My basis for determining Obama's electability is how he does in primaries in the states carried by Bill Clinton in 1996, and the close states (margin <8%) in 2004. Texas isn't part of that map.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Oregon are. So are New Mexico, New Hampshire, Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, Missouri and Delaware. So far, Obama's only decisive victory has been Delaware. Clinton won decisively in NJ. Michigan and Florida can't be counted as 'decisive' wins for Clinton over Obama, and NH, NM, and MO were basically draws.

One of the big problems with the 'primary' process is that so many key states are still caucus states --- Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington are all caucus states where its impossible to tell the difference between a good ground game, and the depth of a candidates' support.

Since movements are based on ideology, something Obama dismisses, how can ours truly make any strides, let alone a breakthrough? Yes, Obama, is perceived as a progressive by his supporters but it has resulted in a horrible redefining of progressivism into a center right mindset (i.e. political expediency). I point to his supporters who condemn actual progressivism as "partisanship" and willingly buy into his rationale for compromising domestic policies preemptively, including launching right-wing attacks on opponents.

Sorry about the double post.

Virginia is a bigger state than Mass. Washington (a caucus) is bigger too, by population, not by electoral votes.

Also, Georgia is larger than NJ (same electorally) and was carried by Clinton in 1992.

Finally, North Carolina, also on the horizon, is larger than NJ/MA.

Big Tent Democrat is a lying whore and so are you.

Hillary is toast. You two are either to stupid to notice. Or you are lying sack of chit.

Either way, you are both laughingstocks.

Big Tent is one of the better minds on lefty blogs. His analysis is typically on the money, something one can hardly say about the majority of the half witted bloggers in the very famous blogs on the left. The latter also turned Rockefeller Republicans overnight mainly because they lack brains and soul.

His predictions are a different bad, but one cannot blame anyone for bad predictions. An anecdote illuminate the difficulty of predication, Samuel Goldwyn, the Yogi Berra of Hollywood, said "predictions are very difficult especially about the future."

Best suggestion is to say: whoever wins, wins. Any combination will do it; no justification is needed.

Hillary was dead after Iowa, Obama was chop meat after Super Tuesday, etc.

The fact is that Obama rigged the caucuses and Hillary campaign staff has dropped the ball, and may be the nomination, by not responding to this rigging. Obama does terribly in primaries, especially when he doesn't have a huge African American voting block. His campaign is tough, nasty, mean, unfair and adaptable. For a campaign that is OK. He may still adapt to primaries and do well there.

Nobody knows anything.

Then again, in the empire, we create our own reality.

Anyone else noticed that "momentum" is totally a media narrative construct and a self-fulfilling prophecy? Honestly, the press just sucks so bad it's reason enough to vote for Hillary -- just to put it to them good. Having them pick our Presidents for us is a real problem.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Me neither, unless I get to throw it at him. Ahem, but I digress.

Right after reading Armando's post at Talk Left, which I agreed with, I read an article at Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...) that had freaked out a couple of Clinton supporters because it talked about how if this thing goes on too long, then Pelosi and others will weigh in and how they secretly back Obama and have been warned about letting such a transformational guy get away, yada, yada, yada. Basically, it was the typical Obama spin urging Clinton to fold up her tent and go home (which I don't blame him for, it's good poitics). But underneath the spin, there were essentially two points made that I think corroborate Armando's theory:

1) Clinton does need to win Texas and Ohio because she can't keep letting Obama rack up wins and eventually there will be pressure on her to drop out. To which I say, duh.

and, the more interesting one, which goes to Obama's remaining hurdle as noted by Armando (who, btw, as I understand it is not the Armando who was at DailyKos)

2) "There is a more sinister demographic fact that is causing a collective shudder to pass down the Democratic leadership. Mr Obama is consistently trailing Mrs Clinton among white voters and, in the South, white men."

The article then goes on to try to discount this issue by saying the Clintons would not dare play such a race card. But, honestly, they won't have to. I'm pretty sure Super Delegates can read exit polls.

My own theory about why suddenly there's all these big announcements of momentum for Obama and folks asking if Clinton has already lost among pledged delegates (as if that will matter if she overtakes Obama in all the big states and the popular vote) and so should just step aside is that:

1) The media has a lot of time on its hands. So it's got nothing better to do than pump up its main man and dump on the Clintons. They know she isn't getting out. She probably still has a 40% shot at becoming the nominee, which would make her a heavy favorite to become the next president of the United States. Why on earth would she drop out? But they can help Obama and hurt her in the meantime. But I think it's also being fueled by Obama, which is my second point.

2) The Obama people know that Clinton still has a 40% chance of pulling this out. He's had a run of states that are very, very favorable to him in demos (lots of AAs) and process (lots of caucuses). What's lost in all the talk of his momentum is that had he not run these states or come close, he'd be done. But he did run them and it's certainly better to win than lose. But the friendly string of states is about to come to an end. There are very few caucuses left. There are very few deep Southern states left.

He's about to hit a string of primaries with very different demos. Now, maybe his momentum will carry him through, but it didn't on Super Tuesday. And he's down 17 points to Clinton in Ohio as of yesterday (SurveyUSA poll, one of the more reliable so far). I have to think if he squeaks out Texas somehow, but gets crushed in Ohio and loses in Rhode Island (where Clinton's lead is smaller), she's still not going to necessarily be so far back that she won't be able to catch him in the popular vote in Pennsylvania. And if she sweeps those three states on March 4th and re-takes the popular vote lead or puts herself in a position to, doesn't she regain her frontrunner status?

And now they've got the NAACP calling for the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates and Jerome Armstrong found an interesting twist in that the rule that unseats Michigan and Florida requires any state that held a primary before Feb. 5th to lose half of its delegates. Note, Michigan and Florida lost all of their delegates, but Iowa, NH, South Carolina and Nevada still have all of theirs even though they also violated the rule. So perhaps Clinton will have some leverage to get MI and FL seated. Link to Jerome - http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/13/8114...

I still think Obama is favored right now, but the deal isn't sealed and he knows it. So his people are out trying to fan the media flames, which isn't hard since they are bored and want to declare him the winner anyway.

So that's my theory on the momentum story. But then I'm a Clinton supporter so this entire campaign feels like a giant conspiracy between the Obama folks and the media. So what do I know?

Other than I, too, will be voting for any D in November, if only never to hear John McCain call me friend again.

Quoth Bob Herbert:

...Under ordinary circumstances, this would be a blowout year for Democrats. The nation is tired of the war, tired of eight years of the Bush administration and worried sick about the economy. And Democratic voters, energized by the prospect of change, have been turning out in tremendous numbers.

But the Democrats, to their credit, have placed a woman and an African-American at the head of the line for the party’s nomination. It’s a step that augurs well for the country, but at the same time it’s unlikely that either of them will have an easy time winning in November.

There comes a point in a campaign that lasts too long when there are diminishing returns all around.

The big question for Democrats is whether Senators Clinton and Obama, whose camps don’t like each other, can conduct themselves in the long slog ahead in a way that does not undermine the party’s ability to win in November.

It’s not yet clear that they can.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

hard data is nice, isn't it?

progressive displacement of a centrist, corporate, congressional Democrat via a primary in years. This it it. This is what we have been working for and building for. This is our emerging majority. We finally have the organization, and the voters, and the whole ball of wax. The movement has thoroughly come of age.

i just adore him, he's so upbeat and positive it's infectious. i really hope he's right, even as i don't think we're quite there yet.

progressives are going to learn what it means to 'lose by winning,' if they too closely associate themselves with obama's campaign and/or adminstration. not because he's Evil, but because his pattern is to favor whatever else is in the choice between 'do the most progressive thing' and doing something else. so some hearts are going to get broken, that's my prediction.

the lesson to keep in mind: all of us who defended Harry and Nancy back in the day. talk about feeling the fool, that's a mistake i'm not going to make again, that's all i know.

Obama Super Delegate explains how Super Delegates should not thwart the will of the people unless, of course, the will of the people turns out to be Hillary Clinton. Mostly, it's hilarious for how it captures the ridiculousness of politics (something that is certainly not confined to the Obama campaign) - http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/17...

Honestly, I find all the hand-wringing over Super Delegates on both sides to be ridiculous. We have a lot more states to vote. This thing may shake out yet. Let's let voters vote. Crazy talk, I know.