There are 67 counties in Pennsylvania but 40% of the electorate live in only five: Philadelphia and it's collar counties of Bucks, Montgomrey, Delaware, and Chester.
Win Philly big and you win.
You think Ed Rendell got elected by winning the "T?"

If Hillary Clinton wants to go after the "T" fine by me; No Dem will carry it in November anyway.
The national media loves to paint PA as Ohio with cheesesteaks. PA has it's share of lower middle class voters - it certainly has it's share of older voters - but we are NOT Ohio. We are not mid-westerners.
We have "attytood."

How can you count popular vote when ten of the contests were caucuses? This is like comparing apple and oranges. If you extrapolate the results of the caucuses to states that had primaries of similar size (delegate allocation) Obama's popular vote lead grows by 800,000 which would make his lead 1.5 million. This is why the only way to determine the winner is- by pledged delegates.

"After all, the previous generations have done such a horrible job of it, it's time to move over. We'll drive now." said topwriter

As someone who played an integral role in the Colorado student GOTV for John Kerry
I have to point out that it was the GenY voters I contacted in Denver who refused to turn out even knowing all of Ws bad policies in Iraq and for their generation so boomers won t be blamed for your generation s refusal to participate. We gave you the keys to the car and you opened the door and left and that was why we had 4 more years of W0. We tried but GenY said it was just not that impt;that was what college students at Denver s Aurora campus told me.

Hillary won the Rush Limbo vote.

Doesn't that count for anything?

Light_bearer

Do you seriously think New York or Massachusetts are going to vote Republican? That's about as realistic as claiming Obama could win Nebraska based on his win there.

Oh, and Obama has won exactly 0 Electoral College votes. As has Hillary. As has McCain.

BB

Senator Clinton has earned more Electoral College votes than Obama. So, no doubt Clinton will definitely be a better candidate to defeat Senator McCain in the general election.
[...]
Clinton wins!

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | April 2, 2008 11:30 AM

I know! And to think some Democrats want to pick Obama and lose New York, Massachusetts and California in the general election, when they could run Hillary and win Arizona like she did in the primary.

Senator Clinton has earned more Electoral College votes than Obama. So, no doubt Clinton will definitely be a better candidate to defeat Senator McCain in the general election.
[...]
Clinton wins!

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | April 2, 2008 11:30 AM

I know! And to think some Democrats want to pick Obama and lose New York, Massachusetts and California in the general election, when they could run Hillary and win Arizona like she did in the primary.

Re: mrmatttt

Thanks for your comment. I agree with you strongly that the results of a caucus are important. These indicate enthusiasm for a candidate-which is important for assessing strength of support. Although Texas has an odd method for apportioning votes, it was a draw in the end.

Rw: edwcorey

The early poster claimed that Chris was in the bag for a particular candidate. I find that offensive. He's an interesting writer, far more so than I. (Well, except for magnetic resonance spectroscopy, organic electronics, and Sheffield United--Up The Blades!!!). Said individual has the right to post idiotic comments on the blog. I have the right to note correctly that such comments are idiotic. You have the right to note incorrectly that I'm out of line.

Buh-bye

Sorry, you Obama supporters who are so confident your candidate will get the nomination, stop and think again. Hillary did not win in double digits in Ohio because Republicans voted for her. She won in double digits because Ohio has been one of the harder hit states in the nation and Hillary appeals to those who are stuggling economically because she has something to offer them. Barack is all words with no experience or voting record to back him up.
My husband who has been a union member for almost 30 years and a Hillary supporter predicted that when the union leaders backed Obama it would backfire against Obama because the rank and file union members rarely listen to their leaders particularly when it's the rank and file members who are suffering economically. In Texas, the Latinos supported Clinton big. The Latinos love the Clintons - much more so than Ted Kennedy - who simply doesn't carry the clout that he once had. Of course we all know that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Duval Patrick all helped Obama in their home state of Massachusetts probably to solidly lose it.
This is a message to you Obama supporters. Have you ever heard about burnning your bridges? When you insult and personally attack our candidate and her family and personally attack her supporters, you do great harm to your candidate and certainly don't stay on message with your leader's campaign about bringing Americans together. You make yourselves and your candidate by extension look like hypocrites. If your candidate does get the nomination; it's the women who are older, the working class people, the Catholics, the Jewish people, the Latinos, who are going to have to support him for him to beat McCain. He cannot win a general election without the support of those groups. So far Senator Obama's wife, his former pastor, his current spiritual adviser, some of his surrogates, and some of his supporters need to get on message with what he's preaching or there wll be a landslide come November but not for Obama.

mnteng: We are on the same page pointing out the many things that are TRUE. I have been involved in politics for some 60 years and I can think of a few times where some folks were fooled for a time, by the "Far Left Wing" of the Dem party by the likes of McCarthy and Dukakis [spelling] for example, and yet cannot understand how much it has actually hurt the normal "Joe Six-Pack" folks. These "Far Left Wing" "Nuts", as I sometimes refer to them, are for the most part the "Elite" of this country that have wealth in their family going back hundreds of years, been given the best education their money can buy, by these same "Nuts" that are so prevalent in our higher education system. This does not apply to most of these folks, but for those that it does, their enormous influence cannot be denied in the "Idiot-Ology" thinking of so many.

brewstercounty, are you in Alpine, TX?

(CHEYENNE, Wyo.) -- Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a former Clinton administration appointee, announced Wednesday that he will support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Freudenthal said he was impressed by the large, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see Obama when he visited Wyoming ahead of last month's caucuses.

drip.....drip........drip..........Hillary drip......drip.....drip........

Hillary Clinton holds a nine-point lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. But it is the survey's general election numbers from three key swing states that may do more to bolster the New York senator's campaign.

In hypothetical match-ups with presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, Clinton outperformed Barack Obama in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In each of these states, Clinton is propelled by solid support among female voters, and Democrats -- particularly white Democrats -- in all three are less likely to defect to McCain with Clinton atop the Democratic ticket.

Overall, Clinton is up nine points over McCain in Ohio, while Obama runs about evenly with the Arizona senator. Clinton also has a more sizable edge in Pennsylvania and is competitive in Florida, a state where McCain is up nine points on Obama in the new poll.

Polling about November in the midst of a hotly contested primary contest is a perilous enterprise, but a Clinton campaign eager to sway superdelegates is sure to latch onto the new data. And the crosstabs do reveal some early obstacles for Obama.

About one in five Democrats in each of these three states said he or she would support McCain if Obama were the Democratic nominee; that is about double the proportion who would vote for the Republican against Clinton. And Clinton outpaces Obama among white women by double-digits in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania alike.

From the Wash Post Trail Today
Good Night to all..please try to keep all that nervous energy under wraps all you Obama supporters...

"Eight years should suffice for this task. "

That statement is about as egocentric as Obama's tenor.

"I believe Obama has begun a great unification of spirit. Sure, haters, perhaps yourself included, will lend a cynical voice to the debate, even declaring his effort a failure before it has begun, but good will prevail, don't you worry,

Here's another really outlandish statement. I didn't join the hate-wagon, and I certainly wouldn't vote for someone who organized one. That does not put me on the same caliber as someone who builds a campaign out of hate. The logic is faulty.

"Obama crushes in November, says one who's feeling like that Christian with four aces..."

This is very scary statement.

"Oh, and by the way, you're comment is not much different than, say, a bullies, who punched his teacher and stated that 'she'd failed to keep him in line,' and should be punished for as much."

This is the most twisted statement yet. Between us there's only one bully here.

Eriks you have to realize you're speaking to a broad swathe here...and honestly I identified you by your conversational style, as perhaps someone who....was or had been a member of....

Street gangs can identify through various verbalizations, for example, the "Bloods"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_signal

Blood in, Blood out..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_gang

"Blood" is often used to reference a commonality among the "brothers."

Whole election process has been unfair for Obama. If Obama were same position as Hillary democrats would have forced him quit. It is Clinton machine, their desparation, argument for new rules as the situation changes, the hangover of old whitehouse occupancy making this whole process very complecated and been dragged beyond the reason. I can see clearly it the Clinton campaign who have been source of propoganda and distraction from issue all the time. When Obama himself made such a tough journey in his life why he would not be popular among the working American. For me he is real inspirational and hope for poor, disadvantaged Americans. It must give them hope, if he can solve so many problems and still get ahead in life every american can do it themselves. He gas got more respectand hearts for blue colar workers than Hillary whether it is white or black. If people think carefuly he is a hope not only for ordinary workers every american even for rest of the world.

Leichman,

I'm relieved to hear that the culprit was a republican and not a democrat. It figures. Now if an Obama precinct cpt did that to you, you'd have a point against the Obama campaign. Barring that, your justification is weak. Do you want us to judge the Clinton campaign by the lowest character that has ever been associated with it?

The fact that nasty things happen in campaigns does not justify campaign leaders to resort to gutter politics.

As to Clinton's support on NAFTA, she supported it, as proven by her records as a first lady.

Senator Clinton will come from behind and win the nomination. She is a once in a lifetime candidate and will prove it this way. Then the white haired men's political club will have to let her in. And there will be a few whose hair will turn white overnite.

Hah. From a 60 year old man supporting Hillary.

I am generous.

I think a more likely scenario is:

State - HC/BO
PA 55-45
IN 52-48
WV 60-40
OR 45-55
SD 42-58
Guam 50-50
NC 40-60
KY 65-35
MON 42-58
PR 60-40

To get to 2024 HRC would need 75% of the remaining "automatic" delegates

Erics,

You are very generous. The Clinton campaign probably has as much justification to stay in the race as Huckabee had after Super Tuesday. If only they were as respectful of Obama as Huckabee was of McCain. There would be no problem at all with her staying on to the last state.

urban: the sign is totally irrelevant. The neighbors in my upscale neighborhood is a 35 year old pilot who is a Republican and should know better. He put his Obama sign right behind my torn up sign how childish life is too short for such nonsense. Its that behavior by SOME of his supporters that really amazes me as though that somehow would make me more inclined to support Sen Obama.

Calling Richardson a liar and Shame on You Sen Obama for dispensing flyers which incorrectly portrayed HC's position on NAFTA you call nasty. Obviously you have more than that b/c in comparison to any other Presidential campaign those comments were very very mild and polite in a campaign, respectfully.

I know the HRC supporters dislike math.

But let's play this out with a quite favorable break to HRC

State - HC/BO
PA 60-40
IN 55-45
WV 60-40
OR 45-55
SD 45-55
Guam 50-50
NC 45-55
KY 70-30
MON 45-55
PR 60-40

So has she made up the deficit? Nope. Has she halved the deficit? Not even.

All that happens she STILL needs a 67%-33% break in the remaining superdelegates.

Folks,

It doesn't matter who one Texas. Texas hasn't gone Democrat in a general election since the '60's and it's not about to go Democrat this election. It's red and it will stay red no matter who "won" the Democratic primary.

The Clinton campaign holds up Texas like it's some sort of trophy they can carry into November when no one, in their right minds, considers Texas to even be close to a "battleground" state.

What IS a battleground state? North Carolina, for one. A state that was close to going Democratic the last election and with Obama as the nominee WILL go Democratic this election.

And Ohio? Yes, another battleground state so close Kerry smelled the inaugural roses but who stands a better chance of defeating McCain there? Polls show Obama -Clinton's negatives would drive many Democratic voters to stay home and independents to vote for McCain.

So let's keep our eyes on the big ball here, shall we? The General Election; not a primary win in a state that wont go blue unless you strangle the states voters.

And let's also not lose sight of THE major reason voter turn-out for a primary has hit record highs. It's because there's somebody new saying something that resonates to a whole lot of people in a way and with a conviction and passion many who will be voting for the first time have never witnessed.

Richardson is right; it's time for a new generation. After all, the previous generations have done such a horrible job of it, it's time to move over. We'll drive now.

I say: first of all, thanks for a balanced post. I don't think you're being biased at all, and am also tired of reading the bashing such posting litanies of grievenced having nothing to do with the WaPo article.

Responding to your point: Yes, Hillary won the Texas primary by just over 100,000 votes. But, don't forget Obama won the TX million person caucus by over 10%. I don't think it's clear at all who got more of the popular vote from Texas (unless we ignore caucuses).

Posted by: mrmatttt | April 2, 2008 12:01 PM

Dumbest post of the day by a not insane person. We know that Hillary one the popular vote. Why - Because you had to vote in the primary to vote in the Caucus. The same people voting twice does not count as two voters. Hillary won by 3 percent thats it.

Ok cultist you said Obama one Texas before the vote was over. It is still not over but yes Obama is probably get the Dels. The will not have the final final count until June.

"New Blood"

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/new+blood

svreader,

you write:

"Its about a 20 year relationship.Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his 'Spritual Advisor'. It's about Obama's lies. Its about Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth."

I've quoted you accurately, but for reasons of space I condensed your material into prose. (What's with the dramatic line-ends? It doesn't make your argument more effective.)

Anyway, let's assume there was something more lame than continually again and again returning to the Rev. Wright affair, last known to be circulating endlessly in Sean Hannity's nasty corner of the Fox Newsopia in which you've clearly been trapped.

Oh, liberate yourself brother or sister.

There is nothing so surprising about someone going to a church where the minister says things that are weird or offensive. More importantly, in this country we judge people by what they themselves say and do. There's no words for the contempt I feel for those people who keep returning to this issue: you need to get over it: no one, absolutely no one, has ever claimed Senator Obama has kinds of radical views Rev. Wright (in one minute out of twenty years) expressed.

Leichtman,

I'm sorry about your yard sign. That behavior is certainly unacceptable. These youngsters (I assume they were) will need to be taught how to express political opposition with respect.

My point is though that the Clinton campaign has not shown good example of a respectful conduct. Bill Clinton is calling Richardson a liar. Hillary gives a "Shame on you" speech. Do I need to go on? This is what the young people see playing out in the TV/Youtube.

Bill Clinton said it would be nice to have two people who loved America in the race.

Here's BHO's resume:
1) stopped wearing american flag lapel pin as US Senator, stating it was 'false patriotism'
2) chooses to leave islam to worship with Rev Wright for 18 yrs, who encourages congregation to sing "g-d d-amn america'
3) Ivy league wife of ivy league senator BHO gets a $200000 raise the day he is elected to the senate as a 'community outreach' officer for a Chicago Hospital. When her hubby wins the Iowa primary, she states she is proud of America for the first time in her life.

So it appears BC was right this time. BHO is 'typical affirmative action' empty suit with a major chip on shoulder.

harry I have focussed on their differences, its called their policy positions on healthcare and the economy policies which are primary for me. Personally I wouldn't even consider a Texas state senator who has served in the US Senate for less than 3 years as anywhere near the qualifications to be Pres. Most of his elected experience as you say has been in the Illinois State Senate. Lets replace Sen Obama with your local State Senator who defeated a very weak opponent in his run for US Senate and then ran for Pres. I see his qualifications as woefully lacking but at least you can agree to disagree. You don't think being first lady to a governor and a 2 term succesful President as any big deal, that is fine. Robt Byrd has labeled HC as one of the most knowledgeable and effective US Senators. Unless I have missed something I have yet to hear that comment from any of Sen Obama's colleagues; even those who have endorsed him.
And Harry I have read both of Sen Obama's books which were impressive, read his healthcare plan and attended his early UT speech last year. Can an Obama supporter say they have done the same for HC? I just came to a different conclusion for which I have been constantly attacked here.

Yes, add Senior citizens...to Hill's list..
One more demo Obama doesn't own.

No one is talking about Iowa, Students crossing the boarder put him over the top.
You can't do that in the General Election..

lylepink:

If it sounded like I was disagreeing with you, that is not the case at all. Certainly, BHO will get a big split in delegates from CDs 1 and 2, which are heavily African-American. Not only that, due to the apportioning of delegates based on historic (D) voting, those districts will have 7 and 9 delegates, respectively, up for grabs. I just think it will be very difficult for HRC to make serious inroads on the delegate count in PA, though she should do well in the popular vote.

I'm with you on the bi-racial thing. As an Asian-American, nothing irks me more than people calling Tiger Woods an African-American -- his mom's Thai, for goodness sakes! Tiger's our boy, dang it. :)

Please note that Obama, not Clinton, actually won Texas.

Clinton supporters are trying to rewrite the rules and the definition of what exactly "win" means, but by the rules that both Obama and Clinton agreed to at the start of this contest, Obama has won.

Dr.you aren't subtle and you're also not very factual. Hillary beat Obama on every major demographic except Black Americans and men.

What's worse is his cross-over Republican votes are premised on hatred for another person. It has all gone to his head and he's now talking about creating an new electorate partially based on hatred.

While Hillary's constituents consist of working men and women, Aisian, Jew, Latino, his contains a broad swathe of hate voters crossing over to help Republicans in NOV.

Though we know hatred is powerful, that's the type of politics we should want to run from, not embrace.

Hillary only leads in one demographic: Seniors.

If they ever start to feel that Obama won't cut their social security, then she's a goner.

To: leichtman

I, for one, respect your opinion.

I disagree because I don't see Hillary's qualifications as any better. He's had about 8 years in elective office to her about 6. He's worked in the poorest parts of Chicago making a real difference instead of going for the big bucks American dream. She's basically had the pampered upper class upbringing (Wellesley, etc.) Her tea parties abroad don't really count as Presidential experience.

What really matters is what qualities the candidate brings to office, which include many more than commander-in-chief.

We can disagree on what those qualities should be and who has them. However, I strongly disagree with your "experience" argument. IMO, you should focus on what's really different and important in the persons running.

dearest tirade1,

you seem likable enough for a repulsive scammer...

you likka dis, soundbiter???

"vileness," here today, is repulsive scammer based....

it's what they do. People that don't lie for a living, think it has something to do with being a bad person...it's their lifestyle...

crab grass doen't have morals or scruples, termites and roaches are just insects that are in the wrong place...

republicans are a diseased tribe, cut them out of the herd...

banish them for a generation or two, take their money and influence away, give them resumes with the words TRAITOR marked on them, and let them hunt for work...

Jail the KAGANS, RICHARD PERLE, PAUL WOLFOWITZ, NEGROPONTE, PORTER GOSS, Douglas Feith, Dich Cheenie, Donald Dumbsfeld, James Baker III...and others...

keep AMERICAN free from DISINFORMATION...it's fraud in the real world.

during the 1972 McGovern Nixon challenge, McGovern was considered the stronger challenger

and so the repulisive scammers used character assassination to defeat McGovern, much as you see Hillary being attacked now... with the same illogic, spin and innuendo...

Hubert Humphrey was put forward as "the more reasonable," what they really meant was Hubert was the "more defeatable,"

Obama _i_s_ the weaker candidate.

SEARCH on 1972 KARL ROVE, McGovern.

Plus for every degree of anger between people voting for either Hillary or Obama the repulsive scammers can count on a swing vote or a non vote if their candidate doesn't get nominated.

I would say that about 40 PERCENT of the VILENESS and INNUENDO from posters here is repulsive scammer based.

I recognize a lot of the posters as being repulsive scammers, you can tell from their mode of attack....

it's usually spin and "appeal to emotion," very little logic

just name calling and playground tactics...slime, innuendo, impugning character,

EXAMPLES: purple lips, ankleless Annie

that kind of thing.

it's what they do. They have been doing it here at the Washington Post, for the last 4 years....same tactics, different purpose...they defended bush with these tactics...

called people, liberals, unpatriotic, homosexuah lovahs, negrah lovahs, injun lovahs, laboruhs, wimmens libbuhs, yankee doodle dandees 'en sech...

_they_ defended bush with these tactics...
as bushCO and CRONY _supporters_

just because george w. is going doesn't mean bushCO and CRONYs disappears....or loses any money...

wake up little hosers !!!!

"leichtman: I was there you were not: Well I am here and Texas is Obama country and you know it."

excuse me I am a native Texan and UT graduate and was Harris Cty pct secy, so who the heck do you think you are? Fine Obama wins 47% of Texas voters and we are Obama country and Obama will win Pa. Day is night, night is day, with Obamaspeak, whatever makes you guys happy; you are likely GenY so you must be right no one knows anything but you.

the bama don't know about the past...

that's too much work,

he doing the Pee Wee

thas all he know

.

UGH. Pinning this election on the blue collar/working class voter makes me sick. When Hillary wins PA, guess who Obama supporters are going to blame?

The working class.

When McCain wins in November, guess who is going to be blamed?

The working class voters of PA and Ohio for voting for Hillary and not "electable" Obama.

Thanks WaPo and other pundits. As if the working class doesn't crapped on enough by the upper classes, now we're going to shoulder the blame for the 2008 election.

Taylor the Texan: You guys are so sad to be democrat down there. When was the last time a democrat won GE in Texas?

Please do not type when asleep and move north to be happier!

I think for a black man with republican backing

Obama is doing okay.

I don't think he would be a contestant if it weren't for the fact that

people are so easily confused...

80 PERCENT of the servicemen and women in IRAQ that were interviewed by the Wall Street Journal a year after the invasion of IRAQ

believed that IRAQ had blown up the WTC....

sound bite linking,

Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others saying the words...

