Obama ends rough week on a high note, wins Wyoming caucuses

Another minor caucus victory in a red state, who really cares? Yea, we know he’ll win Mississippi too, but the real story is Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan, all VERY IMPORTANT in the general election because they are swing states.

Go ahead and blow this and Mississippi out of proportion Obamaniacs, it still doesn’t mean much.

Mark Kleiman does the math and agrees with many posters here:

Is Hillary Clinton (1) running a good-faith attempt to win the nomination or (2) merely trying to wreck Obama’s chances against McCain so she can run in 2012? A little bit of calculation suggests that the correct answer is (2)…

It is over for Clinton. All she can do now is attempt to destroy it for Barack. And truthfully, I don’t think she can even manage that. If she keeps it up she will only spin herself down the toilet faster; a victim of her own furious flushing.

What will count in the general election is getting the voters to turn out. On this point Obama’s supporters have trampled Hillary’s. Undetermined voters in many states have swung the pendulum to Obama.

Those same undetermined voters are the ones that McSame was capturing in 2000, now it looks like they want a change of venue and would be willing to go to Obama, hence the numbers in the polls of McSame vs. HRC or McSame vs. Obama.

Hillary and her people can get as negative as they want. But they have to watch their asses…her “experience” is not as great as they would like you to believe and she still has plenty of skeletons in her closet (and tax returns).

In terms of delegates, Wyoming isn’t exactly a delegate-rich state, but Obama will pad his overall lead a little, winning seven delegates to Clinton’s five. — CB

According to this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09wyoming.html?hp
there are also 6 uncommitted delegates, for the total of 18. How they’re going to go is anyone’s guess; another tid-bit in the article suggested that the party apparatus is pro-Clinton and that the voters went against the official recommendations pushing for Obama. So, those uncommitteds *may* all vote for Clinton at the Convention, which would give Obama 7 delegates (pledged) and Clinton 11 (the 5 pledged and the 6 uncommitted).

Greg, @2,
If Wyoming is such a piddly, no-count state, then how come all 3 Clintons honored it with their campaigning presence? Ditto for Ole Mrs Ippy; if it’s so unimportant, how come the Cookie Monster and her cohorts are there, peddling the “vote for me; if you do, I’ll — maybe — give you a cookie (aka Obama as a VP)” meme?

It seems to me that Obama’ delegate accumulation (and lead) is due to his “take care of the pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves” principle; small or large, important on not, he gives every State its due and its citizens a sense of purpose. Clinton (H), OTOH, seems to have decided early on, that Obama was “penny-wise and pound-foolish” and that *she* would go only after the big prizes…

Perhaps she’s learning different now? A tad late for a 60yr old “Comeback Kid”, if you ask me, but… better late than never. And, certainly, she seems to have caught on earlier than her supporters did. At least on this blog, anyway; here, they still seem to be propounding the “unimportant”, “caucus”, “small”, “red” talking points. Just how many of us would it take, for you to consider our voices valid? 60%? 80%? And, WHY, if Mrs Clinton seems to think that 51% is perfectly sufficient to validate *her* supremacy?

…and vice versa, Comeback Bill…

it’s 61-38 for Obama with 100% reporting.

Greg, half the people in Wyoming are related to Cheney, so of course they’re not going dem in the fall. Both Dem candidates have a good chance of winning the presidency (see all those state-by-state polls), but the whole reason we run primaries is to get a decent idea of who the people in this country want to be president. The opinions of Democrats and left-leaning independents in Wyoming don’t matter less because they’re in a “red” state. In fact these are the states that matter the most in terms of outreach and expansion of the Democratic base. and read phoebes’s post (3) again in case you missed it

Speaking of cryptic, that stupid face in #11 is supposed to be an “8.”

How the hell can people still say Clinton “won” Texas when Obama won more delegates? Did the caucuses not happen?

Jesus.

Foster D won Ill 14 tonight

Greg, half the people in Wyoming are related to Cheney, so of course they’re not going dem in the fall. — NB, @10

Tee hee… I hadn’t thought of that but, now that you bring it up… You never know; if they’re related to Cheney, they might be related to Obama as well (same Mareen Duvall connection) and, “family values” an’ all, and Cheney ain’t running’…

I agree with #14. According to CNN only 41% of the districts have reported their numbers from the caucuses held on Tuesday in Texas. Obama is ahead and will come out with more delgegates when the final numbers come in (as long as he keeps his lead.) That is not a win for Clinton. Clinton campaign is great at spinning.

Do people really not get the idea that if Democratic candidates only won the blue states, they would be shut out of the White House? How did that 50% plus 1 strategy work for Gore and Kerry?

There is a cold reality for us Democrats: in this country, there are three conservatives to every two liberals, and the electoral votes we need are in those places where the margin is worse.

