TESWTLASKEDGJOL'SUJG;AOQIUWTOW9.

MAYBE THIS WILL WORK, SINCE THE POST I SPENT 15 MINUTES ON GOT LOST.

BASICALLY MY OPINION IS THAT KERRY AND BILL CLINTON HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

'Do the math' is incomprehensible. The numbers are not that difficult to understand, but is there some point that you are trying to make? I can't see it.

I must agree. I've read it three times and what you have written is incomprehensible.

It is nonsense, as was pointed out above, to attempt to extrapolate from what occurred in the democratic primaries to a general election, just as it is to attempt to predict the 2008 outcome based upon the 2004 outcome. There are, after all, different candidates and different imperatives motivating voters.

Talk about unproductive navel gazing.

Hmm, Brokeback Mountain. Once all those sheep and cattle vote, not to mention repressed gays, it changes the balance a lot. But seriously, someone's going to win, and I keep feeling that Linda's analysis is having trouble dealing with that obvious point. It struggles to figure out who gets enough votes, but both parties start with a relatively small base. That doesn't mean Obama or Clinton is doomed.

I'm still inclined to think Obama's a stronger candidate, because (a) more people have demonized Clinton for no reason I can grasp and (b) she does best in states like New York that Obama, too, would carry. But the important factors are still not in these calculations. They're in defusing McCain's appeal as (god help me) an independent and straight shooter, as well as defusing future smears.

That isn't about improving on Kerry's response in 2004; both Obama and Clinton are increasingly aware of and deft. It's about organizing, getting out the vote, and doing what little we can to slam the compliant media. Of course, they don't still have Frank Bruni covering the GOP, but it'll be just as bad. Remember the last Times OpEd appointment? Linda's doing her best, but it's all sideshow.

TheraP,

You have tried dumping your cache and deleting your cookies haven't you?

Which browser are you using?

The only problem I've been having using XP and Foxfire is that I must log in to enter a comment, even though I'm shown as already logged in.

Lofty ideals are fine, but in the end it comes down to material factors on the ground. Excellent post.

This is nonsense. Hillary's won some traditional Dem
states in the primary, Barack others. Fact is Obama's won more states and more pledged delegates than she has at this point. None of it extrapolates to the general. Including FL and MI sort of gives the game away doesn't it?

In DuPage County IL where Repubs like to brag it's the reddest county in the country voters took more Dem ballots than Repub for the first time in history (132,000 to 109,000). Needless to say Obama beat Hillary badly but you know what the Repub county chairman attributed it to? Women crossing over to vote for Hillary. He wishes. The numbers show no great surge for Hillary in the county. It was all Obama. He got 64% here in 2004 and probably did better Tuesday.

Linda, It was the extremely poor way you presented your argument and information, not really the information. And like most pundits and today's media, you don't really express the numbers or present real choices, it's this or that without any real examination done. You simple quote talking points about the electoral math. Sorry, but like a politician, especially a democrat, you fail to make a sale.

The problem is that Democrats have no B*lls. I looked at the DNC homepage and had to laugh at the part about transparency in government (Superdelegates anyone.) The party has no real voice of moral conviction. For most of the country, this isn't about Democrat or Republican, it's about them and their country. If you know anything about media, you know that brand names are almost dead in terms of trust in them. And trust in government is even worse. Democrats have no real moral conviction and sit crying about Florida. Or Crying about mean republicans. Or the mean media. An estimated 30 - 40 percent of voters are independents. Maybe if you seemed to care half as much about them, about the country as you do about doing electoral math and pandering to the least common denominator the Democratic party could have a near electoral sweep, like Reagan did. But then, the democrats never take a chance, lets go with the easy choice, the safe choice, lets not dream or expand, lets fight.

The one thing you forget, is there are a lot of people that go to vote for a president, and not for a party. You want to win an election, make the American people believe you care about them. Make them believe you're going to fight for their best interest. bickering about electoral math doesn't do that, it alienates large chunks of the country.

Dean is at least trying. It wasn't Dean that moved Florida and Michigan to January. It may be his fault that he failed to negotiate an answer before then, but how should people in the rest of the country respond when Michigan and Florida try to exert their own self-worth. Their legislature, in an attempt to co-op the party, did that on their own. So, instead of showing the country that the DNC is about a national election, about restoring a nation, the petty bickering shows us that the DNC is just as despicable as the republican party. After Bush, I feel we need honesty and integrity, more than anything, and McCain has that. Clinton's pandering to Florida is sickening to people in the other 49 states. The thought of the uber-delegates deciding the election against the popular vote or pledged delegates is a sure way to keep those people in Utah at home. Good plan DNC.

