Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nomination

This is the map that the Obama campaign is desperately trying to avoid.
This is the map that will insure that Obama does NOT receive the Democratic nomination.

This is why the Obama campaign worked behind the scenes to prevent any revotes in Florida and Michigan.
This is why Howard Dean is demanding that super delegates decide now.

Obama knows that if he loses the last nine out of ten, he will be seen as a loser.

It all starts in Pennsylvania.
Here's a breakdown:

April 22
Pennsylvania (158)

Make no mistake about it - Pennsylvania has an importance that no one could have possibly anticipated. Not only is it the first contest in six weeks, but there will also be a two-week gap following the Penna. primary.  So there will be plenty of time to digest and regurgitate every possible angle of the vote.

What was once viewed as a last line of defense for Hillary Clinton is rapidly becoming a potential crisis for the Obama campaign.  The demographics, the economics, the geopolitics all favor Clinton.  She has the endorsements of most of Pennsylvania's super delegate officials.  She had a 10% lead in many polls as recently as a month ago. Then the poll numbers became to close.  However, the timing of Senator Obama's "bitter" rural voters comment could not have been worse.  Combined with the lingering aftershocks of the Rev. Wright disclosures, this may have a devastating impact on Obama in the voting booth.

Pennsylvania's primary is closed - only registered Democrats are allowed to vote.  In nationwide polls, Clinton tends to do better among self-identified Democrats while Obama does better with independents.   However, Clinton and Obam have split closed primaries to date.  Democratic registrations surged before the deadline in March - to 4.2 million, 1 million more than the Republicans.  The Obama campaign was deeply involved in new registrations in the state. Whether those new voters flip the lever for Obama remains to be seen.

If Clinton loses the nomination is over. Period. If Clinton wins by only small single digits, she will have a difficult time making her case.  But if she wins by more than 10%, it will put the Obama campaign on the defensive.  More than 15% will be a bombshell.  I believe that all of the above factors point to a large Clinton victory in Pennsylvania.   And from such a victory much of the following is likely to transpire.

May 3
Guam (3)

Guam is not on the map.
Its three caucus delegates will likely go 2/1 Obama.
This may be the best news Obama receives all month.

May 6

Indiana (66)
North Carolina (91)

Indiana is not Illinois. Just like Alabama is not Georgia or New Hampshire isn't Massachusetts. But more so.  Alabama and Georgia have had similar presidential voting trends for decades, not so Indiana and Illinois.  For many Hoosiers, even if they go up to Chicago to visit, shop, and watch a Cubs game, Chicago is the great "other".   Outside of Indianapolis and Gary much of  Indiana is like downstate Illinois culturally - small-town, agricultural - precisely those areas addressed by Obama's "bitter" comments.   Indiana also has a small African American population - 7.8% - half that of Illinois.  The Pennsylvania results will have an impact on Indiana voters.  The combination of strong showing by Clinton in Ohio and Penna. will energize Clinton supporters and dissuade a significant portion of independents who might have voted for Obama in February.   Clinton is likely to win Indiana by 10%

North Carolina will be a firewall for Obama - much as Texas and Ohio were for Clinton in early March.  But the poll numbers may belie different vote totals when the counting is complete.  There has not been a primary since the Rev. Wright story broke and Obama used the term "bitter" to describe rural people.  North Carolina is one of the most churched states and still significantly rural / small town.   In addition, despite hopeful numbers early on, Harvey Gantt always ended up with fewer votes against Jesse Helms than predicted.  African Americans do constitute roughly 40% of registered Democrats; however, the primary is open to independents, as well.  Since the Republican primary is moot, the preponderance of independents, most of whom are white, will vote in the Democratic primary, likely reducing the black proportion of the Democratic primary vote to about 25%.  Given the size of the Pennsylvania defeat that Obama might have and given the degree of news coverage of that defeat, Obama may well struggle to pull out a win in North Carolina.  If Obama wins by only small single digits he will be seen as on the ropes.

May 13
West Virginia (26)
There will be big news from West Virginia on May 13th.  Obama will lose badly in the primary, possibly by as much as 20%; yet, he will have scored impressively in the county conventions held in April.  What in April appeared a boon to Obama will rebound against him. News outlets will not only report the disparity between Democratic operatives at he county conventions vs. the primary results, but they will also extend this to earlier Obama caucus wins as part of a larger discussion of caucuses and primaries.   By this point, Obama will have lost primaries to Clinton in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia. He will have won only the two tiny caucuses, Wyoming and Guam, and two Southern primaries, Mississippi and North Carolina.

May 20
Kentucky (47)
Oregon (48)

Kentucky is a foregone conclusion.  After big Obama defeats in Indiana and West Virginia, this could be a landslide for Clinton.  Kentucky's importance wil be that it is another state in a long list of recent Obama losses - big losses.  It will also offset the results from Oregon.

Speaking of Oregon, the primary results in Oregon are not certain by any means.  Even though Oregon is not Washington, the Washington results are informative.  Washington held both caucuses and a "beauty contest" primary.  Although Obama won the caucuses by a huge margin - 68% to 31% - he only barely won the primary - 51% to 46%.  The Washington primary was open to independents. The Oregon primary is closed - only for registered Democrats. Given Obama's pattern of greater support among independents this may suggest a closer race in Oregon.  In addition, the polls of Washington showed a significant tightening in the last week, even at a time when Obama was at his peak nationally.  Thus, the Oregon primary could be a toss-up. And if Clinton wins, it will be a devastating loss for Obama.

June 1
Puerto Rico (55)

Another stunning defeat for Obama.  Since Puerto Ricans cannot vote in November, there should be a huge turn-out.  The Obama campaign would be wise not to disparage Puerto Rican voters given Obama's poor showing among Hispanics.  Another big loss in a string of losses for Obama.

June 3
Montana (15)
South Dakota (14)

By June, the pattern will be quite clear.  Not only has Obama failed to close the deal, he will be struggling for survival.  Montana is an open primary - its super delegates are split; however, the big guns, Baucus, Schweitzer, and Tester, remain uncommitted.  South Dakota is a closed primary - its super delegates have largely endorsed Obama, albeit in February.  Given the string of Obama losses, given Obama's comments about rural people and those of his former minister, given the fact that these Western states are holding primaries, not caucuses - it seems highly likely that the results will favor Hillary Clinton, perhaps not by much, but enough for her to win.

Later in June ?????
Florida (185)
Michigan (128)

If Clinton defeats Obama in the vast majority of late primaries, there will be a renewed call for revotes in Florida and Michigan.  Why?  The Democratic super delegates will need as much evidence as possible to choose someone other than Barack Obama. But one thing is for certain - if Obama loses these primaries, the super delegates will deny him the nomination. The revotes in Florida and Michigan will simply be political cover - sad to say. All evidence points to a significant Clinton lead in Florida - which will be overwhelming in June if Hillary is sweeping the table.  Clinton will also likely carry any Michigan revote if she has already won Ohio, Penna., and Indiana.


Poll
If Obama loses most of the late primaries, should he be the Democratic nominee?
Yes.
No.
I don't know what to think.

Votes: 44
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 5)

Tippage to pay taxes?


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST

From below, misplaced reply... (2.00 / 0)

When he is the nominee of the Democratic party, will you write a blog entitled, "Why I was wrong in mid-april"?

Only, fair, yes?


by Lieber on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:30:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By the way, while I got you here... (2.00 / 1)

...new SUSA poll in Indiana has Obama up 5.

http://www.wane.com/Global/story.asp?S=8 192998&nav=0RYb

So, you'll adjust that map above, yes?


by Lieber on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (none / 0)

SUSA had Clinton up 16 points a few days ago??
ARG had her up 9 points.

Which suggest that -
a) Polls are all over the map.
b) The situation is highly fluid.

From b) it follows that a big Obama loss in Pena. will have repercussions in Indiana.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or... (none / 0)

...a loss in Pennsylvania will do exactly no more or less than the loss in Ohio did, which is to say... mostly nothing.

HRC was up 22-16 points in PA right after OH & TX... now it appears to be less.

But my initial question still stands... when he becomes the nominee, will you come back and write a blog about how you were mistaken?


by Lieber on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats ignoring the FACT that people adjust to new. (none / 0)

...information...

If we didn't adjust to new information, we would be extinct as a species.

If the Democratic Party can't adjust to new information, its arguably not doing what it needs to do to survive as a viable party.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, like they reacted to Ohio... (none / 0)

...which is to say they didn't.

The fact that Pennsylvania says X (or Mississippi or Illinois or Texas) has no bearing on what Indiana says.


by Lieber on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:26:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (none / 0)

So, you'll adjust that map above, yes?
Facts?  We don't have to show you no steenkin facts.
Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (2.00 / 1)

And you wonder why Clinton supporters may choose to go elsewhere in November??

Obama's biggest draw is in illusion.
The most recent version - that he has the nomination locked up.
Therefore, Obama supporters have to attack vehemently any suggestion that Obama does NOT have the nomination locked up.  It's the inevitability meme.
After Penna. that record, oops CD, is scratched.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (2.00 / 0)

Wait, so turning out the youth vote in HISTORIC proportions, plans to bring the troops home, universally available (although not mandated, which is something many of us support!) record breaking fund raising completely from individual voters (ask Clinton about Norman Hsu), and being willing to face issues and controversies head on in a way no candidate, at least in my 20 year political memory, is just an illusion? What illusion? The man has come under more scrutiny than any candidate in this election, including Clinton. And don't give me a sob story about how they jumped on her for the sniper fire line. She admitted in the debate she said things "that didn't jive with what I (ie Hillary) knew to be the truth". You tell me who's putting on an illusion


by Djo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (none / 0)

While we're asking Clinton about Hsu, shall we also ask Obama about Rezko?

Glass houses and throwing stones don't mix.


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (none / 0)

Go for it The met when obama was a law student, he payed almost $55,000 above the market rate for a plot of his land. It's a story the repubs would love to be able to swiftboat obama with, but it's not going to stick. It was a rookie move, but it was years ago and I think it's something the general population would forgive in a GE by the time the media spits it up and regurgetates it enough.

Here's what Novak had to say in Jan. This shouldn't seem like a biased quote.

1. They met in 1990. Obama was a student at Harvard Law School and got an unsolicited job offer from Rezko, then a low-income housing developer in Chicago. Obama turned it down.

2. Obama took a job in 1993 with a small Chicago law firm, Davis Miner Barnhill, that represents developers -- primarily not-for-profit groups -- building low-income housing with government funds.

3. One of the firm's not-for-profit clients -- the Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., co-founded by Obama's then-boss Allison Davis -- was partners with Rezko's company in a 1995 deal to convert an abandoned nursing home at 61st and Drexel into low-income apartments. Altogether, Obama spent 32 hours on the project, according to the firm. Only five hours of that came after Rezko and WPIC became partners, the firm says. The rest of the future senator's time was helping WPIC strike the deal with Rezko. Rezko's company, Rezmar Corp., also partnered with the firm's clients in four later deals -- none of which involved Obama, according to the firm. In each deal, Rezmar "made the decisions for the joint venture," says William Miceli, an attorney with the firm.

4. In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

5. Rezko's low-income housing empire began crumbling in 2001, when his company stopped making mortgage payments on the old nursing home that had been converted into apartments. The state foreclosed on the building -- which was in Obama's Illinois Senate district.

6. In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

8. Eight months later -- in October 2006 -- Rezko was indicted on charges he solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend Gov. Blagojevich. Federal prosecutors maintain that $10,000 from the alleged kickback scheme was donated to Obama's run for the U.S. Senate. Obama has given the money to charity.



by Djo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is $1.65 million dollars comparable (none / 0)

to the prices of similar palatial houses sold in that neighborhood of Chicago at that time?


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (none / 0)

I was talking about the campaign contributions, but if you really want to bring up the real estate thing, that's your prerogative. If I were an Obama supporter, I'd avoid that topic entirely, and I certainly wouldn't bring up Hsu because Clinton handled his contributions way better than Obama handled the Rezko contributions.


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:56:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (none / 0)

And now that I really look at your post, I love how you stopped at the $10k he returned in 2006 as though that's the end of the story. Are you aware of how much more in Rezko contributions the Obama campaign has "discovered" since then?


by LakersFan on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (none / 0)

Actually I stopped at the 10K becuase it was quite literally the end of the article.


by Djo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 07:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, while I got you here... (none / 0)

In that case, you picked an article that is either really old, or really badly researched.


by LakersFan on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 08:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not vehement (none / 0)

But c'mon!  Maybe nine out of 10 late is worse than 11 in a row earlier (many of them blowouts), but I can't see it moving the supers if it doesn't changed the pledged delegate math.

I haven't seen anyone else suggest even the remotest possibility that Sen. Clinton will win nine of 10.  Best selling point is that she won the big states, but Obama polls well against McCain in big states too.

Sooooo...probably not going to happen.  


by niksder on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Illusion? (none / 0)

You have the chutzpah to accuse Obama of illusion on the heels of the fantasy you just posted?


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 0)

I dunno, this seems pretty far-fetched. Sen. Clinton didn't drop out after her 11-primary losing streak after Super Tuesday, and some of her losses were well above 20%. But she knew that the demographics in those states weren't in her favor, and that she could catch up with a blowout victories in Ohio and Texas. (And the race was effectively over when she didn't get those blowout victories.)

So there's no reason for Sen. Obama to drop out if he gets a long losing streaks in a series of states where the demographics aren't in his favor. Realistically, the worst-case scenario has him losing a net of about 20 delegates.

About the only way Sen. Clinton could win is if she gets an extra 10% added on to all your numbers, starting with a 30% margin of victory in PA, which is four days from today. If Sen. Obama stumbles that badly, then that'll give Sen. Clinton an opportunity to get some of his superdelegates to switch.

But Sen. Obama has run a pretty good campaign up to this point. It's going to take something big to bring him down...and I mean really big, not silly trivia like the Wright and Bittergate micro-scandals.


by mazement on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats not true.. (none / 0)

He's made a lot of blunders..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

Johnny,

This is an excellent diary.  I understand that many comments here seem to miss your central thrust, that being that this becomes an increasingly scenario AFTER the Pennsylvania primary, especially if Hillary's victory here is over 10%.  But I see exactly what you mean.  Pennsylvania will have a strong cascading effect into both the media narrative and voting behavior following 4/22.  This is exactly why Obama's supporters have grown increasingly strident in their calls for Hillary to concede.

They may guise their intent as "in the best interests of the party," but it's simply "in the best interests of Barack Obama."  In other words, politics-as-usual.


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:20:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

Well, while you are on a roll for predictions, who do you like in the Super Bowl next year?  World Series...?  Final Four?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:26:20 PM EST

Simple question, honest... (2.00 / 0)

...when he IS the nominee will you write a blog entitled, "Why I was wrong?"


by Lieber on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oregon??? (none / 0)

Yeah. Oregon is a tossup. Pull the other one!

And South Dakota will be won by Obama by 30% or mote...it's a caucus...


by Democratic Unity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST

Re: Oregon??? (none / 0)

South Dakota is a closed primary.

http://fpc.state.gov/99606.htm


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oregon??? (none / 0)

Where Obama is leading;

http://www.dwu.edu/press/2008/apr15.htm


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oregon??? (none / 0)

Great, but I was correcting the post that said that SD was a caucus.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You SHould Check Your Sources (2.00 / 1)

South Dakota is a closed primary NOT a caucus.
Oh.My.God. Obama has to face a primary in the Plains.

Election Information:
Contest Type:    State-run Primary
Election Date:    2008-06-03
Eligible Participants:    Closed (only members of the party)
Delegates Awarded in this Contest:    14
Delegates Total:    22
Delegate Allocation Method: Proportional - the candidates are awarded delegates in proportion to the percentage of votes received.

   * 6 at-large delegates
    * 9 district delegates
    * 8 unpledged delegates
          o All 9 are from the South Dakota At-Large congressional district

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state .php?year=2008&fips=46&f=0&o ff=0&elect=1


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You SHould Check Your Sources (none / 0)

And closed primaries favor Hillary.  Except in North Carolina, where the open primary favors Hillary.  Yeah?


by lilnev on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:02:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oregon??? (2.00 / 2)

Hil's advantage in PA polls at about half as big as the gap that Obama enjoys in N.C.  Oergon polls strongly Obama.  Indiana is tight, but slightly in Barack's favor.  Montana and South Dakota are also very solid Obama states.

North Carolina negates any gains that Hilary makes in Pennsylvania (possibly even expands BO's lead if her PA win is only 6% or so).  Then come Oregon and Montana and South Dakota to further extend his lead.  Indiana goes very slightly one direction or the other, but makes very little difference.

After that KY, WV, Guam, and Puerto Rico haven't got enough delegates to close the gap even if she were to win them 80/20.

It's over.  It has been for a long time.  She has been functioning as a McSame surrogate for months now for no good reason.

Even if she is using their techniques, I don't think that it's fair to call her a rethug.  She is, after all, pro choice and anti-war (so she says even though she keeps voting for wars).  

She's more like the new Ralph Nader at this point.  She can't win, but she can screw it up for the democrats and hand the election to the GOP in the process.  Like Nader, her self righteousness and ego will not let her subjugate personal ambition for the greater good and the progressive agenda.  At least in her case, she can be eliminated by the primary process.  I only wish that there were a way to eliminate Nader by the end of the primary season too.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 0)

lol you gave Montana and South Dakota to Hillary and called Oregon a toss up?

hahahaha, lol

this was my favorite part

By June, the pattern will be quite clear.  Not only has Obama failed to close the deal, he will be struggling for survival. Montana is an open primary - its super delegates are split; however, the big guns, Baucus, Schweitzer, and Tester, remain uncommitted.  South Dakota is a closed primary - its super delegates have largely endorsed Obama, albeit in February.  Given the string of Obama losses, given Obama's comments about rural people and those of his former minister, given the fact that these Western states are holding primaries, not caucuses - it seems highly likely that the results will favor Hillary Clinton, perhaps not by much, but enough for her to win.

can you point to anything to suggest this? any polling data anything?

no you just KNOW it will happen, hehe.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 0)

Hence why I was asking for sports predictions....  This diary might as well be good for something.... maybe Nostradamus here can help me make a little $$$


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 2)

Gettin' a little ad hominem here, ain't we?

Fact is - y'all are scared about what a big los in Penna. will do.  It's the big unknown out there.  Everything I posted above is based on a 15%+ Clinton victory in Penna.  Didn't I say that a single-digit Clinton victory would simply produce more of the same?

But a huge Obama loss will change every parameter.
In fact, it will be nearly impossible to recover from.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (none / 0)

How was that an ad hominem attack...?

Also, I'm not scared of anything relating to the primary contest...  I already know ho I am voting for.

And, finally, you have been calling for Obama's demise for months now and it has not happened...  I'm beginning to question your credibility on things, so maybe Nostradamus is too high for you to reach.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 0)

More Mistress Cleo than Nostradamus, methinks.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:13:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Itchy Face - (2.00 / 1)

Scratching it with a single finger.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:20:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Itchy Face - (none / 0)

Ha!  You have to spell it out to make it so.  :)


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:56:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

The bolded part cracks me up.  Between endorsements, winning contests, closing the superdelegate gap by another trickle every time you look,  crushing her in fundraising, and watching her fav/unfav numbers plummet as she gets more and more shrill that seems like closing the deal to me.  Almost every night when she goes to sleep she is further from the nomination that she was when she woke that morning.

Besides, with an insurmountable lead in delegates, why is it incumbent on him to knock her out?  She is done for whether she has the class to do the right thing or not.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:37:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

So you are saying that Hillary Clinton is classless??

Yes, you are.

Great, just great.
I want to throw up.
But I'll just wait until November.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (none / 0)

No, I've indicated that she can choose to be classy or not.  Either way she doesn't get the nomination.  If she cares more about the issues than she does about her ambition then she'll do the right thing.  If she continues to value her ego above the progressive agenda then she'll keep going all Ralph Nader on us.

I live it to her to show us whether she's got any class.  I will hope for the best but, given the evidence to date, I'm not holding my breath.

Maybe her inability to get the bills paid will force things and class won't be a factor.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 0)

Lockewasright

I never thought of it that way, Imagine breaking news Hillary concedes and her reason is she is such a healthcare supporter and she is very passionate about getting the troops home and wants to restore the Economy. she would not risk handing a victory to McCain  and instead backs Obama. the next day Hillary approval ratings skyrockets restoring the Clinton Legacy thereby securing a nomination in 2016
How great would that be ??


PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability
by wellinformed on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (none / 0)

From your lips...


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:19:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course Obama is winning in fundraising.. (none / 0)

Read my .sig, (below) for an idea of WHY he's getting a lot of that money...

[cue]


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course Obama is winning in fundraising.. (none / 0)

Silly me.  I thought that a network of 1.4 million small donors who aren't max'd out like the muckety mucks on Hilary's list is what makes for a well that he can keep going back while Hilary struggles to find new donors.

1.4 millions is one hu-freaking-mongous well into which he can dip over and over and over...  

His average donor has given under $200 total.  

If you're gonna just make shit up, sell it to someone who hasn't discovered truthout yet.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a... (none / 0)

flesh wound!


by niksder on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's a... (none / 0)

Alright,  we'll call it a draw!


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

This presupposes a lot, to put it lightly.

Oregon as a tossup? I doubt it. SD will definitely go Obama, as will NC and by more than 5 points, I'm pretty sure.

The problem with Clinton's path to the nomination is that maintaining the status quo through June -- which seems to be her strategy, that is Obama and Clinton trading wins through June 3 -- simply will not do anymore.

Although I don't think her likelihood of winning is 5%, I do think it's 1/4 or less. It's not good. She needs something game-changing. Wright, Bitter-gate, and the debate are not enough. At this point, I can't really envision anything that can change the trajectory of the race. "Too little too late", is kind of beginning to sink in.

Shame on Hillary for running such a piss-poor campaign; I'm exasperated because I know she would be a great President but hasn't evidenced that through her campaign. Blindsided left and right, ignoring caucuses, and not having a post-Feb. 5th strategy all doomed her.

I still hold on hope she'll somehow win, but those hopes are not exactly growing with each passing day.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:33:04 PM EST

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 2)

Huh?

If Obama loses Penna. by 15% it changes everything.
The MSM will attach the moniker "Can't Close the Deal" on Obama with a vengeance.  Obama's loses in Penna., Ohio, and Texas (And, yes, he lost he popular vote in Texas) will show him as a fatally flawed candidate. Kinda like the Titanic after it struck the iceberg.  Still afloat - but definitely going down.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

Fatally flawed...?  That is your favorite line isn't it?

And how do you think he will lose PA by 15%?

If she loses NC by greater than 15% wouldn't that change everything back?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

Obama was expected to lose PA by double digits. A double-digit win by Hillary in no way changes anything. It has been on Obama's campaign score card all along that they would lose PA by around 10+ points.

The real problem with this diary is that all the things you are projecting will happen to Obama after some future event haPPENS, and then another future event happens, he will be a "fatally flawed candidate" "can't close the deal" etc. these are all things that Hillary's candidacy already is. She's already there. Dude, you are projecting some kind of revenge fantasy based on the reality of where we are right now, only with the tables turned. If that isn't desperation, I don't know what is.


by DrPolitics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

Obama was expected to lose PA by double digits.

Nice expectations game.
First you say he is close, then you say that if he gets blown away it won't matter and won't have any effect.

So which is it???

Ya think that a lot of Dems will get worried that Obama cannot carry key Dem constituencies??  Hell, he's barely leading McCain in Massachusetts. If Obama can't take Mass, then we had all better pack our bags.

If Obama loses big in Penna - and that is the MAJOR PREMISE of my argument - then many Democrats, big and small, will be reevaluating Obama's candidacy.  No Democrat can win the White House if he/she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.  In fact, no candidate of either party has won losing all three. (With the exception of JFK, they've won  2 out of 3, at least.)

And, yes, the Democrats do want to win this November.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (none / 0)

Yes, Obama was supposed to lose PA by 12. I love how in state after contested state the rhetoric on this site goes from "Clinton is going to cream obama and he's going to shit himself so bad he drops out!" when the vote is weeks out, to "if Clinton wins by a vote it's huge!" when it's a few days away. Why does this happen, because if Obama can actually campaign in a state (and his name is on the ballot) people find him to be a pretty damn good, down to earth candidate, who is smart, persuasive, has cross-over appeal, and most importantly that he is somebody who has the knowledge and judgement to lead this country


by Djo on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the MSM will still support Obama if he... (none / 0)

loses ANYWHERE.. They want Obama to be the Dem nominee for the same reasons they usually covertly support Republicans.

Anything that represents anything approaching real
evolution 'will not be televised' PEOPLE..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:29:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (none / 0)

I genuinely don't think so. It's hard to stop a speeding bullet, and that's how Obama is right now right, rightfully or not. Like I said, it's going to take a major event to slow him down, and since Pennsylvania is already supposed to go to Clinton big, it won't matter.

That's what I'm saying -- the status quo would be Clinton and Obama trading victories on June 3rd. The status quo will not do for Hillary anymore, she realizes this. There's got to be a game-changing event; otherwise we'll be back here on June 4th in the same situation. And on that day, Hillary will officially be done.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm glad you THINK so but...it's wishful thinking. (none / 0)

Its NOT true..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Notice the smirk (nt) (2.00 / 1)

Would he be smirking like that if he wasn't giving us the finger?


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Comprehensively cover 100%, not only the healthiest 80%
by architek on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:34:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm glad you THINK so but...it's wishful think (none / 0)

Hasn't this be been proven to not be true?

And by the way, Obama's a smart man, whatever his other faults may be. He's not stupid enough to GIVE HIS OPPONENT THE FINGER ON NATIONAL TV.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:04:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (none / 0)

Yeah a 15% in PA and then she'll only be down 125 delegates and waiting for North Carolina to put it right back to 140 delegates again.

You're dreaming.

You can tell it from the silly clinging to the idea that she won Texas.  What, do you think superdelegates are a bunch of amateurs?  Think they don't know that the nomination is  contest measured in delegates?

Don't like reality?   Oh screw it, just make up your own, eh?


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your analysis of MT and SD... (2.00 / 0)

...is pretty much threadbare in the sense that it reflects absolutely nothing about the Progressive political culture of the Democratic parties in both states.  MN, ND, NE, and WY are fairly strong indicators of which way that political culture leans.

I'll be enormously surprised if Sen. Clinton wins either here, or in MT.  If she wins both, I'll eat my hat after checking the weather report for Hell.

Prog


by Progressive Witness on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:34:29 PM EST

Re: Your analysis of MT and SD... (2.00 / 1)

Gee, I live in Wyoming -
And Obama's on-the-street popularity is plummeting.

I grant you that Obama would still win any Western caucus;
however - and it's a big however - we're talking primaries.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your analysis of MT and SD... (none / 0)

Has there been any polling in Wyoming post-caucus?  I haven't seen any, but even a poll junkie misses a few.

The polling for the SD primary looks pretty strong for Obama at this point, and 25 out of 35 Dems in the State Legislature have endorsed Obama as well.  There are a lot of names I respect in the state party on that particular list, and it's a pretty broad and diverse bunch.  And support for Obama on the Rez is quite high, which looms even larger in a primary than in a GE.

Prog


by Progressive Witness on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your analysis of MT and SD... (2.00 / 1)

The name of your Wyoming polling outfit? I would imagine that Obama's support always appears to be plummitting if that's what you perpetually look for.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:02:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this a joke? (none / 0)


by descrates on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST

What? (2.00 / 1)

Obama's ahead in NC, IN, SD, MT, and OR. PA is tightening, anecdotally because of voter disgust with her negative campaign.

Nor will there be re-votes in FL and MI. If there are, he's going to take MI.

So your baseline data doesn't support your case.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM EST

Re: What? (2.00 / 0)

hahahaha data? what data, this is just what he KNOWS will happen, you wait and see!!!!


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:41:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What? (2.00 / 1)

How many times did Gantt beat Helms in NC?
How many times did the Dems win NC in presidential races since 1980?

North Carolina has been the poster child for the Southern Dem resurgence for the past 25 years - only to disappoint again and again.  In the case of the NC primary, I think the Bradley Effect will show up. I'm not pleased with that - it's clearly a pervasive , underlying racism - but all evidence from the Gantt races in the 1990s suggests how strongly it is entrenched in NC.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh hum. (2.00 / 0)

And we lost Florida in 2000 and 2004 and won't win it in 2008 - their republican governor will see to that.

But you want to make Florida the key to the nomination?


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh Huh (2.00 / 1)

It seems that the Obama folks want to do everything possible to throw Florida away in the GE - and then say that Florida doesn't matter, Obama will carry North Dakota.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again... (none / 0)

...we are going to lose Florida in November. The deck is stacked against Democrats in that state, and it's gotten worse since 2000, not better.

However, that's not my point. My point is to clarify the silliness of your argument about North Carolina. Which, by the way, Obama puts in play and Hillary gets crushed in.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once again... (2.00 / 1)

I'll take a sure Florida to an iffy NC any day.

Didn't NC go in the Dem column in 2004 with Edwards on the ticket?
Oh, no. It didn't.

Clinton would carry Florida in November, Obama would lose it.
Obama might carry NC in November, Clinton would get stomped.
Not to mention that Florida has 27 EVs and NC has 15.

That's 27 EVs to a possible 15.
Hmmmmmmmm.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Florida is not "sure"... (none / 0)

...it's a pretty much guaranteed loss. The state has drifted more R since 2000, and dirty tricks of the R SoS are a foregone conclusion. And the last campaign that could overcome the hurdles there is the catastrophically inept Clinton campaign.

Any Democrat that thinks Florida could be the make-or-break part of a winning coalition should be barred from Presidential politics. That state isn't going to be viable for us until they get a Democratic governor again to sort out the mess.

Without Florida, of course, Hillary has no chance of winning. Ergo, she can't win. If you're looking for a catastrophic defeat in November, Hillary's a good bet; she can't even carry her own home state of Arkansas. Me, I prefer to win.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

If Obama loses Pena by 15%,
All of the above is likely to take place.

As for Pennsylvania, despite polls being all over the block, Obama fails to crack the mid 40s.  In Ohio, Obama did a few points WORSE than his best polling. Hillary has consistently had an upswing in primary states.

Obama will be lucky to keep it below 10%.
If it's a blowout - the unravelling begins.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EST

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (1.00 / 1)

Whether or not he wins or loses PA, by whatever margin, this nomination is over!  Obama will be the Dem nominee.  The movement of the supers, despite all of Hillary vitriols and shrills, is unstoppable toward Obama.  Hillary's negatives have turned most Dem/Indys off, especially the supers.  Believe me, I know.


by sbbonerad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:54:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Watch Your Nasty Sexist Language (2.00 / 2)

"Shrill" used against a woman is no different than using "nappy-headed" for African Americans or "wetback" for Hispanics.

But, of course, sexist language is O.K. -
Whether on the MSM or on the blogs.

Racist language, on the other hand, prompts immediate outrage!!


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

I'm not sure how you "know."  What I know is that if he loses Pennsylvania by "double digits," there will be a lot of reassessment...for openers.


by christinep on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 0)

Hillary has led by 15-20% for months. A few jumps here and there by Obama, but you can't paing 15% as a blowout for Hillary when that's below her current polling level.

But then again, that did work for TX and OH, so points for trying.

Lastly, if she doesn't blow him away, she'll never get the delegates she needs for any of the predictions to be worth a damn.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:54:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

Average people hearing a double-digit win don't care about what we write here or about any earlier expectations.  A big win of that variety for Hillary would be a win that grows bigger each day.  That used to be referred to as closing momentum.  So, lets wait and see.


by christinep on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Evidence (2.00 / 0)

Please provide evidence that Obama had anything to do with revotes not being held in FL.  All stories I read said that the state decided that revotes would be logistically impossible regardless of the stances of the candidates.  I am sure you don't mean to spread misinformation but are only repeating what has erroneously been stated numerous times on this site.  Please back up your claims or retract them.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:51:15 PM EST

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going (2.00 / 2)

This is kind of a depressing post, mostly because it sounds so much like you really BELIEVE what you wrote.

But that doesn't make it more true.

First of all:

Oregon isn't a 'tossup.' It's a 10-pt SUSA lead, the most recent one long after Wright. Other polls have shown, despite Hillary's best efforts, no one cares about the 'Bitter' comments. If anything, they've hurt her. And while I haven't found many other results, last week Rassmussen had Hillary losing to McCain by 6, but Obama beating McCain in Oregon by 6. A 12 point GE difference doesn't lead me to think "tossup."

North Carolina is listed on your map as "Obama >5%. How nice! You could have had it Obama >14% as the RCP average has Obama up by 14.5% across all polls. SUSA, as the bible here, has it at 10%. Rassmussan has it at 23%.

South Dakota for Hillary? The only poll, albeit from March, in Pollster.com has Obama up. Do you have different numbers?

Lastly, I'm sure we disagree, but I'm out of ways to say it. The 'Revotes' aren't blocked. They're just not happening. One person didn't say 'stop!' There was just no desire, budget or legal way to honestly reconstruct an open primary without doing the same for the GOP. Especially with turnout dampened. Anyway, something has to be going to happen for it to be blocked. So, whinge away, but it's not going to happen. Not worth the money, dubiously ethical, truly not something Obama wanted, nor would most taxpayers not rooting for Clinton want them either.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going (2.00 / 1)

North Carolina will not reflect these poll numbers for the two reasons I listed -

1) There will be a drop in Obama support after a big loss in Penna.
2) Unfortunately, North Carolina has a history of the Bradley Effect.

Oregon will vote after there have been primaries in Penna., NC, Indiana, and West Virginia.  If Obama loses big in three of the four and only wins NC by single digits, his "inevitability" will be seriously tarnished.  And, the polls in Washington state gave Obama bigger lead than he got in the beauty contest primary there.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going (none / 0)

His "inevitability" won't be tarnished, because its based on the statistically insurmountable (and inevitable) lead in delegates. The only way to shake that up is by throwing FL and MI back into the mix, which won't happen for the obvious reason of "Them's the rules that they done agreed to."

But here's the thing: You don't get to make up evidence to back up your claims. Your map is filled with inaccuracies. Your post as well. I'd assume your analysis is similarly troubled.

And if the "Bradley Effect" were really a problem from Obama, would Miss or SC have been such routs?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going (none / 0)

Politics is not statistics.  Its mostly about perception.  And, if PA changes perception, watch out.


by christinep on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:37:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going (none / 0)

Lettuce nailed it.  


by mikeinsf on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going (none / 0)

lmao off of course he does not beleive it Lettuce
geez obviously this Diarist has a great George Carlin or Richard pryor type sense of Humor

I mean come on now no one in there right mind or at least nobody that can do math can be serious

its a snark  it has to be.....right??


PUMA: Particularly Undeveloped Mental Ability
by wellinformed on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 04:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't forget Rezko! (1.50 / 2)

and that's BEFORE Rezko gets convicted. Just imagine what the numbers can look like if Rezko is actually convicted for bribery. Because that land purchase sure looks like a bribe to me. You have to wonder what the other half of that deal was.


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:54:07 PM EST

Re: Don't forget Rezko! (2.00 / 0)

It looks like a bribe to you....?  Well, that's you... it may not look that way to other people...

Rezko resonates with Clinton supporters and that's about it.  They all have associations with questionable people.  Hell, the Clintons associated with Rezko for crying out loud.... you think you get a picture with the President and First Lady for doing nothing?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gee, Jen - (2.00 / 1)

You don't think that the Goppers aren't going to put up big pictures of Obama's house on TV in the fall if Obama is the nominee?  When many voters are facing losing their own homes?

I think you have it backwards, only Obama supporters see the Rezko deal as "nothing" - everybody else sees it as smarmy, at best.  Even Obama himself was forced to acknowledge that it was "boneheaded" - whatever that means.


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gee, Jen - (none / 0)

ummm... only HRC supporters see Rezko as "something".  It's had no traction in the press.


by mikeinsf on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:36:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gee, Jen - (none / 0)

You don't think that the Goppers aren't going to put up big pictures of Obama's house on TV in the fall if Obama is the nominee? When many voters are facing losing their own homes?

That would be a risky strategy. Sen. McCain also lives in a house. (But it's something to watch out for in future elections, in case the Republicans decide to run a homeless candidate to emphasize how they differ from 'elitist' Democrats with their fancy houses and their running water.)

I think you have it backwards, only Obama supporters see the Rezko deal as "nothing" - everybody else sees it as smarmy, at best.  Even Obama himself was forced to acknowledge that it was "boneheaded" - whatever that means.

Most of "everybody else" doesn't know who Rezko is.

My understanding of the micro-scandal is that Sen. Obama and Rezko were neighbors, and Sen. Obama wanted to expand his property so he bought a strip of land from Rezko at the fair market price.

The "boneheaded" part was dealing Rezko after he was under investigation. Even though it was a perfectly legitimate deal, the transaction got called into question just because Rezko was involved. (The Clintons had the same sort of problem over the Whitewater deal.)


by mazement on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gee, Jen - (none / 0)

The Goopers are more than welcome to put pictures of Obama's house up.

Then we can put up pictures of McCain's house. And their other house. And the condos. And the several vacation houses.

And if people are worried about financial impropriety, of which Obama has been accused of exactly NEVER, there something known as the Keating 5 that trumps it time a million.

So, yeah, keep hunting. It's like Easter for you, isn't it. I'm sure there's a pretty egg around here somewhere for you...


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 02:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't forget Rezko! (none / 0)

It looks like a bribe to most adults. Obama supporters assume he wouldn't accept a bribe, but that's their shortcoming. Short of it being a bribe, it's a transaction that doesn't make any sense.

Mobsters don't decide to spend $625k of their own money to help a US senator buy the house of his dreams out of the goodness of their greedy little hearts.

Or are you saying it was payback for favors already done?


by Little Otter on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics /2008/03/obama_memo_shows_campaigns_con. html


by johnnygunn on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:57:03 PM EST

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win (none / 0)

Not the me-too diary I was expecting!  We think alike, you and I.  This is pretty much how I see it, although Obama will most likely win here in Montana.  These folks spit when they say Hillary's name...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:06:09 PM EST

Not so sure about Indiana (none / 0)

Obama up 5 in Indiana... by SurveyUSA


by labor nrrd on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM EST

Man, this is sad (2.00 / 2)

do you really believe that this is an honest political analysis of anything remotely resembling reality?

There's grasping at straws and then there's . . . this . . .

I'm sorry, not saying that to be offensive or disrespectful, but you just wrote a diary (and asked me to read it) that had no objective political analysis in it (analysis is not the same thing as opinion, btw). You've wildly overstated your case and that is putting it mildly.

Have the leaders of MyDD ever put up guidelines for what is and is not a political analysis? This is your fantasy and you are entitled to it, but it's nothing more than a projection of your beliefs (i.e. there is very little in this diary that is rooted in anything empirical).


by DrPolitics on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:10:48 PM EST

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (2.00 / 1)


"Gee, I live in Wyoming -
And Obama's on-the-street popularity is plummeting."
but it's a little late Johnny you had your primary

Obama 61%

Clinton 38%

oh yeah your Gov. said this as a super delegate for Obama

"When both Obama and Hillary Clinton came to Wyoming, the governor spent time with each. Freudenthal said he had nothing negative to say about Hillary Clinton, but Obama struck him as "incredibly smart" and someone who gives honest answers instead of scripted responses."

keep spinning johnny


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM EST

Re: Why Obama Is Not Going to Win - - the Nominati (none / 0)

Yeah, but dude said his "on-the-street popularity" is plummeting. It's the in-the-voting-booth popularity that stayed strong.