance, by far the best candidate I could imagine for President.

Look more closely. Obama is a smart, pragmatic man who chooses to inspire because it's what is best for all of us, not because that's what he does most naturally.

I know it's fun to play into the political narratives of the campaign trail, but if we don't take time to look beneath the veneer and see what an amazing choice Obama really is, we will deserve to settle for less.

Posted by Nate | February 12, 2008 9:19 PM

Well yeah, jbryan, but that 55% of VA white voters who voted for Obama were OBVIOUSLY guilty white liberals: latte-sipping, gun-banning, organic food-eating, tree-hugging, caucus-packing (when they can), Prius-driving, vegan-enabling, humanities-majoring, minority-coddling liberals. Virginia is lousy with them!

You missed the memo: the only voters who count are the voters who vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Posted by c | February 12, 2008 9:23 PM

Huge narrative change coming. Amazing that the HRC constituency collapsed, and that Obama gets his big pivot in Virginia, of all places. This is historical. They'll be talking 20 years from now how 35+ primaries in the 2008 were parsed incessantly for racial demographics, with Obama never getting much credit--until Virginia.

Obama kicked the door down tonight.

Posted by Wallace | February 12, 2008 9:25 PM

People -- Don't let Still Undecided hijack this thread. This is a HORSE RACE thread, not a POLICY thread.

Sheesh. It's like butting into a conversation about the Seattle Mariners' latest victory and complaining that no one's mentioned global warming.

Posted by plum | February 12, 2008 9:27 PM

Well, maybe only 50%, though I hear most of them

Virginia!

Comments (156)