Why Indiana Sort of Matters

by publius

Given recent media narratives, it’s easy to lose sight of just how irrelevant the Indiana primary is to the overall nomination. It seems at times that Clinton is just an Indiana victory from storming back into contention. But she's not. Regardless of the ultimate outcome in Indiana, the delegates will essentially be split — and so a 5-6 point Clinton win actually sets her back, mathematically speaking.

But that said, Indiana is important in a different respect in that it may significantly delay Clinton’s ultimate — and largely inevitable — concession. To understand why, let’s take a “big picture” view of where the primary is going this summer.

Again, Clinton is all but mathematically eliminated. She can’t win the pledged delegates, and the superdelegate math looks out of reach too. Her strategy — her only possible strategy — is to hang around and hope Obama makes a serious, fatal mistake. And who knows, it may work.

The weakness of this strategy, though, is that it remains viable only as long as other Democrats continue tolerating it. If a critical mass of Democrats believes her candidacy is threatening the general election, then it’s game over. (We’ve not reached that point yet). Thus, Clinton can keep hanging around as long as the political pressure to drop out doesn’t get too strong.

And that’s why Indiana matters. A Clinton victory would be mathematically irrelevant, sure. But it would provide Clinton with enough political cover to hang around at least through June, if not until the convention itself. In other words, it gives her a plausible enough reason to remain in the race.

In this respect, Indiana could delay the outcome in a number of specific ways. For instance, following Texas and Ohio, the next potential “knockout” date was May 6. Obama’s hope was that a strong Pennsylvania performance — coupled with wins in Indiana and North Carolina — would bring the pressure to a boil. It might also give the “silent majority” of Obama superdelegates the big win they needed to come out of the closet and end the race. An Indiana loss, however, prevents all this from happening.

The next potential knockout date is at the end of the primary schedule in June when the superdelegates will hopefully get off the fence. What’s interesting though is that Clinton doesn’t necessarily have to drop out even if the superdelegates push Obama over the 50.1% line in June. Remember that superdelegates (and even some pledged delegates) can change their mind up until the actual convention vote. Technically speaking, the votes only “count” in Denver.

So the million dollar question is whether Clinton will actually drop out in June if Obama hits the magic number through superdelegates. I’ve always thought that she would, largely because the political pressure would grow unbearable to stay in.

But you can see how Clinton's Indiana victory would ease that pressure just enough to allow her to justify staying in until August. Looking at the calendar, an Indiana victory would be followed by some major losses in West Virginia and Kentucky (though probably not in Oregon). More importantly, it would fuel a month-long media narrative of “Obama is wounded”, “Obama can’t win whites”, "Obama ordered a Whopper Junior from a guy with a Louis Farrakhan tattoo but failed to denounce the pickles," etc.

And that gives Clinton just enough wiggle room to stay. She doesn’t need an airtight logical justification. She only needs a plausible enough justification. And the post-Indiana narrative might deliver it by feeding the perception of Obama’s electoral weakness. She could say, “Look, Obama has shown some serious weaknesses in the past few months. He’s lost far more than he’s won in the closing stretch. I will respect the delegates’ ultimate decision, but I think it’s premature at this point, given the recent scandals, etc., etc.”

Don’t get me wrong, the political pressure will be turned up a notch in June. But maybe not enough. In fact, it’s not even clear the superdelegates will make a decision in June.

On balance, I still think she’ll get out in June. But the odds are increasing that the Death March will continue all the way to Denver. Kill me now.

Comments

[Brick Oven Bill]

“So the million dollar question is whether Clinton will actually drop out in June if Obama hits the magic number through superdelegates. I’ve always thought that she would, largely because the political pressure would grow unbearable to stay in.”

Congratulations again on your child Publius. Kids are what it’s all about. I’ll assume, based on your statement, that this is your first marriage. Stick with it.

[publius]

i'm not entirely sure I'm getting the subtext, but i meant to make this clear a while back and just forgot. my newest baby is not all that new -- he's 8 months old (he was born a few hours after i heard rove resigned - thus the 4 AM post). i'm not sure if the rove spirit left the body and entered my son as some sort of punishment from god, but I suppose i'll find out soon enough

[Brick Oven Bill]

Just an ‘ex-wife’ / Hillary reference. All the best to your growing family.

[Ben Alpers]

I'm amazed at how little attention has been paid to the fact that this would have been over weeks ago if the Democratic Party didn't have superdelegates at all. Obama's insurmountable lead in pledged delegates would have been decisive and Clinton's potential path to the nomination would be simply nonexistent rather than vanishingly slender.

The point of the superdelegate system was to avoid long, drawn-out nomination battles like 1980, but they've had exactly the opposite effect this year.

This raises a number of interesting questions.

First, how could the party have devised a system that so perfectly accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do? My sense is that Democratic Party leaders in the years between 1968 and 1980 came to blame their own grassroots for all their party's woes, so they saw taking power away from the grassroots as the solution to everything. The mistake in this case was assuming that party leaders would be best positioned to make disinterested political decisions that would serve the party as a whole. In fact, as we're seeing this year, the exact opposite is the case. Party officials are much less disinterested than voters and have the most to lose if they bet on the wrong horse in a close race, which makes them less likely to commit early if the race appears to be close.

Second, will the party correctly diagnose the problem and get rid of superdelegates in 2012? My guess is they will not. A much more likely outcome, unfortunately, would be a GOP-style, winner-take-all system.

[Sebastian]

"First, how could the party have devised a system that so perfectly accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do? My sense is that Democratic Party leaders in the years between 1968 and 1980 came to blame their own grassroots for all their party's woes, so they saw taking power away from the grassroots as the solution to everything."

It is typical unexpected consequences of an overly complicated system--it is the disease liberals are prone to. (The Republican version is making things decisive too early and crowning an awful winner--see Bush).

[Mercutio]

"First, how could the party have devised a system that so perfectly accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do?"

My impression is that it only seems this way because of the number of candidates involved.

Here's a hypothetical... suppose Edwards was still in the race. Moreover, suppose that he were an actual contender, siphoning off a lot of support from both Obama (young, passionate, self-identified progressives) and Hillary (older working-class whites). Lets say that he's gotten about 30% of the pledged delegates, to 35% each for Obama and Hillary.

All of a sudden the superdelegate math looks a hell of a lot different. My impression (it may, admittedly, be wrong) is that we have SUCH a huge block of them in order to short-circuit other potential 1968 and 1980 nominating snafus by having the party insiders able to swing a massive bat and shut things down decisively if it looks like we're going to implode.

I don't think it's some shadowy plot to take power away from the grassroots; rather, it seems like a response to two nominating processes that were, to put a fine point on it, not ideal happening relatively close together.

Of course, that was a quarter-century ago that these rules were put in place. And they work a hell of a lot worse with a two-person horse race where somebody is likely to win a majority (not just a plurality, an actual majority) of pledged delegates but have the possibility of the supers running them out of town on a rail, as it were. but I think we've just encountered a 'perfect storm' as it were. The nominating process could definitely use some changes but I don't think that it's an utter shambles or deliberately designed to try and screw over Joe Democrat casting his ballot.

[Chuchundra]

I think the real "knockout" date is May 20th and I've thought so for a while. Unless things go very wrong for Obama, he will exceed 50%+1 of the pledged delegates with those primaries. That's the so-called "Pelosi-club" threshold and it should signal those particular fence-sitters to jump off and endorse Obama.

Plus, it's a solid, concrete metric. No more "virtually impossible" to close the pledged gap. It will be actually impossible and the only question left for this pledged delegate count will be how much Obama wins it by.

I think the hand-wringing over the superdelegates and the structure of the election is a little misguided. The election isn't going on long because of the way supers have been allocated or anything like that. It's going on because we have two very strong, very popular and very well-funded candidates.

The primaries have usually been more about money than delegates. You don't drop out because you don't think you can win. You drop out because you run out of money. As long as HRC still has money to run her campaign, she'll stay in until she's mathematically eliminated.

[stonetools]

The magic number is and has always been 2025. Obama can't get there without help from the supers.
I'm pretty sure that all the supers will have decided by mid-June. I can't imagine that even Hillary will remain in the race then. The pressure will be ratcheted up MANY notches at that point.
I don't see this going to the convention-unless Obama hits a bad pitch and loses say NC and Oregon. Then its really anyone's guess

[Bobbski]

"The magic number is and has always been 2025."

Does that exclude MI & FL?

If the dems exclude or otherwise give MI & FL the shaft they will lose in the GE, regardless, of who the nominee is.

IMHO, of course.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

And what if Clinton pulls off both Indiana and North Carolina?

If that happens -- and she seems to be closing fast in North Carolina -- don't Michigan and Florida become an even bigger issue?

[OCSteve]

Well my depressing thought for the day, rather my prediction at this point:

Clinton wins NC and Indiana by double digits. She claims the mantle of “Come back kid II”. She goes on to sweep the rest of the primary states. She takes it all the way to the convention and the super delegates give her the nod. McCain wins the GE.

It.Was.In.The.Bag.

[Scott de B.]

As I understand it, the reason superdelegates were created was to avoid the situation where a grassroots candidate won a state against a well-connected candidate backed by the party machinery, which would mean that the party machinery would be frozen out of the convention. It's a back door for the PLEOs to make sure they get a seat at the convention. The ability to swing a nomination was a bonus, but not really a major consideration.

The easiest solution is to keep the superdelegates, but strip their votes.

[david kilmer]

"If the dems exclude or otherwise give MI & FL the shaft"

The Dems in MI and FL gave their own voters the shaft. The result was not only just but poetic.

[John J.]

Sadly, I don't see Clinton dropping out of the race before November, if then, no matter who is the Democratic nominee.

[Steve Roth]

The superdelegates will never override the pledged delegate vote. Never have, never will. It would cause a nuclear meltdown in the democratic party, and the SDs are the very *last* people who want that.

Hillary would need more than 70% in the remaining contests to override Obama's pledged delegate lead.

It's over. It's been over since Texas.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Kilmer:
Don't be depressed. Clinton may win North Carolina, but by 10 points? And besides, she has a better chance of beating McCain in the GE than Obama.
From today's Real Clear Politics:
GE: Clinton over McCain +3
PA: Clinton over McCain +6.8
OH: Clinton over McCain + 5.4
FL: Clinton over MCain + 1.7.

[cleek]

Clinton may win North Carolina

?

RCP's avg of polls currently has Obama +8.4

[bacaangel]

In light of Hillary's recent remarks about obliterating Iran and the gas tax holiday (sounds rather Republican-like to me) and media's focus on the gas tax holiday, I post No. 8 of Atlantic Charter written by Roosevelt and Churchill after World War II. It speaks for itsself!

“Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Winston S. Churchill

So, I ask, are we and our leaders today living up to these ideals? And, would the obliteration of Iran have a more devastating effect on our nation than whether or not we give a Gas Tax Holiday? Or do the words of God D..m America by a Rev. Wright contain more risk to Americans than a potential President who could take us into another war with Iran? And is our Media ethically and morally giving us the real facts about these issues which could have a significnt effect upon our American daily lives?

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Cleek,
Yes, she may win NC. Pew has Obama up 47-45, but keep in mind -- as for those 8 percent of Undecideds -- Clinton has shown an uncanny knack of winning them ever since Super Tuesday, when voters have shown "buyer's remorse" for Sen. Obama.
Also, Rasmussen has Clinton up, 46-44, without putting the Undecideds into the mix.
So, yes, she may win NC, where he was considered a shoo-in just this time last week.
As that great political pundit Bette Davis said, "Fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy road."

[wonkie]

Cleek, thas the average. The trend is very strongly toward Clinton.

The corporate TV media has been very successful in its efforts to distroy Obama. Many Democrats are moving to Clinton out of fear that Obama can't be elected--too much Wright/ They are forgetting theat the corprotate TV media will do its best to distroy ANY Democrat. If HRC gets the nom, we will be treated to the same three questions right up to election day, "Do you think tis wil be a big issue? Do you think this issue willhurt him/her? So you think he/she has pout this behind ?"

Those three questions will be used to create, and sustain faux outrage smear cmapigns no matter who we nominate.

If there isn't an "issue" loosely conncted to fact, then the Republicans will make up a lie a la Swiftboat and dtheh media will run with that.

But right now the use of those three questions to distroy Obama is very fresh on people's minds and that makes him look more vulnerable than HRC.

If I think of this from a purely selfish point of view I would ragther that HRC got the nom. It will hurt me a lot less to watch the shitheads distroy her and watch her lose than to see that same spectacle with Obama as the target.

But..I read an article about predicted effects of global warmng this morning. A whole big list of econmic dislocations causign mass human starvation adn of course mass animal extinctions. In 2020.

Which is just up the road a little ways. About the time your elementary shool kid is going to be looking for a carrer. About the time my neices will be wanting to have kids. About the time a lot of OBwi readers think they are going to retire,

Good timing for methough. By 2020 everything I love about life will be desgtroyed except probably my husband Paul. But there will be no beauty or peace or nature left on this poor old world.SO the timing of the global warming disater works for me: I'll be in my late sixties and that's about when either colon cancer or suicide will get me anyway. So I'll bow out when the whole planet getss o fucked that thhere isn't anything I care about left.

With that perspective in mind this election is the most important in our history or one last futile attempt to avoid the inevitable.

But what the fuck, lets keep yammering on about Wright.

Pity this poor monster
manunkind not.

[OCSteve]

Cleek: Clinton may win North Carolina

Indiana looks even worse (local polls):

On the first day of the survey, Clinton held a slim lead -- 45 percent to 43 percent -- despite a 20 percentage-point lead for Obama among male respondents.

Each day, more respondents supported Clinton. By the last day of polling, Clinton had a 4 percent lead among men -- 45 percent to 41 percent -- representing a staggering 24-point swing in that demographic.

[KCinDC]

Under the rules the media have been applying to Obama for earlier states, now that we have at least one poll showing Clinton ahead in North Carolina, then if she fails to win the state that's a unexpected, devastating loss for her.

[Cala]

Obama ordered a Whopper Junior from a guy with a Louis Farrakhan tattoo but failed to denounce the pickles

Awesome.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Wonkie,
Yes, "this election is the most important in our history" -- or at least, the most important since Florida was stolen from Gore in 2000.
That said, then Hillary is our man.
As you say, the Republicans will throw the Kitchen Sink, and then some, at whoever the Democratic nominee is.
And seeing how Senator Obama hasn't been able to handle Hillary's Kitchen Sink strategy, how do you think he'll do against the Republicans and their wicked band of Swiftboaters.
To beat the Republicans, unfortunately, you have to get down in the mud. Kerry didn't and he lost. Obama won't, that's not his style or want.
Hillary will.
And she'll win.

[Morat20]

For Clinton to win NC would require, IIRC, winning the white vote by an entirely unreasonable margin.

She's not winning NC.

Indiana is another matter.

Offhand, I'm going with whomever came up with "election results will always be the most inconvienent possible" in which case you have Clinton by 5 in Indiana and Obama by 10 in NC.

[cleek]

For Clinton to win NC would require, IIRC, winning the white vote by an entirely unreasonable margin.

well, this white man just voted against her.

hooray for early voting!

[LFC]

I’ve always thought that she would, largely because the political pressure would grow unbearable to stay in.

Don't you realize that she is strongest when playing the victim?

- Tears in NH
- Geraldine talking about how tough it is for a woman
- Bill saying she got picked on because "she's a girl"
- Waaaah! Obama's going negative by quoting me!

I think she'll pretty much lose no by June, but will hang on through the convention. If the Dems pressure her hard to accept her loss, she'll loudly play the victim to f*** Obama and keep her people from supporting him. She's got her on on 2012, and Obama in the White House is not part of that plan.

You watch. Playing the victim is the one thing she does consistently.

[BlueBlue]

If Hillary was in Obama's position, Hillary would be demanding that Obama step down. Bill Clinton would be wagging his fingers and Saying yes He needs to step down.

If Obama would begin to call Hillary the names that people are telling him to call her or even give her what she deserves, We white people would be saying, "Look at him Bulling Hillary.

Obama was called up because we said he ignored Hillary and would not shake her hand. He learned, ABI-RACIAL MAN WITH BLACK SKIN cannot INSULT and TELL THE NASTY TRUTH ABOUT a WHITE WOMAN. America would not stand for it and Hillary and all her Women would be calling Obama Names for taking advantage of a Woman.

Obama cannot win, either way he goes. Bill Clinton a man I used to adore and defended him against the Vast WHITE WING, is now a part of that Vast White Wing and they appear to love them. No matter they accused Hillary of murdering Vince Foster.

Andrea Mitchell was on the BOSNIA SNIPER FIRE Air Plane with Hillary and Chelsea, Why didn't Andrea come out with the truth, there was no SNIPER FIRE?

I would like to ask all Catholics, why are you still staying in the Catholic Church after all those PRIEST MOLESTED YOUNG BOYS and THE CATHOLIC CHURCH just kept switching THE QUILD PRIEST from Church to Church?

Why didn't our Parents and GrandParents did not leave the Country during all the LYNCHING and KILLING OF BLACK PEOPLE?

Hillary and Bill wish they had this type of Reputation cigar and all

Barack Obama: My Way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOuFUH9KgDA

5/2/2008 1:14:06 PM
Recommend Report Abuse

BLUEBLUE wrote:
The Country does not need BOSNIA SNIPER GATE, MONICA GATE, IMPEACHMENT GATE, DISBARMENT GATE, NAFTA GATE, TRAVEL GATE, HEALTH INSURANCE GATE, WHITE WATER GATE, VINCE FOSTER MURDER GATE

Rachel Maddow on Clinton and Wright issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U

Here's another Clinton dirty tactic out there:

http://openthread.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/28/11221/0150/789/504662

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/54303

You never post things that really tell the truth.

[Turbulence]

For what its worth, my wife did some canvassing for Obama in NC recently. The first day, she canvassed near UNC and almost everyone she spoke to said something like: "I'm doing early voting for Obama, I'm already in touch with the Obama campaign, isn't Obama totally awesome?". The second day she went into a new suburban area far from the university and everyone she spoke to said something like: "Of course I'm voting for Obama: women can't be preznit, they're too dumb or that woman will try to start a war every month or I hate that woman". Needless to say, that was incredibly depressing.

NC is weird: her canvassing experiences on both days were nothing like her experiences canvassing in three other states. But maybe that's just luck of the draw.

[Tex]

I think that it is incorrect to assume that the drawn out nomination process is to blame for Obama's woes. Have any of you Obamabots stopped to think that his problems are of his own making? Clinton did not make him attend the church with a radical minister. Clinton did not make him show his true colors in his statements at a San Francisco fundraiser. Clinton did not force him to make silly statements about flag pins or make his wife make unpatriotic statements. No, Obama has been his own worst enemy by moving too far to the left to be viable.

The Democrat nomination process is broken because it gives too much weight to caucuses (in mostly Red States) thereby giving activists too big of a voice. So you get lefty candidates that cannot win the general election. Dukakis, Kerry and Obama for example.

Look at Texas for example. Clinton won the popular vote and lost the caucuses. Obama picks up delegates. That's just asking for the wrong candidate and diminishes their chances of picking up Texas in the general.

Look at Utah. Obama won the caucuses there and picked up delegates. He has no chance of winning Utah in the general. So what if he picks up 10% and it goes from 70%-30% GOP to 60%-40% GOP???

I am a conservative and I laugh at your process for selecting a candidate. Good luck electing Obama, you will need it.

[Bobbski]

"As I understand it, the reason superdelegates were created was to avoid the situation where a grassroots candidate won a state against a well-connected candidate backed by the party machinery, which would mean that the party machinery would be frozen out of the convention..." --- Scott de B.

You understand wrong.

[Tex]

bedtimeforbonzo

"For Clinton to win NC would require, IIRC, winning the white vote by an entirely unreasonable margin."

An unreasonable margin like the 90+% of the black vote that Obama is getting? I would laugh at the outcry were Clinton to get 90+% of the white vote.

Identity politics will sink both candidates.

[Jon]

" Looking at the calendar, an Indiana victory would be followed by some major losses in West Virginia and Kentucky (though probably not in Oregon). "

Did you mean major WINS for Clinton in Kentucky and West Virginia???

Clinton can still win the popular vote, and FL does matter.

[cleek]

Clinton can still win the popular vote

show your math ?

[Morat]

An unreasonable margin like the 90+% of the black vote that Obama is getting? I would laugh at the outcry were Clinton to get 90+% of the white vote.

You appear to be new here, and despite the two posts I've read from you so far, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

By "unreasonable" I mean "By a margin that is flatly unbelievable given past demographic performance and current polling".

[Tex]

Morat

Just trying to be funny. I agree with you. If BHO wins 90% of the black vote, HRC must win the white vote by around 70% to 30%. I was making a social commentary on the absurdity of winning 90+% of any race of voters.

90+% of any voting group is essentially 100% once you eliminate error. I love watching liberals split amid a race of identity politics.

Big tent? Phooey. Liberals are a collection of small tents.

[cleek]

I love watching liberals split amid a race of identity politics.

i suppose that's one thing the GOP has in it's favor; a party that's represented almost uniformly by old white men gives no reason for the loyalists to have to worry about sex or race.

good for you.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

All of this number-crunching is giving me a headache.

The point is: If Clinton shows the ability to close strongly -- as she has since Super Tuesday -- she can win NC.

A week ago even the thought of that was absurd.

Not now.

[Tex]

Cleek.

I love liberal assumptions. I am mixed race - white, Asian, and Native. I think parties should group together based on their political beliefs. I know that's absurd to some. Maybe Democrats should focus on that instead of race and gender. I'm from Lousiana/Texas and we have conservatives of all colors. Bobby Jindal ring any bells? Powell, Rice, Watts, Steele, Blackwell, Thomas, Page, Chow, etc? The GOP is hardly and all white club.

[cleek]

The GOP is hardly and all white club.

quick, name all the women and black presidential candidates in the GOP - i'll even spot you Elizabeth Dole.

cause, that's what we're talking about here, right? or are you implying that the Dems are "splitting" over Senate races ?

[Tex]

cleek
That's funny logic. If I were waiting for a white/Asian/Native candidate how long would I be waiting? The point is "I don't care about race or gender" as long as the candidate has the appropriate beliefs. Your question proved my point. You guys are fixated on race and gender. No one is entitled to be a candidate. Who is really voting based on race? The group voting essentially 100% for Obama, or the group voting for Clinton? I do not care. I just find it funny. You guys are heading for a heartbreak.

If you guys would have nominated a blue dog Democrat, he/she whatever race, would have won this thing going away. But the party apparatus is bent on nominating left wingers and they never win. Harold Ford Jr. would have been a better nominee than Obama.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

The fact that Obama can score 90 percent of the black vote is disconcerting.

Obviously, that voting block is strictly voting on race -- not the issues, or even self-interest.

For if they were voting on the issues, Obama may still capture a majority of the black vote. But not 90 percent.

Rather -- when you consider what a large constituency both Hillary and Bill Clinton have had among black voters in the past -- a 60/40 or 70/30 split would seem more apt.

So apparently that voting block is voting largely on racial lines, not on the issues and self-interest.

White Flight in reverse, if you will.

[Tex]

bedtimeforbonzo
I agree. This could be the basis for some really big strife at the convention. People should not be moving into these identity camps.

I think it's better for America if both parties are operating efficiently. I do not see that happening. I think both parties are operating on the left edge of their margins instead of in the middle of their own parties. Obama, Clinton nor McCain are the best that each party has to offer. Too bad those early states essentially choose the candidates for the rest of us.

[Anarch]

If you guys would have nominated a blue dog Democrat, he/she whatever race, would have won this thing going away.

Bollocks. A blue dog Democrat would've been painted as too liberal by the right, recognized as Bush-warmed-over by the left*, and would've been crushed in a landslide.

* Slogan: "Hey, at least I'm the moderate fascist!"

[Hartmut]

Anarch, you should know that the fascists are actually just rather well-groomed leftist hippies with a uniform fetish. Haven't you read your Goldberg? ;-)

[Anarch]

Mmmmmm, uniforms...

[Hartmut]

Do you want a recipe for a portepee? ;-)

[cleek]

If I were waiting for a white/Asian/Native candidate how long would I be waiting?

well, that's up to your party, isn't it...

but, while you guys are enjoying the fruits of the Southern Strategy, the Dems are deciding between two strong candidates who are each historic milestones in breaking the old white guy lock on Presidential politics, and who are pulling record primary turnouts all over the country.

and the GOP offered up a dozen old white guys, as usual.

so, you go right on pretending the Dems have the race and gender problems. and i'll keep laughing at you.

Your question proved my point. You guys are fixated on race and gender.

i'm afraid you're a simply terrible mind-reader.

But the party apparatus is bent on nominating left wingers and they never win.

we'll see about that, won't we.

[Hartmut]

Not to forget that the "left-wing extremists" of the US are center-right in the view of most civilized parts of the globe, while the "center" of the GOP is somewhere off the spectrum these days.

[trilobite]

Tex, the idea of blacks, whites, men, women, Hispanics, whatever, working together for the common good, is not exactly foreign to Democrats. It was Democrats, after all, who pushed the Civil Rights Act through and appointed the Warren Court. And if you bother to study the numbers, you may notice that most Obama voters are not black.

It is true that blacks are coming out in great numbers for the first-ever serious black candidate for President. What a shock. It proves nothing much about Democrats as a whole. The media talks a lot about the "identity politics" in this race, but all the actual voters I talk to are looking at the candidates' character and positions.

If anybody on this thread looks obsessed with race, it is you. Nobody asked you whether you were white, mixed, or purple with green polka dots (or, for that matter, male or female, or gay or straight). I don't think it would occur to anyone here to care. You are the one who felt a need to bring it up. So go ahead and sneer at "liberal assumptions." Then work on that beam in your eye.

[trilobite]

the party apparatus is bent on nominating left wingers and they never win

The party apparatus is terrified of left-wingers. That's why we keep nominating square, centrist types like Bill Clinton, who correctly described his own economic approach as "Eisenhower Republican" and backed away from pretty much every liberal policy he ever took up, Al Gore (basically the same policies), Walter Mondale, etc. It doesn't help, of course. Some group always comes up with carefully slanted statistics to "prove" that whoever we choose is a wild-eyed gonzo Commie radical. Somehow, nobody ever noticed that fact about them before they ran for President. Amazing coincidence.

Really, what's so "left-wing" about either candidate this year? That they aren't vehemently in favor of torturing suspects? They don't want to cut taxes in war time? What?

[cleek]

Really, what's so "left-wing" about either candidate this year?

by failing to nominate Republicans, the Democratic party has once again proved how out-of-touch and leftist it is.

of course, if you'd listen to your Limbaugh, you'd know this.

shame on you.

[Tex]

trilobite
Go read a history book and check the votes on Civil Rights. You are perpetuating a falsehood. Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act by a greater proportion than Democrats. It could not have passed without Republican support. Southern Democrats were the ones voting against it. When you watch videos of protesters being firehosed - it was by DEMOCRATS not Republicans.

Race baiting has been turned into a business by Democrats today. I get angry when people imply that I am racist - especially when it's white people with white guilt. I feel no guilt and I owe no one anything.

If Obama and Clinton were white, they would lose just the same as Kerry, Dukakis, McGovern etc. It has nothing to do with race or gender and everything to do with being a lefty.

Lefties do not win the presidency often. Centrists do. It's not an arguable assertion.

Here's the truth:

Civil Rights Act of 1964

By party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 164-96 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

It's hard to argue with Internet educated philosophers... I call you guys IEP's.

Good luck on election day. You guys will be whining about the election being stolen, voter fraud, Martians interfering, disenfrachisement, etc. And you will never look into the mirror and figure out that it is your own fault for nominating an inexperienced, platitude spewing, empty suit. You reap what you sow.

[david kilmer]

bedtimeforbonzo: "Don't be depressed."

It's pretty hard to be depressed at this point. The percentage of Clinton or Obama partisans who say they'll vote McCain or stay home rather than vote the other Democrat is nothing compared to the number of conservatives who a few short months ago said they would rather vote for Clinton and have a Democrat mangle the country than put Captain McPain of the S.S. Amnesty in the White House.

Then they purchased an XL tube of Prep-H, applied it, and thought happy thoughts about supreme court justices and quadrennial evangelical pandering.

Democrats are no less susceptible to the virtues of hemorrhoidal lotion.

Against a split Democratic party, McCain should be sitting with 10% leads in swing states right now.

[david kilmer]

"If Obama and Clinton were white..."

Um...

"Lefties do not win the presidency often. Centrists do. It's not an arguable assertion."

I call B.S.

James A. Garfield
Herbert Hoover
Harry S. Truman
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton

[Tex]

"And if you bother to study the numbers, you may notice that most Obama voters are not black."

More brilliance. Blacks constitute around 13% of the population. Obama could get more white votes than black by pulling 20 - 25% of the white vote.

I'm not obsessed with what people think of me. Most conservatives do not. I guess I have been taken in by the "dark side".

I'm out of here. Keep the group think alive.

[dwoodard]

When Obama reaches 50% plus 1, probably in early June, any remaining undeclared supers will then fall for him, plus Clinton supers will defect to make it a "landslide." The pressure then on Clinton will bring about the inevitable concession, if at that point it hasn't happened already.

[cleek]

Go read a history book

physician, heal thyself.

[SocialScientist]

bedtimeforbonzo: "The fact that Obama can score 90 percent of the black vote is disconcerting.

Obviously, that voting block is strictly voting on race -- not the issues, or even self-interest.

For if they were voting on the issues, Obama may still capture a majority of the black vote. But not 90 percent."

shorter bedtime: Stupid darkies. They just don't know any better.

Seriously, could you be any more condescending? How is it "obvious" bedtime? How is it that you, of all people, have special insight into the minds of AA voters?

[zoe from pittsburgh]

Does anyone remember the "is Obama black enough?" stories? It appears most people here are forgetting that the AA vote was originally in Hillary's column. Obama didn't just gain the support of the black vote, the Clintons did a few things that made them lose the black vote.

Anyone who claims that AAs are only voting for Obama because he's black are revealing more about themselves and their own ignorance than they realize.

[Grocer]

Apparently, the new 'magic number' is 2209.