Maybe Hillary can’t win the red states considering she can’t win convincingly in any primary except home state Arkansas (her only 20+ point blowout this primary season), but unlike Republicans, Democrats need to go into enemy territory and win in places where they wouldn’t otherwise be welcome. Maybe Hillary and her boosters don’t relish or are scared of that kind of fight, so I think it should be a great relief to this party and, in general, the liberal wing of American politics, that Obama can persuade voters at all ends of the spectrum to vote blue at the polls.

Sorry, all you Clinton boosters. You bought yourself a candidate with 35 years of experience, lacking the courage to put that experience to use in the places that need it the most.

Greg, what Obama’s victories in these previously red states portends is not nessesarily a win at the top of the ticket in November, but rather some extra “juice” in the DOWN TICKET races where we might pick up a few extra congressional seats.

I think this is perhaps the major point of difference between the Clinton and Obama camps.

Despite all the talk about how Obama supporters are a cult around him, I’ve always been impressed with his ability to run a 50-state strategy and his potential for coattails downticket. He runs better in the swing states, which is why he’s now looking more likely to have a higher EC margin than Clinton, but more important is the pull he’ll have in congressional and gubernatorial races.

But with Clinton, it all seems to be about her. They’re so quick to write off 2/3 of the country and insist all we need are the big blue states in their 50% + 1 strategy. Sure, that may be enough to get Hillary elected, but that’s a selfish attitude that’s going to leave a lot of the party out in the cold.

Since when are Iowa, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, & Virginia states that won’t be in play in the general?

Last I checked, IA, CO, VA and MO were all pinpointed as vital swing states awhile ago. They’re also worth as more electorally, IIRC, than Ohio + Pennsylvania combined. And if SUSA is to be believed, Obama puts Nebraska and Kansas into play, while Hillary puts Wash and Oregon into play…for McCain.

Yuck. The “important states” indeed. Because its oh-so-likely that Barack would lose Cali or NY. I can’t believe anyone buys that shit. That must be Mark Penn himself posting here.

goldenstate @ 17: There’s also the possibility that California may go to McCain. Latinos came out in huge numbers for Hillary. They may not for Obama.

Speaking as a Californian, I would go so far as to say you’re full of *%#@! California will never end up in McCain’s column, ESPECIALLY if Obama is the nominee. You are either delusional or lying.

Looks like Hastert’s old seat has fallen to the democrat Foster, by more than expected. Lots of money expended by Republicans trying to hold it. Obama cut an ad for him – coattails is one of my big reasons for supporting Obama in the primary; I hope other down ticket dems take notice,

The important thing to remember is that any state that Obama wins is unimportant; any state that Clinton wins (no matter what the margin) will certainly go to McCain in the general if Clinton isn’t the nominee; and the most important thing is…Clinton winning. That’s all that really matters.

It has been a rather humorous event to watch the people who spent a good month flinging the word “cult” around now packing their bags for Guyana. I won’t even be surprised when Clinton supporters start calling her “Dear Leader”, differentiating her from her husband our “Great Leader”. (Or are those the terms of endearment for the Bush presidents? I’m beginning to confuse the two on a fairly regular basis.) And i long for the day when someone recognizes her visage in a Lima bean or some such other agricultural product.

Since you’re from California, you do know our Governor is a Republican, don’t you?

Please. Schwarzenegger is a social liberal who initially won a special election because of his celebrity status and because most of what he publically asserts does not offend the sensibilities of the majority democratic state. McCain has exactly zero chance of riding that same sort of wave and maintaining his base.

Amen, petorado. For the first time in a long time, the Republicans would actually have to think about defending their territory. But using that approach would violate the long held Democratic belief that playing defense is the only sure way to victory.

GREEN MATTERS: We are the change we’ve been waiting for!

PURPOSE: The “Green Matters” event is a grassroots organized one-day mass donation with the sole purpose of bringing the ENVIRONMENT into the forefront of the 2008 Presidential race.

HOW IT WORKS: The “mainstream media” has proven in this election cycle that they will cover how much money the Presidential candidates can, or have raised. Therefore, a massive donation organized around environmental issues, by individuals concerned with the state of the planet, and on a nationally celebrated day of environmental awareness (Earth Day) will penetrate the national dialogue, once again moving the environment to the forefront of Presidential politics.

WHO BENEFITS: Everyone benefits when our environmental issues are discussed on a national stage, therefore anyone concerned about the future of our planet is encouraged to participate in this event regardless of race, age, gender, or political affiliation. However, this event has been organized by independent grassroots supporters of Barack Obama and all donations benefit the Obama campaign. As President, Barack Obama will reduce carbon emissions, encourage developments in clean energy, support next generation biofuels, work to gain oil independence, improve energy efficiency in buildings and restore U.S. leadership on climate change.

By making the Green Matters pledge, you will receive an e-mail reminder the day of donation, Earth Day – April 22nd, 2008.

You are the change the Earth’s been waiting for…make the pledge now at http://www.envirobama.com/greenmatters and on Earth Day 2008 tell the world that Green Matters!

Visit http://www.envirobama.com for in-depth discussion about Barack Obama’s environmental record and policy proposals.

Since you’re from California, you do know our Governor is a Republican, don’t you? — goldenstate, @31

And has, dutifully, endorsed McSame. But his wife — a lady of some political clout, due to her dynastic connections — has endorsed Obama. Do you see Laura Bush endorsing Clinton?

Due to the pressures exerted by the majority of “we the wee people”, in states like CA, MA and NY, even when the governator is a Repub, he has to acquire so many blue spots he looks like he’s got an extraterrestrial rash. It may be an insincere conversion — vide Mittens weeping over his cousin’s botched abortion and giving it as the reason why he supports same — but it does put a bit of a muzzle — with a “leash” of evidence — on them.

A fluke happens and CA elects a Repub (by all accounts, your previous, Dem, governator had all the charisma of a wet paper-mache mask, which, compared to a film star… In CA, of all places…). But a fluke is not an argument for CA trending red in general.

After rereading Mary’s post, i’m kicking myself for not addressing this directly:

Democrats outnumber Republicans (if not Independents combined with Republicans).

Really? You think so? Then please explain a two term Republican President and the Democrats not having control of Congress between 1994 and 2006 (which gave them a nonworking majority). Must be a lot of good, pure Democrats voting for Republicans, Mary.

“The remarkable thing about Obama drawing so many people out of the woodwork in red states to support him is that if he is the nominee, normally safe red states will be a big question mark for the Repubs. A Barack vs. McCain race would see the Republicans spending cash in states they otherwise have considered safe since it’s hard to gage the Obama enthusiasm and crossover appeal against a not quite so true blue conservative that conservatives are suppressing a gag reflex to back. A Republican party already on the shy end of the fundraising dollars will have a harder time stretching those bucks to make sure they can keep their normally red states.”

Out of all that I’ve read so far, this is what I want to comment on the most. Part of me wants to say that a state like North Dakota is never going to be in play in this election, but if Obama is the nominee and keeps raising the enormous amounts of money he has earned so far, perhaps he can throw some money at the state if the early numbers look good. If it isn’t too costly and it’s going to be spun as the Democrats are really making gains and the Republicans really are facing trouble, then it makes it even more valuable than three Electoral votes the state gives us.

Lord help me, but on reflection there’s quite a lot about this absolutely insane crazy-quilt system of primaries and caucuses that I actually like. There’s certainly stuff that needs to be fixed (e.g., a revolving schedule for who gets to go first, or starting with the states that had the closest vote last time, perhaps, figuring out how to get a timely and definitive count of delegates, and for gosh sake somebody needs to take Texas’ two-step process and shoot it). Nonetheless, while the untidyness of the current system seems awful, it does overall do a very thorough job of testing the candidates. The overall complexity tests the candidates’ organizations. Caucuses test supporters’ determination. Primaries test name recognition and popular will. The up-and-down aspect of results tests the resilience of the candidates. Despite the best efforts of the mainstream media to avoiding informing us of actual details, the primary season does in fact seem to tell us stuff that we need to know about our candidates.

I have also noticed that I am getting much better informed about the primary process than in previous years. This seems to be due entirely to a bunch of excellent internet resources, such as this one (thanks, CB), electoral-vote.com (which I became a fan of in 2004), various county-by-county maps for results during elections (NY Times and others), and the many great links provided at these sorts of sites.

Gee, Mary figures out why Obama can’t win California while Hillary can. Color me surprised.

As usual, a bunch of long-winded baseless assertions based on wishful thinking. Obama would CREAM McCain in California. I’ll bet even Ahnold would pull the lever for him once he was in the privacy of the voting booth.

I am having trouble understanding why the concerns of Democrats should not matter to the Democratic party. But then, I suspect that quite a few of the people posting in progressive blogs are not Demcrats.

So says the woman who insists she will only vote for a Democrat if it’s Hillary Clinton.

You have some nerve lecturing the rest of us on what it means to be a true Democrat.

14.
On March 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm, Racer X said:

How the hell can people still say Clinton “won” Texas when Obama won more delegates? Did the caucuses not happen?

Jesus.

Pretty much the same way Gore won Florida in 2000–by popular vote. Amusing to see you guys choke on your own spin.

“Mary”
Of course there will be a fight for the middle, as there always is, but we shouldn’t be contorting ourselves into something we are not in order to appeal to them. We have never had to do that before and shouldn’t have to do it to win again

The base should be revisited and redefined but not by fringe voters like yourself who consider their single issues to be the only game in town. These issues I speak of have always flared up during elections and instantly kill off all chances of garnering any crossover votes and you know it, just like the evangelicals negate the issues of more sensible conservatives

I’ll never forget a conversation I over heard at Bill’s 92 election victory at the campaign headquarters in NC. While the gays and lesbians danced wildly about in a conga line, beside me watching were two of the old-time African American Democrats who upon rolling their eyes at the fracus looked at each other and me and said, “Oh let ’em have their night, they’ll be gone in the morning.”.

Not surprisingly “Mary” views toleration as confirmation that all Democrats feel the same. But she is not speaking of or for the base. The base (that I’m familiar with) is generally good-hearted Americans all colors and persuasions who see their lifetime of work minimized to zilch. They aren’t worried that gays can’t marry legally or even about abortion issues. They’re worried that they’ve had to tap into every possible resource just pay for pills and keep their houses. I suspect she wishes “they’ll be gone in the morning”, but they ain’t going anywhere and they ain’t voting McCain and I hope like hell they aren’t deceived by Hillary Freaking Clinton.

But then, what do I know? I live in CA also, Southern CA with all types of Democrats, moderate and conservative Mexicans, African American cowboys, along with a huge dollop of the melting pot for which you seem to have no connection to whatsoever. But since you believe you speak for all of us here, I won’t piss on your parade with mere fact.

You are right though in your suspicions that some of us aren’t Democrats. I changed my affliation to Independent in 04. Why? Well where do I begin? It started with Bill’s philandering and lying, then compounded by the stupidity of all the crap that went down in 00 (“We have to make sure Al has more flags behind him than George!!”). And there’s John Kerry allowing the fucking campaign to be about his service in Vietnam when at that very moment, 100s of our young people were dying in Afghanistan and Iraq where him and Commando Clinton put them in the first place. When the Democrats develop some backbone, I’ll come back. But until then, I’ll be counted with the (“Mary’s” term) “so-called Independents”. Needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway) this Independent is working very hard to see President Obama take that oath.

Should everything be open to negotiation to win the Independent vote? Just asking.

And there’s John Kerry allowing the fucking campaign to be about his service in Vietnam when at that very moment, 100s of our young people were dying in Afghanistan and Iraq where him and Commando Clinton put them in the first place.

Huh? There is something to be said for being lucid.

I am tired of hearing the spin of Hillary’s win in Ohio. Political pundits are asking if this is “buyer’s remorse” of Obama? When in actuality, 8 out of 10 people questioned in the Ohio exit polls stated race was a factor in casting their votes. Hillary should just appreciate the win and move on – no spin – none of this, “. . as goes Ohio, so goes the nation.” I don’t care how ONE state votes! There are more states to hear from and they are ALL important!

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Nice to see a few people pointing out that Obama, not Clinton, will win Texas. Like it or not, the Texas tow-step is the rule there…and by that rule Obama takes more delegates. The chances for Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates is very very slim. This means that all she can to is run a scorched earth campaign and pray for a superdelegate Hail Mary. That may yet happen, but I sincerely hope not. Obama has demonstrated a clear ability to connect with non-traditional Democrats and Independents which just may turn some red states to purple and some purple states to blue. Any anyone who says that hardcore Democrats will turn away from Obama in hoards is fooling him or herself. Once we have a nominee, almost all Dems will rally around either. The difference is that Obama will force the Republicans to spend time, money and resources in states they won’t have to with Clinton. I hope Clinton doesn’t drag down Obama too far before the general election.

Greg, Wyoming had small numbers but they actually had a meaningful contest.

In non-meaningful elections, it doesn’t really matter how many people vote.

As you are having trouble with the concept of a meaningful contest, please consider the following, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm , on 16 October 2002

“There were 11,445,638 eligible voters – and every one of them voted for the president, according to Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-Chairman of Iraq’s Revolutionary Command Council. The government insists the count was fair and accurate. Saddam Hussein – who has ruled Iraq since 1979 – was the only candidate.”

Was that enough people to have made that election significant for you? If you’d like, I’m sure I could dig up some even more lopsided results from the former USSR.

For the Florida election to be meaningful, all the candidates would have had to campaign, and all the potential voters would have had to be equally clear about the importance of their vote.

You were citing numbers as the primary measure of the significance of the Florida election. That is not a valid argument if the election in question was not legitimate, as my examples showed. The Florida election was not fair and legitimate. It was not fair to the candidates because they had no chance to campaign and it was not fair to the voters because they had to choose to vote or not without knowing whether their vote would actually be worth anything.

Obama ran some commercials nationally, on cable, which were also shown in Florida. He asked CNN & MSNBC to block the ads from showing in Florida, and was told that it was all or nothing. He also cleared it with a South Carolina official. He did not buy ads solely within Florida. I think he was within his rights to advertise nationally on cable news, because one state’s screw-up should not hamstring campaigning by candidates in other states, but I agree it is a grey area.