Iraq, WTC, terrorists....as a word group created the illusion that the IRAQI's were

terrorists...

you gomers are falling for it about "the Clintons,"

how's your country doing ???

Greenspan called Bill Clinton the best President that the ECONOMY HAD EVER SEEN...

but you short attention spanned, soundbiters

who are so easily led,

you, are going to institute change ????

I think the change you need ot have occur is the abiltiy to tell the difference between schiess and shinola

'cause right now, you're schiess
walking 'n talking schiess too...

.
.

let's put things in perspective here...

war fraud,

COMMONLY known as an OCCUPATION....by anyone that knows enough to unzip before they try to take a leak....supposing that the ladies are wearing pants too....

$720 MILLION A DAY....to war profiteers.

but that's "the past," it doesn't matter...

nor does the bush family history since the late 1800's of war profiteering and nation breaking or collusion with the nazis...

SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY, NAZIS, Dulles, Prescott Bush

SEARCH on Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Kagans, PNAC, JINSA

get to know your right wing conservatives.

.

ruleitang wrote, "all those Obama support is just college kids, very naive."

That is a moronic and "hillarious" statement. Look at the polls and the votes cast so far: Obama beat Hillary among every category except older men and women and blue collar workers. That leaves out lot more kinds of people than just college kids.

You may want to concentrate on saving Hillary from all the imaginary sniper fire she faces during her trips abroad. It's too late to save her from defeat here in USA.

Irish for O'bama! Obama-Pelosi-'08!

One of two things is likely to happen from now until June 3. A third thing is unlikely to happen. The three scenarios in order of probability are as follows.

Scenario 1: HRC & BHO split the remaining contests roughly evenly. Obama then just get about 60 of the today's remaining 300+ superdelegates to win. Sounds rather easy.

Scenario 2: BHO comes close to a win in PA (or wins -- unlikely but possible). Due to momentum change, he rolls up larger than expected victories in remaining contests and gets 55% or remaining pledged delegates. He then has (or nearly has) the nomination.

Scenario 3: Something happens that makes Obama appear to be totally unelectable. Hillary gets overwhelming victories in the contests that are left, and lots of superdelegates come to and switch to her. Of course, such an event is about a probable as a tsunami in Kansas but not completely impossible.

Given the amount of time that the Clinton campaign and all of the Clintonistas out there have been digging for dirt on Obama, I really doubt that this scenario will come from the Clinton campaign. Obama will have to provide it. What are the odds of that?

Actually a 10% spread in Pa would mean that Clinton support had deteriorated from Ohio.

Since PA is a registered democrats only primary the oranges to oranges comparison is her support among registered democrats in OH, which was about 14% according to exit polls.

So the proper number to compare her performance in PA to OH is a 14 point spread.

leichtman: I was there you were not: Well I am here and Texas is Obama country and you know it. I was born and raised in Texas and Texans will never let one ethnic group claim superiority in this race,i.e., Hillary's race-baiting with the Hispanics over Blacks. And what makes you think White people in Texas will sell their souls to say Hispanics in Texas or anywhere else should be the deciding factor in who is our next President. The mixture of Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, old, young, poor and rich will deliver Texas in the General Election for Obama. Stop the madness and "silly-season" in your quest to be "right". Trying to change the rules, will not work now just like it didn't work in Texas. Obama Won Texas! And PA will not be sweet either for Hillary because "white, blue collar workers" should be offended and tired of being labeled as the no-thinking, underclass that has to be led around by Clintonites.

The new polling data will be a call to arms for all Clinton supporters and all those who do not want Rezkos to run the country.

Obama support is just too childish, Obama is just a cheer leader type, you feel good at the moment, then when you goes back, what he really means, you just do not recall.

change, change what, can some Obama support tell me? what his proposal different?

Everytime I hear an Obama supporter talk about how "he takes the high road" it makes me want to vomit.

Obama's run a very dirty campaign.

Here's a time-line of some of his attacks.

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

mnteng: I am in WV, and you in Pa. confirms my assertions about how the Delegates are apportioned. Philadelphia would appear to be the strongest for Obama, based on the high amount of Black voters there as to the rest of the state. My thoughts are pretty well spelled out in my Post you refererence. This again confirms my thoughts about the Black vote going about 90% to Obama simply because of his claiming to be Black, when in FACT he is Bi-Racial. Someone mentioned the district that was represented by Congresswoman Tubbs, a Hillary supporter, went something like 90% of Black votes for Obama, as is being reported all over the country. This is something that will effect the vote in Nov. should Obama be the nominee, and IMHO, will almost surely guarantee McCain a victory in the GE. I can see no way {ZERO] Obama can win in 08.

I didn't think Eriks was using the term to mean Clinton representing the old Washington politics, because in fact, as has been stated a zillion times by the press, at least they acknowledge that, in fact many of their policies are the same.

So, what's old? Therefore, I thought he might be referring to something else. He's not talking about political tactics, I think the Obama camp has been equal to the task of old style dirty politiking....

all those Obama support is just college kids, very naive

they do not understand, you need to be practical.

all those wins in small states in useless

coming November, general election, winner take all!!!

if Mac win Penn, Ohio, and Florida, there will be nothing can change the outcome.

South Dakota, come on, is there any chance, Demo can win that state?

Obama will be doomed, and those college kids will be heart broken again

New rule in journalism: You need to be able to count and read the newspaper you work for.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/delegates/d/

Hillary won Texas Primary
Obama won Texas Caucuses

Obama wins overall in Texas NOT Hillary.

urban4 --

Don't count your chickens before they come home to roost.

Barry Obama's unelectable.

The longer the race goes, the more people find out what kind of a guy he really is, and the less they'll want to vote for him.

His Teflon is turning to rust.

On the other hand, Penn and Co would benefit if Clinton won the nomination. He'll be able to dispense his customary brilliant advice throughout the general election.

urbn I have had my HC signs on my front yard torn up and seen HC caucus goers spit on, childish behavior beyond the pale. I don't hold that against Sen Obama, I just find many of his supporters to be immature. I respect Sen. Obama and personally will never speak ill of him even though I do not want him as my president because I disagree with his policy positions and find him woefully unqualified. I have posted that before and had those comments tarred as hateful; who cares.

If Bill Rchardson, my initial selction before John Edwards told Bill Clinton he would stand on the sidelines, then he lied to the president and Carvell was asbolutely correct in what he said. Harold Ickes told superdelegates that they should consider Sen Obama's allegiance to Rev Wright and how that would effect Sen Obama in a general election. Is that too impermissable; do you think the 527s will listen to you when they use it in a general election?
Just don't see my comments why I oppose Sen Obama nor Carvell's as hate speech which you characterize it as.

I have struggled to be even handed here but that doesn't mean that I should quietly accept personal insults or attacks when I stand up for my candidate or correct incorrect misinformation by your supporters. We are all not minions here. The election is not supposed to be about me or you, but who is best qualified to clean up 7 years of the Bush mess. I disagree but respect your choice, I doubt there is an Obama supporter here that would say that to me b/c they are convinced that anyone who does not agree with them "should just leave the party, don't let the door hit you" I believe was the comment. Do you approve of those comments or think it is in your candidate's best political interest?

PERSONALLY I HAVE BEEN SO DISGUSTED WITH O'S HIDING BEHIND RACE THAT I'VE BEEN OVER HIM FOR AWHILE. AS A GAY MAN THERE IS NO WAY I CAN HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE FOR HIM IN THE GENERAL. HE HASN'T EVEN BOTHERED TO DENOUNCE THIS GUY OPENLY AND FORCEFULLY. AND HE WON'T BECAUSE MOST BLACKS FEEL THE SAME WAY AS MEEKS (I'M BLACK AND GAY SO DON'T START.).WHERE IS THE MEDIA OUTRAGE? WHEN MORE GAYS REALIZE WHAT'S UP ALOT OF THAT GAY MONEY IS GOING TO DRY UP. AND WHY IS IT THAT NO MATTER WHAT HRC DOES THE GOALPOSTS JUST KEEP MOVING. THE O'S ALWAYS SAY THAT'S WHAT HRC DOES BUT I'M SEEING IT JUST AS MUCH IF NOT MORE ON THE O/MEDIA SIDE. SHE COULD WIN 80% IN PA AND THE MEDIA WOULD SAY THAT WAS ALWAYS HERS TO LOSE. IF O LOSES BY 15% THE MEDIA WILL SAY HE REALLY CLOSED THE GAP SO IT'S A VICTORY. WEIRD.

margaret-wooten writes
"Keeping alive the myth that white blue collar voters won't vote for a black guy"

That was the word in WI & Hillary DOMINATED there. She held Obama to only a 17 point margin of victory. That was her best state in the 11 game losing streak.

Lisa, this seems a plausible theory, but I don't think it is true. She has about $30 M set aside for the general election. If she suspends her campaign, she'll be able to use those funds to cover debts from the primary.

My theory is that Clinton has developed a clientele that has waited for 8 years to grab power and start milking it. Now the dream is slipping away.

democratic is just not very smart

why they not use the general election formula to choose a candidate, all those rules is just silly

like Clinton win in Texas, Obama ahead with delegate

does they understand, eventually the guy in the white house, need to go through the general election process

Winner take all of the delegate, otherwise all those big swing states will seal the fate

Democratic is just not think straight sometimes, I like Clinton, but seems I need to support Mac now

She did not win Texas... And you should be providing this info, not your readers... You work for the Washington Post, shouldn't you at least try to look up to date or something?

You may want to check the available, public information:
http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5484

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/30/at_last_a_caucus_result_of_sor.html

Is that large Limbaugh Republican crossover vote for Hillary being counted in her Texas and Ohio popular vote victories?

Why is the New Hampshire victory stated as a big win? Wasn't it about 4%?

Encouraging Hillary to stretch this out till we all snap?

Keeping alive the myth that white blue collar voters won't vote for a black guy, no matter how competent, smart and invested in the working man's plight he is?

Obama will win in Penn. Watch.

Already been posted, but apparently can't be said enough -- Clinton DIDN'T win in Texas. Jeez ... but I love the raised expectations Mrs. Clinton has created for PA -- as Sen. Obama has closed (one poll has him 2 pts up, another just 5 pts. behind) her "need" to have a blowout may help to put this race to bed.

Hillary won Texas?

Who won more delegates?

It's delegate count that determines WIN. Not wordplay. Or wishful thinking.

Thanks much. HLB, Mt. Lebanon PA

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M-kD0QdRJk

Clinton's handlers are saying that she still can win for one reason: if she were to admit defeat and drop out of the race, they don't get paid. Clinton's campaign is deeply in debt. She owns Mark Penn over $2 million and herself $5 million. If she drops out of the race, she won't be able to raise any more money and Penn and Co. will not get paid. I think that is what is going on here. She certainly isn't using the money she is raising to buy television ads. Obama is outspending her 5 to 1. She is using the money she is raising to pay off debt she racked up before Super Tuesday. This race is over and the Clinton's are too smart not to recognize it. They just do not want to walk away carrying a bunch of debt.

Here are the latest poll results.

The bottom line is that despite all his supporters bragging and gloating, Obama can't win nationally.

He's lost the votes of "Typical White People" and he's not going to get them back.

Obama supporters want everyone to believe that nobody cares that he went to a racist anti-semitic church for 20 years and chose the guy who gave the "God damm America" speech as his "spiritual advisor"

The're wrong.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton holds a 9-point lead over rival Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters ahead of the state's April 22 primary, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.

Clinton, a New York senator who would be the first female president, leads the Illinois senator 50 percent to 41 percent, the poll found. She also runs better against the likely Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio -- all important swing states in the general election.

In a general election matchup in Florida, McCain closely trails Clinton 42 percent to 44 percent but McCain leads Obama, who would be the first black president, 46 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll.

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In Ohio, Clinton has a 48 to 39 percent lead over McCain after months of too-close-to-call results, the poll found. In an Obama-McCain matchup, Obama gets 43 percent against 42 percent for McCain.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton tops McCain 48 to 40 percent and Obama leads the Arizona senator 43 percent to 39 percent.

Among Pennsylvania Democrats, Clinton leads 54 to 37 percent with women and ties Obama with men at 46 percent support.

The primary vote between Clinton and Obama splits sharply along racial lines.

Clinton leads 59 to 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters while Obama leads 73 to 11 percent among black Democrats, the poll found.

Roughly 44 percent of people in all three states said the economy was the most important issue in their vote, while about a quarter of respondents said the war in Iraq is most important.

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."

The poll was conducted March 24 through 31. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,135 Florida voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percent; 1,238 Ohio voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent; 3,484 Pennsylvania voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.7 percent including 1,549 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

Perception vs. Reality - looking back on the first 4 states, the perception is that Clinton won NH and NV and Obama won IA and SC. Yet here is the current delegate count from those states:

IA - Obama 25 Clinton 14
NH - Obama 9 Clinton 9
NV - Obama 13 Clinton 12
SC - Obama 25 Clinton 12

That's 72 to 47 overall. Very interesting.

Let's face it: Hillary should just drop out. She is stubbornly refusing to face reality, that being the fact that she has no way of winning the nomination short of unjustly flipping the supers and alienating voters in November. Do the math. She can't win. With the exception of her loyal, fanatic cadre of supporters, most people now accept the conventional wisdom that Obama is the nominee.

Chris, two things:

1) Up until the 11th hour, Clinton was being predicted for a big win in Texas, and in the end just barely pulled in a popular-vote majority.
2) Clinton did not "win" Texas. Obama won Texas. Like other posters here, I really wish you press folks would take note of that fact.

@leichtman

You look at the speck in your brother's eye but do not notice the log in your eye.

Before charge erics with cynicism, you may need to attend to the Clinton camp first. Do you think that public comments by Ickes and Carville, svreader and iowatreasures are particularly endearing to Obama supporters?? I don't think so.

If you want to raise the political discourse out of the gutter start with your own team.

I don't think the margin of victory in the Pennsylvania primary matters at all. In the general election, a one-point margin delivers ALL the state's electoral votes to the winning candidate. With a primary victory in the Keystone State after her victory in Ohio, Clinton can argue that she is the better candidate to win in November. The Democrats barely won Pennsylvania in 2004 and lost Ohio. If they don't take both states in 2008, they could very well lose the general election. Can Obama win both against McCain? Probably not. A Clinton victory, even a narrow one, in the Pennsylvania primary will underscore this with the super delegates, who will be the ones to choose the Democratic nominee. I'm an Obama supporter, but I think his goose is cooked because he hasn't shown the ability to win the swing states the Democrats need to win in November.

vammap, have you seriously never heard the expression "new blood"? It's a pretty standard term, meaning new people. Unlike your use of "blood" to mean "Black American", which is hardly a common usage.

Chris how long are you going to continue to trot out the lie that Clinton won Texas? She did not. Let's not swallow the Clinton talking points hook line and sinker this time.

Eriks

You said it's time for "new blood."
Telling me it was an "idiom" didn't answer the question. You used blood figuratively to mean......?
If you intended to use the word Blood as it's ofen used to define brothers, "the blood" or "Black Americans," than why didn't you just say that?
Isn't that what you meant by "new blood?"

Certainly any figurative references would do more to confuse and distract from what you really intended to say.

One assumes since you used it as an "idiom" that you did not just mean, ie. someone new other than, etc. etc.

"She utterly dominated in Arkansas. I want to say 69 - 28 or therabouts."

I stand corrected. Wapost reports 70-26.

"If Hillary wins Pennsylvania, after all the sniping from the establishment press, Obama ought to seriously consider resigning."

I thought it was the Bosnians who were sniping. Now its the press? Perhaps they're all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

"Hillary hasn't won 60% of the vote in ANY state, including her home turf NY."

Not true. She utterly dominated in Arkansas. I want to say 69 - 28 or therabouts.

You want hubris? You want arrogance?

"It will be over by supertuesday"

-Patti Solis Doyle 2007

We're cocky because we won.

The only people who believe this spin are the Obama supporters. They must be ready to surrender Pennsylvania to the Hillary forces if they are already coming up with excuses. If Hillary wins Pennsylvania, after all the sniping from the establishment press, Obama ought to seriously consider resigning.

ddipaula writes
"It is absolutely stupid to assume that if Obama or Clinton bests the other in some state's democratic primary, that that would indicate anything at all about whether they would win or lose the same state against McCain in the general election."


Stupid is as stupid does.

.

Cilliza, like other pundits who favor Hillary ignore the big wins with working class white voters that Obama has had in many states . Yes, Ohio Hillary won. But Texas? She started with a huge lead there and ended up winning the popular vote by a very small margin; Obama won the caucus and will end up with more Texas delegates. So let's stop talking about Hillary's big win in Texas. Hillary hasn't won 60% of the vote in ANY state, including her home turf NY. She can't win the nomination and it's sheer stubborness and denial of the facts on her part and her rabid supporters to insist otherwise.

@vammap To the contrary, I'm quite happy about it and looking forward to the race in the fall.

I find it amusing that HRC supporters have such trouble with math and reality.

GET A CLUE CILIZZA!!
Clinton LOST Texas. Obama won 5 more delegates than Hillary there.
Your anti Obama stance is much too obvious.

" We no longer worry much about HRC"

nor do you care much about the 13 million HC supporters which you show such scorn for. Must be nice to be so arrogant.

Wyoming Governor Back Obama

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, a former Clinton administration appointee, announced Wednesday that he will support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Freudenthal said he was impressed by the large, enthusiastic crowds that turned out to see Obama when he visited Wyoming ahead of last month's caucuses.

drip...drip....drip.......Hillary

Obama is ahead in both pledged delegates and superdelegates. It is very likely that the majority of superdelegates will see that Obama and Clinton are not really very different from each other in their positions (there are differences, but they are minor in comparison of either to McCain), and that either would make a fine President. There won't be an 'obvious' choice between the two of them.

Therefore, the superdelegates will mostly not agonize of the decision. They can go with the flow, and simply follow the pledged delegates. This clearly leads to Obama winning the nomination, because Clinton cannot catch up to his lead in the states remaining. Or, they could vote according to whom they think has a more secure path to the White House against McCain in the general election. Both national and state-by-state polls support Obama having the greater advantage in the general election.

It is absolutely stupid to assume that if Obama or Clinton bests the other in some state's democratic primary, that that would indicate anything at all about whether they would win or lose the same state against McCain in the general election. The Democratic primary turnout has consistently been MUCH higher than the Republican turnout, even before McCain was the presumptive nominee, and most of those voters will also vote for their party's nominee in the general, no matter whether it was their first choice candidate or not.

McCain will still take the really red states, either Clinton or Obama will still take the really blue states. The question is who can do better in the general election in the contested swing states.

With Bush's approval rating at 30%, I think McCain promising four more years of the same is a lost cause nationally. But of the two Democrats, I think Obama has the stronger advantage, both in the primaries and over McCain in the general election.

The more interesting question is how many seats the Democrats gain in each house of Congress. If the Democrats hold on to their 12 incumbent seats (very likely), they would only need to take 5 of the 23 Republican incumbent seats to gain a filibuster-proof cloture majority (3/5 of entire Senate). Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, and Minnesota would do it. And I think Obama has longer coattails in those states than Clinton has, too.

Eriks pretty fascinating; you're winning, according to you and you don't seem very happy about it? Instead you're about as angry and vindictative as Wright, Farrakan, Michelle Obama...

"Hear that HC supporters, this is our opponent's message."

The problem is you think Obama (or whoever stands in front of HRC's entitlement) is the opponent.

Obama supporters know McCain is the opponent. We no longer worry much about HRC. We're merely amused by those who did so poorly in math class.

@cate58

Take a look at this link. In summarizes Obama's senate record nicely.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true

"I am not yet convinced that he would be a better nominee or president than dull, boring, wonky Hillary"

What's the record for dull, boring, wonky Dems when compared to charismatic, inspiring, uplifting, change-the-politics Dems?

Dull, wonky, boring:
Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale

charismatic, inspiring:
Clinton (Bill)

@cate58 wrote"Note: I have been to an Obama rally and like millions of American found it to be an exhilirating and uplifting experience, one I recounted with enthusiasm to friends and family alike. However, I am not yet convinced that he would be a better nominee or president than dull, boring, wonky Hillary"

Leaders can hire wonks.

Wonks can't hire leaders.

I understand that both sides, Hillary's and Obama's, feel passionately about this campaign.

But...

Consider what a McCain victory means. What it means for Iraq. For the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. For Supreme Court appointments.

Just remember to close ranks when the Nominee is finally chosen.

Our country cannot withstand 4 more years of Dubya's policies. And with a McCain Administration, that is exactly what we'll get.

congrats erics, I will post that message by my Nov ballot and forward that post to the Obama state campaign heaqdqtrs. They should be proud to have such wonderful and helpful suporters like you, really proud.

"Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out."

Hear that HC supporters, this is our opponent's message.

