Super Tuesday 2! Election primary 08

[andronicus]

I meant to imply that Olbermann was both whiny and had a fully-functional uterus.  Which is where I would like to kick him.

[hannah]

That'll be one angry baby that pops out.

[DCDave]

Either that, or she's hoping to win Pennsylvania the same way that she won Ohio, on the backs of racists.

See what I mean about the discourse becoming fucking retarded? We can expect a lot more "insights" like that one in the coming months.

Exit polling showed 1:5 Ohio voters cited race as their primary reason for voting, and 3:4 of those voters voted for Hilary, making a 15% swing for Hilary in a state that she won by < 15%.  So I'd say she won on the backs of racists. 

[andronicus]

That'll be one angry baby that pops out.

Hopefully the second generation will be more bad-imitation-of-Dan Rather than bad-imitation-of-Edward R. Murrow.  That would be funny NOW, not just 10 years from now.

[elpollodiablo]

Good for you. We bumpkins out here in flyover country will try to do better in the general, I promise.


Any statistics on how gender affected the vote?

xpost to dave

[slow west vultures]

well not to rile it up further, because i don't know much about the eastern midwest. . . but some nbc analyst rehashed a james carville quote a couple of weeks ago when they were talking about the lead up to the pennsylvania primary that "pennsylvania is philadelphia in the east, pittsburgh in the west, and alabama in the middle" 

which i don't know if its true, but it is pretty funny. 

[DCDave]

Good for you. We bumpkins out here in flyover country will try to do better in the general, I promise.


Any statistics on how gender affected the vote?

xpost to dave

17 percent said gender was important, and they broke 3:2 for Clinton.

[Andrew_TSKS]

well not to rile it up further, because i don't know much about the eastern midwest. . . but some nbc analyst rehashed a james carville quote a couple of weeks ago when they were talking about the lead up to the pennsylvania primary that "pennsylvania is philadelphia in the east, pittsburgh in the west, and alabama in the middle" 

which i don't know if its true, but it is pretty funny. 

dude, it's totally true. there are so many neo-nazis in rural pennsylvania... it's not what you'd expect.

[elpollodiablo]

"If HC wins it's because of rural racist hicks" is a great narrative for the Obama people to try to sell. It'd be even better if his opponent weren't a woman.

GAH you see what this is coming too, it's gonna be awful I tells ya

[elpollodiablo]

Can anyone give me a run-down on how the PA primary will work? Do they caucus? Is HC's lead really as strong as it looks? How many delegates would she take if the final percentages shook out the way they look right now (50% HC, 37% O)?

Also curious to know what you guys think about HC winning the popular vote in TX but being denied the overall victory due to the caucus process?

[elpollodiablo]

And really, honestly, I'm coming to the point where I just want her to pack it in with some dignity, because the longer this goes on the worse it'll be for everyone. You can't look at the numbers and think she has really any chance of coming back, and even as an HC supporter, I do not want some shady deal swinging the nom her way when the popular vote is with Obama. I'm a one man one vote kinda guy, and I think the superdelegate thing is incredibly skeevy.

Reading this, just now:
"If Florida and Michigan are included in the calculus, Hillary Clinton stands to benefit most. When they're not factored in, Clinton needs an average margin of victory of 28 points in all of the remaining states to catch Obama's pledged-delegate lead. With Florida's and Michigan's delegates up for grabs, that average margin of victory drops to 18 points. Essentially, Florida and Michigan buy Clinton more time to not only persuade  superdelegates to nuzzle up to her and Bill, but also to chip away at Obama's lead."

Pretty much put me over the edge.

Good try, HC, good try. I hear they're going to need a new governor in NY pretty soon. Time to regroup, maybe?

[hannah]

Aw, but the new guy is black AND blind.



Jeez, it's only March. I vote for whoever invents a way of speeding up the months between now and November. This country is lame.

[davy]

Also agree with richard w/r/t Olbermann; he's like Stephen Colbert if Stephen Colbert were actually for real with his pompous wankery

eh, i'd rather see a talking head with a sense of humor who knows why and when to get serious than someone like colbert who thinks being ironically condescending 100% of the time is enough to make himself relevant.

[davy]

i think pomposity is beside the point. you've got to respect olbermann for letting a little ol' fashioned righteous indignation slip out on national television. dude was channeling some rage.

[elpollodiablo]

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any use for Colbert & the Daily Show. But I think that's the level Olbermann operates on. Stewart knows when to get serious, too, though he can always back himself out of a corner by calling what he does satire and ungoverned by the rules of serious discourse.

With Olbermann... I dunno. Maybe it's just a personal dislike. Guy is so full of himself he could shit limbs.

[davy]

yeah, john stewart's got it figured out for sure. i'll grant you that olbermann seems to have a healthy ego--i'm just glad that there's someone on tv who, generally speaking, believes what i believe, and who has the cajones to stand up to bill o'reilly on a regular basis.

[elpollodiablo]

And it's not like O'Reilly isn't totally full of himself. I just honestly believe he's the better showman.

And don't ascribe some great amount of courage to Olbermann, please--it just feeds O'Reilly's ego to think that people are somehow afraid of him. People stand up to him on a regular basis, and he has his staff sift through editorial pages across the nation for any negative mention of his name just so he can try and intimidate some small-town newspaper in like southern Florida or whatever. This, of course, makes for great television, but he's not to be taken seriously.

[elpollodiablo]

"Barack Obama’s minister, who leads the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and who coined the phrase "the audacity of hope," has said some controversial things over the years. But new videos of his sermons, purchased and reported on by Fox News, could up the ante. Especially the one in which he goes after Hillary: "Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty," Wright said."


HAHAHAHAHA, oh MAN that's priceless! This guy should have carte blanche to say whatever he wants if he keeps turning out gems like that one.

[DCDave]

Congregationalism = the bomb.

[elpollodiablo]

I'd say so.

Of all the accusations and ad hominem attacks leveled at Clinton, I'd say that's the best one ever. And really the most accurate. Motherfucker was riding dirty.

[DCDave]

Honestly when I found out Obama was a Congregationalist was when I was like "Oh really?"

[slow west vultures]

But new videos of his sermons, purchased and reported on by Fox News,

jesus christ (uncomfortable pun sorta intended) there is something just ominous and creepy about that line there. 

i'll just make up some of my own

Fox News, utilizing the very latest in brain wave detection technology, has tapped into what some of obama's campaign aides have been thinking, and the results WILL STARTLE YOU!  more at eleven with sean hannity

[Andrew_TSKS]

Can anyone give me a run-down on how the PA primary will work? Do they caucus? Is HC's lead really as strong as it looks? How many delegates would she take if the final percentages shook out the way they look right now (50% HC, 37% O)?

pennsylvania is a closed primary. this means that only people who are registered as democrats can vote in it. this hurts obama, because he's very strong with independents, who will not be allowed to vote in this or the republican primary. i'm on the obama campaign mailing list, and they notified me recently that they're in pa trying to register people, since the closing date for registration in pa is march 24. i would be willing to bet that what they're doing is hitting up obama backers who are registered independent and going "come on, register as democrat just so you can help us out in the primary. you can change it next year." which is a good strategy.

the above facts, though, probably mean that hillary's lead is almost as strong as it looks, yes. now, keep in mind that the iowa primary was only 8 or 9 weeks ago. there are still 6 weeks remaining until the pennsylvania primary, and it's the next primary. that makes this something like a halftime period, and the democratic candidates can use this entire halftime period to sit in pennsylvania and campaign their asses off. this is probably what they will do, although it's thought that both candidates will work indiana and north carolina at least a little bit, since they are the post-pa primaries that are likeliest to be swingable. who knows, though. clinton's casting pa as her big final stand, so obama is going to probably put everything he's got into the state to try and shut her down. so we could see HUGE changes in the numbers by april 22.

as for the delegates, it's 188 total. and it's really hard to determine how they'll shake out if the numbers hold right now, because some of them are awarded by whoever wins the state, and some are awarded by whoever wins the precinct from which they originate. this makes it possible for candidates to win states and still lose the delegate battle, even in primaries (as far as i know, every time this has happened for a candidate, it's been obama who came out ahead in the delegate count, due to his support being so strong in cities, while clinton's is stronger in rural areas). but i mean, if you want to be super-ballpark about it, you can figure that clinton could, at most, net 20 out of pa. this really won't help her much, though, as she netted 15 or so out of iowa and texas, and obama's already pretty much made that up in wyoming and mississippi.

Also curious to know what you guys think about HC winning the popular vote in TX but being denied the overall victory due to the caucus process?

eh, that's the way the ball bounces. texas has been a prima-caucus from day one, and it's generally not a state in which the result of the primary has any real importance, since by the time it votes, the nominee is usually decided upon. so i figure, let them have their weird rules, and if texas democrats are bummed out by the way they shook out this time, they can change them next time. for the record, though, new mexico was also a prima-caucus, and hillary clinton won that one, though that resulted in her netting exactly one delegate. nobody complained about that at the time.

i saw ed rendell on meet the press last week, and he was calling caucuses undemocratic. while i can see where he's coming from, i can't back any kind of invalidating argument from anyone directed towards caucuses, because there've been caucuses used in the nomination processes for a long long time, and no one had any problem with them before. if we want to use this occasion to discuss changes in the process for next time, fine with me, but i don't think you can change the rules in the middle of the game this way (which is also what clinton's trying to do re: michigan and florida. "the results in those states were fair and should be honored", huh? even though obama [and edwards, and richardson, etc.] were not on the ballot in michigan? puh-leeze).

also, there was a lot of bluster about the electoral college in 2001 after bush beat gore, but nothing ended up happening with that either. i don't think these processes will change, simply because what benefits one's opponent this time may benefit oneself next time, and everyone on both sides of the obama/clinton split is totally aware of that.

[Tom]

hi, gang.  (somewhat) long time lurker, first time poster here.

if we want to use this occasion to discuss changes in the process for next time, fine with me, but i don't think you can change the rules in the middle of the game this way (which is also what clinton's trying to do re: michigan and florida. "the results in those states were fair and should be honored", huh? even though obama [and edwards, and richardson, etc.] were not on the ballot in michigan? puh-leeze).

exactly!  not to mention: Florida and Michigan were told not to move their primaries forward, or else; yet they chose to anyway, and now we're supposed to let them have another bite at the apple - why?  they broke the rules, rules established beforehand, and now they should have to live with their decisions.  if we let them off the hook, what's to stop PA or TX or NC or anyone else from moving their primaries forward next time around?  do we really want the 2012 election calendar moving up even further?  no - and that's why the rules were in place.

(great to be here  )

(and sorry for such an impolite rant for post #1; I guess it took this sort of enthusiam to get me to actually register!)

[elpollodiablo]

Yeah, wanting to count the MI and FL delegates at this point is obviously a bunch of bullshit. It's fucked up that the DNC did em that way to begin with, but we can't have a fucking do over for chrissakes.