« With 11% Reporting In Maine, Obama Has Slim Lead | Home | Obama Wins Maine By Large Margin, Signaling Dark Stretch Ahead For Hillary Camp »
With Nearly Half Reporting, Obama Vaults To Big Lead In Maine
Woah. With 44% reporting, Obama has jumped to a big lead.
57%-42%.
Remember, this was the state that was supposed to slow Obama's momentum after the trio of victories yesterday. Not happening yet.
Late Update: This spread is still the same, but with 59% now reporting. Should be calling it soon.
Advertisement
this is excellent news for hillary!!!
February 10, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a result more consistent with the returns pouring in at TurnMaineBlue.com, even allowing for the fact that Obama supporters are more likely to be the kind of netizens who e-mail their precinct results to a blog. Obama won big in York, which shocked me.
Two interesting questions, in the wake of this:
First, what does this imply for the upcoming primaries in Vermont and Rhode Island, previously expected to be demographicly treacherous terrain for the Obama campaign? Is this only a result of the caucus system, or can he replicate this in an open primary?
Second, is this a one-off result? Or is Obama finally starting to convert some of his momentum into wins in states where the demographics are not overly favorable?
February 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
He already has done that. He won 66 of 67 jurisdictions in WA, not just Seattle. That means he had to win rural and military and largely hispanic areas...and indeed SUSA polls suggested he was strongly competitive, if not winning, hispanics, asians, and women.
I expect him to win VT
February 10, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with the Washington analogy, Michael, is that the same SurveyUSA poll which accurately predicted his dominant win in the caucus shows him with a slender (and narrowing) 50-45 margin in the upcoming primary. So Obama's ability to win rural state caucuses may not translate into primary success; it's one of the open questions of his candidacy. It's also something I've been blogging about, if you're curious.
February 10, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting Obama's success in caucuses may not translate into success in the those states with the general election? Give me some research here. Furthermore, what's this say about Hillary's chances after she's LOST all these caucuses?...sorry. but I can't imagine it bodes well for her.
February 10, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dana99:
I won't take the space to reproduce my entire discussion here, but no, I'm not talking about success in the general elections. It's a fool's errand to attempt to extrapolate November viability from the voting trends in contested primary contests - at best what you'll find is some general demographic trends. What I'm pointing out is that the Clinton campaign has embarked upon a concerted effort to delegitamize Obama's caucus wins, as part of its attempt to woo superdelegate support. The crux of the argument is that Obama's lead is built upon wins in states he might not have carried had they used a primary in lieu of a caucus.
I don't care to debate the merits of such an argument - at some level, they're immaterial. The point is that it's a meme that the Obama campaign would very much like to knock down. Winning in Maine helps, to a degree. But Washington's otherwise meaningless primary in two weeks looms particularly large in this regard, as a test of just how reflective caucuses are of the full primary electorate. Clinton will attempt to dismiss Maine, as she has earlier caucuses that she lost, by pointing to her primary wins. It would be useful for the Obama campaign to win contested primaries in states like Rhode Island and Vermont, as a means of underscoring that its caucus successes are less a result of favorable rules than of actual, broad-based voter support that extends beyond the most committed activists.
February 10, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am interested. However, your link was dead :(
Also, I saw that re: the primary. However, I don't think that's necessarily as big a problem as it seems on its face. Check out the poll from a week prior, and you'll see it predicts a huge margin for Obama in the primary as well. Now it's possible there was a big opinion shift with voters moving from one candidate to the other, or that one poll is an outlier. Or it could be statistical noise. The first poll has 86% going to the primary, and goes for BHO 54-39...the more recent one has 82% going to the primary, and for BHO 51-45. Hillary's gain seems statistically significant, but is it because of an opinion shift, or because the majority of the 4% who went from "attending" to "not attending" are Obama supporters who don't care enough to attend a beauty contest.
or maybe there was a shift...or its statistical noise. I'm not too worried though, cause that's still a win for him.
February 10, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael:
There are a wide variety of reasons to distrust those SurveyUSA polls, ranging from the methodological to the relatively small sample sizes for its various cross-tabs. I'm not trying to hold them up as oracular.
I do, however, mean to suggest that Washington State is a contest that will be closely watched by many superdelegates, attempting to get a fix on the Obama phenomenon. They want evidence that Obama can win mass-turnout primaries, not just contests that place a premium on organization and enthusiasm. He's won more than a few already, and they've helped. And if he could win a large enough majority of pledged delegates, this would all be moot. But as long as he and Hillary are locked in a battle for the hearts and minds of the superdelegates, perceptions are going to matter. And right now, the rap on Obama is that the fewer people actually vote, the better he does. (Also, that he wins when blacks are less than 5% or more than 20% of a state's population, but not in between.) He's making a case for viaibility, and making a case for legitimacy. Today was a big step forward - many didn't expect him to win this big downeast. But he also wants to win some primaries along the way, to seal the deal.
Let me try that link again.
February 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOnTheWall, I'm going to point this out again elsewhere, but I did a little research on my own, and here are the primary-versus-caucus wins for both Obama and Hillary to date. My conclusion: Clinton has a SERIOUS case of sour grapes!!
Obama Primary Winners (9 alotgether):
South Carolina
Alabama
Connecticut
Illinois
Missouri
Utah
Louisiana
Delaware
Georgia
Clinton's Primary Winners (10 altogether):
New Hampshire
Michigan
Arizona
California
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Arkansas
Obama's Caucus Winners (9 altogether):
Iowa
Alaska
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Nebraska
Washington
Clinton's Caucus Winners (1 altogether):
Nevada
Uncontested or Inconclusive at this writing:
Florida
Michigan
Maine
New Mexico
February 10, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to a couple of Maine political bloggers the turnout is quite a bit better than 2004
February 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is the problem with the HRC campaign using the "Rudy straegy." Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are watching BO victories and it has to have a psychological effect on them...I wont even mention the greater impact if he sweeps in the Potomac primary on Tuesday...
I am no HRC supporter, but i think she needs a win before March 4. At this rate the news cycle will be talking about Obama giving him free press and i think by March 4 HRC lead in the polls in those states will be gone...
It feels like I am watching the Patriots (HRC) and the giants (BO) all over again...
February 10, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
As many people have noted, "momentum" has meant for very little this year. Not to say it hasn't existed, but it hasn't been decisive. Thus, the burden is on the Obama supporters to demonstrate why momentum through February would make a difference in the March primaries of OH, PA and TX.
Having said that, the difference might be this: what we haven't had so far is a string of losses for any one candidate. Clinton supporters have either eked out victories (in NH) or claimed victory when it was, at best, dubious (Michigan, FL, Super Tuesday).
Will losing week after week for a month impact OH, TX and PA? Hard to imagine it wouldn't.
February 10, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
and to aid cream to the crop.... BO just won his second grammy! To be honest, I don't know how I feel about a grammy-winning president, but then again, I did support the joint ticket of Milli/Vanilli in 1988.
February 10, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to be 8 loses (these plus Potomac) in a row since Super Tuesday (and she lost the state race big there too), not good news for her. Who knows whether or not the March states will take notice, but the superdelegates are definitely watching this. Step in the way of this train at your peril.
February 10, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, cgwillis. Sometimes I felt they were just paying lipservice to the issues.
February 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
traurig, ist es Wahrheit! Like a fairytale, they were so unreal, but they left a scar that's so hard to heal. But damn it, they could dance, and nobody can take that from them.
February 10, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any word on the percent of african-americans voting for obama? We usually get that info before we get the actual voting numbers. It is so important.
February 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Momentum has been a funny thing in this election. Everytime one of them seems to get it - the voters seem to stop it and make it a race again. As much as I want this to be sustained momentum for Obama - I'll believe it only when I see it. But - the states won count is already impressive - let's see what it looks like on Wednesday.
February 10, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Any word on the percent of african-americans voting for obama?"
In Maine? I'm guessing Fred and Brenda voted for Obama, and Joe voted for Clinton.
February 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget about momentum. If Obama wins the February states by large margins, he'll have a nearly insurmountable pledged delegate lead. Hillary would have to win Ohio and Texas by 20-30 points to catch up. Barring a stumble by Barack, that won't happen. If Hillary wants to win the nomination outright, she needs to win some February states and keep the rest close.
February 10, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
i would like to see how Pat Buchanan will frame BO wins today...As i have noted before, he seems to go out of his way to mention and imply that the African American vote is the only reason he wins...
February 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
An X factor in Rhode Island is that Senator Obama's brother in law is basketball coach of Brown University. It's helpful to have a relative who is a well known resident.
February 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zell, I don't think that there are that many. It's probably 50/50. However, its so important to the right-wing media. I am waiting with baited breath for the african-american percentage getting all the air time vs. the actual results. Also, I am sure that the right-wing media will search out that african-american for an interview about why the person voted for obama as well. Its so important to keep up false perceptions.
February 10, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quote: "'Any word on the percent of african-americans voting for obama?'
In Maine? I'm guessing Fred and Brenda voted for Obama, and Joe voted for Clinton."
Hilarous! Give this guy his own thread!
February 10, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN just reported 59% reporting, 57-42 Obama.
February 10, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can tell people are getting more confident by all the humor in these comments. I'm not sure I've ever laughed so much at a caucus thread.
FYI 57-42 with 59% reporting.
February 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This great turnout, this lead of Obama's in Maine, well, if there was any wonderment about the reason for Hillary's sudden decapitation of her campaign manager today, I think we all now know why. They saw Maine boltomg out like a speeding train out from a tunnel...
I say Hillary ought to thank Bill for his "participation" in her campaign and his effectiveness at turning off Democrats like me in vast droves. After watching Bill do his thing there and then hearing and watching in shock and amazement and growing, intense admiration to Obama's SC speech, I decided to listen, at last, to more from him, of whom I knew so little. My feelings of newfound respect for him were solidified when Kennedy came out and told us he was real. I haven't looked back since. I have a feeling I'm not alone...
February 10, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better yet, here was the competition for the 2008 Grammy in Best Spoken Word. Note what politicians he beat:
The Audacity Of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream
Barack Obama
[Random House Audio]
Celebrations
Maya Angelou
[Random House Audio]
Giving: How Each Of Us Can Change The World
Bill Clinton
[Random House Audio]
Sunday Mornings In Plains: Bringing Peace To A Changing World
Jimmy Carter
[Simon & Schuster Audio]
Things I Overheard While Talking To Myself
Alan Alda
[Random House Audio
February 10, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the official AP photo that dramatizes the ethnic forces at play in the Obama victory:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23098411/?GT1=10856
February 10, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is SO friggin' unbelievable!! I laughed in spite of myself. Being a New Hampshire girl (now in Joisey), I can honestly say, folks, there ain't too many African-Americans up that way and certainly not in Maine...but somehow this photographer managed to find one poor soul and called him Obama's Maine caucus voter. Good Lord!!!!
February 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Shuster backlash I tell you ... the Shuster backlash!
February 10, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole primary cycle has been hard to figure, but I think a comment I read on TPM may be the important factor: in the beginning it was name recognition that drove Hillary's poll numbers so high. But, now more and more people recognize Obama's name, so we are getting into a time when people can respond to polls based on actually knowing who both candidates are.
A caucus is basically another form of a poll. It is a sampling of voters asked who they favor for the office of the Presidency.
But, to continue the analogy to the Super Bowl above, is this the Patriots finally winning the game with only 5 minutes to play?
February 10, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Jesse Jackson win the Maine causes in 1984 and 1988?
February 10, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to caution all those who are reading too much into where things now stand. The race is neck and neck as we head into the home stretch.
Now to mix metaphors: OPT. Ohio. Pennsylvania, Texas
The nomination is not over until after The Fat States Sing.
OPT for Hope
OPT for Change
OPT for the Future
OPT for Peace
OPT for Optimism
OPT for Obama
OPT. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Texas
OPT to win them for Obama
Work the vote for Obama in the OPT triangle that will decide the race.
February 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, I think you are right to be modest, but the numbers do offer up some breathing room. it will be very hard for HC to when the pledge delegate count, even if you cede her OH, TX, Penn. and even Wisc. and RI by a margin of 10 points each. BO is currently ahead in pledged delegates, and will remain so regardless of whether or not OH, TX, or Penn break his way. as long as he continues to win in the Prairie/Mt. and southern states, i see him doing pretty well going into this summer.
down load this delegate sheet and play around with the numbers to see what I mean.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html
February 10, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most caucus delegates will be selected at the states' caucus assemblies. They can be picked off then by the Clinton operatives. It has happened in past elections where the winner of a state caucus has had a portion of the delegates that they won, actually switch to another camp. The Obama camp better stay on top of that situation. The Clintons will never give up clawing to grab anything that is not nailed down, with armed guards posted around the clock.
February 10, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just got back from an Obama meeting held in the library of a medium-sized post-industrial working class city in central Ohio. Old people, women, blue collar, military. Nary an African-American or college student in the bunch. The word is out on Obama. If he doesn't win, it will at least be close.
February 10, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Have the grammys ever been so prophetic? Not since, Eisenhower won in '56 for for his reading of Goodnight Moon.
The camp who should really be celebrating is Random House.
February 10, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Hillary.
February 10, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's like hunting.....patience is a virtue.
February 10, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard that too but I still have no idea where it came from. As far as I know, no one even polled this race. I had put Maine in Barack Obama's column myself just because it was a caucus state. There was really nothing between Super Tuesday and March 5 except caucus and southern states, so anyone who's been paying even a little attention (a group that apparently includes very few professional political pundits) should probably be expecting Barack Obama to run the table till then.
February 10, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.pollster.com/08-ME-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Your comments remind me why Mrs. Clinton's campaign has turned me off. Every time Mr. Obama says "Yes We Can" Mrs. Clinton's supporters counter with "No We Can't". It's not a very inspiring message.
Mrs. Clinton keeps raising the hurdle for Mr. Obama, and lowering it for herself. At this rate, Mrs. Clinton will frame and spin herself right out of the race, much like Mr. Giuliani.
I don't want four more years of petty, negative, vindictive politics as usual. Mrs. Clinton says "I" while Mr. Obama says "We". This race is about the good of the Nation, not about fulfilling the personal ambitions of Mrs. Clinton.
February 10, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
you can't win every thing.....you win the big ones.
February 10, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
NBC has just called Maine for Obama.
February 10, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see Hillary's one chance of stopping this steamroller as being Wisconsin. It's a northern state, has a large working class population, and is a primary, not a caucus. It's also a pretty big state, with 92 delegates.
If she doesn't stop it in Wisconsin, she sets up both Ohio and Texas as must-wins, and must-wins by a margin.
So, if we set aside the possibility of an upset in the Potomac primary, Wisconsin becames Hillarys next-to-last chance.
February 10, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that this one will be by double digits again, winning big in Ohio and Texas is definitely an absolute requirement and hse has no choice but to try and stop a post-Super_Tuesday sweep in Wisconsin.
February 10, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisconsin is Obama country. Next door to Illinois. He has been endorsed by Governor Doyle, and Senator Obama had campaigned to get Governor Doyle reelected. Also, Senator Russ Feingold voted against the Iraq War so he will be working behind the scenes for Senator Obama.
In addition: Very senior Congressman, David Obey has endorsed Senator Obama.
All in all, it looks like Wisconsin will go for Obama.
February 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kefa,
Is that how all NY candidates run for president? Sit on a big lead and wait to play in big states where you are favored?
February 10, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You can't win everything... you win the big ones."
- Rudy Guiliani.
February 10, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Large numbers of voters in Madison and Milwaukee fit within Obama's key demographics. Every neighboring state (that counts, anyway) has gone to Obama (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois). I would be surprised if Hillary won, but if she does it won't be by much.
February 10, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beat me to it liam.
February 10, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can't just lose every state - she's going to have to fight in Obama country if she has any hope.
If not, she needs 60/40 in Texas and Ohio or it's time to write that speech.
February 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is true, and certainly something be vigilant about. However, the BO campaign has proven pretty competent so far in managing its ground game. My point besides is that I don't buy the firewall state strategy. Even if HC takes OH, PA, and TX, she won't have the lead going into the convention, and given the recent concern of electoral fairness among democrats, she will be hard pressed to justify defying the delegate/state majority. The only reasoning I can imagine her successfully employing would be if she won the overall voter majority - but that would be hard to prove with caucus states. To this end, I am all for fighting hard to win in the big three to keep the race close, but i don't think the big three are necessary to win the nomination. It will be a matter of overall delegate counts, and right now BO has the advantage.
February 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
NBC announces obama winner
February 10, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If current 15 point spread (69% reporting) holds Obama/Clinton delegates: 15/9
Maine Democratic Party
February 10, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ryan S said "As many people have noted, 'momentum' has meant for very little this year.
Actually, muddled media reports have confused the clear sense of momentum evident to most Americans. Hillary is losing in stages a commanding lead in this election and Obama has risen steadily from obscurity to be the choice of many if not yet most. There is momentum for real change, for integrity, for truth, for hope, for vision, for unity to move into the future.
Bill and Hillary offer none of that, and have tried their best to undermine it. They hate what Obama is accomplishing. He is breaking the mold of politics and usual. His path is not predictable. Hillary and Bill hate it, belittle his message as naive, and want to destroy him, like anyone who opposes them. They do it for their own interests, not for the good of the nation.
Small variations in primary and causcus outcomes, vote and delegate tallies may cloud but they don't obscure. It does not matter what spin Hillary puts on it or a compliant media echos.
Obama's momentum continues to grow.
February 10, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
NBC Reports that Obama has WON in Maine! With 70% reporting, Obama has 58% to Hillary at 41%!
February 10, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Camden, Maine -- total population about 4,000 -- 550 Democrats turned out for its Presidential Preference Caucus. Over 80%, 447, voted for Barack Obama.
By contrast, when the Republicans caucused, on Feb. 2, only 299 turned out for the whole of Knox County, population about 41,000.
In other words, almost 50% more people turned out for Obama alone in Camden alone than all the Republicans who turned out for the Knox Country caucus.
How sweet it is.
February 10, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisconsin:
Madison and Milwaukee should go overwhelmingly for Obama. The rest of the state should go between and 60/40 Clinton to a 50/50 split, depending on:
1) GOTV efforts. Obama's team has been here since right after Iowa and Wisconsin volunteers helped quite a bit in MN. SEIU in Wisconsin endorsed Obama. They are a great organizational team, and they helped Kerry deliver WI in '04. Obama has more volunteers than he can use in Madison due to the UW, and there are about a dozen other system schools in the state that should break heavily for Obama.
2) Momentum. If he sweeps the Potomac primaries, I bet that's worth a couple of points across the state in enthusiasm and coverage.
3) The Midwest effect. Obama has not lost a single state in the midwest so far. It's a stretch to say he lost Michigan, since he wasn't on the ballot. Outside of that, he has taken MN, IA, MO, and his homestate. Also, large parts of Southern Wisconsin are in the Chicago media market and have been aware of Obama for a long time.
It's going to be a dogfight, but I'd say he has a good shot at keeping his momentum through this primary.
February 10, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another (ho-hum) caucus victory for Obama. The "big" turnout may have broken past records, but like all caucuses, it is a fraction of the registered voters and many times less than turnouts in primaries. If these states had real primaries, this thing would probably be over by now. Anyone who thinks this is a steamroller is really kidding themselves. Obama won way more states on Tuesday, but still lost the popular vote. That's a much better reflection of how people feel. Faithful zealots come to caucuses and he wins big. Real voters come out for primaries and he either ties or loses handily (except in the south where it is clear that blacks are voting for him solely because he is black—what else could explain the lopsided votes he gets from this demographic, far higher than anything in his "bases").
I'll admit he has energized voters who have never voted before, but these voters are a small % of the population and probably won't have much effect in the GE (as his big wins have come mostly in solid republican states that'll never flip or solid Dem states that'll vote blue regardless.) The groundswell of enthusiasm is an artifact of the nature of the contests he is winning. He'll have to do and I'll vote for him, but its gonna be another eight years where I will refuse to listen to a single presidential speech.
February 10, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caucuses are all about the ground game. Appears to me that Hillary just doesn't have it. Obama kills her in retail campaigning.
Let's see how Obama does in larger, post-Super Tuesday primaries when he has more time to spend on his ground game in those states as well.
Whether or not he'll carry all of the caucus states in the GE, the top-down, 50%+1 strategy we've tried in the 2000 and 2004 elections have certainly not gotten the job done.
February 10, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like people are talking about OH and PA as if they're money in the bank for HRC. Are there any polls supporting this? I understand why she would be the favorite in TX, but the majority of PA democrats live in Philadelphia or Pittsburgh, which both have huge populations of students. That paired with the large African-American population in Philly should make Obama the favorite.
February 10, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
sweet. how can team clinton spin this loss?? this was supposed to the stopper for him.
February 10, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess there will be more people jumping ship from Clinton's campaign as they take the opportubity to spend more time with their families and as a consequence of their success.
Ouch..
4-4-4 loses this weekend and MD, DC, and VA will go Obama also.
LOL! This is as good as it gets if it wasn't for that pesky Huckabee and the mystery votes in WA.
February 10, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. But Clinton claims the working class primary states, so she needs to fight it to at least a draw.
February 10, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rootman wins! He found a photo of the lone black Maine voter on his way to caucus.
Now Zell, aren't you ashamed? You've been caught in another exageration. This must be either Fred or Joe.
February 10, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN JUST PROJECTED OBAMA WINNER OF MAINE
looks like at 70% of vote, O has 58% and C has 41%
oy!
February 10, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heretic spins "Another (ho-hum) caucus victory for Obama."
If Hillary had won Maine, as she and her people predicted and expected, she would have crowed that she was the "comeback kid." Too funny.
February 10, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sour grapes. Everyone knew the rules going into this thing. It's not like they were created by Obama. If the Clinton had such a problem with caucuses, she should have raised the issue prior to the campaign.
Obama has just executed a very well planned strategy that is dependent on winning a lot of small and caucus states. Hillary was expecting this to be a coronation, and has been caught unprepared.
February 10, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heretic's reasoning is why Hillary needs to fight, and not dismiss, Wisconsin. Otherwise, the bravado rings hollow.
February 10, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hillary people said the huge turnout of new voters in Iowa wasn't fair because caucuses are designed to be discussions among party loyalists only. Now a caucus win should be discounted because only the most devoted show up?
As for Hillary's popular vote lead: Obama's caucus victories aren't a part of that number. Add the tens of thousands of votes he's gotten in Iowa, Maine, etc. instead of the hundreds of county delegates that are reported and he's up big.
February 10, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Washington Times:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080210/METRO/825734476/1001
'But Mr. Wilder was not so enthusiastic about the Clintons, saying yesterday that he was still unhappy about former President Bill Clinton calling Mr. Obama's account of his opposition to the Iraq war "a fairy tale."
"Barack Obama is not a fairy tale. He is real," he told reporters yesterday, adding that many others feel the same way. "A time comes and a time goes. The president has had his time."'
February 10, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heretic,
how do you explain anti-war Republicans like me who are tired of the 51% (Cheney-Rove) doctrine. Clinton wants to fight my party. Obama wants to unite my country.
I supported McCain in 2000. If The Clinton years were so great, we probably wouldn't have gotten President Bush in the first place. 2000 should have been a shoe-in for Al Gore. (and most likely would not have had a war in Iraq in the first place). But look what happened to the electorate. The country was torn. May not have been all Clinton's fault, but that's where we were.
I'm tired of being demonized. I want my Constitution back. I want a government that respects and works for all of us. If that's Obama, so be it.
February 10, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its time Clinton to Step Aside!
The division will kill our party
February 10, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink