Is Guam a foregone conclusion?

No, like Indiana, it's up in the air, but I have to call it for someone. Clinton has one super to Obama's none.

I could have left off Guam, but then my analysis would have been incomplete.

For relevant contests, it's 17 to 2.

Posted at April 29, 2008 5:01 PM in response to Obama Super Delegate Appeal

Appalachin Blue,

You claim: “No real sober minder super delegate can miss what happen here just less than a week ago...”

And that’s a fact. What no real sober minded super delegate can miss is that in the firewall state of Ohio, where Clinton desperately needed a big win, in a state where she was beating Obama by 20 points two weeks before the primary, she came away with all of 9 pledged delegates. And in that other big firewall state, Texas, where she also was leading Obama by 20 points three weeks ago, Obama came away with about 8 delegates. If it weren’t for the 5 that Clinton picked up in Rhode Island, she would be up just one delegate for the evening.

That was her firewall night, her chance to finally reverse Obama’s lead of 150+ pledged delegates. She picked up a whopping 6 delegates.

That’s what the super delegates are seeing, and that is why in the past month Obama has picked up 82, to Clinton’s 31, and in his 82 are 5 or 6 that moved from Clinton to Obama, while Clinton has not picked up any Obama super delegates in the past several months.

You imply that because Obama lost to Clinton in Ohio, or Michigan or may lose to Clinton in PA, that he can’t win these states in November. Ohio is certainly a swing state, but do you really believe that because Hillary wins these states, that McCain will win them if Obama is the candidate. Do you really believe that McCain has a any chance to pick up PA or MI?

A loss in the primary does not equate to a loss in the general. And that is something the super delegates are quite sure of.

PatrickBradish

Posted at March 11, 2008 10:34 PM in response to TPM's criticisms of Obama

Thanks for the comments.

A few points.

First, I am not criticizing TPM for being against Obama or for Clinton. Rather I take issue with the pettiness of the criticism. I come to TPM to escape the incredible pettiness of the MSM in discussing virtually all aspects of this and previous elections. But when I read on TPM that Obama is getting bitch-slapped, it makes me check the link to make sure I am not reading a Chris Matthews comment.

My complaint also centers around TPM’s need to offer a candidate advice as to how to counter negative campaigning. I do not come to TPM to read about advice to candidates. That’s what I expect when I read Broder or Brooks. They’re filled with advice, pretty much all of it worthless.

The main point of my post is that it is up to Obama to chose where and when to respond to statements from the Clinton campaign. TPM stated that Obama was suffering because of his lack of response. And TPM has started down the slippery slope of the MSM, which believes itself to have an oracle’s ability to deduce what’s gone on in the minds of voters in Ohio or Texas, and link their thoughts, and their votes back to the two campaigns’ recent public posturing. When TPM does this, I have to check to see that I am not reading Tim Russert, or Wolf Blitzer, who both drone on endlessly about how the most minute “controversy-du-jour” is affecting voters.

When I discussed the numbers, I am only reciting the CW. RealClearPolitics.com currently has Obama up 129 delegates, not counting Mississippi, and the balance of the Texas caucus delegates. In Clinton’s big win last Tuesday, she picked up 6 delegates. How many delegates will she pick up in PA? 10. How many in WV, KY and PR? 25? Those would be great wins, but considering Obama’s likely to pick up 10 to 15 in OR, MT, ND, IN, and NC, he still comes out 100+ delegates ahead at the end. And if the past 4 weeks are any guide, Obama is likely to pick up more super delegates than Clinton by June 3rd.

All this means that the Obama campaign, being ahead, gets to pick and chose when and how to respond to the Clinton campaign. It has made a very public decision to try and keep the campaign on a positive message. And since they are winning, they have much more flexibility, and more options in deciding how to respond to Clinton's criticisms.

If they were losing, and slipping further and further behind, where the opponent’s criticism was going unchallenged, and it looked as if the campaign was about to fold, I can understand TPM giving the Obama campaign advice on how to respond.

But that’s just not the case here. Obama has all the advantages of holding the winning hand. And as a result, it just looks foolish (MSM-style foolish) for this Polk award winning site, to saying he’s getting bitch-slapped by the losing campaign.

PatrickBradish

Posted at March 11, 2008 9:55 PM in response to TPM's criticisms of Obama

For those that comment here that the Clinton campaign is going to pick up all these super delegates, the math is just not with her.

Since Super Tuesday, barely a month ago, there have been over 100 super delegate commitments. Obama's won over 80%. I think it is a safe assumption that the same will happen again by June 3rd.

If that happens, and assuming Obama picks up 15 PDs net in the remaining contests, Clinton would have to win over 75% of the remaining delegates.

I just don't see Obama winning 75+% from super Tuesday until June 3rd, and then Clinton suddenly winning 75% of the remaining. Obama is running even in representatives, senators and governers. That leaves DNC members where Hillary currently has her 35 super delegate lead. Assuming that Barack ties or wins in reps, sens and govs, that means that Clinton would win be a seachange of DNC members this summer.

You can say all you want, I can't predict the future and on and on, but that just ain't gonna happen.

-PatrickBradish

Posted at March 11, 2008 7:39 AM in response to TPM's criticisms of Obama

This post reminds me of the black knight of Monty Python's the holy grail. "Tis but a flesh wound."

Hillary is mortally wounded, Barack is cleaning her clock. Even Bill says, she has to win big tomorrow. Oh wait, winning tomorrow, without gaining any delegates, is all that matters.

All she has to do is win. She doesn't have to do anything about her 155 pledged delegated deficit. Nope, time for Barack to pack it in. lol.

Notice how this hilbot has failed to mention another key dynamic. Hillary's vaunted lead in super delegates is evaporating, like a splash of water on a hot Texas sidewalk in mid-June.

Her lead, once at over 100, it is down to the low 40s. And here is the prediction of the week. If Hillary doesn't close the pledged delegate deficit, and chooses to stay in anyway, by next Tuesday, after Obama wins in Wyoming and Mississippi, Hillary's super delegate lead will be down to single digits.

Why should the party elders put up with this divisive crap. She had her change on Super Tuesday, the contests up till now and tomorrow. If she can't win more pledged delegates than Barack, time for her to drop out. If she chooses to fight it out, then she'll get the message. Super delegates will move to Barack en masse. Just watch.

PatrickBradish

Posted at March 3, 2008 10:05 PM in response to Obama should drop out after Tuesday

Interesting news, but it's all so yesterday. There are only 11 days left to the Alamo, Hillary's last stand. The only question remaining is whether she will choose to make her concession speech on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning.

Everything you'll see from the Clinton campaign until then is mere window dressing. She's going to keep up the appearances of a fight. She needs to. But the Obama ground organizations in both states, combined with perhaps a 4 or 5-to-1 difference in television advertizing expenditures will overwhelm her non-existant campaign.

Patrick

Posted at February 22, 2008 5:36 PM in response to Obama Closing The Gap Among Super-Delegates

The timing of this is just so sweet.

McCain just launched an attack on Obama regarding Obama's so-called "pledge" of public financing. Now he is neck deep in his own "pledge" fiasco. This took the wind right out of the sails on that bogus story.

But even better is the whole Von Spakovsky issue. My bet is that McCain will force McConnell to do an about-face on the FEC nominating process, so that he can put this to bed, quickly. I don't see how the Republicans would not want to get a quorom now. There is just too much risk with Obama's growing momentum. And my hope of hopes is that if the Republicans do this about face, that the Senate find other more pressing matters to attend to first.

But what is really most ironic for the straight talk express is the timing of this story with the FCC lobbying issue. McCain has two bad stories to fight at the same time. And the lobbyist issue has real legs.

Could this be McCain's tearing moment (Muskie) or scream moment (Dean)? Maybe not, but it sure is fun to watch the McCain campaign dance the two-step now isn't it?

Patrick

Posted at February 22, 2008 3:06 PM in response to McCain's FEC Problem

Wow, too many folks here drinking the cool aid again. Michelle spoke for many, many of us.

~~~~~
Caveat, I am a die-hard democrat and will enthusiastically support whoever our candidate is. I have always liked Hillary, and have great faith that if she wins the primary, that she would be a very successful president. Unfortunately for her, that’s just not going to happen. Barack is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. And she just wasn’t ready for him.
~~~~~

What a bunch of nonsense in this “pride” BS.

I am 50, older than both Barack and Michelle. I came of age in the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations. And let me tell you, I was not all that proud of America during the Vietnam and Cambodian wars. I was not proud of the South’s reaction to the civil rights movement, not proud at all of our racism. Rather, I was ashamed, for years, just ashamed of how we killed so many in innocents in Southeast Asia, and discriminated against so many here at home.

And I was not particularly proud of America through much of the cold war. I, like many, thought that the nuclear arms race (MAD) was indeed madness. Putting our civilization in peril was not something I was particularly proud of.

During the hostage crisis, I was not particularly proud of America. I thought supporting the Shah was foolish. I think that supporting Middle East tyrants is still foolish. And certainly the failure of the hostage rescue operation didn’t my pride didn’t grow.

Throughout the entire Reagan Administration, I was not particularly proud of America. Not proud of the way we cut services to the poor, but dumped countless billions into the military machine. (a 400 ship Navy??? for what?) I was not proud of the way we made such a big deal about “horror of horrors” communism in Central America, so much so that our Government broke the law, and then brazenly negotiated with our enemy, Iran, to sell them rockets. I was not proud of the way Reagan appealed to so many people by convincing them that the Government is the problem, not the solution. (Try telling that to W. who has jacked up federal spending at a record pace.) I was not proud of the assault that Reagan took on the environment and his gutting of valuable regulation. For just but one example, his assault on banking regulation laid the foundation for the savings and loan meltdown.

I was not particularly proud to be an American during the 1988 contest, when Bush ran the Willie Horton ad. It was despicable.

While I was proud (but not very proud) of America’s role in the Gulf War, I was not proud that this monster was in part our making. I was not proud that we sent Rumsfeld to Iraq to help with sales of chemical equipment that would be later used to create WMDs to use against the Iranians and the Kurds.

I was not particularly proud of America when the right wing turned on George H.W. Bush, smearing him for a modest tax raise in return for a spending reduction.

Although I was fairly proud of America when it elected Bill Clinton, I recognized that if it had not been for Ross Perot, he probably never would have won. This pride was short lived. I was not proud of America when the right wing smear machine torpedoed health care, and then went on to launch a 16 year smear campaign against the Clintons.

And yes, I was ashamed of America during impeachment. That was truly a cringe inducing experience.

I was not proud of America in 2000. Not proud of the way that racism was used in South Carolina against McCain. Not proud of the incessant lies that were spread about Al Gore. And ashamed of both the right wing mobs preventing a Florida recount and the Supreme Court’s outrageous ruling.

And during the Bush administration, what is there to say. I am deeply ashamed of torture, of rendition, of the trashing of the constitution, of the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, of the millions displaced, of the stacking of the courts with right wing zealots, of the politicization of the government, of the complete and utter incompetence in all areas of governing, and on and on and on and on. I am not proud.

When I think of how we are trashing the planet, coming close the point of no return, and how this administration has fought any and all global warming initiatives, I am not particularly proud to be an American, knowing that our delay will likely cause more problems for those most vulnerable, and has taken away our moral authority to lead the world away from the impending crisis.

When I think of our incompetent media, and the influence that lobbyists have over our government (Cheney’s energy task force, Rockefeller’s telecom amnesty) I am not particularly proud of America. Not at all.

And when I think about the apathy of voters, and how the right wing has convinced so many to vote against their own self-interest, by instilling fear, or smearing gays, I am not particularly proud.

But as I have seen a renewed interest of voters to try to change the way our country is run, I have begun to feel a renewed pride. I see all over, young and old, men and women, black and white, flocking to hear a candidate who wants to fix health care, address global warming, stop the madness in Iraq, repair America’s image in the world, return to our constitutional foundations, give more needy Americans the helping hand they need,

Well, now there’s some real reason for pride.

Barack’s message is something not heard in years. He’s not saying vote for him and he’ll get the job done. He’s saying vote for him and we can get the job done. It doesn’t end with the vote. The vote is but the beginning.

Barack started out as a community organizer. He brings that experience, that credibility along with him. He’s developing a gigantic following of people willing to do something. His success is a testament to that. He has attracted hoards of volunteers, willing to call, knock on doors, get people to the polls, people motivated to do something for change.

They all know that our time is arrived. This fall, we will sweep this administration into the dustbins of history, and we will win in a landslide. Not only can Barack take all the blue states, he can take the swing states, and yes, even some of the red states. Every day the right wing continues trashing McCain, they convince their base to do nothing but stay home on election day. McCain, a modern day McGovern. Now that’s goodness.

But our win won’t stop with the Presidency. We will probably take another 15 to 20 house seats. (There are already 27-28 (rats) republicans who are fleeing this sinking ship.) And we just may take 6 or 7 Senate seats as well. But the goodness doesn’t stop there. We will probably take more governorships and even more state houses, building on the great success we had here in 2006.

Yep. Now’s the time for some good old fashioned pride. Pride that America is emerging from a dark chapter, pride that we can wrest control of our country back from those who have done so much to damage to it. Pride that we will replace a bumbling dunce with a great orator, and yes, pride that we will make history and elect this great man of mixed race to our highest office.

Yea, you can say for the first time, I am very proud to be an American.

Go Barack, Go Michelle.

Posted at February 19, 2008 6:35 PM in response to Joe Scarborough picking on Michelle Obama