You are spot on. The media has perpetuated this idea of nail-biter race when it's been over since WI, as Axelrod said if you remember. Here's a good story from politico. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Posted at March 25, 2008 11:50 AM in response to Hillary Needs An Obama Collapse In Order To Win

I wish that were the case but an Obama loss, no matter how small, would "indicate a lack of confidence in his candidacy" according to Mark Penn, a bullshit idea from the king of bullshitters that seems to have floated among public opinion post-March 4th. God I would love for Obama to pull a surprise victory out of the Keystone State and put this damn thing to rest once and for all. It's apparent from Nancy Pelosi's comments in recent weeks that Sen. Clinton has refused to acquiesce. Florida re-votes look doomed, she doesn't stand to gain much in Michigan, she's going to get waxed in NC and there aren't enough remaining votes to resurrect her dismal popular vote count. I keep asking, what the hell is she waiting for? When she wins by 6-10% in PA, putting no real dent in the arithmetic, what will be the spin on April 23rd. There will be a reason for her to stick it out but for what? 80/20 victories in the 8 remaining states? This thing is over and has been over since WI. Al Gore needs to bawlz up and get behind Obama so we can put this whole thing behind us and start fighting John McCain for the goddamn oval office in November!

Posted at March 13, 2008 3:51 PM in response to Rasmussen: Hillary Ahead In Pennsylvania, Her Supporters Divided About Ferraro's Remarks

Rightfully claim the moral high ground? Senator Clinton initially wanted the delegations seated proportionate to the bogus votes that included a ballot lacking Senator Obama's name. The high ground? She's talking here with her supporters about a strategy to woo superdelegates under the assumption that she won't catch Sen. Obama's pledged delegate lead. There is no high ground here buddy just Your Highness.

Posted at March 12, 2008 11:05 PM in response to In Private Pep-Talk To Top Donors, Hillary Predicts: "We're Gonna Win This"

BNL, i wasn't contesting the legality of a 527 I was contesting the legality of a 527 advocating a single candidate. By law, the 527 can single out a candidate negatively, single out a party, single out an idea but cannot singlehandedly advocate an individual candidate.

Posted at March 4, 2008 1:40 PM in response to Pro-Hillary 527 On The Air In Texas

Al Giordono is great and has been deadly accurate in past primary contests. I highly recommend his blog as well. www.ruralvotes.com/thefield

Posted at March 4, 2008 1:36 PM in response to Pro-Hillary 527 On The Air In Texas

Okay, I guess I'm missing something here. Isn't it illegal for a 527 to directly advocate a single candidate?

Posted at March 4, 2008 1:04 PM in response to Pro-Hillary 527 On The Air In Texas

If Mrs. Clinton does indeed win both Texas and Ohio this evening, it will be the first feather in her cap of electability. These two contests will be deciding factors in the GE and are semi-open contests. I think educated voters need to review the definitions of the different primary types. Hillary won in NY, a closed primary state and NY & NJ primary states where independent, unafilliated and/or republican voters aren't represented. When the contests are opened up, Senator Obama runs the board. Independent, unaffiliated and/or republican voters from closed states are free to vote for Senator Obama in the GE. The only question is, what is the motive for independent and republican support of Senator Obama throughout the primaries?

Posted at March 4, 2008 12:45 PM in response to Poll: Two Thirds Say Hillary Should Stay In Even If She Loses One Big State

Let's dispel a long held rumor that a Democratic candidate's ability to win states in the primary is is indicative of their ability to win those states in the GE. This applies to both Clinton & Obama. All of the major states Senator Clinton has won (New York, New Jersey, California, Nevada, etc) have either standard or closed primary/caucus systems. ie, independents and unaffiliated voters can't participate. The outcome of from these states indicates the rank and file democratic party members' preferred candidate. Senator Clinton has done marginally well in these states. Where she loses the edge is among those independent, unaffiliated and republican voters. When a caucus or primary is opened up, Senator Obama shines. In open caucuses he averages a 67.7% vote and in open primaries he averages a 55% vote. Hell, he averages a 56% vote in standard primaries. Texas and Ohio are "semi-open" primary states. Any registered voter is free to vote for any candidate from both parties but must declare which party they intend to vote for and can only vote in one primary. Texas, of course, has the separate caucus which Senator Clinton must be dreading as he's won those with an average vote of 60%. For one reason or another, independents, unaffiliated voters and republicans are supporting Senator Obama in large numbers at open contests. These voters that weren't given the opportunity to vote for him in the primaries will have that opportunity in the General Election. Hillary Clinton has won a few close contests in closed primary states -- not a huge electability booster. Check the facts.

Posted at March 4, 2008 12:32 PM in response to Poll: Two Thirds Say Hillary Should Stay In Even If She Loses One Big State

Cain,

Over 4 million democrats cast early votes in California. Those 4 million votes more than likely favored the biggest brand name, Hillary Clinton. In states that either didn't offer early voting or had significantly fewer early voters, Obama surged dramatically in the past few weeks and into Super Tuesday. The California results had little to do with Oprah or Maria. Had they been campaigning for Obama in California 6 months ago, sound logic would dictate that the outcome would have been more favorable for Obama.

Posted at February 6, 2008 8:11 PM in response to Hillary Pollster Mark Penn: Obama Has Become The "Establishment Candidate"

Believe what you choose but 100 delegates (a differential that includes 'pledged but not binded' super delegates)is well within "striking distance." The Clinton campaign is worried. Obama has the money, the ground force and the logistical head start in remaining primary states. Despite what Clinton spokespeople say, her campaign was not engineered to withstand this sort of challenge this late in the race. Also, if Obama closes that differential in the next few primaries or takes a strong lead, those super delegates can (and most likely will) choose to re-align themselves behind the front-runner, which would be a final coffin nail for the Clinton campaign.

Posted at February 6, 2008 8:05 PM in response to Hillary Pollster Mark Penn: Obama Has Become The "Establishment Candidate"