« Hillary Camp Responds: Sorry, Obama Still Isn't Ready To Take 3 A.M. Call | Home | Confirmed: Obama Did Gain Delegates From California Vote Count »
Obama On Track For Big Victory In Mississippi Today
Today is the Mississippi primary, in which Barack Obama is excepted to win big thanks to heavy African-American turnout, as he has in other Deep South primaries.
The Jackson Clarion-Ledger says turnout is expected to be only light to moderate, but still higher than the 2004 primary when John kerry had already sewn up the nomination. The polls close at 8 p.m. ET.
Here are the latest polls:
ARG: Obama 54%, Clinton 38% (March 10)
InsiderAdvantage: Obama 54%, Clinton 37% (March 10)
Rasmussen: Obama 53%, Clinton 39% (March 8)
Advertisement















If Obama does not win mississippi by double digits (10 points or more) than it is not going to look good for him.....
And don't forget that InsiderAdvantage a few days back had the race tighter 46% to 40%
Republicans and Independents can vote today in the democratic primary......whites to out number blacks in that state........
I believe he will win but it could be by single digits.
March 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that unvarnished, unbiased opinion! Oh, wait...
March 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting you choose to ignore the most recent Insider Advantage poll (showing a 16 point Obama advantage) and cite one several days old (showing a 6 point Obama advantage).
I'm sure there is a logical explanation for placing greater weight on that earlier poll. Perhaps you can explain it to us.
March 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't expect reasonable explanations from Hillary supporters. Logic and linear thinking aren't their strong suits.
For example, Obama today debunked Hillary's FP "experience" claims. Throughly. (link below) But facts don't trouble her supporters. They *feel* Hillary has great FP experience. Four more years of "truthiness."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/11/obama-camp-clinton-forei_n_90894.html
March 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was up twenty in the polls, won Ohio by ten and Tex...well, debate away on that...
And she HAD to win each by twenty to have a prayer at getting back in this thing.
But Obama only winning by single digits is not going to look good for him?
If he lost every contest 60-40 from here on out, he would still lead in delegates. So I don't think you need to worry too much for him. I think he'll be okay.
March 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you too are dealing the race card for Hillary, just like this prominent supporter of hers:
(CNN) — A senior adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign called on Hillary Clinton to “repudiate” a comment by one of her top fundraisers that Barack Obama would not be a major presidential contender if he were not black.
“I think if Sen. Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications,” Susan Rice, an Obama foreign policy adviser, told MSNBC Tuesday, “…then she ought to repudiate this comment.”
Former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 1984, told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Ferraro, a member of Clinton’s finance committee and a top fundraiser, said the New York senator had suffered because the press "has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."
March 11, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
you mean that supporter named Bill Clinton, right?
WMAL-AM:
"If he had made a racial slur against Senator Obama, he would have been fired," Clinton said.
part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7M4aLNVFLQ&e
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gccNNDFnWGU&
the point is clear: it's tougher for a white woman than a black man. what Bill said wasn't really any different than what ferraro said.
March 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice unbiased. Doesn't matter by what amount he wins, he is still winning the nomination outright.
March 11, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the vote totals are coming in now. He is 14% ahead of her right now, which is double digits. So much for your prediction...
March 11, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get your
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!! T-SHIRTS HERE
http://www.zazzle.com/this_excellent_news_for_hillary_shirt-235456910823818404
We will need to wear them when she finally drops out the race.
March 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious. So was it a a marketing scheme all along? Either way, I think these sort of meme driven immediate products and wearable bumper stickers are awesome. (tacky graphic design though.)
Anyways, still better than brand name crap.
March 11, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And when he drops out we'll get you a clown suit.
March 11, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT comeback, Billy. Been waiting to use that one?
March 11, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm sure he will do just as well in the fall. I'm beginning to suspect that the better he does in any particular state primary or caucus the worst he will do in the fall.
March 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The field has a good analysis:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=874
This might be an interesting case of a 20 point Obama win where he only picks up 1 delegate.
March 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take one delegate and a popular vote landslide. After all, Hillary's only hope is a popular vote victory. Of course, this isn't going to happen:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4449
March 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
The delegate victory is already essentially sewn up. Now he needs to increase his lead in the popular vote to really shut the down on her.
Good blurb by Andrew Sullivan yesterday on that. His popular vote lead actually is 700,000+.
Max Fletcher points out something the cable shows should keep front and center:
Currently, according to the popular vote totals at Real Clear Politics, Obama leads Clinton in total votes cast 13,007,968 to 12,415,286 (a margin of 592,682). This total does not include the results from Florida or Michigan. However, it also does not include results from Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine, which have not released popular vote totals.
If you add up the popular vote in all the states that the DNC allowed into the process, here's the current result:
Obama: 13,335,159
Clinton: 12,629,468
(margin: 705,691 votes)
We all know the Clintons' delegate count is very hard to see overcoming Obama's. But the popular vote is in a similar situation. If at the end of it all, one candidate has more delegates and more votes, why is there a question about who won?
March 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's exactly right. she won't win pledged delegates and the only hope is to convince super-delegates that they should vote for her because she won the popular vote.
i think this explains her desire to see do-overs in florida and michigan as well.
March 11, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering he generally seems to outperform his polling, this is good news for Obama. Nothing wrong with heightened expectations in my book. It's about meeting them, and in order to win in the fall, Obama has to show he can do just that.
March 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
voter registration ended 30 days ago - crossover votes from Indies and Repubs could be lower. I bet we see a margin similar to Wisco.
March 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHOCKED! SHOCKED!
ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!
Geraldine, couldn't have done it without ya!
March 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greatest. Shirt. Ever.
March 11, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice all the Hillary posters on this thread. What's up with the "she'll lose by less that you think?" This is the same kind of bullshit the Clinton campaign has been spouting since forever. Did she lose by less than I'd think in Wyoming too? Or Virginia? Or Washington state?
She gets to have a campaign now only because Bill Clinton is a former and for NO other reason.
March 11, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHOCKED! SHOCKED!
ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED!
Geraldine, couldn't have done it without ya!
March 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately for Obama, the press today is preoccupied with more important things - to wit, the whereabouts and goings-on of Eliot Spitzer's dingaling.
March 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't worry about this. Democrats who were adults in the 1990s are probably going to spend the day thinking about Democrats and sexual scandals, which is unfortunate for any who admit to being a Democrat.
It's a double-edged sort of thing for Hillary. On the one hand it reminds folks of the Clinton scandal. But, then, it also reminds one of Hillary's major support groups--women--of just how painful spousal affairs can be, which may bring her more sympathy.
I find myself irritated with Democrats in general and a bit sympathetic to Hillary. And I'm an Obama supporter.
March 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
More on Rezko/Obama connection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/us/11rezko.html?adxnnl=1&ref=us&adxnnlx=1205252633-hPO+IXhmXI5O/kEBjPJ1Ng
March 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If by "more", you mean "further confirmation from everyone involved, both Obama supporters and those with an adversarial relationship with him in state politics, that he wasn't anywhere near Rezko on any official business", then yes.
Thanks for the further evidence that this is all bogus, which we already knew after the Illinois GOP and Chicago Tribune spent five years digging and came up empty.
March 11, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ding, ding, ding...
I loved Hillary's "Well I don't know how the hell I ended up in a photo with the guy!?!?!" face... Rezko is a nothing-going-nowhere story.
March 11, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mr. Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and his name is expected to come up only tangentially during the trial. But given his tight race against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, each mention of Mr. Obama’s name is being closely watched."
I like that they write up a nonstory on the premise that the attention that will be paid to the nonstory is news-worthy.
March 11, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an odd place for this comment but I have to get this idea out of my head: I know there is question with Spitzer and how Clinton carefully disposes of the issue, but that I do not think that is where problems could surface. I know this is pushing it--the longer a sex scandal stays in the news cycle the worse for the Clinton campaign. You cannot tell me Democrats will be gently reminded of the scandal the Clinton's were forced to endure. It may be nothing, but it might not.
March 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless the voters get inoculated by Spitzer's scandal into a that's-the-way-they-all-are attitude.
March 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those 3 polls show him winning 53 to 54 % of the vote and Hillary winning 37 to 39% of the vote....that is not much when you think of the repubicans and independents that can go out and vote today for either person.
If he gets 53% of the vote and she gets 37% of the vote that means he would have only won that state by 16 points or if he gets 54% to her 39% that would give him a 15 point lead....that does not sound like much when you think of the fact that much of mississippi are african-american democrates.
If he wants to try and win pennsylvania (which i don't think he will win any ways) i think he needs to try and pull off 20 to 25 point lead in mississippi.....
And if insideradvantage had it correct a few days ago then he will only win by single digits... he better hope they are right this time....that would hurt.
there is only 33 delegates and depending on how they are handed out....he might not pick up much of them either way.
March 11, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
if i were you i'd be much more concerned about how your candidate is going to either 1) make back her pledged delegate loss or 2) win the popular vote. without one of those she really has no leg to stand on when courting the supers.
March 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is Mississippi we are talking about.
Mississippi lags well behind the rest of the country in regards to progressing beyond the racial attitudes of the past.
Extrapolating results from Mississippi to determine what will happen in PA is more than a stretch, it's a gigantic leap.
Mississippi is it's own beast.
March 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you haven't heard the old saying about Pennsylvania: it's Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in between. As other people have been posting lately, I suspect that Pennsylvania will see many more democrats voting against Obama because he is black than Mississippi will. Reason: most racist Southern whites vote Republican these days, so they're less of a factor among Democrats in the South than racist Northern whites are in the democratic party up there. Someone recently proposed this as one factor in Obama's poor performance among whites in Ohio.
March 11, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds to me like you're trying your damndest to make good news for Hillary.
"If winged goats don't fly out of Obama's butt then this is clearly a win for Hillary"
March 11, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the spin - winning by 15 or 16 points is a 'small margin'.
March 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That post makes no sense. It's one non sequitur after another.
March 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow... they let African American democrates (not sure what a democrate is - perhaps some sort of crate used for demonstrative purposes - so I'll assume you meant "democrat") vote in Mississippi? And they may get to help decide who wins the state by actually being enthusiastic and going to the polls to vote for a certain candidate?
That just won't do. Perhaps their votes should only count for 3/5 of a regular vote or something. Barring that, we can just have a unilateral declaration from the Queen Hillary Hivemind that black votes don't count, or something.
March 11, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Up by 14 in MS? All I can say is that Obama is lucky as hell to be a black man! I know I am - how else do you think I scored the starring role in Cutting Da Mustard?
Clinton/Sinbad '08 - Meet us in Pennsylvania, and if that doesn't work out, meet us in West Virginia!
March 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, this line is not really accurate: "Barack Obama is excepted to win big thanks to heavy African-American turnout, as he has in other Deep South primaries."
Obama won huge in Georgia by winning a lot of the overall white vote (40%) and beating Hillary among white males specifically.
It is true that Mississippi is going to be more racially divided, but that's Mississippi, not all the deep south. In deep south states like Georgia, Virginia, and South Carolina, Obama pretty much ties or beats Hillary among white males.
March 11, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having grown up there, I have to object to Virginia being called "Deep" South. It's more of a purple border state. If you're a Yankee from Boston, perhaps you can't tell the difference, but if you're from the South it's obvious that VA is no GA, LA, MI, or SC, etc.
March 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur: Virginia is no Michigan. (I think you meant "MS".)
March 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am shocked Obama's campaign has won Mississippi.
After all he played up the race card as much as possible. Senator Obama has been using the code words “hoodwink” and "bamboozle” when talking about the Clinton campaign since at least the South Carolina primary, a primary in which Obama drastically changed the racial dynamic of this campaign by garnering over 90% of the Black vote. Before this time the polls showed that Hillary Clinton had a lot more support from the black community. Wen are you people in the press going to grow enough of a spine to call Obama out on his use of racially divisive code words?
March 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dembillc, are you joking -- "Hoodwink" and "bamboozle" are "racially divisive code words"? As someone who has seen and used those words -- especially "bamboozle" -- in appellate legal briefs, I find that surprising. They may have a bit of a populist tinge, but racial?
Here's what the "Online Etymological Dictionary" says about the two words:
bamboozle
1703, originally a slang or cant word, perhaps Scottish from bombaze "perplex," related to bombast, or Fr. embabuiner "to make a fool (lit. 'baboon') of."
hoodwink
1562, "to blindfold," from hood (1) + wink; fig. sense of "mislead, deceive" is 1610.
March 11, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so impressed by the way he knows all those codes. He's got "Code Black" down and he also knew that secret code that let him hint about Hillary's periods.
Will Hillary consider appointing him NSA Director?
March 11, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What political euphimism for "trying to f**k you over" would you use?
March 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
(CNN) — A senior adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign called on Hillary Clinton to “repudiate” a comment by one of her top fundraisers that Barack Obama would not be a major presidential contender if he were not black.
“I think if Sen. Clinton is serious about putting an end to statements that have racial implications,” Susan Rice, an Obama foreign policy adviser, told MSNBC Tuesday, “…then she ought to repudiate this comment.”
Former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 1984, told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
Ferraro, a member of Clinton’s finance committee and a top fundraiser, said the New York senator had suffered because the press "has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."
March 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the case of MS, I think the delegate(s) gained by Obama will matter less than the perception that WY was not a fluke, and that his "momentum" has not actually been arrested at all.
March 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rezko...drip..drip...drip....Pa SUSA HRC 55 BHO 36.
Clinton/Obama and has anyone seen Edwards lately.
March 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how much of that margin will Hill give up in PA once the voter start paying attention? It seems like she loses suppoters in every state when people see Sen Obama.
March 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rezko...drip..drip...drip....Pa SUSA HRC 55 BHO 36.
Clinton/Obama and has anyone seen Edwards lately.
March 11, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss Kefa's devestatingly insightful posts, and I am glad to see her/him back in full force, ready to wield the mighty baton of reason against all who would stand between Clinton and her rightfully earned place at the throne.
This post reads like ee cummings, and I would see a doctor about that drip.
March 11, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just eager to find out if the Mississippi is an important state or not according to the Clinton campaign. If she wins it, it will be a state that really matters. If she loses Mississippi, well then it's an unimportant state. The arrogance from that campaign is just stunning.
March 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dembillc, are you joking -- "Hoodwink" and "bamboozle" are "racially divisive code words"? As someone who has seen and used those words -- especially "bamboozle" -- in appellate legal briefs, I find that surprising. They may have a bit of a populist tinge, but racial?
Here's what the "Online Etymological Dictionary" says about the two words:
bamboozle
1703, originally a slang or cant word, perhaps Scottish from bombaze "perplex," related to bombast, or Fr. embabuiner "to make a fool (lit. 'baboon') of."
hoodwink
1562, "to blindfold," from hood (1) + wink; fig. sense of "mislead, deceive" is 1610.
March 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain has stated that he is willing to keep US Troops in Iraq another Hundred Years, Or More. Hillary Rodham Clinton thinks that means John McCain has crossed The Commander In Chief Threshold. She has endorsed him over Senator Obama.
Hillary is the new Lieberman.
March 11, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should not be shocked by comments like this comming from the Billary Camp.
For example
Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell said this comment "you've got conservative whites here . . . who are not ready to vote for an African American candidate." He later dennounces this, but no comment from Billary was made.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-race28feb28,0,2264192,full.story
Now you have this comment being made. I think we should expect more comments from the Billary Camp. This is why she should not be the next President because of the decisions that she is making within her own camp for not stopping these fools from making comments.
But she will not let comments go if they are coming from the Obama camp like "Monster". There was nothing bad being said here.
OBAMA '08
March 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm laughing laughing laughing.........
InsiderAdvantage gives obama 100% of the hispanic vote in mississippi primary.......... yeah right.
March 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the 4 hispanics polled are all voting for Obama. 100% of the respondents.
More interesting is the number of Republicans polled (24) voting for Hillary: 71%.
Is there something you're not telling us, HillaryClinton08?
March 11, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the answer she's looking for is:
Rush Limbaugh won her Ohio and the Texas Primary. Unfortunately, he won't be able to provide much Republican cross-over in PA.
There's 6 weeks to go. Remember that Hillary held 20+ point leads in TX and OH before Obama whittled those down too.
Hillary's right that PA is the new IA. We all know how that ended up for her...
March 11, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear, the 100% is NOT assumed to be for all Hispanics!
The 54% for Obama is solely based on the 338 people surveyed.
March 11, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hispanics are such a huge voting bloc in Mississippi. Sure to be statistically significant.
Further, the old, out-dated Insider Advantage poll you so selectively tout gave Obama only 67% of the African American vote.
Laughing laughing laughing... I'm guessing its more of an insane shriek than a reality-based chuckle.
March 11, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"(CNN) — A senior adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign called on Hillary Clinton to “repudiate” a comment by one of her top fundraisers that Barack Obama would not be a major presidential contender if he were not black."
Good for BO!
March 11, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is assembling a winning coalition of losing former Democratic candidates, various unaffiliated neocons, and Dixiecrats.
I think the Dixiecrat vote may carry her to victory in Mississippi, along with the all-important Limbaugh endorsement.
I don't recognize the Clinton Coalition. It doesn't harken back so much to the 1990's, as it does to those fabulous days on or about 1964.
She seems to be taking us backward, and fast.
March 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read that Rush Limbaugh is urging his listeners to go out and support Senator Clinton again, like in Texas and Ohio.
Has former President Clinton been a guest on the program today, yet?
A Limbaugh endorsement might be worth 3 points, to the Clintons.
Politics make strange bedfellows. As far as I know, the Clintons are not actively pursuing the Limbaugh endorsement, but it can't hurt.
March 11, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will not help much because there are GOP house primaries in MS today. That will keep the cross over down.
March 11, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama wins by less than 10 points he is in trouble?
What gives? Talk about moving the goal posts! He keeps outscoring his primary opponent but when he loses an occasional contest or doesn't wallop his opponent, then he is at risk of losing to her?
Come again?
If things hold up as they are the only way she wins is to get 300 of the remaining 350 uncommitted delegates.
But I'll give her credit, she has redefined what "winning" and "losing" mean in Machiavellian ways.
March 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
MS. Mississippi. Not MI, that'd be Michigan. ;-)
March 11, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
People! Stop feeding the trolls! (By that I mean HillaryClinton08 and others of that ilk.) They only feed off the attention.
March 11, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
At what point does it become illegal for Limbaugh to encourage conservatives to tamper with the Dem nomination process?
Oh well, doesn't matter anyway. Today's just another Obama freight train heading for Clinton.
Maybe she should try her "black people and small states" don't matter line. Really makes a small stater like me want to vote for her.
March 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
HIllary doesn't have periods anymore so the whole brou haha was about nothing to begin with.
March 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
too bad they didn't mention it was made by married to mob ferraro.
March 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Obama will win Mississippi but it ain't going to be by much .......
The big prizes are Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana......Hillary going to win huge............yes we will, yes will will:)
GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 11, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama outperforms expectations today, will pressure from party elders be brought to bear on Clinton? After all, this is the last performance assessment on tap until Penn, meaning 6 more weeks of scorched earth unless someone puts a stop to it.
March 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently it's been decided that only the big states matter. He could honestly get 100% and this race would go on. However, a strong performance certainly can't hurt him in the superdelegate hunt.
March 11, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone tell me why they expect turnout to be low? I mean, with the nomination this close (or at least as Hillary tells it) why shouldn't the turnout be as high as it was in other states? Any thoughts?
March 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are saying low with respect to the other states and prior mississippi primaries. The republican nomination is locked up and mississippi is 60% republican, soooo they are figuring a low turnout based on those facts. Wouldn't it be a shocker if all the registered dems voted, it would be a big turnout then, but that scenario is highly unlikely.
March 11, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks-- hadn't realized they were including Republicans in the turnout figures-- I guess I forgot about them in Mississippi as well..
March 11, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats probably aren't allowed to say this, but I'm not a Democrat, so I can.
Every Democrat in the country was reminded of Bill's childish antics, by Spitzer, yesterday.
Cringe-worthy, watching his wife take that humiliating hit. Particularly for "feminists", I'd wager.
The connection is visceral, and very, very human.
March 11, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It must be exhausting to be a Clinton backer...... keepin' on.....gettin out there and movin' those damn goal posts for BOTH teams after every score.
Imagine having to do all that heavy lifing for weeks on end. LOL
March 11, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the reminder. I was forgetting about their troubles. I should work on trying to be more sypathetic to the losers.
March 11, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton campaign after another blowout loss:
We expected it.
Texas - Clinton campaign claims a win but actually loses the delegate count.
Pennsylvania - if Clinton does not win by 20%, she is mathematically eliminated.
After 8+ years of being in favor of NAFTA - she suddenly was against it in Ohio. After accusing Obama of talking to the Canadians - it turns out Clinton talked to them first.
After voting for the AUMF in Iraq - clinto was really against it.
Clinton didn't mean to vote for cluster bombs or to skip out on the key amandment vote of telecom immunity - it just happened that way.
Really - I would like to elect a female president - just not this one. Her experience is ephemeral as is her voting record.
In his shorter time in the Senate - Obama has done much more of significance than Clinton - look it up.
Besides - I usually vote for the Irish candidate - O'Bama must be Irish.
March 11, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If turnout is low then Obama may not win by much or he may not even win.
Obama losing Mississippi will be proof that the Democratic primary season is over because there are enough Republicans voting in Democratic contests to corrupt the process.
March 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Miss. has near highest African American population of all the states, something like 37%. So of course he should do well since blacks have been supporting him over 80% since S.C.
Anything other than a double digit lead, will not look great for him.
But Obama cannot win big states as we have seen. He isn't winning the states dems need to carry the general election.
That's the main point.
And if you don't count the caucus states, which are NOT democratic elections since All people are not given a fair chance of participation, then Hillary is ahead.
Rae
March 11, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sarcastic or deluded?
March 11, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deluded.
By the way, raek, baaaaahhhhh!
March 11, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mississippi? That's one of those small states, right?
Musn't matter then. Like VT, MD, IL, GA, AL, WI, DC, LA, VA, SC, VT, DE, MO, CT, HI, WY, WA, NE, ID, MN, AK, ND, KS, ME, CO and IA didn't matter.
26 states so far to 15
Popular vote lead.
Pledged delegate lead.
These are the facts. I rest my case.
March 11, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Can't win the big states"......what are you really talking about? If you are talking about Calif. and New York you are simply lost if you think McCain has a shot there. If you are talking about Ohio, Penn., Missouri then we can have a discussion. In that case I would argue you are still somewhat lost if you think McCain's economic message will resonate and he can win there. We have seen that this election is more about the economy than anything, and Obama (like Clinton) actually has a plan for helping lower and middle income people. McCain is sorely lacking in knowledge and plans in this area, and has admitted as much. Unless your argument is that Barack is just too black to win in Ohio, Penn, Fla. or Missouri then ok, that's your position, I just disagree. Either way, you have to explain what the heck you mean, in terms of the electoral math in November, when you say he can't win "big states". I think it is very safe to assume that Obama would do as well as Kerry did in '04. Given the record Democratic turnout and Obama's substantial political gifts compared with Kerry, I don't think its a stretch to believe Obama will outperform him. In that case, all the Dems need is to win Ohio OR Florida, or if both stay Republican, win a combination of small/medium states, with IA, NM, NV, ND, SD, CO, MO, NE, VA, WV all conceivably in play (all which went for Bush in 2004). Anyhow, play around on:
www.270towin.com
And see how in the heck you can support your argument, without telling me that Hillary supporters (supposed true blue Democrats) are going to vote for McCain in a general election. And if that's the case, why the heck would they do that?
March 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my "case" was not quite rested...
March 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink