lylepink: McCain is anti choice, that is the whole ball of wax in Ca which would make McCain totally uncompetitive there. His immigration bill which I fundamentally agreed with, was universally dispised in the San Diego, Del Mar region of Ca that McCain would have to carry decisively to have a prayer in Ca. Immigration will help him marginally with Hispanics but that will be more than offset by the anti immigration crowd which is pervasive in southern Ca.
Ca is no Pa.

The $10 million dollar number for HC raised in just over 24 hours is now reported in USA Today and Politico.com for all of those ney sayers here.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-23-democrats_N.htm

legan00: I said putting Ca. in play sounds crazy, but I have seen this several times. I just saw the changed Registration in Pa. was 160,000 reported on Hardball. I have seen other reports from 50,000 to close to 300,000. I have looked and tried to get an accurate count, but no luck. The changed Registration in Pa. to Dem could be the key in the % margin if what I think most of these will go to Obama, anyway I am sticking to my months ago prediction of Hillary by 6%.

scrivene I quit smoking pot awhile ago. It seems you are still on th e pipe.

Just say no! Just say no!

Look people, this is up in the air. Why don't we all tune in and see what happens?

That's what I will be doing.

lylepink,

You're still making absurd comments. I love to see it. Considering Obama carries every state that John Kerry did he's somewhere in the 240s. Get serious, dude, California is about as "in play" for John McCain as my district, Harlem, is "in play" for McCain. That said, I hope the Republicans buy into this nonsense and waste what money they don't have trying to compete in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Oregon, and Minnesota. Most people can't remember drawn out primary processes, so they assume this is destroying the Democrats. Or, it has forced Democrats to compete in places where they might otherwise have overlooked in preparing a general election strategy. McCain will not win any of those states. But while he wastes his time there, Obama can concentrate his energies in Virginia, where popular Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. Jim Webb and former Gov. Mark Warner will help him immensely. He can also focus on Missouri, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico. But go ahead and vote for McCain. Stay the Course. USA USA USA! Democrats will come home to Obama once he's the nominee. And if some of the sore losers just can't stomach it, let them vote for McCain. But I wouldn't hold my breath. There will doubtless be defections, sure, but nothing on the scale that Republicans will need to achieve a victory in November. And as to all these Reagan Democrats, and their "importance." If you're going to be crybabies, then vote for McCain. If any politician makes you feel safe, you're stoned. I live in New York City and our lives are daily put in jeopardy because Bush voters thought it'd be a good idea to put hundreds of thousands of our men & women in Arabia. Isn't it telling that New York City and Washington, D.C. --the two cities that were attacked on 9/11-- overwhelmingly voted for Kerry in 2004, and thus rejected President Bush? I think it is. But then Republicans have the nerve to lecture the left for being unpatriotic. I do not understand this. Don't you think it wise for Washington to heed the advice of those citizens actually at risk of another terrorist attack? Why are jingoistic, racists, from states with populations the size of Harlem, in any position to determine my security here in New York?

I understand that middle America disdains cityfolk and many probably assume we hold you in contempt. Well, I've lived in twelve different states in my lifetime, and nothing would make me happier than to see New York City secede from the Union. You don't want us, we don't need you. We're actually at a financial disadvantage remaining a part of the country. So if you want to be serious about securing Americans, then listen to the ones whose security is at risk. Your town is probably quaint, and a very nice place to raise children, I'm sure. But stop putting New Yorkers at risk by voting for these Republican windbags. Or kick us out of the country. I'll take that, too.

New York City secession 2010

Regarding some earlier posts,

To bsimon: You've unfortunately fallen into the trap of assuming that the unsuccessful candidate was always destined to be defeated because of their own campaign's ineptitude. John Kerry, the guy who in your words "ran a horrible campaign," received more votes than any presidential candidate ever, excluding George W. Bush. It wasn't a Reagan-Mondale blowout. The race was literally decided by a football game's worth of people in Ohio. That's unfortunate. If Ohio wants Republicans, don't blame John Kerry for that. Tell your friends in Ohio to get with the program. If you ever believed George W. Bush would make a good president, then you need to re-examine your screening process for elective officials. But we can't blame John Kerry for that. Besides which, Bush probably stole Ohio, New Mexico in 2008 anyway. He did in 2000. Bush wasn't leaving office. Think about it.

Just stop voting for Republicans. If you want to support Obama but you decide to vote for McCain instead, citing "national security" or "moral" issues, then you deserve a terrible economy and u.s. troops in arabia "till we win."I suspect that these cats want a reason not to vote for Obama. That's fine. But shut up about it. No one cares that you're upset. We're all "bitter," all politicians are chumps. But voting for Republicans and then blaming the opposition party for not providing you with a valid alternative is childlike. Grow up, stop acting like a victim. It's hard out there for everyone, stop blaming Obama or the Democrats. Start voting more intelligently, and stop getting "offended" anytime someone criticizes gun-toting. If you own a gun, why are you such a baby? Is that why you seek guns. I live in Harlem and have had a gun pointed to my head. Those guns don't come from my state. Yeah, us "cityfolk" are fed up with gun owners crying every time they're mocked. Be men, not mice. If you want to vote for someone as smart as you, elect McCain. If you want someone --at the least-- brighter than you, vote for Obama. Stop crying. Start being men.

The public sucks.
I'm part of the problem, so are you, and your friends.

Prediction:

*Obama: 50.2%
*Clinton: 49.6%
*Story: Obama Upsets Clinton in Keystone State; End to Nomination Fight Now in Sight!

mnteng: The Philadelphia area is where the greater support for Obama appears to be. The Delegate allocation also favors him by the numbers in this particular area. By looking at where and how the Delegates are located, it seems possible Hillary could win by a 6% margin and lose in the total Delegate count. The CyberKnife is available here and I can go to and from the hospital in my "Speed Buggy" [Battery Powered wheel chair] without a recharge.

lylepink:

I'm optimistic for you as well. The CyberKnife is a wonderful technology. I hope you don't have to travel very far for the treatment.

That 6% margin is looking pretty good. The harder thing to predict is the delegate count because of our weird allocation rules. For example, HRC could get 60% of the vote in my CD and still only walk away with a 2-2 split. But Hillary's strength in the west should more than offset Obama's stronghold in Philly.

Posted by: reason

n analysis by survey USA, www.surveyusa.com they say that Clinton has about a 14 point edge over Obama in Pa. Their analysis of the numbers is quite compelling as well as consistent for a while. Their margin of error is usually less than the average polling point. With that, and Obama already lowering expectations by saying Clinton will win Pa., it will be huge if Clinton doesn't win by a 10 point spread or better. Obama needs to keep a Clinton victory 8 points or less. If he can keep the victory within 5 points, that's a victory for his campaign. I think Clinton will win by over a 10 point spread.

-------------------------------------------
Breaking poll: Clinton is down to six points ahead in SUSA's final tracking survey (50-44). Of course was before her final "can stand the heat" ad, to which Obama could only parrot back for the millionth time that he was against the Iraq war. It isn't a negative comeback....just untested. He clearly has the money to reach more people. That doesn't buy any of us the standing to be a world leader.

mnteng: Thanks, I see Dr. Wednesday about CyberKnife , appears to be my best bet in fighting the big "C". I am very optimistic about beating this bugger. I am sticking with my 6% winning margin for Hillary in Pa., anything more will be a BIG PLUS for her.

lylepink:

Good to "see" you back. How did your results turn out? Hope your doctor had some good news for you.

bsimon: A mention of how I have been amazingly ACCURATE so far in the Caucus/Primaries held so far. The Caucus States, as I have stated many times, are skewed for Obama overwhelmingly. I found my prediction on 15 June 2007 that has Hillary winning 309 Electoral votes with the addition of Pa. I have gone over these 22 States and find Obama cannot win Fla. or Ohio, with Pa. Iffy, then add Ky. and WV that he cannot win, and The best I can/have came up with is 209 for Obama, and this is by giving him every state that is almost a certain Dem win, with anyone but him as the nominee. As crazy as it sounds, California comes into play with him at the head of the ticket. I have gone over these States and numbers and still contend he has ZERO chance of winning in 2008.

sry for repeat joke, I don't get to this site as often as I like, didn't know it was old news.

Obama by 2%

Hillary won't resign until after Bayh has had the opportunity to campaign for her in Indiana.

In analysis by survey USA, www.surveyusa.com they say that Clinton has about a 14 point edge over Obama in Pa. Their analysis of the numbers is quite compelling as well as consistent for a while. Their margin of error is usually less than the average polling point. With that, and Obama already lowering expectations by saying Clinton will win Pa., it will be huge if Clinton doesn't win by a 10 point spread or better. Obama needs to keep a Clinton victory 8 points or less. If he can keep the victory within 5 points, that's a victory for his campaign. I think Clinton will win by over a 10 point spread. If so, that makes my home state of NC even bigger. I'm hoping Clinton wins in Pa. by 10 or more, then those 2 candidates come & spend big money in my home state of NC. We need the revenue, so come & spend! spend! spend! Our state is the winner if that happens!

As a Conservative Republican, I have to say I'm proud of Democratic Gov. Mike Easley. Mr. Easley is on a trade mission to Europe to attract overseas jobs here to North Carolina. With the rising Euro, this is a great time to do this. Good job Mr. Easley! By the way, whoever wins the Dem. nomination may consider Easley first in line to take the Education Secretary post. As he has suppossedly been North Carolina's "Education Governor." Just a personal note. Good job on pushing for job through trade here in NC!

Hillary by 7.4% is my prediction.

Anonymous coward at 3:31, or any other Hillary fans who happen by, Obama currently has 1647 delegates and Clinton has 1508. After tomorrow's voting, the tally will likely sit at somewhere around 1717 and 1596.

Obama's path to 2024 from 1717 is pretty simple. Pick up at least 45% of the remaining pledged delegates, than at least 35% of the remaining superdelegates. Pretty easy, even if he's not there this minute.

Tell me how you Hillary gets to 2024 from 1596. I'm eager to hear your case.

"I was merely using that as a prop for a joke someone sent me."

Zouk has been using that here for several weeks.

bsimon, I was merely using that as a prop for a joke someone sent me.

But I must disagree: no matter who wins, a huge minority of that party will be disaffected and discouraged from the process. McCain doesn't engender the kind of hatred that, say, Rudy or Cheney or someone like that would. Remember that he was the darling of many moderate Dems in years past, and although his Iraq positions have muted that somewhat, he still will gain many indy votes.

As I've been saying for months, the GOP turnout will be motivated, not by McCain, but rather by hatred and fear of a Democratic administration. This is especially true should there be a major terror incident in the days leading up to November.

JD writes
"The Democratic Party is tearing itself apart"

Maybe, but given that the GOP seems to have coalesced around the candidate that none of their factions wanted, I don't doubt the Dems will do the same thing. Eventually.

Who should win the Democratic Nomination?

Facts:

Who has run a better campaign?

Who has lost more advisors during their run for the White House?

Who should have won already with all that experience?

Who has paid their bills to vendor's on-time?

Who has fabricated so many stories that they have no credibility anymore?

Whose spouse ran for President as Two for One? We can expect the same again.

Who is willing the drag the Democratic Party down?

Just my thoughts

I guess the winner is BILLARIES CLINTONS
THEY ARE OWED THE NOMINATION NO MATTER WHAT.

See you guys at the convention.

Her Delegates for the 37th District in California wont be able to attend because the sent their 73 people to the wrong place the seat the delegates.

Obama 3 delegates will be there since they check the zip-codes for everyone that came to vote before giving them a ballot.

Damn can anyone in this campaign do anything right?

novamutt.

why did you skip howmany delegates it takes to win?

being ahead doesn't mean a win.

now are risking losing to his successor by nominating the wife of their last successful candidate.

Posted by: bsimon | April 21, 2008 2:45 PM

Or, put another way:

The Democratic Party is tearing itself apart, trying to figure out whether to vote for the nut with two boobs, or the boob with two nuts.

One point in Kerry's favor: unlike Gore, he at least was smart enough not to pick smilin' Joe to play 2nd banana. Granted, kid Johnny Edwards looked positivley prepubescent next to Dick, but Joe was a worse pick... (What the hell was Al thinking?!?)

I haven't read through the comments, but I hope someone has pointed out that 158 delegates are at stake tomorrow, and a terrible horrible day tomorrow for Obama would mean 65 delegates, and a great day for him would be 80 delegates.

So all this wailing is over a potential swing of 15 delegates. When Hillary is behind by 140, with only a handful of states remaining.

Yawn.

When can we stop pretending this is still a race?

Leichtman, Kerry was an atrocious candidate. He had plenty of opportunities to convince swing voters that he was the better alternative than Bush, and failed to take advantage very time. He said things like "I voted for the war before I voted against it" instead of saying "I voted for the war when the bill included a way to pay for it, and against it when they borrowed the money." How hard was that? I don't doubt for a second that Kerry would have been an improvement over Bush, but that doesn't change the fact that he ran a terrible campaign, managed to pick a VP more milquetoast than he was & blew a golden opportunity to put this country back on the right track.

curious bsimon why you would say that about John Kerry someone I admire and last time I checked is a strong supporter of Sen Obama and who I regret not running this time?

Correction to above post, below:

"The powers that be simply will not accept such a greenhorn. Were he (Obama) to be elected, he could not govern."

The "not" was missing in the post. Sorry.

leichtman writes
"Its too bad they didn't have that same passion in 2004 or we would all be arguing over the re-election of Pres. Kerry."

Actually, the kids were all about Howie Dean. But they didn't show up at the caucuses for Gov Dean, so Dean screamed & the rest is history. The party picked Senator Milquetoast, lost an election to the worst president ever & now are risking losing to his successor by nominating the wife of their last successful candidate. Frankly, its pretty easy to see why all the Repub sock puppets (like zouk) make so much fun of the Democratic party.

JD:

Yes, you got it. It's his inexperience. Everything else can be explained away, what you call the proxy arguments.

The way Obama's dealt with the questions about everything else, from Rev. Wright to the flag pin, etc., shows his inexperience. And if this guy doesn't jump on the chance to be VP after he's already displayed his inexperience and inability to handle the tough ones, he's also an egotistical fool.

Obama is inspiring. But sometimes, he's inspiring like Harold Hill was inspiring to the members of the boy's band in "The Music Man." Yeah, they finally played a song... out of tune, because faith would only carry the band so far...

So we'll see. But yes, you got it. In the end, someone who walks into Dodge and sets up shop for a couple of years doesn't get to be sheriff so fast. First he's got to win a few gunfights, and then show his staying power. That takes some time...

The powers that be simply will not accept such a greenhorn. Were he to elected, he could govern. That's why I say that Obama cannot win. Not this time. Not this year. And to tell the truth, I'm beginning to wonder if the same arguments being used against him don't apply to the VP slot as well...

You know, Bob Barr is thinking of running on the Libertarian line. He's a solid former congressman who values our Constitution and our personal freedoms and does not believe that govt. is the answer to all of the nation's problems. Maybe he should be given a listen... but I'm not hearing from him....

Obama was not asked "tough questions" in the ABC debate. He was asked stupid questions. Go to youtube and search abc debate rap. Yahh, Gibson, Yahhhh.

scrivener: the genY voters who refused to turn out in large numbers in 2004 for Kerry apparently are smitten by Sen Obama and will continue to turnout so bsimon is correct. Its too bad they didn't have that same passion in 2004 or we would all be arguing over the re-election of Pres. Kerry.

OK scriv, now I see your point. And, not too surprisingly, I agree; Obama's biggest weakness is not his color, or his list of friends, or his policies...

It's the fact that he's too green, and therefore untrustworthy for the most powerful elected position on the planet. He has very little track record to run on, so people are forced to use the Rev Wrights et al as a proxy into who he is as a man.

Got it.

Scrivener writes
"if history is any predicate, many of the young new voters won't show up come election day."

The thing is, that's what they said in January, before the Iowa caucuses. "His supporters are all young folks - they won't show up. They're on vacation, or home from school, or [insert excuse here]. The youth vote never shows up." Then it showed up. So they changed their tune, they said "Iowa was a fluke. He can't win on Super Tuesday." And Obama won a lot mroe states than people expected him to win on Super Tuesday. They called it another fluke, and said he can't win big states, or blue-collar voters, or swing states. So he went to Virginia, and won big. He went to Wisconsin, and won big. He won a sh!tload of states, and shut-out Sen Clinton 11 states in a row.

So forgive me, Scrivener, if I treat your latest prediction is just another out-of-touch opinion from someone living in the past.

truth another mature post by you:'Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

As to not polling students with cell phones that is a perfectly valid comment but it seems like zogby has said they use that factor in their analysis and why their spread is usually more conservative then other polling services, but would like to know if anyone has any specific information on how they account for nonpublished cell phones which certainly accounts for the primary phone service for most voters under 25.

JD: Like Louis Armstrong said about jazz, "if I have to explain it to you, you'll never get it." But JD, I think you get it. Read you loud and clear.

To repeat an earlier point: The nation simply will not accept as president a candidate that has been on the national scene for a scant three years.

John McCain and the GOP will drive home that point with ads and tactics that will make the Dem primary look like a garden party. McCain is a moderate Republican and he will resurrect the Reagan Democrat vote. The 527s will swiftboat Obama something bad...

...and if history is any predicate, many of the young new voters won't show up come election day... that's just the way it's been in recent history.

So, Obama cannot win. Not this time. Not this year. But maybe in 2016, after eight years earning his props as vice president. By that time, maybe he'll even earn JD's respect. Timing sometimes is the essence of politics. Sometimes the audacity of timing trumps the fierce urgency of now...

Hillary's book was on the remainder shelf for $4.98 at Barnes & Noble, by the way, if you want more...

What the polls have not taken into account are the younger voters. Pollsters don't make calls to cell phones which is the mode of communication for younger voters.

How many of these younger voters have registered for the first time to vote or registered for the first time as a Democrat? Many younger voters have been inspired to register because of Obama. For the Superdelegates to ignore this fact is commiting suicide for the Democratic party in the future. If they give Clinton the nomination when she has less elected delegates and less popular votes, younger voters will be disenfranchised or turn to other political parties. These are the voters who will have to fund Social Security for the retirees of this nation and to pay the taxes to fund our government for years to come. We shouldn't disenfranchise them from politics or the democratic party, we should embrace their zeal and willingness to be involved, after all in this group are future senators, congressmen and women and future presidents.

The older voters who support Clinton may not be around to see the end of her administration and what their poor judgment has caused for America and the younger generation. The world has changed. The problems they experienced when they were growing up are much different from those facing today's younger generation because of world dynamics. Things are much more complicated these days - back in WW II we didn't have to worry about China, Korea, Iran or terrorists. We only had to worry about Germany. Experience counts but who has the better judment counts more.

We need to elect the candidate who has the best understanding of the new world dynamics and who has the best judgment and temperment to unite and lead our nation. That would be Obama. As my 86 year old father, who started out as a Clinton supporter but changed to Obama shortly before he passed away in September, said it's time for the younger generation to lead this nation.

scrivener says
"You are missing my point.

When Hillary said to Bill Richardson that "Obama cannot win" she was stating a truth that she knows well... read the key sections of her book, "Living History" and perhaps you will be able to decipher this."

Scriv, I'm not sure that I'm following you. Are you arguing that Sen Obama can't win the general election because Hillary said so? Frankly, I have no interest in wasting the time it would take to read her book, but if you'd care to perhaps add your own insight into her claim, we might have an interesting discussion.

scrivener, can you explain your 'Obama cannot win' argument? You know, for those of us not anxious to contribute to Hillary's wealth by buying her book...

Scrivener, I'm not "smitten" by anything. I didn't say that Obama was the best candidate, or that he'd win where Gore would lose. I said that Gore obviously isn't interested in being president, as evidenced by the fact that HE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. I also pointed out that voters will feel betrayed if the nominee is someone who received approximately 0 votes. (Though in Gore's defense, he was handicapped slightly by the fact that HE IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.)

You seriously don't think voters will feel betrayed when they find that their votes didn't count? That all the effort and money they contributed to the Obama and Clinton campaigns was meaningless? Your fantasy would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. And you accuse me of living in a dream world!

anyone else think Meet and Voodoo are the same person?

Also, I think you will need to re-post those entries in the next 3 CC blog items, then we'll all respond. Not until then.

To bsimon:

You are missing my point.

When Hillary said to Bill Richardson that "Obama cannot win" she was stating a truth that she knows well... read the key sections of her book, "Living History" and perhaps you will be able to decipher this.

Obama cannot win. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and ended up the official loser, "by 537 votes" according to the official tally.

Do you get it? Gore did not win in 2000. Obama cannot win in 2008. If the democracy holds, Gore can win in 2008. Even then, there's an "if."

Is this becoming clear to you yet? This colloquy is why liberals are so darn infuriating...

'Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?

she has a surprising similarity to WEBB hubbel. no bill clinton in there.

why is drindl so fat and stupid?

'Because her father is Janet Reno.'

Get the registration fixed, CC, so this site can be pulled out of the gutter again.

Posted by: drindl | April 21, 2008 1:01 PM

CC - are you considering banning the imbecilic drindl?
that would indeed be a fix

OMG! OMG! OMG!

There. I've raised the level of debate on this board today.

Sheesh, people. Do you really think your rantings make any difference at all?

Although CC hasn't asked:
* Clinton 54%
* Obama 46%
* Story: Clinton wins solidly; Obama still the likely nominee.

scrivener, are you channeling lylepink? You have the same unquestioning belief in the prediction/claim that "[Obama] can't win at the top of the ticket."

Do you really think that Senator McCain is going to win the swing voters with his message of 'whatever it takes' in Iraq & making tax cuts on the 1%ers permanent?

Blarg:

You've been smitten by the dream.

The superdealegates have not. They are pragmatists.

Obama is an attractive candidate and there's little doubt that if it were simply a matter of pledged delegates, he would win the nomination.

But Obama can't win in the fall. On this point, Hillary is correct. But neither can she. So the party will have to preserve its viability in the general by going a third way. The only other option is Al Gore.

There won't be dissatisfaction because it will be OBAMA's decision alone... at least that will be the cover story. Obama will play along, because it is his only option. "The people" have spoken -- and thus far, it's a dead heat between Hillary and Obama when you factor in the supers.

So the supers will decide, and Obama will go along because he has no other choice. His supporters won't revolt because most of them believe Gore was denied the presidency and they will buy Obama's argument that for the sake of party unity, Gore must step in.

A Gore option also means that most Hillary supporters except her lunatic fringe will be happy to support Gore -- and many if not most Hillary supporters would rather see Gore go for it than she.

Obama is in the lead. But he can't win at the top of the ticket. He can get the experience he lacks, and give the nation time to get to really know him (especially the power elite that will not allow him to become president now), by acccepting the VP slot under Gore.

Your post shows why they say, "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line."

Obama is a smart man, and he can read the tea leaves. He will enthusiastically back Gore, win the VP slot, and have a legitimate shot at the presidency in 2016 -- giving him the potential of SIXTEEN YEARS in the White House.

Is that so bad for a guy who's been in the national spotlight for all of three years?

'Heard any good quips lately from Hillary or Barack?'

This is the moronic remark I have read yet. And I bet you are serious. You think that telling jokes like

'Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?' 'Because her father is Janet Reno.'

is a major qualification for potus? yes, just another sick, sick repulican, who undoubtedly voted for the cokehead clown who flushed this country down the toilet.

Get the registration fixed, CC, so this site can be pulled out of the gutter again.

Frank, I think your numbers are wrong. From RCP's delegate count (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html), I count that there are 566 elected delegates remaining, and 305 remaining superdelegates. Those numbers may be slightly off one way or the other, but there definitely aren't 821 elected delegates remaining.

the latest AP figures give Obama 1645 delegaes with 2025 needed for nomination and 821 to be elected after this.
That means that he needs 380 or 46% of the remaining 821 elected delegates to go in to Denver with a majority without getting another superdelegate.
A narrow win for Clinton would put her farther behind.

Blarg, may I paraphrase?

I imagine Blarg's comment is best summed up as:

"Al has moved on. You should too."

Scrivener, it seems you've overlooked two important facts.

First, Al Gore does not want to be President. If he wanted to run, he would have. But he didn't. So he's not interested.

Second, the point of primaries and caucuses is for voters to select the candidate that they want to be the nominee. Many people have voted for Obama, and slightly less for Hillary. None have voted for Al Gore. So if Gore gets the nomination, that's a betrayal of everyone who has participated in the Democratic primary season so far. Gore wouldn't be a legitimate nominee, and large portions of the Democratic Party would refuse to support him. He'd lose horribly in November.

So please stop with this insane fantasy of Al Gore sweeping in and saving the day. It would have been at least a tiny bit credible before the voting started, but you have to face facts. Gore isn't in the race, and he's not going to be in the race, so stop talking about him.

OBAMA TO EKE OUT PA VICTORY,
BUT FAIL TO CLOSE THE DEAL
...SO HERE COMES AL GORE

Why hasn't Gone endorsed in Pa?

Because he will be the supers' pick as Dem's presidential nominee -- with Obama's blessing.

Obama will be convinced to toss his pledged delegates to Gore because of his persistent inability to close the deal on the top spot.

He will win the PA primary tomorrow by 2-5 pts., not enough to drive Hillary from the race.

To checkmate Hillary, Obama must secure his political future before his stock begins to fall among supers worried about his personal associations, his lack of rapport with the "common folk", and his occasional tendency to show a certain smug aloofness (which his supporters would simply say is Barack showing off his "cool").

HILLARY IS NOT A VIABLE OPTION

Hillary has bankrupted her political viability by her behavior and strategic blunders. Hubby Bill has squandered the reputation he had successfully rehabilitated in the years since the Lewinsky scandal. The Clintons have succeeded in alienated both the party elders (i.e., calling Kerry and Gore "elitists") as well as the party's left wing (by dissing Moveon.org, the group that saved Bill Clinton's hide). The party has had it with the Clintons; the only family member with a political future is Chelsea.

WILL OBAMA JUMP... OR WILL HE HAVE TO BE PUSHED?

The big question is when Obama will accept the role of kingmaker and peacemaker. Will it be soon, or will he risk further damage to the party, and to the eventual nominee's chances, by waiting until the convention to announce a "third way" to a Democratic victory?

Look for Obama to come under intense pressure in coming weeks to accept a brokered deal involving Gore. If Obama doesn't go along willingly, his hand could be forced by a delegation of supers who will pay him a visit and give him the ultimatum: Accept the VP slot on a Gore-Obama ticket, or risk having the supers act unilaterally at the convention.

OBAMA IS ALL BUT ASSURED OF THE VP SLOT -- IF...

Either way, only a seismic revelation about Obama could keep him off the ticket at this point. The supers will not risk a repeat of Chicago 1968 by denying Obama the VP slot.

If Obama proves intransigent, the supers will go ahead and nominate Gore on the second ballot and Gore will then name Obama as his VP pick.

The trouble with that scenario: If Obama holds out, his obstinance denies the party the substantial advantages of an all-summer-long Gore-Obama juggernaut leading up the the convention.

HILLARY'S SENATE SEAT NOW IN JEOPARDY

Whatever Obama decides, it appears that Hillary's presidential hopes are dead, and that her re-nomination to the Senate is very much in doubt.

Even the mainstream media is sounding Hillary's political death knell today... an ominous sign not just for her candidacy, but for Bill Clinton's legacy.

MONICA COULDN'T DO IT; HILLARY DID

What the Lewinsky scandal couldn't do, Hillary's candidate appears to have done -- bring down Bill. The tragedy is, he worked so hard and so successfully to salvage his legacy; even the Bushes lent a hand. But Bill will experience a second resurrection before Hillary ever gets another chance at the presidency.

CLINTON INTERNALS SHOW 11-POINT LEAD IN PA
Mon Apr 21 2008 11:10:14 ET

Controlled excitement is building inside of Clinton's inner circle as closely guarded internal polling shows the former first lady with an 11-point lead in Pennsylvania!

Clinton is polling near to nearly 2 to 1 over Obama in many regions of the state.

A strong coalition of middle-class and religious voters has all but secured a Clinton victory Tuesday, with headline-making margins, the campaign believes.

"It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how much," a senior campaign source said Monday morning.

When pressed if the dramatic internal polling numbers could somehow be flawed in a state as demographically complex as Pennsylvania, and with new voter registration surging to unseen levels, the campaign insider held firm.

"Senator Obama would be wise not to unpack his bags quite yet."

bsimon:

Based on the buzz here in central PA, I'm planning on spending at least hour in line to vote tomorrow. Which doesn't sound like a lot to city folks, I'm sure, but around here it is strange when you have to wait more than 5 minutes for a voting machine. I just hope it doesn't rain.

On the flip side, I think primary fatigue has really set in -- HRC was here yesterday and only got about 1500 people (in the same place that WJC over-filled with >6000).

"Why are so many people spamming, err, posting about McCain? "

I hate, I hate, so off to work I go. god has given me this task in life.

Why are so many people spamming, err, posting about McCain? Did I miss something in the OP?

The big thing about PA is it's the first opportunity to see if Obama has picked up a Bradley effect after the Wright fiasco. If Hillary outperforms the polls, even a little bit, this will be the spin.

another prediction by an Obama supporter:
"OBAMA WILL WIN THE KEYSTONE STATE!"

from all of these posts I am now hoping that HC does not now lose Pa by at least 5% points. Mike Smerconish a radio host in Philly said this morning on scarborough that he knows Pa and that Obama will certainly win Pa by 2% points tomorrow. All of these folks obviously know what they are talking about and we should pay attention to their predictions.

Yes, the Clinton strategy is simply to hope "the Bradley effect" continues to lift her in primaries.

Even as any objective observer would note that her campaign is history, she's lost too many state, too many delegates to make it up now.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8Twt6m83m5D5bfiiwlYxrxt1T0gD904I5IO0

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aLDu9y9lW3EY

But then, we can hardly expect most of the news media to actually use math or logic, when they would rather manufacture a "race" that doesn't exist in order to make a foregone conclusion seem "exciting."

As we inch closer to the Pennsylvania primary tomorrow several ideas are floating around in my head.

1) Why the negativity now from Obama?
In a season where voters have not taken to negative campaigning very well (Romney's out and Clinton's use of negativity before and after South Carolina seemed to aid, at least in part, Obama's post-Super Tuesday winning streak), it is an odd choice for the typically adept Obama campaign to opt for a seemingly more negative approach in the lead up to the latest "most crucial contest." Either the Obama camp is desperate for a win in Pennsylvania that would put an end to this race or they're hoping that Clinton receives the last minute blame attribution for the negativity (which could lead to an Obama win).

2) Does record registration in the Keystone state bode well for Obama?
That's what Politico's Jeanne Cunnings (via The Caucus) concludes. I've been burned on this sort of thing before; suggesting that high turnout in New Hampshire would mean a win for Obama. We can all see how that one turned out. I don't disagree with the conclusion but I do think that an Obama win may not be the result of a spike in registration.

3) What if Obama's trip to Negativeland is simply a ploy?
A calculated move? In politics? I shudder to think. But seriously, what if this is nothing but a clever ploy on the part of the Obama camp to play on Democrats' worst fears: a divisive primary that ruins their chances of winning in November? If voters are reminded of that are they more or less likely to want to put an end to the race? If Clinton gets that blame attribution, then Pennsylvanians could prove the decisive electorate in this race.

4) Will Pennsylvanians take the bait?
And could I cast that in any more negative a way? I don't know, but I have an idea. If you are in the voting booth and this negativity is affecting your decision, who loses the most points. Clinton has gone negative already, so even more negativity just builds on that perception. Obama has avoided negativity, or so the story goes, so any negativity from his campaign either really breaks from the past tenor of his campaign or is just an aberration.

The big questions then are who gets the blame for the recent rash of negativity and are Pennsylvanians tired (scared) enough of the potential for divisiveness to want to end the nomination race? The answers will decide who wins tomorrow and how quickly this thing may be wrapped up.

from Frontloading HQ: http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/04/negative-nellie-in-pennsylvania.html

Obama's weakness has nothing to do with his race, his liberalism, or his inexperience.

The Greeks had a term for it: hamartia. The one flaw -- different in every man -- that makes him imperfect, vulnerable and gives his adversaries, if they discover it, the ability to bring him down. Achilles' was his heel. Obama's is his political glass jaw.

The supposedly-brilliant Democratic wunderkind can't take a punch. Like a Hollywood actor, he's only comfortable, quick and charismatic as long as the crowd is oohing and ahhing. But the moment that he is challenged -- as we first saw in his presser after he lost the Ohio primary in March and again last week in the ABC debate -- the mask shatters. What we see is what we would get with an Obama presidency: a man whose range is so small and ego so huge and fragile that when taken out of his comfort zone, he not only fails to shine, he barely is able to speak.

Those who have read my work here over the last six months know that I do not bother with polls, focus groups, or blowing gaffes out of proportion to make my case for Hillary for president. All I know is that she deserves the democratic nomination, and I don't care how she grabs it, she is going to grab it.

Pennsylvania will be the beginning of the end for Barack Obama. We don't want to hear whining about who has more votes or delegates. Hillary is entitled to this nomination, and she is going to take it.

Some say John McCain's character was formed in a North Vietnamese prison. I say those people should take a gander at what John chose to do--voluntarily. Being a carrier pilot requires aptitude, intelligence, skill, knowledge, discernment, and courage of a kind rarely found anywhere but in a poem of Homer's or a half gallon of Dewar's. I look from John McCain to what the opposition has to offer. There's Ms. Smarty-Pantsuit, the Bosnia-Under-Sniper-Fire poster gal, former prominent Washington hostess, and now the JV senator from the state that brought you Eliot Spitzer and Bear Stearns. And there's the happy-talk boy wonder, the plaster Balthazar in the Cook County political crèche, whose policy pronouncements sound like a walk through Greenwich Village in 1968: "Change, man? Got any spare change? Change?"

Some people say John McCain isn't conservative enough. But there's more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo. Conservatism is also a matter of honor, duty, valor, patriotism, self-discipline, responsibility, good order, respect for our national institutions, reverence for the traditions of civilization, and adherence to the political honesty upon which all principles of democracy are based. Given what screw-ups we humans are in these respects, conservatism is also a matter of sense of humor. Heard any good quips lately from Hillary or Barack?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/006dgrlw.asp?pg=1

Who do you predict will win the Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2127

.

Barry & Bobby show is over now in PA. Here is my The-Fix-Prediction for tomorrow.
Clinton will win PA by 16% margin (57% for Clinton and 41% for Obama) which is 2% better than Big Rendel win over Little Bobby.

CC she needs at least a 7 point win to meet expectations 8.5 points for it to be a big story however

FOR SHAME SIR as another person from outside the area continues to allow Philly people to continue to feed the pornographic levels of rocky love and identity here, as a Maryland guy who goes to school here i can honestly say i think these people get off when they hear that music its like they think he is a real guy it must be stopped and the only people who can do that is outsiders like us

SOLIDARITY!!!

McCain's $3.3 Trillion Budget Buster

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a72L7_AJ5P9c&refer=home

California had a whole month of early voting, that can't be compared to PA.

"McCain released tax returns today that showed he paid $5,413 in AMT in 2007 and $6,979 in 2006."

MCCAIN SURE DOESN'T PAY MUCH IN TAXES FOR A GUY WORTH $100 MILLION.

I think its reverse NH, People expect Hillary to win big, but Obama pulls it out.

"McCain's plan doesn't address the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which now total more than $12 billion a month.

Ultimately, said Stan Collender, a former analyst for the House and Senate budget committees, it would take substantial cuts to Medicare and Social Security to balance the budget with the tax cuts McCain is proposing."

So McCain simply pretends that the cost of the wars he intends to continue fighting for another generation simply don't exist [sound familiar?} and he intends to pay for more fat tax cuts for the rich and corporations by cutting by stealing the retirement and health care funds of the Baby Boom generation.

Chris- what's the excitement level in PA? Do voters there have the same level of enthusiasm as we've seen elsewhere? Or is campaign fatigue setting in? I'm curious whether turnout will be very high tomorrow - and who benefits if its not high.

Tax Cuts

Extending Bush's tax cuts would cost $1.5 trillion through the end of a hypothetical second McCain term, according to Treasury Department figures. His proposal to reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent would cost $100 billion a year, McCain's campaign estimates. Doubling the exemption for dependents to $7,000 a year would cost another $65 billion annually and the AMT repeal adds another $60 billion a year, his campaign said.

McCain released tax returns today that showed he paid $5,413 in AMT in 2007 and $6,979 in 2006.

McCain's spending cuts, combined with increased revenue from economic growth, total $1.5 trillion over eight years, leaving a $1.8 trillion net increase to the national debt.

``This is really a massive increase in the deficit,'' said Joel Slemrod, an economist specializing in tax policy at the University of Michigan.

Two Washington research groups said McCain's plan would cost more. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated his tax cuts would total $5 trillion over a two-term presidency. The Tax Policy Center, run jointly by the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, said they would cost at least $5.7 trillion.

Barry & Bobby show is over now in PA. Here is my The-Fix-Prediction for tomorrow.
Clinton will win PA by 16% margin (57% for Clinton and 51% for Obama) which is 2% better than Big Rendel win over Little Bobby.

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain's plan to cut taxes and balance the budget wins praise from fellow Republicans. Economists and nonpartisan analysts say his numbers don't add up.

McCain's proposal, outlined April 15, would extend President George W. Bush's tax cuts, reduce the top corporate rate, repeal the alternative minimum tax and double exemptions for dependents. Price: $3.3 trillion by the end of a President McCain's second term in 2017, according to figures from his campaign and the Treasury.

The Arizona senator said that would be offset by eliminating pork-barrel spending, freezing a portion of the budget, and saving from Medicare spending. He could cut the budget by $100 billion a year ``in a New York minute,'' he said in a Bloomberg Television interview yesterday.

Robert Bixby, executive director of the Washington-based Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates budget restraint, said ``the huge imbalance'' in McCain's plan ``is that the tax cuts are specific and large and the spending cuts are small and vague.''

Once, McCain was a deficit hawk, Bixby said, but ``strange things happen when people run for president.''

GO GET 'EM, MISTER OBAMA! SHOW 'EM WHAT YOU GOT!

WHILE HILLARY CONTINUES TO LIE AND HATE,
OBAMA WILL WIN THE KEYSTONE STATE!

OBAMA '08! OBAMA '08!

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.