Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 23, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Obama Takes N.C., Clinton Squeaks By in Ind.

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 6, 2008
Clinton Indiana party
AP photo / Elise Amendola

Ready to party: Clinton’s camp prepares to celebrate a win in Indianapolis, Ind., Tuesday night.

Judging by exit polls, two groups made the difference for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Tuesday night. A strong showing from African-American voters and gains elsewhere helped Obama to a big win in North Carolina. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, could thank older voters for what turned out to be a nail-biter of a victory in Indiana.

It’s not a surprise that Obama won North Carolina, but it is a great relief to his campaign. The Illinois senator had been dropping precipitously in the polls, and what was once an Obama stronghold became a game-changing opportunity for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton won the state of Indiana by an unexpectedly narrow margin—just thousands of votes. Many of those came from older voters, who turned out for the New York senator en masse.

According to CNN’s exit poll data, working class voters were a non-factor. Obama and Clinton divided voters who make less than $50,000 annually evenly, though Clinton did much better among white voters.

Speaking of exit data, it’s possible that Rush Limbaugh’s plan to get Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton might be having some effect. Thirty-three percent of voters said they would not be satisfied if Hillary Clinton won the nomination. Of those, ten percent voted for her. Thirty-seven percent of voters said Clinton did not share their values. Of those, 18 percent voted for her. Of voters who said neither candidate shared their values, 76 percent voted for Clinton. Who, you might ask, could possibly not share values with either Democrat? Apparently 8 percent of Democratic primary voters in Indiana.

There’s no question that Tuesday was ultimately a victory for Barack Obama. He won North Carolina by a bigger margin than was expected and he lost Indiana by a narrower margin than expected. Both are signs that he has arrested the freefall of his campaign and seized some momentum.

But that’s no reason for Hillary fans to be despondent. Next week the candidates face off in West Virginia, where she is expected to win by a wide margin. Then it’s off to Kentucky, another state Clinton should do well in.

Unless there’s a superdelegate avalanche, this campaign looks like it will last until June, and maybe beyond.


CNN:

As polls closed in Indiana, Clinton had a double-digit lead over Obama, but by the end of the evening, Clinton’s lead had shrunk, forcing the race to be dragged out until early Wednesday.

[...]  There were 115 delegates at stake in North Carolina and 72 in Indiana.

Because Democratic delegates are awarded proportionally, Obama added four delegates to his lead, according to CNN estimates.

Obama earlier claimed a decisive victory in North Carolina.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Obama held a 14-point lead over Clinton.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By cann4ing, May 8, 2008 at 9:04 am Link to this comment

Rhino rubbish.

Report this

By bert, May 8, 2008 at 4:56 am Link to this comment

CY - if Obama is the nominee I am saying that is the most likely outcome, yes.

And to those (not you CY, but others) who think I said CA would vote McCain, I did not say that. If you read what I said, I said NC and IN will probably not give Obama a win in November. I also said maybe he might get NC.

But the main point of the post was that he had to concentrate and work really hard on 6 Electoral College rich states that he lost in the primary.

Those sates will not automatically go Obama in the fall. He will have to work them. And the same issues that caused many in those sates to NOT vote Obama in the first place will still be in play. For instance, Latinos have not got on the Obama express. He does not appeal to them. He has lost to them big time in every primary. If he wants their vote - I would say the Dems NEED their votes to win in Nov. - he has to convince them he is on their side. So far he hasn’t. Same for older white women.

Obama’s coalition is far-left wing, young, educated, and AA’s. It is the old McGovern coalition – and you all know how that turned out. This voting block is what Donna Brazille says is the “new” coalition. Problem is, this new coalition is not large enough to win in November. So he HAS TO reach out to traditional Dems in the 6 states I listed, and that he lost. And it is those voters who will be difficult for him to reach. And he won’t be able to count on all those Republicans and Independents he used to win the primaries.

All my post said is that Obama has a HUGE UPHILL battle with the usual Dem coalition that leads to victory. That is VERY problematic for the Dems and Obama no mater how you slice it.

CY - if Obama is the nominee I am saying that is the most likely outcome, yes.

And to those (not you CY, but others) who think I said CA would vote McCain, I did not say that. If you read what I said I said NC and IN will probably not give Obama a win in November. I also said maybe he might get NC.

But the main point of the post was that he had to concentrate and work really hard on 6 Electoral College rich states that he lost in the primary. Those sates will not automatically go Obama in the fall. He will have to work them. And the same issues that caused many in those sates to NOT vote Obama in the first place will still be in play. For instance, Latinos have not got on the Obama express. He does not appeal to them. He has lost to them big time in all primaries. If he wants their vote - I would say the Dems NEED their votes to win in Nov. - he has to convince them he is on their side. So far he hasn’t. Same for older white women.

Obama’s coalition is far-left wing, young, educated, and AA’s. It is the old McGovern coalition – and you all know how that turned out. This voting block is what Donna Brazille says is the “new” coalition. Problem is, it is not large enough to win in November. So he HAS TO reach out to traditional Dems in the 6 states I listed, and that he lost. And it is those voters who will be difficult for him to reach. And he won’t be able to count on all those Republicans and Independents he used to win the primaries.

All my post said is that Obama has a HUGE UPHILL battle with the usual Dem coalition that leads to victory. That is VERY problematic for the Dems and Obama no mater how you slice it.

Report this

By cyrena, May 7, 2008 at 11:55 pm Link to this comment

“...I don’t know about where you live, Bert, but I am dead certain there is no chance that CA will go for McCain.”..

Ernest,

Based on previous posts from this individual, bert claims to live in California…the Los Angeles area if I’m not mistaken. BUT, she also claims to have lived in Ohio for 59 years. So, she’s either really old, or she hasn’t been here long.

I’m guessing she hasn’t been here long if she doesn’t know that California, (even with it’s supply of repugs) is a BLUE state. I was trying to find out the last time California actually put their electoral votes behind a repug for president, but I got tired of researching. Maybe later.

Seems to me like bert should feel like a fish out of water, and soon to be in the skillet.

Report this

By cyrena, May 7, 2008 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for that Patrick Henry. Bert has gone on and on about this before, (with NO knowledge).

And, Purple Girl is 100% correct as far as the requirement for photo ID is concerned. Matter-of-fact, there has probably been MORE ‘voter supression’ and outright violation of Civil Rights in respect to voting in the past 8 years than there was during the entire Jim Crow period, where blacks were required to pay fees, or take long examines intended for Constitutional Law graduates, and on and on.

I could actually write a dissertation on all of the ways that this administration has jacked up the voting rights of the American electorate, including the firing of all of those attorneys who wouldn’t prosecute voter fraud. The bottom line is that ‘voter fraud’ has NEVER been a significant issue among the constituency. Rather, as we’ve seen with all of the ways that you’ve mentioned, 99% of it has been directed by the government.

(And obviously Rush Limbaugh helped this time around). Not enough though. Hillary will still not win the nomination, and those who switched over from Republican to Democrat were going to vote for the Republican anyway, no matter WHO he is, and especially with Obama as the other candidate in the general. I don’t think there’s a way to get around the reality of that.

The polls have been showing that there are in fact life long democrats that simply will NOT vote for a black person, even if he’s running against the devil himself.

I don’t think there are enough of them left to stick us with McCain, and I’d always hoped those types would have all died off by now.

They haven’t, (naive dream on my part) but there aren’t enough of them to impede progress in a FAIR general election. Now how fair it will be remains to be seen. We haven’t had that in a long time.

Report this

By cann4ing, May 7, 2008 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment

Not one of the past elections you refer to entailed a situation in which 80% of the electorate disapproved of the Republican incumbent and felt the country was headed in the wrong direction.  The 2006 mid-terms brought huge changes including losses in traditionally Republican districts.  Once we get past the nomination process and people begin to take a good hard look at what four more years of Republican White House rule would mean, especially by a man who is to the right of Dick Cheney on foreign policy and as clueless as Herbert Hoover on the economy, no state, no district will be safe for Republicans.

Grousing by despondent Hillary supporters will give way to a realization that a McCain presidency translates to perpetual war, economic collapse and the appointment of another radically-right Federalist Society jurist to the Supreme Court, ending the rule of law as we know it.  Faced with a choice between fascism and a restoration of our democracy, people are going to make the right decision.

I don’t know about where you live, Bert, but I am dead certain there is no chance that CA will go for McCain.

Report this

By Rhino, May 7, 2008 at 10:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

>>He said that for Hillary to continue would hurt Obama, (making it even more difficult to win in a general) and hurt herself in respect to her own reputation.<<

Hillary Clinton has the strength, tenacity and perserverance to continue even when the race becomes daunting. These are qualities we need in a president. Continuing the race is a run for the person best qualitied to bring sorely needed change to our country and the outline for it. Quitting the race is a blow to the reputation.

>>What he didn’t say (though he did say indirectly) was that it would literally destroy the hopes of most Americans, that we have a chance of actually surviving the damage that has been wrecked for the past 8 years.<<

The hope of American’s would be destroyed if Clinton quit. She is not an appeaser, she is not a wimp, she is not a parrot nor is she an speech orator. She speaks to and with people realistically, not at them. She will not fold in the face of adversity now or in regard to the problems in our country or our standing in the world. 

>>Bill mentioned that it would of course leave the Democratic Party in shambles, and of course that seems to go without saying. Reading the polls makes me believe that has already come about. But for this to continue is to ruin it for 98% of us who are so desperately needing a new regime, as this old one continues to wreck havoc.<<

Not only would the democratic party be in shambles but the country as well if our candidate hasn’t the experience or the clout to stand up to the trials that are presented or a candidate is synonymous with the Bush/Cheney administration.

>>Another coup like the one in 2000 is more than we’ll ever survive. I don’t know if Hillary simply cannot understand that, or if she doesn’t care. Either way, it just makes her another George Bush.<<

In no way can you equate Clinton to Dubya. It is because she does care, the passion for the country and the need for genuine change for the common good that keeps her in the race. Thank goodness. Thank Hillary. Thank you.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, May 7, 2008 at 9:39 pm Link to this comment

Your right on this

Here a little side story about the election
NC had an republican primary Tues too.
Even with the race over for president for GOP since Texas, Mike Hucabee got 10% of the vote Tuesday.

Face it in November we will have the choice of the lesser of two evils, LIKE EVERY TIME I VOTED FOR PRESIDENT

Report this

By cyrena, May 7, 2008 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

Bert, for those of us who have been paying attention at least as long as you have, you’ll know that neither California or New York is going to put a Repug in the White House in November. Ohio, I don’t know about, and Texas which Hillary DID NOT WIN by the way, (she won the primary by less than 4% and Obama won the caucas by far more) is almost guaranteed to go repug in November.

As you also know, FL doesn’t count. Hillary agreed to that, and anything that she changes with MI and Fl at this point will literally dismantle the Democratic Party, as Ernest has pointed out, as noted by Bill Moyers. After what the Repugs did in 2000, (and again in Ohio in 2004) the American people aren’t going to allow such an obvious cheating by Hillary. So, you’re asking for a huge problem, though it’s hard to imagine things could be much worse than they are now.

Report this

By cyrena, May 7, 2008 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

Hi Louise, and thanks for this. I’m glad to hear from you. I’d been wondering about you.

Just to sort of add to your excellent reminder here about the republican mindset, INCLUDING the women…just remember Phyllis Scafly, and her ilk from the Women’s Movement. That old Women’s Movement wasn’t about equal pay, or any of the rest of that stuff.

In short, Phyllis Schafly was bad news then, and Hillary is bad news now. I’m not sure what it is about the mentality of for so many of us, who just ‘assume’ that if she’s a woman, then she must be in favor of issues concerning women.

The same thing often goes with questions of race. Too many people of color (and I’m sure not for any other reason than simple underexposure) will make the leap that any African-American or other candidate of color is likely to be helpful on issues concerning people of color. WRONG!

Look at Clarence Thomas. Let’s look at Condi Rice. I can think of many others, but that’s enough for now.

Anyway, while the repugs would never elect a woman, there are still those among them that would far PREFER Hillary over Barack Obama, as a ‘backup’ of sorts. At least that’s what I’ve always believed. I believe that Hillary is as close to the repug mindset as anyone can get, who actually has a chance of taking over and continuing the Coup that began in 2000, with THAT stolen election or appointment.

I think the repugs have LONG been aware of the damage that this regime has done to their party. So my guess is that they want to make sure that if they have to lose the reins to the Dems, that it’s a democrat that they can live with, and Hillary literally the closest they can come to that. Seriously, I see such a neglible difference between her and any other repug, (including John McCain) as to be meaningless. She may do slightly better in Supreme Court appointees, but if we have to count on endless war, that almost becomes unimportant as well.

Hillary CAN be counted on for endless war. I’ve never been under any illusions about that.

Report this

By cyrena, May 7, 2008 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

Thanks Ernest, and for the link.

The one thing that Bill didn’t mention, at least not directly, though he did indirectly…

He said that for Hillary to continue would hurt Obama, (making it even more difficult to win in a general) and hurt herself in respect to her own reputation.

What he didn’t say (though he did say indirectly) was that it would literally destroy the hopes of most Americans, that we have a chance of actually surviving the damage that has been wrecked for the past 8 years.

Bill mentioned that it would of course leave the Democratic Party in shambles, and of course that seems to go without saying. Reading the polls makes me believe that has already come about. But for this to continue is to ruin it for 98% of us who are so desperately needing a new regime, as this old one continues to wreck havoc.

Another coup like the one in 2000 is more than we’ll ever survive. I don’t know if Hillary simply cannot understand that, or if she doesn’t care. Either way, it just makes her another George Bush.

Report this

By cann4ing, May 7, 2008 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

JS, do you remember that Super Bowl a few years back between the St. Louis Rams and the Tennessee Titans where on the last play one of the Titans was tackled about a yard short of the end zone.  Imagine if the ref had held up both hands—touchdown!  And when every one said, “How can that be?”  The ref responds, “Oh.  Didn’t I tell you.  We shortened the field to 95 yards before the last drive. So the Titans win.”

Absurd?  Of course, but no more so than what the Clintons are proposing to do with the FL & MI delegations.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 7, 2008 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

Bert, Actually it is you who have little knowledge of the secret or Australian ballot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

The minute we went to that system in the late 1800’s we had Tammany Hall and ballot box stuffing.  Today we have diebold with no verifiable trail and few congress people willing to change it.

See “Hacking Democracy” on HBO.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 7, 2008 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

Maybe Hillary can run as a third party candidate.

Report this

By troublesum, May 7, 2008 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Last night Obama sounded like a candidate for student body president: “This election isn’t about me; it’s about you.”  The election is hardly worth paying attention to.

Report this

By cann4ing, May 7, 2008 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

Oops, forgot to provide the link.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/7/broadcasting_legend_bill_moyers_on_the

Report this

By cann4ing, May 7, 2008 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

I know of no two finer journalists this nation has ever produced than Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman.  Here is some Moyers food for thought on the subject which he provided when interviewed today, May 7, 2008, on Democracy Now!

“It seems impossible, now, to me, for Hillary Clinton to even stay in the race without doing such damage to Obama that he’s hurt in the fall and she is hurt in her reputation.”

“....I admire Hillary Clinton. ...I’ve seen over the years how hard it is for a woman, a married woman, to gain her independence in our society…, and I admire the way she’s tried to negotiate her own persona…, her own place in our politics.  But if she stays in this race, it can only be at the expense…of her reputation and of Obama, because she can only move forward by attacking him, by continuing to say he can’t win in November, which is not true.

“And the key date is not these upcoming primaries.  She’ll do alright in West Virginia.  She’ll do alright in…Puerto Rico.  He will do well in Montana, South Dakota, and probably in basically white but liberal Oregon.  But….on May 31st, the Democratic Rules Committee meets to assess how to deal with the Michigan and Florida delegates.  Thirteen of the members of that thirty person committee are Clinton supporters, eight are Obama supporters, the others are undecided.  If she were to muscle her way to a decisive moment in that Rules Committee where they decide to change the rules here in the last inning, she will really be hurt.

“But that’s the only way, barring lightning striking him….That’s not going to happen.  She can only win in a way that would leave the Democratic Party in shambles.”

Obama has won more states, more delegates and is more than 700,000 votes ahead of Clinton in the popular vote.  Obama is very close to the number of delegates the Party had said would be required to secure the nomination.  It is unfortunate that Howard Dean and the Party could not work things out with MI & FL in advance but there is also no doubt that Hillary Clinton did not once object to the Party’s decision that these states had forfeited their right to seat delegates when they moved up their primaries until after Obama won a string of thirteen states after Super Tuesday and she began to realize that she could not otherwise win.  Indeed, she and Obama entered an agreement in advance of the FL primary that neither would campaign there and Obama did not even place his name on the MI ballot.

If Hillary actually attempts what would amount to a back room coup, 2008 will be a repeat of 1968, when the party bosses maneuvered to put Hubert Humphrey on the ballot, ending in the election of tricky Dick Nixon.  If she were not so blinded by her own personal ambition, if she had an ounce of integrity, she would see that.  But alas, news accounts show she’s loaning another $6.4 million to her own campaign.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 7, 2008 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

Just Democracy.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 7, 2008 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment

The Limbaugh effect is meaningless.  Clinton needed to win by ten, at least, and she didn’t even come close.  Or she needed to keep N.C. close and she didn’t do that by a long, long, long shot.

So now we’re back to having to listen to a stream of bitches and moans about MI and FL.  And that comes down to rules she agreed to abide by and now wants them changed because things aren’t working out in her favor…she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about my “enfranchisement.”

And we get to hear about the “big state/swing state” primary wins, even though primaries have nothing to do with what will happen in the general election. Unless, of course, Clinton won them.  Texas will be red in November, but Clinton winning that primary was a game changer.

She’s done, finished, over, washed up.  But she’ll keep running her mouth…because “she’s the kind of fighter that we need.”  Any decent, respectable human being would have dropped out this morning…but she’s a Clinton so she didn’t.

Report this

By geoffspear, May 7, 2008 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

“Certainly our Gov’t is capable of determining Who switched (they kno weverything else about our Privacy) so those voter can only be offered the appropriate ballot in Nov.”

Where do you vote that members of different parties are given a different ballot in the general election?

Report this

By Louise, May 7, 2008 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

“Clinton won the state of Indiana by an unexpectedly narrow margin—just thousands of votes. Many of those came from older voters, who turned out for the New York senator en masse.”

***

Uh ... maybe. Or maybe the repubs are working overtime to make sure the candidate they want to defeat in November is the winner of the democrat primary.

***

Indiana: “a whopping 1,134,427 voter registrations have been cancelled”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3246304

“One quarter-million of them from Lake and Porter county’s. Lake County reports purging 137,164 voters and Porter County cancelled out 124,958 voters.”

“Lake County, has been referred to as “the second most liberal county in America.” Lake County also has one of the heaviest concentrations of African-American voters that you’ll find anywhere in the USA.”

“Nearby Porter County is 95% white and went solidly for Bush in the 2004 election. It’s also got a lot of college students.”

“For whatever reason, these two counties had ... what ... massive data entry problems? Exceptionally messy records? Lots of dead people who climbed back into their graves? I truly hope we aren’t going to see a lot of disappointed voters on Tuesday, when they perhaps learn that they were among the lucky million people who got purged.”

***

So, am I saying Hillary’s people are rigging the vote? No. But as we’ve watched this primary season unfold, we’ve seen a lot of reports of possible voter fraud. The kind the Bush, the RNC and their respective repub associates are famous for.

Why would they work to turn the primary’s in Hillary’s favor? I seriously doubt it’s because they want Hillary to defeat McCain. No, I think the intent is to make sure Hillary is on the ticket in November.

In case you missed it, McCain reaffirmed the classic repub position on women when he spoke to the need to NOT pass legislation guaranteeing women the right to demand equal pay. And just in case you aren’t familiar with the issue, it all comes down to the repub weenie Supremes, who decided women cant seek recompense for salary discrimination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/26collins.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

***

“Having delivered his objections to the Ledbetter bill this week, McCain went on to tell reporters that what women really need is “education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else. And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.”

“Was McCain saying that it’s less important to give working women the right to sue for equal pay than to give them help taking care of their families? There have been many attempts to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to protect more workers who need to stay home to take care of a sick kid or an ailing parent. “We’ve never gotten his support on any of that agenda,” said Debra Ness, the president of the National Partnership for Women and Families.”

***

No surprise how McCain feels. He knows, obedient hard right conservative woman will not vote for a woman to deal with women’s issues. In the republican world, that’s a mans job.

He knows the same women who will vote against their own best interests will NOT vote for a woman president. But even repub woman feel the sting of job and pay discrimination, so they may vote for a democrat MAN for president.

In case you didn’t know, in the hard right repub mind, women are second class citizens. [And the women agree!] So please don’t delude yourselves into believing they will elect a woman president.

It aint gonna happen!

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 7, 2008 at 10:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So bert, you are saying it will be a Republican year?

I can live with that!

Report this

By Guffy, May 7, 2008 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

First of all, great name calling!  I am glad you are regurgitating the terms that the Clinton camp encourages you to use in describing Obama.  Way to be orginal, even though the term does not in any way accurately identify him. 

Second of all, maybe he is simply the better candidate and that is why 91% of black people voted for him in NC. 

But we all know it is more difficult than that.  I do not want to assume that you are caucasian, Terik, as you assume that Obama is elitist, for that would not be fair.  But, I believe that an African American voting for an African American candidate because they are such is more justified than a caucasian voting for a caucasian just because of their ethnicity.  Let us not forget how many more injustices African Americans, and all people who are not caucasian for that matter, have sufferred due to years of caucasian oppression.  And this might be where caucasians voting for Hillary would cry, “reverse racism! See!”

But if we are going to travel down this road, then perhaps we should go as far as saying all the older women who are voting for Hillary are sexist!  That’s right, all you old women are sexist and you should feel terrible!  But we all know that is not the case.

The thing is, African Americans and women of every ethnicity have been two of the most wrongly treated categories of human beings in this country, and arguably the world.  Does it not make sense then that both older women who vote solidly for Hillary, and African Americans who vote overwhelmingly for Obama, are voting for the chance to see “one of their own” finally break that glass ceiling?  I think it does.  So please, do not try to boil this down to some vague term like racism, or sexism as I mentioned earlier, for it is much more complicated than those terms can define.

Report this

By cann4ing, May 7, 2008 at 8:33 am Link to this comment

Stick a fork in Hillary.  She’s done!

Report this

By bert, May 7, 2008 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

In terms of the General Election and Democrats taking back the White House in November, yesterday’s primaries were virtually meaningless.

In the last 10 Presidental Elections Indiana has voted Republican 10 out of 10 times.

In the last 10 Presidental Elections North Carolina has voted Republican 9 out of 10 times. (Carter in 76 was the only D.)

If the nominee, Obama might be able to eke out a Democratic win in NC (15 Electoral College votes), but he would do better to spend his time and money trying to win Electoral College (EC) votes in just six EC rich states like CA/55, NY/31, OH/20, FL/27, TX/34, and PA/21. This would give him 188 or 70% of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. And of course for you astute posters here, you realize that Obama lost each and every one of those states in the primary.

Report this

By bert, May 7, 2008 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

“Since those voters will *not* vote for Clinton in the fall…..”

Does this calculus apply equally to the hundreds of thousands of Republican and Independent votes that Obama got in those and other states? Or is this another application of one set of rules exists for Obama and a second, different set of rules apply to Clinton? Curious minds want to know.

Just remember the facts Real Fish. According to the Annenberg Foundation nonpartisan Fact Check dot org Obama got more republican cross over votes in OH and TX than Hillary did. He has also gotten more crossover votes in almost all of the other states so far, too. So if we “factor” out those equations,” does it mean Obama actually lost in some states? (Obama total votes - Obama Repub votes = Less than total votes cast for Hillary?)

Here’s an algebraic formula for you Real Fish. See if you can figure it out:

Obama08=McGovern72-MA

Report this

By bert, May 7, 2008 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

Absolutely correct, Terik oroke. I agree 100%. But on Truth Dig the majority here will disagree with you and call you nasty names. Don’t let them bother you.

Report this

By bert, May 7, 2008 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

Again, Purple Girl, you show a remarkable lack of knowledge about what it means to be able to vote and the laws surrounding voting in America. First of all, your plan would violate the first principle of American voting - the secret ballot. Second, it would violate the right to vote for who you want. What are you trying to do here - install Soviet style elections?

Hell, I think people as dumb as you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. But you get to.

I think Rush is despicable, too. But he has a right to do it. That goes hand in hand with freedom.

Yet you and others here have never answered a question I have. Why is what Rush did wrong and what Obama did is not?

He has asked repeatedly on TV and in print ads for Republicans and Independents to vote for him. In fact he claims his ability to get votes from both repubs, and Independents as one of the biggest reasons he should be president.

If what you claim you want:  “Anyone who changed parties for the primary should be required to remain in that party for the General- otherwise not vote or face prsecution. [Sic.]” then ALL those Repubs and I’s who voted for Obama in the primary (and there are lots of them) WOULD HAVE TO vote for McCain in the fall. Is that what you want? Would serve you right for suggesting doing away with the secret ballot and for telling people how they have to vote.

Report this

By Pacrat, May 7, 2008 at 7:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Very pleased that Barack won NC and looks like he will win the democratic nomination unless the Clinton machine has a few more tricks up its collective sleeve. But we can expect the dirtiest republican campaign ever - worse than the one they ran against Kerry.

The questions is: can Obama deliver? He took on a goal that no one can reach in even two terms, but a noble one nevertheless. It all depends on his selections for his VP and cabinet!

Clinton ran a terrible campaign - and Bill sandbagged it all the way. It was clear to us from the very beginning that he did not want Hillary in the White House to upstage him - and she would have!

Report this

By jeremy daw, May 7, 2008 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Racism of the worst kind?

Report this

By RealisticInWV, May 7, 2008 at 7:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After misleading the public, lying about her credentials, imagining herself having the majority of the popular vote and lending her own miserable campaign almost $12 Million, Mrs. Clinton must face the writing on the wall.  Despite her visions of grandeur and placing her own ambition before the good of her party, America just doesn’t want her to be President.

What happens from here forward will determine what is left of her political career.  If she continues to dilute the democratic offer, and one could argue the democratic party, America and New York will reward her with a spot in the Clinton Retirement Home alongside Bill.  Maybe, just maybe, if this woman finally comes to her senses and concedes that she has lost the nomination, America will mercifully allow h her to continue in the Sentate, where her bitterness will be played out in power move after power move until her indeffectiveness becomes such that she is banished from that hall as well.

I have a big question….how exactly does one ‘loan money’ to their own campaign?  Isn’t this ‘putting some skin in the game’?  The ‘American’ thing to do, or the path showing the most responsibility and leadership, would be for Mrs. Clinton to refund the money she wasted that came from her donors.  The lying, disrespectful and selfish thing to do would be moving ‘paying back’ herself to the front of the line when she does finally drop out.  Anyone care to bet that the $12M is restored in its entirety?  Thats a sure thing when it comes to Mr. & Mrs Clinton - for they have no moral fiber or ethics.

Kharma is a powerful thing, and the Clinton’s are finally going to reap what they have sown.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, May 7, 2008 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

Rush should be facing Prosecution for inciting election Fraud.
Anyone who changed parties for the primary should be required to reamin in that party for the General- otherwise not vote or face prsecution. Certainly our Gov’t is capable of determining Who switched (they kno weverything else about our Privacy) so those voter can only be offered the appropriate ballot in Nov.
As for SCOTUS well timed ‘Ruling’ on Requiring Photo ID’s- One week before the Primary- tha twas an obvious attempt to surpress voters ability to participate. had they suspended the Requirement until after the Primary- i have no doubt the results would have been significantly different- Hillary would have lost it too. But by not suspending the Requirement, 6 out of 9 ‘justices’ proved their Corruption and should be kicked off the bench and prosected for Eelction tampering (Undue and Unnecessary influence)

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 7, 2008 at 5:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While not totally disagreeing I have to point to the “color thing” Gary is overwhelmingly African American where Barak has been getting upwards of 90% of the Vote.

Worcester’s south ward,  Lawrence’ all wards, and Springfield in Mssachusetts predominately Caucasian/Hispanic cities went for the Business-shill. I must ask “why?” They are just as economically “out” as Gary, and just as disenfranchised as Patterson, Camden and Newark New Jersey a State which went for Clinton while these three predominately African American Cities went for Obama. 

I’d like to think that the “color line” is vanishing, that the Obama campaign is putting together a “coalition” of “disenfranchised” folks… but that doesn’t seem to be what is occurring… hum?

Report this

By Aegrus, May 7, 2008 at 5:42 am Link to this comment

I’ve heard a lot of speculation regarding Limbaugh’s influence. I think everyone is giving it more consideration than it deserves.  We really shouldn’t think of Republicans as mindless Nazi drones who do whatever they are told, even though it’s easy to get that impression when you hear the talking head propaganda in the media.

Hell, I’ve even heard theories that Rush and the media are covering up for massive Republican dissatisfaction with their party. Because the fact many of the party switchers are voting for Obama, there lies a skepticism in the claims of this stupidity called ‘Operation Chaos,” which is more about self-importance of a radio douche.

Report this

By God?FreeDumb?, May 7, 2008 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

A neighbor asked me who I was Voting for,. when I said Obama, The Neighbor responded, that SHE was Voting for Hillary Clinton, and If She dosn,t Get the Dem Nomination, She(neighbor) was voting for McCain.
Sooo, the Title Describes it Perfectly.

A VOTE for Hillary is a VOTE FOR REPUBLIGOONS

Report this

By Terik ororke, May 7, 2008 at 4:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, Obama gave what sounded like a presidential speech in North Carolina.  He wants to include everyone, unless you vote in Michigan or Florida, then he acts more like an Elitist communist dictator. Consider this also: if 91 percent of blacks in North Carolina voted for Obama—some thinking he is the right person—but others just because he is “black,” then that is racism of the worse kind and no one want s to talk about that—unless you want to accuse whites of being racists, then that is another thing.

Report this

By TheRealFish, May 7, 2008 at 1:06 am Link to this comment

“Rush Limbaugh’s plan to get Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton might be having some effect.”

I’d say.

Since those voters will *not* vote for Clinton in the fall (vaporware of the voting block), and without having to write down the long-form math here, I figured that something like 7% of her IN votes are not “real” (in those darned terms of GenElect “electability”).

Factor those out of the equation and you have Obama taking Indiana. Just like if you subtract the 5% Repug vote in the Texas primary he wins that primary. And, even though she lost Mississippi, if you factor out her *25%* Repug vote there, you have a route of biblical proportions in that state. Factor out the exit polling from Repug voters in Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, and sudden as a rash you would see there is not such a large erosion in Obama’s white support either (making the fact-based assumption most mischief-voting Repugs are whites; the “facts” here are the oft-published demographics of the Repugs).

Report this

By cyrena, May 6, 2008 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

Clinton Lead Shrinks as Indiana Counts

•  In Indiana, Mrs. Clinton’s lead narrowed late in the night to 51 percent, compared with Mr. Obama’s 49 percent, with 91 percent of the precincts reporting. But about five hours after the last polls closed in Indiana, the race remained too close to call. No results from Lake County — home to the city of Gary, just across the state line from Chicago — were reported until shortly before midnight Eastern time. Then, about 28 percent of the precincts reported, giving a lopsided 75 percent of the vote to Mr. Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/us/politics/06cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin
LOBSIDED is a less than appropriate term to use in this context, and in keeping with the overall demographics of the statistics so far. In short, why WOULDN’T what is so far only 28% of the Lake County precincts be reporting overwhelmingly for Obama? It’s hardly ‘lopsided’ unless we have to continue using the dominant culture political mentality as a point of reference.

Gary as well as other areas of Lake County are now and have been overwhelmingly marginalized and economically and socially oppressed for decades. What person in their right mind would assume that they would vote for HRC, if they would bother to vote at all? It is ONLY the candidacy of Barack Obama that has even created this unprecedented primary voter turnout through-out the country, and those states that have so far held their contests.
Meantime, I think Hillary should be less smug about claiming a ‘win’ in that state, with a lead of only 2 points, and only 28% of the precincts from Lake County counted. The Court surely helped her with their violation of Civil Rights Laws in demanding photo ID’s from those people who they know damn well aren’t likely to have them. But even with THAT hasn’t managed to get her any more than a 2 point lead, and they’re still counting a county that is likely to go overwhelmingly to Obama, and NOT because it’s ‘lopsided’.

Then again, maybe it IS lopsided, but I’d prefer to use my standard terms, “out of balance” due endemic socio-economic inequality.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.