I used to like Clinton, but I soured on her mostly because of the sleazy people around her. Then i thought they had a real chance at locking up superdelegates, and I threatened to 'sit this one out'. But let's face it, McCain, for all of his talk of being independently minded, WILL move the court to the right, WILL support an overturning of Roe V Wade, WILL stay in IRAQ for his term, regardless of what anybody thinks ala GWB, WILL support and extedn the bush Tax cuts, and DOES NOT know a thing the economy or the financial cost of the war. Witbh all of this, if we sit this one out, we are a real ace, spelled with two 's'es. Nodoby's going anywhere except to the polls, which i am sure you will protest, but November will look a lot different if the race is remotely close

I think most disconcerting for Senator Obama is how much he outspent Senator Clinton in both Ohio and Texas, but he was not able to close the gap. In every other state he has closed when introduced to the voters, not so in these all important states. If he can close the gap in Pennsylvania and get some good exit poll results, he really demolishes Hillary's electoral college argument, which is her most effective argument to date. I would be interested to see spending figures on Pennsylvania. I think closing the gap is a wise investment for the Obama camp, and its not like he has anything else to do at the moment.

This report like so many are incorrect. HRC lost TEXAS!

northwest Houston mark is I-10 Katy, the most Republican section of Houston and one of the most Rep areas in the country.

Northwest Austin is NW Hills and parts of Lakeway I believe that are the most affluents portions of Austin and Houston I believe marc. Besides the Hispanic voters I sincerely believe that Dems at least I know for certain need to make inroads in the more rural parts of Texas and like I posted earlier about how Ted Strickland won in Ohio.
If Doherty's district includes NW, I-10 here in Houston that is problematic with either Obama or HC and can only succeed if the R's are disallusioned with McCain b/c he doesn't fit their cultural conservative base. Actually HC is seen as more moderate marc by the truly affluent's investor class, but Obama is more popular with those same higher income voters you site with college and post graduate degrees. But I expect your guy Doughtery to be swamped in NW Houston by Rs, that area is super conservative marc.

@vammap

It's an idiom.

A question for the many Obama supporters who regularly post on this blog --

I am interested in knowing what Obama has accomplished in his 2+ years in the Senate - as well as his terms in the Illinois state legislature - that demonstrate his ability to affect change, bring hope and unify opposing parties. There are many people obviously captivated by his rhetorical gifts and his call for unity and his claim that he is an agent of change who will bring about a new way of doing things in Washington. It certainly is a refreshing and exciting claim - who wouldn't want our elected officials to actually do things for the people versus acting like, well partisan politicians.

I'd like 3 or 4 examples of legislation that he has written / sponsored / helped pass - with the help of Republicans - concrete examples that demonstrate 'unity' and 'change' and 'hope' and were directed at very important issues impacting millions of Americans.

Many posters are quick to denigrate Hillary's record but I would like to know what exactly Obama has done in 2+ years in the Senate that illustrates his ability as a once-in-a-lifetime agent of change.

[Note: I have been to an Obama rally and like millions of American found it to be an exhilirating and uplifting experience, one I recounted with enthusiasm to friends and family alike. However, I am not yet convinced that he would be a better nominee or president than dull, boring, wonky Hillary.)

Chris,

This is ridiculous. CLINTON LOST. Pennsylvania doesn't matter either way, unless she contrived to take 100%.

Do the math. Clinton lost, Obama won. She would have to take over 65% of every remaining contest in order to win. You might as well be giving us your 2 cents about Mike Gravel's odds. The idea that a super majority of super delegates will give her a coup is about as likely as them giving you or I the nomination. Stop pretending that there is a horse race here when it doesn't exist any more.

Eriks exactly what blood are you speaking of?

@leichtman "I know after today's post that there is absolutely no way I will ever have anything to do with your candidate or campaign"

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. The democratic party has been mismanaged since the 1970s (which is why it took Ross Perot for us the win the presidency).

It's time for new blood.

Please spare me the comeback by Clinton in NH. NH was to Clinton as South Carolina was to Obama. She should have won huge. As it was they split the delegates 9 to 9, and she won by two measley % points. Do not give Clinton a great comeback in NH, on the contrary it was an Obama turning point. Besides who wants to look at a president, the colorful Clinton, who looks more like some kid auditioning for a school play on fruit and vegetables, banana(yellow), apple(red), eggplant(purple) and so on....

It is this cynicism by you and ericks and add to that MANY others WHO will drive folks like me,dickweek,vammap,patrick and svreader to simply sit out the Presidential campaign

Ditto!

Whining about the form of the elections is a nonstarter. Each states pick their rules, and those are the rules. Maybe the goal posts should be moved to help your field goal kicker, but both teams take the same field, at the same time. Play within the lines to win.

If they apportion by population, then delegates are awarded by people living in a county. Nobody can control who or how many people actually show up to vote, but the majority carries the county, and when you add up the votes yes, you can win more votes but receive less delegates. It may be unfair, or it may actually be more fair if you consider tensions between rural and metro areas. In any case, it is up to the states to decide, just like caucuses.This is as fair as it can get here on earth. If it doesn't suit your candidate, 'thems the breaks...'

no wonder reasonable folks like dickweed are staying away from this site. Attack atack atack, insult, misrep.

jnoel said:

Leichtman, I find it funny you were there. You demonstrate the exact kind of misunderstanding of Texas Primary rules which probably contributed to Hillary losing the Texas primary.

You don't defend your logic, nor refute mine. You just keep blathering on about popular vote, communist caucuses, young people assaulting the elderly (most of which is totally absurd). So, I am glad that we are in agreement; I was correct and "your logic" (if you can call it that) was misguided.
Glad you finally comprehend.

Communiost causes? exactly when did I say that? What I did say was that the next speaker of the Texas House Silvester Turner an Obama delegate said our system was unfair and he will end it.

Assaulting the elderly? again jonel where are you getting this from. My mom is 92 and lives in a nursing home and could not attend the caucus, i am sure you find that fair.

The spitting on HC caucus goers and receiving robo calls with minisnformation about our Texas caucus was a channel 11 storry with a recording of that bogus robo call. fair I am sure your side is quite comfortable with those tactics I found them to be disgusting.

You find it was funny that I was there and interviewed hispanic voters in south houston who were intimidated by Obama supporters on primary day. You seem to find a lot of these tactics as homorous and reason to insult those of us who have honorably worked in the political system.

It is this cynicism by you and ericks that will drive folks like me,dickweek,vannamp,patrick and svreader to simply sit out the Presidential campaign

I have worked in democratic politics since 1972 and have honestly never seen or experienced the level of nastiness or vitriol from a Democratic opponent's campaign that I have read here. If you Obama supporters somehow think that your insults and mischaricaterizations of HC supporters is helping your cause you are flat wrong.

The arrogant message I am correct you are not reflects the very dangerous element of your campaign and your supporters. Good Luck with that b/c I know after today's post that there is absolutely no way I will ever have anything to do with your candidate or campaign.

"Alaska is bigger."

Clinton lost Alaska 75-25.

dickweed, leichtman, bobby, Stonecreek, Texans,

I have a question for all of you about the down ticket. Let me say that I live in a congressional district with a R Congressman who can be beaten by the D nominee, Doherty.

I am thinking that the biggest pop centers in his district, north Austin and northwest Houston, were BHO country, while the places in between, like Giddings, were for HRC.

Can we try to get a feel for who gets helped by the top of the ticket by where the candidates did well? In other words, does the down ticket in metro Austin, Metro Houston, Metro Dallas, and Metro Fort Worth get more help from BHO while the down ticket in the LRGV and El Paso and San Antonio and Corpus gets more help from HRC?

