On Oct. 27th, 2007, #5 Oregon defeated #12 USC in Oregon's home stadium of Autzen Stadium. At the time Oregon was 2nd in the Pac-10 standings with a record of 4-1. A week later they defeated #4 Arizona St. again at Autzen Stadium and were first in the Pac-10 (due to their head to head victory over ASU) and ranked #2 in the country. The next week they lost their star quarterback Dennis Dixon to an ACL injury in their loss to unranked Arizona. USC ended up winning the Pac-10 and Oregon which had started off 8-1 and stumbled to the finish ending the season with a 9-4 record. On Nov. 3rd, no one outside of a Trojan fan would have thought USC was the better team. Well, I did, but it has to do with home/away games and injury (USC)issues. By Dec. 1st, even a diehard Duck would have been unlikely to state publicly Oregon was the better team.

In another sport college basketball, Kansas won the national championship in April, when they were never ranked #1 the entire year by any national poll (the computer polls were a different story). UNC and Memphis were the teams to beat according to the national "experts". KU destroyed UNC in the Final Four and made a furious comeback to beat Memphis in OT in the Nat. Championship game. The story line after the game was how Memphis choked, not of how the game was series of peaks and valleys for each team. KU would go on a spurt and Memphis would go on a spurt, at some points it looked like KU's game to lose and at others Memphis'. In the end the best team won, because they were able to deal with the pressure. The game was played out and KU won by 7 pts.

Now if the game had been decided by the Democratic super delegates or the media, they would have called the game with Memphis ahead by 9 pts. KU couldn't win, no team had ever come from that far behind in the Final Four with only 2.5 minutes left.

On Feb. 12, 2008, Barrack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the state of Virginia by the score of 64-35% of the vote. On May 6th, 2008 Obama beat Clinton in the neighboring southern state of North Carolina by the score of 56-42% of the vote. African-Americans made up approx. 34% of the voter population in NC, in VA the % was approx. 29%.

In the 2004 election Bush beat Kerry 56-44% in North Carolina, in VA the results were Bush 54-46% over Kerry. In the 2000 election, NC went 56-43 for Bush over Gore, and VA went 52-48 for Bush over Gore (Edwards didn't seem to help much in these two states). In 1996, NC Dole won by 48.7-44%, in VA Dole won by 47.1 to 45.1% over Clinton in both states. African-American population of NC 21.4%, VA 19.4%. Obviously, these states are not exact matches, but they are very close.

On February 19th, 2008, Obama won Washington 68-31%. On May 20th, 2008, again in a neighboring southern state of Oregon Obama won by 59-41%. A-A percentage of voters approx. 3% in Oregon, no exit date available for Washington.

African-American population of Washington 3.1%, Oregon 1.6%.

In 1996, Clinton won 49.8-37.3% in Washington, and in Oregon 47.2-39.1%.
In 2000, Gore won 50-45% in Washington, and 47.1-46.9% in Oregon.
In 2004, Kerry won 53-46% in Washington, and 52-48% in Oregon.

Again like North Carolina and Virginia not exact matches but extremely similar.

2004 election results http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... president/
2000 election results http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
1996 election results http://www.presidentelect.org/e1996.html#map
African American state census data http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html
2008 exit poll data http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primar ... /state/#WA

I would love to compare the results of the 2008 primary results with the 2004 results, but unfortunately by the time of the Oregon and North Carolina primaries in 2004 Kerry had no real opposition racking up wins in 78%+ range in both states over Dennis Kucinich when Dean in WA and Edwards in VA were Kerry's top challengers. So, that comparison cannot be made.

The problem with the Democratic primary and caucus delegate allocation is that is very sporadic and arbitrary. If the election had been held last week in all the states and Obama received the vote totals he has, then he should be the nominee. However, the fact is the Obama of now is not the Obama of February and March. If the primaries had been held in those states that had their primaries and caucuses prior to the Wright imbroglio, I think Clinton would have a delegate lead much greater than Obama has and her popular vote total would be about 53-45% over Obama not including Florida or Michigan.

Obama should have won in Indiana, he didn't. He should have had gotten at least 60% of the vote in NC and Oregon, again he didn't. He should not have been beaten by over 35% pts. in W. VA and Kentucky, yet he was.

The battleground states Clinton is doing better than Obama vs. McCain in:
Ohio by 7 pts.
PA by 6 pts.
FL by 12 pts.
Missouri by 4.5 pts.
New Mexico by 1.5 pts.
Nevada by 11 pts.
Michigan by 1 pt. (how are either of these two not beating McCain in this state?)
New Hampshire by 5 pts.
North Carolina by 4 pts.
Georgia by 3 pts.

Wisconsin even (both lose to McCain)

The battleground states Obama is doing better than Clinton vs. McCain in
Iowa Obama by 5 pts.
Minnesota by 4 pts.
Colorado by 9 pts.
VA by 7 pts.
Oregon by 8 pts.
Washington by 6 pts.
California by 1 pt.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... /ohio.html

I only used poll results from after the Wright flare-up.

Obama got screwed in California, because of earlier voters. The election in that state would have been much closer if Clinton hadn't gotten a huge percentage of the mailed in votes.

Lastly, the media keeps shoving down our throats that the Democrats can't afford to alienate the African-American supporters which nationally make up 11% of the voters in most elections. White women account for 41% in most elections, with Clinton getting 51% of the vote against McCain, that means white women voters are delivering approx. 21% of the vote for Clinton. African-American voters are only capable of delivering 11-12% of the vote for either Obama or Clinton.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1177

However, I want the candidate that has the best chance to win in the Fall and I think the available evidence points to that candidate being Clinton at the moment. Now, if polls in June and July show movement back to Obama, then he should get the nod.

I just can't stand this notion that the nomination is his, because of what he achieved when he was perceived as different than he is now. Neither one knocked the other out, and I don't think it is wrong to give to the one that got less pledged delegates, because if you look at the allocation and circumstances of Obama's delegate lead it is not enough to go with another choice even by the rules of the delegate process.

Obviously, the super delegates are not buying this argument, then again they are the ones who shoved Kerry down our throats, because he was so damn elect able (for a democratic primary not a general election). Not really sure why Clinton's camp is not making a more eloquent version of this argument. Most likely it is too complex to make in 30 seconds on Hardball or Anderson Cooper. Even more likely I think it is hard for people to accept that the delegate process is such a joke. The most likely reason is that the Clintons accused by many as playing the race card for any advantage, don’t want to offend the African-American Obama supporters who would see awarding Clinton the nomination as an affront to the “real” nominee.

To get back to the sports analogy, Clinton is a team peaking at the end of the season and Obama is a team running out the clock hoping it can hold onto the advantage it gained in the earlier part of the season when it is a shadow of the superior team it was. I have no idea why that is so hard for so many to see.

If college football started with a set number of total points, and the object of the game was to win the majority of them, then your analogy might actually be relevant. Clinton has already lost the pledged delegate race and cannot win it without a ludicrously lop-sided Michigan delegate agreement, a state that CLINTON AGREED NOT TO COUNT.



This is a misleading point because it does not state whether Obama is doing better than McCain, only if Clinton is doing better. But if Obama beats McCain, regardless if Clinton would have done better, then that's all that matters in answering the electability question. And that's setting aside the fact that the response to polls will change radically once Clinton's name is off the list and Obama is the sole nominee.



You've used this phrase twice. But what else would it be if the supers gave the nomination to Clinton even though Obama won the majority of pledged delegates but shoving her down our throats?



Except that your characterization is completely wrong. Clinton is not peaking. Obama took the lead early and his lead has ONLY INCREASED throughout the primary season. In fact, the only lead Hillary ever had was in super delegates, and guess what? That's right, she's lost that too.

For all the talk of Obama's supporters being a cult, how else can one describe your quixotic devotion to this sinking campaign?

The Indy 500 is 500 miles, not 550. She'll have to drop out on June 4th because there's no point driving any further. Save your effort in writing these posts for starving children, or for the general election. Democrats will be needing smart people like you.

Bloody hell, Hillary Lost get used to it

But...but...

It's opposite day! Yeah, that's it! That means the person who loses actually wins!

No, no, it's really a race where the rules can be written in the middle to help the person you want! Yeah, that's it!

Wait! I've got it! If you look to a specific group of people -- say white women over 50, then it's obvious that one candidate is better and that is the only group that should matter because without that group, you can't win!

There's always some way to spin the loss, isn't there?! (See: threads on Oscar winners)

Is that how you felt when Bush v. Gore came down?

This would be an outstanding analogy, if the Indy 500 didn't count laps 25-50 and 100-135 due to sponsorship issues, if leading certain laps were awarded extra signifigance and weight, if the race was held at the Kansas Speedway in April, the Texas Motorspeedway in March, and 40+ other venues at various times over the past four months. Lastly, if the Indy 500 was a good indicator that the best Indy car and racer in May (or March) after having performance troubles would beat the best NASCAR or Grand Prix car and racer in Nov.

If you use the most favorable accounting of the votes for Obama's case he has won 1.6% more votes than Clinton in all primaries and caucuses not including Michigan and Florida. Yet, he has received 5% more pledged delegates and 6% more Super delegates. Super delegates have always been part of the process since 1976, yet now they are considered some sort of nefarious plot to deny Obama's rightful nomination. Neither candidate garned enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination.

The Super delegates were created to avoid another McGovern fiasco. It was doubly ironic since he was the compromise choice of the party "elders" (the Supers of 1972), and McGovern himself had played a significant role in the creating of and % of Super delegates in the nominating process. If the Democrats had the old rules of winner take or the same allocation as the Republicans, Clinton would already have the clinched # of delegates due to her wins in PA, CA, and Ohio. I would be pointing out the absurdity of the nominating process, if that were the case.

The Democratic nominating process is a mess. New Hampshire and Iowa have no right to monopolize the weeding out process. Its a broken system that has been going on for 40 years, just like the Electoral College doesn't work, but we just ignore and pretend like it will change and every four years it is the same BS. I wouldn't feel any differently if the Supers denied Obama and Clinton the nomination and in a brokered convention Russ Feingold (my ideal dem candidate) got the nomination. I am pissed of at Clinton, Dean, Edwards, and Obama for not showing leadership and getting the Michigan and Florida situations settled before the primaries were held. Each one did what they thought was best for their own interests and gave no thought to the voters of those states, and the potential problems it might create down the road.

Another question, why did Edwards wait until after North Carolina to support Obama when, Edwards support might have helped Obama's numbers in Edwards home state? Either stay out until June or help him 10 days earlier when it would have had an impact. It is like the Dems don't really know what the fuck they are doing, or they do and don't really want the White House...

I didn't understand the majority of Supers breaking for Clinton in Jan and early Feb. when Clinton was showing weakness and problems as a candidate, no more than I can understand them breaking en masss for Obama now, when he is showing his own weakness as a candidate. I have just never understood why there is such a rush to judgement in trying to short circuit the process. It certainly didn't serve us well in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

When candidates run until the end of the process, it can make the party stronger, because it is two candidates getting their message out to the media about McCain, Bush, and the Republican party. It can work like in 1976 when Ford was behind Carter by 40 pts., but when Reagan ran until the convention it rebuilt the Republican party, because they were criticizing the Dems and Carter throughout the late Spring and early Summer. Ford did lose but by less than 2%. In 1980, it didn't work, because Kennedy was doing nothing but harping about Carter's foibles and not going after Reagan and the Republicans.

I am sorry, but I just heard too much BS about Kerry was not going to be Gored on his war record and told them he would be just like Max Cleland. Obama will be Gored into the angry radical young black man, that is what the appeasement BS was all about last week. Hopefully, McCain will continue his ineptitude.

One of my biggest concerns during this whole process is that Obama's unfavorables will be through the roof by the time of the election. I don't think Clinton's can go much higher, but I concede I could be wrong. It just seems to me the Republicans build up candidates like Kerry and Obama early in the process, when Dean and Clinton are the ones they fear more. Yet, the Dems choose the nominee that will fight on the Republican's turf.

It's a tough choice deciding if the country is more sexist or more racist. I just want the Dems to win in November and the winner not to be another Carter in seving one term and being perceived as ineffectual.

Last sports analogy, the Dallas Cowboys were the best team in the NFC East, but the NY Giants won the Super Bowl. Being the best team in September-October is not the same as being the best team in December-January, much like being the best candidate in February-March doesn't mean you will be in November. Goes for Clinton or Obama.

You're basically agreeing with me, since Obama is leading both in the delegate count and the popular vote, and the election season is being played to its finale on June 3rd. I expect a definite result in the near future. To argue otherwise strains your credibility as a Democratic activist. It is mind-numbing to see people on either side willing to jump ship if their preferred candidate loses. I hope you are above such juvenile behavior, given you write awfully time-consuming posts on a subject of continually decreasing relevance.

Yes, I did. The rules clearly stated that the states get to run elections their own way, can count votes how they want, and should use the intent of the voter when deciding how to count the vote, and then the Supreme Court came along and basically said hell with all that, we're going to ignore all the rules and pick the President for you.

So yeah, I am against the rules being ignored and rewritten in order to help a particular candidate, absolutely.

wasn't bush ahead on every recount?

Clinton defenders and fanboys are starting to remind me of BKB...

Even if his nomination wasn't locked up, how is not obvious that he'd be the better candidate in November? Obama has molten hot charisma and speaking skills. Clinton has turned off everyone and lost her huge lead by being completley uncharasmatic. After sweeping past her, how can anyone say she'd be better fit for a general election? Because random, pick and choose stats say so? Obama is a god at working the crowds, Clinton is horrible at it.

Please stop posting USELESS threads about someone who is the scum of the Earth.

Lock please.

The current system is better than it was a 100 years ago when a few party bosses decided who the nominees would be. People like James Blaine, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton ran the show and the picked the president. Also I hate these sports analogies. Politics aren't like sports because you have to rely on people to vote for you and you have little control over your own destiny. Finally, it is over unless you want it to go to the convention floor because that is the only way Hilalry can win at this stage and if that happens McCain wins in a landslide.

We don't know; the Supreme Court ordered them to stop.

I don't want to turn this into another Bush v. Gore thread though -- that's been argued enough in past threads.

Roughly 180,000 votes were never counted. Of those, over half were cast by African-Americans -- who vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

If you do the math, Bush should have never been President.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107539/Hilla ... ntage.aspx







http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... index.html

People make the argument that the same was true of Edwards as he was leaving the race in 2004 and this year. However, that is not true in either case. From this year, McCain was drawing away from Edwards in late December and January (although in early December he was doing better than Obama or Clinton). The best polls I could find in 2004 had him doing doing 1% pt. worse than Kerry.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... prez.poll/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/ ... 2884.shtml
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... s-226.html

Obama is the choice of democratic voters, Clinton the choice of all the voters (at this moment in time).

Can't you realize those polls are meaningless. I can find you a poll that had Dukakas beating Bush by 22 points in June of that year. I think polls this early should just be ignored. Also, there is only way she wins the nomination on the convention floor through a brokered convention. The Democratic party would be broken in two. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson would march out and they would tell their flock to stay home. Millions of African Americans will refuse to vote and it will cause a mess for the party and McCain wins by 70%. Unless she wants to take the party down with her she needs to coincide after June 3.

Being a woman, Clittin' will just scorch the earth when she loses. Barack and the whole party will go down with her.

Please. Lock this thread. It is a waste of space.

I mean, honestly, Hillary would by far be the worst President we've EVER had.

Oh, please. What world do you live in where Hillary could possibly be worse than Bush?

Maybe you should avoid political threads, you know? Cause all you ever do is make people laugh at your "opinions."