I agree. As a former Edwards supporter now backing Obama, I was pretty disappointed when I went to bed. But Cali closed aLOT overnight, plus I re-remembered that in this race, like in baseball, there's no such thing as momentum. I fooled myself into thinking Obama might have a huge night. Well, that doesn't seem to happen in this race, except for the anomaly of SoCar. If you just think of the Big Picture, the only way I can see the GOPs winning a 2-way is if a) it's McCain vs. Hillary b) the key issue is Iraq c) and Iraq is doing well at the time, well enough to change the minds of ~20% of those who have decided Iraq is a failure Does that seem likely to you? Frankly, given the economic news of the last few days, I kind of wonder if the GOPs' best chance is some candidate siphoning off 3-5% of the Dem vote. I don't see any possibilities for that right now.
Just to reiterate my point from last night that the great learned, progressive, cosmopolitan bastions of all things good in America--NY, NJ, MA, and CALIFORNIA--voted overwhelmingly for Hillary while the Kansases, Alabamas, Georgias, Montanas, North Dakotas, Idahos, Utahs, Missouris, Colorados, Alaskas, and Minnesotas of the world are voting for true change. Flyover country is carrying your water.
The key here is that Hillary didn't deliver a knockout blow to Obama. In fact, he's in the driver's seat right now. All of Hillary's donors are maxed out, Obama out-raised her 3-1 in the most recent cycle, and Obama is favored in most of the remaining states. Momentum is on Obama's side.
You neglected Hillary's wins in the learned cosmopolitan bastions of Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Plus, Barack won Illinois, which of course is the most sophisticated of all the states. But honestly, I don't understand Obama's voting constituency AT ALL. A black man with an impeccable liberal record and a lifetime city boy, who wins in semi-rural states that are heavily African-American, semi-rural states that have more Mormons than African-Americans, and who loses in the states that have the big cities. (Outside of the sophisticated bastion of Illinois, that is.) Say what?
As I explained last night, Arkansas is home turf, Tennessee is the Northeast's outhouse, and Oklahoma is Indian territory.
I'm a little disappointed with the outcome, but that's all because of expectations. I guess I should've learned by now not to trust all the primary polls, but just couldn't help but expect a better result for Obama in New Jersey, California and particularly Massachusetts. Still, now, with a lot of time (relatively speaking, of course) between primaries, it's Obama's chance to generate enough momentum to not slow down until the convention.
In the previous thread, it was noted that Dems turnout exceeded the GOP. Ari Fleischer (a Republican) and David Gergen (an independent usually considered a Republican) talked about that a bit. To me it is a little concerning as it it shows that at this moment, the Democrats are more energized. And you have to give it to Obama, the guy is an incredible speaker and very inspirational. I can easily see how people are a gaga over him and how he is bringing some otherwise uninvolved people into politics. Much of the GOP base is disheartened (and after the past 7 years, can you blame us?). The front runner is considered like Mo Johnson by some segments of the base, the guy who came in second last night is clearly a regional candidate, and the guy everyone thought would be the great right hope did nothing. It is still only February and the election is in 9 months, but no matter what, it is going to be a tough election for my side.
No Republican in their right mind who's been awake the last 7 years should be discouraged about John McCain coming along and possibly saving the party from itself. And please stop being dazzled by Obama. It's all cliché and slogan. "Yes we can!" Oh, please. I'd rather listen to Tony Robbins, for Christ's sake.
I've been to 3 of the 4 (never been to Mass.), but when I visited them I never found a great learned, progressive, cosmopolitan bastion of all things good in America. Much different actually.
3 months ago you would've said the GOP's only shot was to completely downplay Iraq. Things change quickly.
At the moment, intrade is 50-50 between Obama and Hillary (Hillary was up to 65% at some point last night).
At this rate, Romney will need tos spend a billion dollars to win the reep nomination! http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/06/romneys_expenses_per_delegate.html
This may be a bit controversial, but we cannot deny that racism exists in certain groups. I know lots of Latinos, and particularly among older latinos, there are many who are not ready to vote for a black man. I speculate that the same may be true among Asians. It's more among the older people, not as much among younger people. It is true that there is some racism involved. It's true also, speaking in very general terms of course, that there are negative feelings that lead to mistrust between Latinos and African-Americans that is based on cultural and socio-economic issues unrelated to race. I'm speaking in broad terms, of course, because we should not stereotype individuals based on race or socioeconomic group. Everybody is different. I wonder, did they break down the Latinos and Asian voters by age?
As someone who volunteered for McCain in 2000, obviously I am glad he came along now. As I was telling my wife last night, interestingly, the concerns I had about Bush in 2000 are pretty much exactly the same as I have about Obama now. Though of course, Bush is not as good a speaker. Tony Robbins? As the father of two small boys, whenever I hear that chant, I think of Bob the Builder
Nor is Bush incredibly intelligent and diplomatic. Nor does Bush possess adult capacities for judgment and discernment. Experience, then? Intelligence and phronesis trump experience.
Very good news. The states between now and March 4 are gonna be good for Obama. He got more delegates in Iowa than her, he got one more in Nevada and NH, and he crushed in SoCar. By March 4, Obama should have a clear, albeit small, lead in pledged delegates. At that point, the media pressure on the superdelegates will be damned interesting. What so, so different about the two (nomination) races is that for the Dems, the cleavages are all identity...ethnic, age, gender, etc. For the GOPs, it's policy related...the plutocrats vs. the theocrats vs. the crazed warmongers. What say y'all...which position would you rather be in for the general? I can see the argument either way.
Here's about the most detailed breakdown were are likely to see - this for California dems. My personal caveat: Take these numbers with a big grain of salt, particularly some of the low percentage numbers. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225970