she could win via shutout and it won't be enough. war. of. attrition.

If this is a national primary. Somebody count all votes cast nationally for each candidate. I'm sure it will be a blowout for Clinton.

I thought CNN had Obama ahead in the white vote 49% to 42%, way up in the black vote 78-20, down on the latino vote 62-30, down on the asian vote 75-12.

If Hillary swamped the white women vote, did Obama capture most of the white men? Or were those exit polls off?

OBAMA accomplished what HRC wanted him to .....the caucus states were given to him.....brilliant strategy go for he big states and give in to small red states

If you go through the county-by-county results, it's pretty consistent (and there are a lot of counties with 50%+ reporting), and it looks to be about 50% HRC, 35% Obama.

The real story in several counties, but especially California, is Edwards. He's averaging 13% in every county in CA. That's Obama's margin right there. There's no telling where that vote would have gone, but this was not a 2-person race in CA. Why? Who knows?

Obama wins Missouri! Obama does well in middle American swing states. And that can win it all for the Dems in Novemmber.

ZUMPER, that big state strategy worked great for Gulliani, right?

lisB: "Look at what Barack Obama accomplished tonight. Take a big, long look."

To paraphrase my late grandmother, I see a lot of meringue, but not much filling.

dont you people understand politics obama won in states that wont vote democrat in nov ,,,,she conceded those states thats why she didnt campaign in most of them......the big targets were states the dems can win in nov ....wake up and stop listening to media .....i think chris matthews is going to throw up tonight .....they still try to spin everything obamas way....THE MEDIA LOST TONIGHT

Anybody else wondering when the Obama surge is going to peak? Given all the polls and buzz and excitement I thought it would be tonight. I find it hard to believe that the wave has yet to crest, because that would mean HRC's wins tonight are flukes, questions of timing only, and they're her last hurrah. I don't buy that. I will buy that the two of them have reached a sort of equilibrium.

I voted for BO, fwiw.

conceding states...hmm. As I recall we've not been very successful in past using that strategy. Part of what Obama offers is a new model for the democrats andthe states in which they can compete.

Let's have some clear thinking:

a) As of 16% of precincts reporting EDWARDS has 10% of the vote. Yes, EDWARDS. Nationally, Edwards voters went overwhelmingly to Obama. This will present definite concern to HRC camp -- though you won't hear it in the news.

b) Reports in CA had nearly 40% of the votes were absentee, many of which were sent in over 2 weeks ago. Exit polls showed that most people who decided in the last 3 days went for Obama. In other words, the more people saw of Obama, the more they liked him. It's call momentum.

I wish CA didn't send out absentee ballots so early, because we might have a better view of things. But, both HRC and Obama know points (a) and (b) above and regardless of the media spin, it's not good news for Hillary.

Add to this that Hillary earned less than 1/2 the money of Obama in Jan. This is why she wants more debates. Gets her in front of the nation without spending money. Obama may be able to grind Hillary down. Obama's millions are from people who gave much less than the maximum number of dollars. The Dem Party will also note this. If they want to broaden the party's appeal, HRC will be under severe pressure.

This is not spin, it's just clear thinking.

I think tonight is a wash. In terms of projected expectations, given the polls and the mainstream media's thinly-veiled giddy anticipation of a Hillary Clinton meltdown, tonight has to be somewhat of a disappointment for the Obama campaign. She's clearly held serve. But it's still a good night for him, too.

after tonight she wont have to worry about money....and i think obama may run out of endorsements...he will have to use opra again

One more thing: Obama outperformed the polls in many states, whereas Hillary did not (notable exception is California, though even there the average poll gave Hillary a 6% point lead). Polls said Clinton by 1 in Alabama (he won by 14), Obama by 14 in Georgia (he won by 30), Clinton by 2 in Delaware (he won by 10), Clinton by 1 in Missouri (Obama eked out a 1 pt win), even Tennessee which was Clinton by 22 (Obama lost by 13). With teh big exception of California (Yes, a big one), Clinton's wins were all about where they were projected to be. And a week ago, Obama was behind in all the polls exception Illinois and Georgia. He came a long way - now to see if he can break through....

Colonpowwow, neither one of these candidates is going to lose California, New York, Massachusetts or New Jersey. But Obama showed tonight that he's able to expand the electorate, and bring the types of new faces to the voting booths to compete very hard in purple states.

Obama's changing the rules of the game. He's living Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, and he's bringing the people to the table to make it worth. I don't think the Obama campaign will be worried about whether they can win NY in November, but he might be able to make McCain spend more money than he might want to win a bunch of traditional Red states.

As an Obama supporter I'm very pleased with tonights results. He took 13 or 14 states to HRC's 8, and he will be even or slightly ahead in delegates. Now let's kick some ass in February!

Obama '08.

Zumper,

HRC definitely has money worries. In 2007, 75% of her donors gave $1K or more and about 50% gave the max ($2.3K).

Contrast this to Obama's donors: 54% of his donors gave more than $1K and only 33% gave the max.

That means that Obama's donors (a) haven't maxed out and (b) are more plentiful and (c) more enthusiastic.

http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=177

Couple these facts with Obama's surge of fund raising in Jan over HRC and you can see why she wants as much free publicity as she can get.

The Dem Party Seniors knows what this means. And if you couple that most of Obama's support comes from those with > $50K/yr salary (HRC gets the

This is not spin, it's just clear thinking.

This whole Hillary won the D states thinking is backward in my opinion. Yes, she won Mass., and yes, we'll need it to win in November, but does anyone believe that Obama won't carry Mass. in the general election. There may be voters there who aren't crazy about black candidates, but the state elected DeVall Patrick as governor. To my way of thinking, the candidate the Dems want is one who can expand his or her reach beyond the reliably blue states. Perhaps Obama is not that candidate, but the evidence suggests that he's more likely it than Clinton is.

Now, in terms of pure strategy, pure delegate counts, it's hard for me to see that Hillary's plan to allow herself to get skunked in small caucus states was brilliant. Showing you can do well in CA is nice, but again, California is going to be in the D column in November regardless. Clinton will only be on the ticket though if she has the most delegates.

I have no idea why my previous post only partially posted... here is the missing portion:

The Dem Party Seniors knows what this means. And if you couple that most of Obama's support comes from those with > $50K/yr salary (HRC gets the

This is a choice set of voters as (a) they are wealthier and will support with $$$ and (b) they tend to actually come out to vote. Just ask the GOP.

In fact, these are the very same voters that Reagan wooed to the GOP in 1980. The Dems see a chance to get them back with Obama. That is significant. The 2008 election is not just the President, it includes the House and Senate... it really wants these voters and HRC hasn't brought them in.

Maybe if the GOP nominated Romney it wouldn't matter, but Obama is correct that he is a *much* clearer choice to McCain for the middle compared to HRC. The Dems have a chance to not just win the election but bring about a broad national consensus that will last well beyond the election -- but not with HRC, that really is business-as-usual.

This is not spin, it's just clear thinking.

I love the smell of desperation spinning in the morning.

I'm sorry, but Hillary also won most of the so-called "purple states" that may be in serious contention this fall (as well as the big blue states). These include Arkansas, New Mexico, and even Tennessee some people think.

You can't be serious that Obama showed how he can bring Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, North Dakota, and Alaska in play for the Democrats this fall.

My point is that Hillary has debunked the myth that she's not the most electable Democrat. She did it by having the most Democrats vote for her today in the largest states up for grabs. Look at the total votes cast for both today, and if you are serious about "every vote counts" - tell me who won big today.

Ah, I love the smell of desperate spinning in the morning.

This is a primary among democrats. I don't think it tells us anything about the state by state outcomes in the general election. Are their democrats in NY that would not vote for Obama if he were the nominee. Any democrat will win NY.

Only an analysis of new voters and crossovers makes any difference to that prediction. If only traditional democrats are voting in "blue states" and many new democrats or crossovers are voting in "red states" then I would say being able to win the red stae voteers maybe more significant.

But it's hard to tell.

I see I may have been premature in calling New Mexico for Hillary. It's still not decided.

At any rate - Clinton won the biggest states, had the most Democrats voting for her by a arse-thumping margin, and her lead in the delegate totals-to-date (all primaries so far) stands at 612 to 463 for Obama according to CNN - all the while her California delegates are still piling in.

Those are the salient facts tonight. That said, Obama remains viable and scored some impressive wins of his own.

I go now.

Go Hillary!

Obama in 2016!

Hey Clearthinker,
Stop spreading your spins as clear thinking. You need to join Zogby, he has a job waiting for someone like you!
Obama lost where most of the population lives. Thanks to Kennedy Kaball who couldn't deliver even MA. And Hollywood trash like Oprah and other clowns like Maria Shriver, Caroline Kennedy and college Junkies. It is good for HRC that you idiots think this was somehow victory for Obama Fraud.
American people don't trust these self serving elites.
Also the idiots who are counting cocus % and actual voting % need to do some homework.

Grrr. Where did that last comment go?

Anyhow. Hillary got the most votes tonight. She won the largest states up for grabs. Her total delegate count as of right now (all primaries) is 612 (Obama is at 463) while the California delegates keep rolling in to increase her lead and margin.

Time for the Obama supporters to declare victory and go to bed for tonight! I'm beating you there right now.

Obama in 2016!

"This race is still imminently winnable by Obama, who has a large lead in fundraising"

SO you are another idiot who thinks he is going to win because he has more money. Keep it up and you will lose more voters.
Am. Voters are not idiots to vote for whoever has more money and Trashy Elite Endorsements.

hanksf wrote:
>>Somebody count all votes cast nationally for each candidate. I'm sure it will be a blowout for Clinton.
CNN just did:
Clinton: 5,763,143
Obama: 5,687,890
Total vote: 11,451,033
Difference: 75,253 or 0.66%
Not precisely a 'blowout' for her. Sorry.
Well, actually, I'm not sorry. I'm an Obama supporter and very happy!)
---13 or 14 states Obama to 8 states Clinton
---841 delegates Obama to 837 delegates Clinton*
(*delegate estimate per MSNBC using Clinton camp's estimates in their favor for Calif and NM)
NOT BAD at all for someone who was expected to, at best, be seriously bruised on Super Tuesday and who several weeks ago was projected to win in only (I think) only 4 or 5 states.

Elizabeth2:

You and I just posted similar thoughts.

I'm in love. ; -)

Here's a simple pledge that I would like Obama supporters to join me in.

I'm going to either:

- contribute $5
- talk to five people
- post to five groups on the internet (such as cancer support groups, regional forums, etc.) to share Barack Obama's excellent stand on the issues that matter to them.

And I'm going to add another 5 to all of those for each additional cynical, pessimistic, irrational post by a Clinton supporter that occurs for the remainder of this thread.

(Not to say I don't welcome reasoned responses on the election from Clinton supporters. I do. I just don't hear many of them lately.)

Anyone want to join me?!

CALIND:

I'm very sorry to hear that you want to vote on the basis of your own race (Latino). Surely you would not want to live in a society where everyone voted according to his racial group.

Because in that case, your 15% of the population would never win.

It's okay to support HRC, but please find a better reason than "that is how the other Latinos vote."

Vote with clear thinking.