If the democratic nominee looses this fall it will be as much because of the party, and what it continues to lack in *ideas* and the conviction to sell those ideas to the population, not whichever candidate is chosen. And continuing to alienate the independents is a good way to help the republicans.

In light of Senator Barack Obama’s victories Tuesday in places like Idaho, there is a lot of talk about a Brokeback Mountain election. A charismatic young male candidate and the white men in red states.

I have to hand it to you. That's a new and original counter-Obama rhetorical angle - the homophobic gambit. I personally hadn't heard all this talk before, but I'll take your word for it that there is "a lot" of it out there somewhere - perhaps especially in some of the more bitter and resentful back streets of Hillarysburg.

I guess you're hoping that by introducing this desperate little virus into the national discursive bloodstream you can help drive a wedge between the black Obama and some of his homophobic white male supporters, no doubt by getting those supporters to worry about some latent, forbidden Mandingo man-love buried deep in the pits of their anxious masculinity. Is that it? Clever!

By the way, did you know that ever since the Clinton victory in Massachusetts there is a lot of talk about a "Northampton election". Yes, it seems tongues are wagging about that growing emotional bond between a powerful, older female candidate and her budding young young female supporters. Oh, you haven't heard this one? I can't imagine why not. There is ever so much talk about it.

. . . like what a I saw, I meant to say, you see. . .

Here's the proof the GOP is running scared of Obama, and are calling
conservatives to prop Hillary up. There slogan is "keep her in it so she
can win it"

---TAKEN FROM RUSH LIMBAUGH's WEBSITE!!!!

(Personally verified this)

Just thought this was entertaining.

This is, I'm afraid, the worst article I have ever seen on TPM. You seem to have absolutely no understanding of the subject.

First of all, you are saying that if Obama is the candidate, he would not win MA, CA or NY, for example. But that means you are calling aprox. 7,000,000 complete idiots. Because if a candidate in the democratic primaries would look like he might lose those safe states, he would be rejected instantly by the voters. And that's the end of that.

Same can be said of WA, which you call a reach for Clinton, and of CT, which by the end I don't even know where you position (somewhere between Idaho, Canada, and Mexico, I suppose).

By the way, CT didn't go for Obama because of some bizarre "latte" reason, but because of Lamont vs. Lieberman. That would be a good point to start catching up with your reading.

To finish, I don't get the part about "Which is not even to mention Ohio. Which looks a lot like Michigan." Are you saying that in the general elections Clinton would run by herself in Ohio, or Michigan for that matter? Or that Clinton will run by herself in the Ohio primary, on March 4? Or both?

PS I'm ignoring the weird considerations about Brokeback Mountain.

PS2 Hint: simplest way to do the math: use tables.

I guess this fits here.Anyway.......

If the dems had used winner-take-all Hillary's
52% of the California vote would have given her a lock on the nomination altho her edge in the popular vote nationwide was a fraction of 1%.The race would now be over.

Perhaps being too idealistic that seems to me counter-democratic. Voters who feel powerless stop voting.And other things follow from that.

Instead the DNC's proportional system produced
delegates who roughly mirror what the voters wanted.

It also meant that dem voters in any state:red or blue had an incentive to vote.

Reflecting on what happened, Dean ( unlike the commanders described in Fiasco) aligned his tactics with his strategy. If the dems want to generate enthusiasmit makes sense to empower all voters in the Primaries. So it made mathematical sense for me to vote for Obama Tuesday even tho Hill was carrying New York.

This gets a little more strained, but if we want enthusiastic dems in,say, Idaho ( after all there's always the chance of picking up a house seat in Boise)then we want them to feel that their vote counted in the primaries.. whichever candidate they supported.

Further, if the democratic candidate is nominated in part by those Idaho democrats(and is going to need them again in 4 years) he or she'll be motivated to pay closer attention to their interests when in office. Maybe that will start to mix a little blue into the red. Or maybe it's just conducive to better government if the President isn't biased towards the interests of the states in which he has a chance of winning during the GE.

BTW given this proportional system the commentariat were always wrong in forecasting a quick win for Hillary. That was simply impossible even if Obama hadn't cut into her support.

Landslides require winner take all-as in the electoral college system.( and like the EC system may by accident elect the loser in the popular vote) See the first paragraph. The proportional system means that the voters get the candidate they actually chose. Kind of nice.

Even democratic.

Here's the math, Linda:

November 2006, Missouri, Senatorial Race

Clair McCaskill 49.6% versus Republican Talen 47.3%.

Math: Difference is 2.3% and not 1%. Care to explain your math?

Presuming that Obama is less likely to win here in Ohio because Clinton has a lead in the primary ... well, the technical term for that is "ignorant".

In the last head to head match up polling in Ohio which there were three Democrats (PPP, just in the aftermath of Iowa), Edwards beat McCain, McCain edged out Obama but it was within the MOE, and McCain beat Clinton.

And this is at the exact same time that the order of primary preference was Clinton, Obama, Edwards.

In the middle of a recession, a Democrat should never lose Ohio to a Republican. However, Clinton could, if she doesn't get her act together. And Obama could, if in his inexperience with national campaigning he makes a major stumble.

I'm so often struck by the insularity of the perspectives from the East Coast. Not surprising I suppose since for too long most Democrats have been found on the coasts. But that's been the Achilles heel of the party. We need appeal in the midwest and interior west. Obama has demonstrated the ability to strike a chord here. People here have contempt for Washington particularly Washington insiders. Hillary iconifies everything they want to reject and that goes for people left, right and center. People are fed up. People want to change the subject, change the cast of characters, throw the bums out, and find some new folks who want to represent us out here beyond the beltway.

And no, we don't want to go to war with Iran either.

Huh?

I understand argument of the post - Obama won a bunch of primaries in states that aren't voting blue in the fall and Hillary won a bunch of primaries in states that will vote blue in the fall.

While I understand the statement, I am left with the question: and the point would be?

If the point is, as I assume it is, that Obama doesn't win the general election because Hillary won NY, Cal, and Mass - I can only conclude you've flipped your bean.

Frankly that argument holds less water than a Bush administration maintained levy.

Any Democrat wins Mass., just as they do New York, Connecticut, and California. This is probably especially true of Obama, who is clearly doing better with independent or unaffiliated voters.

There are clearly states a Democrat needs to pick up in order to win. Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Ohio, Florida are all swing states that will play a big role in determining the winner.

The analysis makes no sense in that there is no reason Obama can't win the states John Kerry won and/or the states Al Gore won (they being mostly the same - switching Iowa, New Hampshire etc).

Thus the question remains who can pick up the extra state needed to win. i.e.: Ohio, Florida, Virginia or another larger state. While there are certainly arguments as to why either of the canidates may be better poised to make one of these states blue - the argument has less than nothing to do with which primary states they won or which demographic they got in those states.

(unless we want to discuss the fact that Obama has made inroads with the less regular wing of the Democratic party and independents. It is much more likely that the true regulars and yellow dogs join with these less than regulars - because seriously folks are they voting for McCain? thus Obama is the more, not less, electable of the two).

A final word on Michigan and Florida: my thought is this: yes Hillary got a lot of voters in both places - in an electio that meant less than nothing! None of the candidates campaigned in either one and it would be manifestly unfair to after the fact change the rules of the game. The convention should, under no circumstances, seat any delegates from these states.

Can't carry Red States?

Linda H's argument against Obama is identical to an argument that was aired Tuesday night on MSNBC about McCain piling up his delegates in Blue States that the Republicans never win in November. The pundits correctly observed that McCain won the nomination in Blue States, and lost the Red States in the South to Huckabee and the Red States elsewhere to Romney.

Gentle reader, does that fact give you a warm, comfortable feeling that because McCain lost the Red States in the primary, he will inevitably lose the Red States in November to a Democrat?

Obama got more votes in the SC Democratic primary than the entire number of votes cast in the SC Republican primary! In the Blue States, Obama also got more votes than the entire Republican primary vote in both New York and Massachusetts, as well as in Connecticut and Delaware.

Obama is going to carry the Big Blue States in November, if he heads the Democratic ticket. And he will run much stronger in the Deep South than Clinton would, including the important state of Georgia, where more voters voted in the Democratic primary, in spite of the hot contest in the Republican primary.

Anyone ssuming that an Obama ticket (with either Hillary or Jim Webb of Virginia as VP) cannot possibly win some Red States (as well as all the Blue States) is viewing the world through the wrong orifice.

The numbers quoted, in paragraph form are impossible to follow to a conclusion. My eyes want to see this data in chart form. One thing I can add to it is the fact that you can't draw any conclusion about the November election from them because the way Clinton fared against Obama, or vice versa is irrelevant. What's important is how either of them would perform against McCain, assuming he ends up the Republican nominee.

Comment 1:

Linda, do you truly believe that New York and California might not break for Obama were he to become the nominee?

Comment 2:

First of all, you are saying that if Obama is the candidate, he would not win MA, CA or NY, for example

Comment 3:

You might want to consider a class in basic math, Linda. As Davidv notes, the silliness of writing off a states like New York and California for Obama because Clinton won them with landslide votes is ludicrous.

Class in basic math(s)? Or a class in basic reading?

All the above comments seem to me -- a know-nothing non-American -- to misread the original post (although I think that isn't helped by some missing numbers). As I read it, the calculation is this:

BHO's wins in Dem states + HRC's wins in Dem states = 175 delegates

So this calculation assumes that BHO *does* get states like NY and CA that went to HRC. Presumably the statement that Obama needs Iowa and Missouri to get 270 implies that when one adds in all the other states which went Democrat last time round, you jump from 175 to 252.

Perhaps a clearer way to paraphrase the original post's argument is this: there is a ``base'' of 252 delegates, a number arrived at by counting the tally from the last general election; the most likely potential source of the extra 18 is from states that voted for WJC in 1996; and Linda's contention (whether or not you agree with it) is that of those `purple states' a better bet is HRC (Florida) than for BJO (Iowa, Missouri). Now since I know nothing about the relevant history or politics I can't evaluate this contention, but note it says nothing about a BHO nomination not taking New York or California, as some comments in this thread seem to assume...

I agree that the original post has missing data, but for three posts in close succession to berate Linda for something she didn't write, as opposed to something she did write, is a bit wasteful.

Oh, and before anyone starts jumping to conclusions: 1) I find Obama's rhetoric, and that of some of his supporters, intensely irritating; 2) if I were a US citizen registered to vote, and wanted a Democrat win, I'd currently be leaning (slightly) towards supporting him for the nomination. Make of that what you will.

Dopey indeed

Oh, I just can't help myself!

I guess I am defensive. I'm from Kentucky, I went to school in Indiana, and I just think you underestimate the need to engage red-staters. Yes, perhaps we won't win Idaho in November (although, with an Obama nomination I think we could scare the Republicans into spending some money defending Alabama and Louisiana and Georgia), but what a lost opportunity it would be to nominate Senator Clinton, who will likely only reinforce Republican dominance in such states. Obama, on the other hand -- I think he could begin the process of purple-izing even Idaho.

You say:

"My point being that Idaho is not among them, and, therefore, all the chatter about "he won the majority of STATES" is meaningless."

Might I suggest some meaning!

1. Obama's organizational prowess bodes well for the general election campaign, and it's that organizational prowess that has garnered his superior tally of state victories.

2. To win much-maligned Idaho, Obama had to pull in independents and Republicans. He'll have to do the same if he wants to win Ohio in the general election -- I think we can all agree that if John Kerry had been possessed of the same appeal, we might not be having this conversation.

3. Let's face it -- every state victory is a sale made. Obama made the sale in Missouri, he made the sale in Alabama, he made the sale in Colorado. He didn't make the sale in California, but I bet you he could have if there had been a couple more weeks between South Carolina and Super Tuesday. That's why a state like Idaho is, I think, telling -- practically every democratic voter in the state had a chance to kick the tires and they liked what they saw. On the other hand, you have to wonder what information all of those Californians were using to drive their votes. Newspaper endorsements? Candidate web sites? Anonymous e-mail smears? The point is that winning more states means that Obama was able to make more sales than Hillary.

Finally, Linda, you betray yourself: "or maybe this is what the discourse becomes when someone suggests an alternative to the coronation of BO?" Oh my gosh! The coronation of BO? Oh, that is rich! The first thing that turned me off Senator Clinton was the smell of heir apparency. Senator Obama's campaign has underdoggedly struggled it's way to parity with Clinton's, with the main stream media only too happy to parrot the baseless charge of inexperience every step of the way.

I think it would be useful to project the underlying demographics that have been revealed so far to Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania to predict the nomination. I'm not sure you can use them to predict the general. It seems pretty likely to me that this election will come down to Florida and/or Ohio. I certainly don't envision a landslide for any candidate unless it's McCain.

Best argument for a realignment election I have seen yet. Go Obama!