Do y'all have any feel for this beyond your own personal preferences? Bobby, I know you were disgusted with BHO but I thiink you were also not high on HRC. Still you are the only Valley resident on the blog. So help.

And do we think Col. Rick has a shot under any circumstance?

"Well, the biggest state is Texas, and she didn't win that."

Alaska is bigger.

@JoseyJ You're crying over spilt milk. The time to challenge the structure of the election was last year.

But last year (before anyone voted) Hillary was inevitable. Pesky voters messed the inevitability strategy though.

ericks - there is no "will of the voters" since the caucuses are very undemocratic and DISenfranchise voters!

btw - there are no caucuses in the general for Obamabots to bully participants and interfere with the process.

However, caucuses are not designed for the masses. That's why Puerto Rico just changed their caucus to a primary - to accommodate the expected huge turnout.

@JoseyJ Then it's too bad she screwed up her campaign strategy and can't win this.

So Hillbilly is winning the big states, really? Well, the biggest state is Texas, and she didn't win that. -- I think the difference between the two candidates is obvious. Hillary is fighting desperately for her survival, while Obama is cracking jokes and having a good time. Obama has a great sense of humor while Hillary has absolutely none (Bill had humor, but not poor Hillary). Bush and McCain have a sense of humor, too, but not Hillary. I could never vote for a person who has no sense of humor.

ericks - many young Obama supporters benefitted from their parents' prosperity during the 90s.

Obama always releases his Economic policies AFTER Hillary.

Obama = "what she said"

Correct, pledged delegates alone do not mean a nomination. There are 795 superdelegates, 470 of whom have endorsed a candidate. (According to RealClearPolitics.com; it might be a little out of date.) That means that there are 325 unpledged superdelegates.

Hillary has 1502 delegates, counting superdelegates. She needs 522 more to make 2024. There are 325 superdelegates and 566 regular delegates, a total of 891. So Hillary needs to get 58.5% of all remaining delegates, pledged and super, to win the nomination. According to current polling, she's not likely to get even that percent of delegates in Pennsylvania, much less the rest of the primaries and the superdelegates.

Do you get it now? Or do I have to keep mathematically proving how wrong you are?

lylepink writes:

The most Delegates can be won by the loser in popular votes. This could actually happen in Pa. if my quick look at where the votes are for Obama, according to reports, are located.
Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2008 04:16 PM

If I remember correctly, that's what happened in NV: HRC won the popular, BHO got more delegates.

Here in PA, it's not only where BHO's votes are, but HRC has the problem that her strong districts have 5 delegates -- meaning that she'll have to get >70% of the vote in that district to get a 4-1 split. Anything less (like 69%) and the district goes 3-2.

Yes, Obama did win more delegates in Texas, even though Clinton won 100,000's more votes! Sound fair? No!
And the caucuses were a joke at best and unconstitutional at worst! they were so confrontational it was scary. Certainly not the way we are suppose to vote in America. If this had been Obama's loss under the same conditions, lawsuits would be flying in every circuit court and we would have marches all over the state to the Whitehouse! If I were an Obama supporter, I would not be bragging about this Texas win. No, I certainly would not.

Chris, another good article.

however, I have found it curious how newscasters in the industry keep referring to Clinton as winning both Nevada and Texas. Popular vote is nice, and primary vs caucus matters, but this is a race for delegates, period. Therefore, the 'winner' of a state is the person who wins the most delegates. Clinton had won Texas, until yesterday. Now, Obama has clearly won Texas, as he has been allotted more Texas delegates than Clinton. Same for Nevada.

Winning Texas literally saved Clinton's Candidacy. The fact that she has now lost it won't matter too much, but reporters need to both explain this important development, and then refer to the facts as they are, not as Wolfson interprets them. Accuracy helps keep tempers from flaring. The Wolfson narrative that somehow Obama is disenfranchising voters in MI and Floridarather than the DNC is disingenuous, and dangerous. Clinton voters need to see accuracy to understand the legitimacy of the outcome, and accept the will of the voters without feeling that it was wrapped up in shenanigans. Accurate reporting is where it all starts...

PS Clinton for VP! Even though it is not a great fit, and lacks strategic strength, McCain is the worst candidate of all time b/c of supporting the war and the Bush Tax Cuts. Clinton has raised more money than any other candidate in history (except Obama) and her supporters are justifiably passionate. Let's join these two groups of fanatics for one big 'snowball' of change comin' down the mountain! This is clearly what would be best for the party.

Hillary must win by big margins, yes, yes, we've heard that before. When? Oh, two weeks before Texas and Ohio. What happened? Hillary won, but not by the 15-25% margins needed to become a contender again. So sure, in 19 days she needs to win big... When the day arrives and Hillary wins by 4 points, she will claim an enormous prize, claim that the people have spoken, and that America needs Hillary to save us from the un-electability of Obama. Never mind that Obama actually WON Texas (seeing as how delegates are really what count)--that's old news now. The fact is, there is no mystery in who will win. The mathematical odds are virtually insurmountable. Obama will win. He already has, PA notwithstanding.

25% of Obama's Texas voters didn't vote the rest of the Dem ticket!

Most likely these are Obama's "Dems for a day" that he's been promoting from the gitgo.

Obama even assures them they can switch back before Nov. and vote for McCain!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jacksonvilleforobama/CrsJ

@leichtman

Math is hard for you I know.

If HRC is behind in pledged delegates and popular vote do you really think the supers will save her?

Perhaps being bad at math is why her campaign is always broke. She's supposed to bail out our economy and she can't even run a $200 million primary campaign?

"That's why they want to run against him!"

So that's why Limbaugh is telling republicans to vote for Hillary?

OK. Sure.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is never having to say you're sorry.

get it? pledged delegates alone do not mean a nomination. Get it! Its the total of 2024 delegates. Get It, idiot.

The GOP will slaughter Obama. That's why they want to run against him!

Wright
Farrakhan
Jones
Rezko
Lying to get the Kennedy endorsement
Oil company CEOs bundling for him

...for starters

For the record, Obama won Texas. Saying Clinton pulled a rabbit out of her hat when she was leading in Texas by double digits up until the last week of the Texas primary campaign doesn't make any sense, unless Cillizza doesn't understand the expression.

To Christian_in_NYC: Not to give offense but don't you think the political process - the rules agreed upon at the beginning of the primaries - should be allowed to run their course? It's not over until the delegates vote at the convention. Why shouldn't Clinton be persistent? And how do we know what comes next from Obama and his current or former advisors?

Hillary will win Pennsylvania and Indiana, and Obamedia will talk about nothing but North Carolina.

dickweed said: "My apologies for the long rant,"
it wasn't a rant it was your honest frustrated UT feeling, you are not alone. I have been here for 3 weeks and heard more vitriol then you would believe except for mark in austin. HC supporters have repeatedly been told that if you don't get in line just leave the party. Right we are told that 13 million HC supporters should just leave the party and the Obama supporters don't understand how that message destroys the democratic party.

I hope you will join my effort to end the Texas 2 step so that candidate that wins 110,000 more votes is not told she lost.